There is a point where people have to learn to realize that there are a great many firearms manufacturers out there that are making suberb firearms.    I’ve heard people claim that a certain firearm was superior in reliability over another.   Well, that is true to some degree, but I’d have to say there are some firearms that are in the top tier category and the durability and reliablity differences may vary in extreme circumstances.   Take a Glock 17 and put it up against a Sig 226 and you’ll see what I mean.   I’m sure the Glock will reguire less lubrication, but there won’t be much difference in 98% of circumstances.

Those of us old enough to remember when people told us that putting Glass on a battle rifle was not a good idea because they were brutal to optics and most scopes wouldn’t hold up are now old news.   Rifle scope have come a long way just as firearms have.   I’ve seen optics come back from Iraq that had bullet holes in them and they were still sighted in.   The differences between Leupold rifle scopes, Zeiss rifle scopes and Trijicon rifles scopes tends to really be about preference.    They all have moderate to expensively priced optics and the glass on them is superior to anything that was out 20yrs ago.   With a good pair of scope rings, these optics will work reliable in just about any hunting or military application.   I’ve seen all of the above mention optics on M14 rifles in Iraq.