Rev # for x50 in SML '06 testing

[TheTexan]

Just a quick question, does anyone have info on the rev# number of the x50 used in the SML 2006 testing, was it 6.1 or still just 5.1? I was on roy's website last night reading the test results posted and the x50 looked like it was ballin it up on laser and radar. Just curious, and for anyone who hasnt read them yet, SML 06 testing is finall up at radarbusters.com you have to look a little bit I sort of stumbled across it while reading roy's reviews.

Also on another note, what Valentine was used because it looked like the x50 edged it out in a few circumstances during the testing...

thanks

[stealthJamal]

I wouldn't worry about SML's testing. It's not reliable, too much BS. The SML K band POP test and laser detection test are good examples of their BS.

[TheTexan]

I thought Roy helped out with SML test though... wouldnt he pipe up if something was off?

[Arashi666]

I usually dont trust SML, GOL is more believable, but I prefer MY OWN personal experiences, not the experiences of others in controlled environment testing

But really, sometimes there are people that bash on SML...I think most of them are bitter Valentine users that bit** about the one shot it missed

[RacerX]

i can't tell you for sure if it the latest rev, since i didn't actually see them turn it on, but i believe it is.
they had a box of detectors for the testing and they were in new unopened boxes, so i'm thinking it was.

[bauzer71487]

But really, sometimes there are people that bash on SML...I think most of them are bitter Valentine users that bit** about the one shot it missed

I think when we've decided that one test is completely bogus - although the rest seem fair and likely. Those too are named bogus by me.

I really don't care if it missed 1 shot. Maybe it was a fluke - who knows. No big deal in my book.