Missing Rifle Scope Features?

[Ehiggins]

This is it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn’t the Zeiss V4 check all these boxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

Here’s the recipe-

1). Mid power 3 or 4x in the low end, 12-16x on the high end.

2). 30mm, 42-45mm objective.

3). sub 24oz weight

4. Specifically designed and built to stay zeroed through impacts and drops.

5). Locking or zero stopped low pro elevation turret, capped windage designed and built for consistent and repeatable use

6). Front focal plane, Mil/Mil with a reticle that is specially designed for low and high power visibility. Cut to the chase and use the THLR reticle from @THLR

7. Large, forgiving eyebox, large FOV if possible.


Then take that scope and actually test them versus the “tests” that everyone does, before placing on the market

Doesn’t the Zeiss V4 check all these boxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Red and Bolded is where you'll probably get a no answer. #6 is a definite no and folks would say #4 is as well.

My Opinion: Form laid out the recipe that is probably best for function and reliability to actually have the best functional tool (I'm not sold on THLR reticle yet). Unfortunately, I doubt the scope buying public will be educated enough to understand that. Fat chance the majority of people are going to understand that buying a scope with "better specs" I.E. lighter with a 6-8x magnification range is actually resulting in compromises in ability to hold zero/track correctly, forgiving site picture, depth of focus, and a finicky parallax.

What people "want" and what is actually realistic are two different things and for a lot of people, what they want and what would actually be best for them are also different. I want a 3-30x50, FFP, 20 ounces, 120 MOA of travel, zero stop, low profile elevation turret, capped windage for $600. I'm sure Tract could spec and build one to fit those parameters but I would bet the house on it being a $600 piece of shit.

 

[dreamingWest]

Basically what Form said.

I'd like to see something like an SHV 2.0.

3-12x42 F1 (<24 oz)
4-16x50 F1 (<30 oz)
Low profile elevation turret w/ zero stop
Capped windage
Simple MIL reticle (similar to the MOAR)

 

[Sandstrom]

Basically what Form said.

I'd like to see something like an SHV 2.0.

3-12x42 F1 (<24 oz)
4-16x50 F1 (<30 oz)
Low profile elevation turret w/ zero stop
Capped windage
Simple MIL reticle (similar to the MOAR)

Can we add made in America!!!
Ryan

 

[SummitsCalling]

Can we add made in America!!!
Ryan

You can but not for the price of a shv

 

[Bubblehide]

What Form said.
There was another Tract thread in which I heard nothing but crickets to asking if your (Tract) scopes would hold zero to impacts. I even volunterred to test your scopes. I took the lack of ccx a response from Tract as a no they will not hold up to impacts (side, top and drops). Subsequently I moved on. However, if Tract does ever develope and market such scopes, I believe there would be significant interest.

 

[CastIronSkillet]

Just bring back the LRTSi a few ounces lighter, not too picky.

Also, I love large FOV scopes but I hate seeing the suppressor in the FOV...first world problems we have here.

 

[Felix40]

Basically an SWFA 3-15 with zero stop, low pro elevation, capped windage, and a touch lighter.

 

[Formidilosus]

I want to see THLR‘s reticle. I hope it’s bolder than most. We don’t need .2mil marks for 8mils across the center if we‘re using a tree reticle.

At close range use like a German #1.

sub 10 yards




818 yards. Rock is 18’ish by 30’ish inches.

5x



10x




15x



25x




797yards




Some of the reticle feature aren’t for game hunting, however they do not distract from normal use. The reticle deviates from how most reticle are designed because it was designed for how people are actually using and shooting them versus how they think they are. It is without a doubt the best FFP reticle on low power for close shooting, and from 6’ish and up magnification it offers .2 mil holds without cluttering the center where you actually shoot and spot impacts/splash.

 

[260madman]

At close range use like a German #1.

sub 10 yards
View attachment 336943


Some of the reticle feature aren’t for game hunting, however they do not distract from normal use. The reticle deviates from how most reticle are designed because it was designed for how people are actually using and shooting them versus how they think they are. It is without a doubt the best FFP reticle on low power for close shooting, and from 6’ish and up magnification it offers .2 mil holds without cluttering the center where you actually shoot and spot impacts/splash.

someone got it right. No complaining about the reticle being too small to use. If you can’t bracket an animal between the posts on this one just go ahead and quit shooting all together. Nothing too hard to see and the box will help draw your eye in without having it be thick and blocking your view like some other brands.


The only complaints we‘ll hear is about how thin the upper L-grid is in the pictures. It won’t be a problem because the pics don’t give enough depth of view. Those .2mil marks will be usable in the real world.

off to the Minox website.

 

[idig4au]

My wish would be a 2-16x44 non illuminated Swarovski Z8 with ballistic turret and weigh under 18 oz total.

 

[Stu]

I just wish my 2.5-10 NXS was FFP and had an SWFA reticle

 

[MuleyFever]

I just wish my 2.5-10 NXS was FFP and had an SWFA reticle

Why do you wish it was FFP? I dont see a purpose for a 10x scope to be FFP. If you need to use the reticle for measurement you are shooting far enough for it to be on 10x.

I do wish it was 12x or 14x.

 

[Stu]

Why do you wish it was FFP? I dont see a purpose for a 10x scope to be FFP. If you need to use the reticle for measurement you are shooting far enough for it to be on 10x.

I do wish it was 12x or 14x.

The quick answer is: I want to use the scope at mag levels other than 10x, and I’m prioritizing retaining my wind holds and maintaining my sight picture through recoil over magnification. I do struggle to do this with a T3X tikka lite in 6.5CM on 10x, but I’m also a lightweight.

ultimately I agree with you and form. Something in the 4-16ish range, 42ish objective, 20-24 oz, FFP, and I’ll add parallax adjustment to my wish list. Non cluttered reticle, assuming robust dialing and zero retention. You’re right, this is more than a modified 2.5-10 NXS. Also, I never set it at 2.5 power.

My go-to scope from 0-600 yards is a 6X SWFA right now, but the scope Formidilosus described would be way more capable for my setup and typical use.

 

[kipper09]

After a lot of reading and research the closest thing to what most describe here is a huskemaw 4-16x42. It’s 21 ounces. Simple clean reticle with wind holds. It is sfp and from some things I read they retain zero very well. I know it doesn’t get much attention or love maybe because of their advertising but If the scope will retain zero and track it’s probably a solid choice. It does have adjustable parallax, but the only two things that are questionable are the weird .333 moa and I’m not sure I understand the zero stop they have.

I am Only basing this from specs and I have zero first hand experience with a huskemaw. On paper though it sure fits a lot of what many of us are looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nillion]

Doesn’t the Zeiss V4 check all these boxes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't understand why Zeiss can make what seems like a dozen different reticles but not have one in Mil/Mil.

 

[Formidilosus]

If you need to use the reticle for measurement you are shooting far enough for it to be on 10x.

Thats not true at all. In the couple of seasons I have shot, or been beside people that have needed to hold significant wind well inside the range that less than 10x is applicable. Antelope at 320 yards with more than a 1mil hold, elk at 427, deer at 606, antelope at 317, 270’ish and 250’ish, elk at 735, deer at 606, elk at 248, deer at 497, etc etc. None of those were on max power of the scope, all were below 10x. There is no downside to a well designed FFP at all powers, whereas there is no upside to a reticle that changes size with power when field shooting beyond close range.

As for the 2.5-10x NXS, the last several animals that I killed while using that scope at distance were all on less than 10x due to FOV, and is the reason that I don’t use that scope much anymore.

 

[ItemB]

After a lot of reading and research the closest thing to what most describe here is a huskemaw 4-16x42. It’s 21 ounces. Simple clean reticle with wind holds. It is sfp and from some things I read they retain zero very well. I know it doesn’t get much attention or love maybe because of their advertising but If the scope will retain zero and track it’s probably a solid choice. It does have adjustable parallax, but the only two things that are questionable are the weird .333 moa and I’m not sure I understand the zero stop they have.

I am Only basing this from specs and I have zero first hand experience with a huskemaw. On paper though it sure fits a lot of what many of us are looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for giving another option you are right, specs look good wish they had illuminated reticle. Never thought I needed or wanted illuminated but got a scope with firedot and now any new scope I buy I'm wanting illuminated reticle of some sorts.

 

[MuleyFever]

Thats not true at all. In the couple of seasons I have shot, or been beside people that have needed to hold significant wind well inside the range that less than 10x is applicable. Antelope at 320 yards with more than a 1mil hold, elk at 427, deer at 606, antelope at 317, 270’ish and 250’ish, elk at 735, deer at 606, elk at 248, deer at 497, etc etc. None of those were on max power of the scope, all were below 10x. There is no downside to a well designed FFP at all powers, whereas there is no upside to a reticle that changes size with power when field shooting beyond close range.

As for the 2.5-10x NXS, the last several animals that I killed while using that scope at distance were all on less than 10x due to FOV, and is the reason that I don’t use that scope much anymore.

If you were using a 2.5-10x you could have easily set the scope to 10x on all of those animals and used the reticle, if you wanted. I guess we all hunt different. I had my NXS at 10x to kill a deer at about 80 yards this year. If I am moving its at 4-6x. If I have time at all I will turn it to 10x.

 

[kipper09]

Thats not true at all. In the couple of seasons I have shot, or been beside people that have needed to hold significant wind well inside the range that less than 10x is applicable. Antelope at 320 yards with more than a 1mil hold, elk at 427, deer at 606, antelope at 317, 270’ish and 250’ish, elk at 735, deer at 606, elk at 248, deer at 497, etc etc. None of those were on max power of the scope, all were below 10x. There is no downside to a well designed FFP at all powers, whereas there is no upside to a reticle that changes size with power when field shooting beyond close range.

As for the 2.5-10x NXS, the last several animals that I killed while using that scope at distance were all on less than 10x due to FOV, and is the reason that I don’t use that scope much anymore.

Form,
Do you have any input on the huskemaw 4-16x42? I figure if anybody has info and experience it would be you. How does it hold zero and track? Appreciate your input if you have any


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk