I think it’s more probable that the rokslide tests are neither a ”farce“ or a ”gold standard,” though I can see why someone might desire to label reduce them in such a way. I am not aware at any other tests which attempt even a practical or more uniform standard--though I hope there are some I am not aware of. The only one that comes to mind is the sniperhide tracking test, but my understanding is that there was such a powerful interest at prioritizing things beyond tracking repeatability that even that test did not survive. It is difficult not to conclude that the snipershide tracking test challenged widely held, seemingly ignorant, opinions about how accurate and repeatable scopes really are. And it’s understandable why people would not want those opinions challenged: They they would have to deal with some level of uncertainty regarding how well their scopes actually perform at their most fundamental functions; the alternative would be to test them, and both are generally unpleasant. It’s understandable why some people think it’s farcical to test their scopes by subjecting them to impacts--while others find it farcical to simply have faith that their scopes are fashioned by benevolent creators who both possess the knowledge and incentives to produce scopes which prioritize accuracy, repeatability , and ruggedness.