Craig Boddington sold his soul to the devil

He's been renting it to Leupold for the past few years, but it is finally sold, officially.

In this month's Guns and Ammo, he reviews the 10-40X Countersniper.  It is good for a laugh or 2, but unfortunate that many will go buy that utter garbage based on Craig's recommendation.

To those considering a Countersniper, I'd advise the following:

Take an old paper towel tube, paint it black with magic marker (idiotic white wording on the side is optional), and mount that on the rifle of choice.  It'll be a little cheaper than a Countersniper but just as serviceable.  You can even put in 2 wires for crosshairs if you want.


Subscription to G&A: gone!

I wish some-one would invent an official scope testing method that eliminates the (objective) shooter!!!

That could be done once the test criteria is specified however, everybodies eyes are different and I truly believe the difference makes some scopes better than others for that set of eyes.  It is an impossible to eliminate variable that will skew all test results

I still wish some one would invent a testing method that will take these factors into account. I know you are correct in one sense Bud, but on the other hand, if you did a no-name brand test, is there some-one who would place a cheap scope above say Schmidt and Bender? I do not think so, so certain feutures must stand out to every-one.

There are things from the camera industry to test optics.  It would make for some unhappy advertisers to do so.

Rant away Wouter, that is why we are here!

Certainly it's possible to use technology to measure an optic for all sorts of things. But what does it accomplish in the end? You have defined variables that could be published. These variables are meaningless until you learn what variables at what values makes a good scope to you. For example, my vision has a lack of sensitivity towards the UV spectrum. When looking through optics, I find some do a great deal of cleaning up the "blur" at dawn and dusk for me. HOWEVER they are not always the larger objectives and more expensive optics. I would in fact rank some cheaper optics higher in clarity for my eyes. My father owns a pair Lecia Ultravids which are so bright and so clear, on a sunny day, I'm wishing for an aperature adjustment to "dim" them.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it wouldn't be an improvement over the current methodology of reviewing, it just will require people to learn more about what they need out of optics and shop for those qualities.

He admits in the review that adjustments aren't perfect - but claims few are.

Chris, send him a SuperSniper.  If he likes Countersniper, he'll LOVE a SuperSniper.

Maybe his problem is frame of reference, he thinks Leupold is the pinnacle of tactical scopes.

Zeiss uses test equipment that measures the modular transfer function, which is an indication of how much information is transmitted by the lens system in certain frequency ranges. Zeiss uses these results (and others) to taylor their products towards low light capability. There are tests that can be done at home to test camera lens as the lens is attached to the camera, and ones simply needs to vectorize the file. (Raw format). This data is then test for Fourier transforms peaks and a thing called degrees of rotation. None of the web programs can test for Wavelet transforms, which can be done using something like the Wavelet toolbox in Matlab. However the HVS (human visual system) is non-deterministic and basic differences in physiological composition can give different results. None the less the physical parameters measured are still valid. A good example is Canons best 135 lens. Its physical measurements are just about perfect (compared across the board), but some professional photographers don't like it because it is "too edgy" and they say it "hurts their eyes".

On another note if you can see the target a good shooter can generally hit it. Scopes aren't there to enjoy the country side-- so accurate tracking and durability should be top of the list--which puts SWFA's models way ahead of much more expensive options.

Rancid Coolaid wrote: He admits in the review that adjustments aren't perfect - but claims few are. Chris, send him a SuperSniper.  If he likes Countersniper, he'll LOVE a SuperSniper. Maybe his problem is frame of reference, he thinks Leupold is the pinnacle of tactical scopes.

i dont know fellars, craig and chris have shared some great memories together it may be more "contractual" issues than anything.

Yea, it might.


I was just surprised to see a man of Craig's perceived integrity hocking such a piece of garbage.

One thing that frequently gets lost in these conversations: LE and military shooters might read this review and buy the scope on recommendation, and lives can be lost due to gear malfunction - and this thing is one huge gear malfunction.

I'm betting they made sure to send in their best currently at the distribution point because Guns & Ammo and Boddington are very well known names.  Not sure if Mr. Boddington is an optics lover or how much he cares about their differences here and there.

Can't give much creedence to a magazine that recommends NcStar.

Rancid Coolaid wrote: One thing that frequently gets lost in these conversations: LE and military shooters might read this review and buy the scope on recommendation, and lives can be lost due to gear malfunction - and this thing is one huge gear malfunction.

There are a lot of police departments that are cutting back. Tulsa just layed off 17 officers and grounded both Helicopters to save money. The bean counters in purchasing will find the cheapest thing that meet preconceived parameters. Advertising sales to the uninformed or in this case the un-uniformed.

3_tens wrote: There are a lot of police departments that are cutting back. Tulsa just layed off 17 officers and grounded both Helicopters to save money. The bean counters in purchasing will find the cheapest thing that meet preconceived parameters. Advertising sales to the uninformed or in this case the un-uniformed.

Al Nyhus wrote: Rancid Coolaid wrote: One thing that frequently gets lost in these conversations: LE and military shooters might read this review and buy the scope on recommendation, and lives can be lost due to gear malfunction - and this thing is one huge gear malfunction.      Ummmm...I doubt any lives are at risk.   The guys that walk the walk are a bit far removed from slappin' a CounterSniper p.o.s. on top of their workpieces.      There might be a few Play Army types that get disappointed, though. The upside of it is they'll have saved enough money to buy some more sniper-y face paint or maybe even a fightin' knife for dangerous recons at the mall.      It's scary out there, 'ya know..............

Actually, more LE guys than you know aren't "gun guys."  I know of one department shooter who bought the Countersniper because of this review.  He doesn't know much about guns or optics, and he replaced an old Leupold on his duty .308.

Al Nyhus wrote: 3_tens wrote: There are a lot of police departments that are cutting back. Tulsa just layed off 17 officers and grounded both Helicopters to save money. The bean counters in purchasing will find the cheapest thing that meet preconceived parameters. Advertising sales to the uninformed or in this case the un-uniformed.        In the case of equipment that may be used in a shooting situation, the attorneys for the city will make sure that's what's issued will be "normal and customary" equipment when compared to other cities. This protects the office and city in the event of a civil suit brought by a shooting victim and/or their family/dependents. The use of factory ammo only by police depts. is another example of this.       The attorneys have it right, in this instance.    -Al

You speak with much authority, but I wonder what your sources are?  I know many LE shooters, some have nice gear, some have a deer rifle with a 3-9 Leupold.

Many LE shooters have gone through a 2-day training course and not failed, so now they ride with a .308 in the trunk.  (Granted, these are small towns, but the point remains.)


I appreciate your enthusiasm, but beware of the, "Ready, Fire, Aim" thing, if you don't mind.

I was going to ask anybody here if they knew about the new T/C Warlord. I was out of town on a delay and picked up the first G&A mag I have have in a long time (38 now 17 then) nothing but ad's hated it, Nov 2009. But T/C has a new Tac rifle the Warlord, and it looks real nice. I have a T/C 10/22 Benchmark model and it is the most accurate rifle I have. I love it and ground squirells hate it. But the cover pic of the rifle (yes it made the cover) had a Counter Sniper scope on it. I asked about these along time ago, and got nothing good. I did the same on other forums with the same output. I did not buy a SS, but if I was deciding again I sure wouldnt buy a CS scope. If it wasnt for my father getting me a Leo MK4 for Xmas I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE SUPER SNIPER!!!!!!! I really hate to see products like that get mixed in with products like T/C they got it going! I have heard nothing but good things about there rifles, and there 10/22 I would take back to war with me I luv it! I dont know where my advice is going but fawk CS scopes and luv TC rifles. BUY SS or spend what you want!

Actually, more LE guys than you know aren't "gun guys."

RONK wrote: Actually, more LE guys than you know aren't "gun guys."   I have met very few cops who know or care much for guns. (One was a pretty young lady who didn't ever want to fire her 12 gauge 870 trunk gun because it "scared her, and she would never use it in an emergency, anyway".     Also, it really is disturbing to me to see how dangerous some of these guys are when handling firearms, sweeping the muzzle, finger on triggers, not clearing weapons when handing them off to others, etc.  I'm starting to form the opinion that, generally speaking, cops should not be issued weapons at all. If they think they need one, and have to buy it out of their own pockets, they'll want to do some research and learn enough about them to be semi-proficient, hopefully. If they aren't willing to do at least that much, both they and the public are probably safer if they only carry mace and a radio. I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think about that.  And before any of you cops start complaining about stretching you salary dollars as it is, without having to buy a gun every ten or fifteen years, I can assure you that a lot of professionals in many fields spend a lot more than one or two percent of their income on the vital tools of the respective trades.

i can see what your saying ron and agree to a point, but as a fireman and a first responder, i will also disagree with your statement. sometimes we get called out to what i call "scary situations" i prefer that the guys with guns diffuse the issue before i have to show up. we dont carry guns, and more and more im reading stories where firemen are getting shot at scenes. i totally agree with the points you make concerning the fact that if they put their own money into a service weapon they might take more time to become properly trained to use it etc.

Ya Ron I have spent several thousand over my career in tools that get used for a week or two every year, then back into the garage! But I cannot support sending unarmed police out into public. While I would appreciate more training, that is not going to happen anytime soon with the current sentiment in this country. It is a crying shame that if most police officers show anything more than basic proficiency with their firearms and then are in lop-sided shoot out(they all should be) they are branded as assassins and run over by the liberal media, so that they are guilty before ever reaching trial! Even if cleared of any criminal charges there reputations are normally ruined. Ok rant over!