It’s not hard to understand what we want…. You could summarize most of it in two words: reliable and lightweight. Come on scope manufacturers! This is how you need to be innovative. We don’t need more features. You can stop with the bells and whistles. Figure out light and durable and you’ve built a better mousetrap. The rest of the stuff like glass coatings, reticles, zoom range and illumination are all further down the list. Stop chasing stuff that is less important. Figure out reliability first, mass weight second, and then get the features right. We’ll buy!
@Ucsdryder and I were talking about this yesterday, we naturally disagreed.
I think something you left out was price. Most folks want price as an important "feature", he had said $1k and I would agree that is generally what is thrown out there.
I think it is a hard sell to get a company to back off of "features" and invest more in reliability. First of all, I think that would some sort of an admission that their other riflescopes are not reliable. Second, there would have to be a relentless marketing campaign to convince novice to expert consumers that their current riflescope has a 99% of not being reliable. For emphasis, that campaign would have to reach beyond this forum, way way way beyond. Lastly, I think the amount of these scopes that would be sold is 1% of what the perception is here.
These are genuine questions, maybe food for thought, and I don't have answers to any of them:
-Why did it take the LRHS2 a couple years to sell out?
-Why are SWFA 3-15s in stock now and have been for a while?
-Why are SWFA 6s in stock now?
*-How is the notion of, "I don't drop my scope!" conquered by a marketing campaign when even here on Rokslide many can't be convinced of it's merit? STILL people think it is a test with the primary purpose of looking at the results of impacts. *asterisk due to below
-How is one person's "perfect" scope being different than another person's "perfect" scope overcome? If someone looks at this problem and determines that 1k people would buy a dead nuts reliable 3-9x scope that dials in mils, but for some reason isn't an SWFA 3-9, they must look at how many SKUs would satisfy that market.
-How does the company that undertakes this overcome incomplete "testing" by others in the market? For instance, there is a pseudo review on here of a scope from one of the brands in the post I have quoted above. The person doing the review mentions that he has observed a zero shift, there are bullet holes on his target that show clear zero shift that are unrelated to his comment of zero shift, yet his conclusion is that the scope passed to his eyes. Without an adhered to ATSM or some other strict process, you aren't comparing apples to apples and therefore "standards" are simply internal and bendable.
-Of all the people you (a hypothetical "you") know, who would switch their rifle scope TODAY if you took them to the range and proved that their scope can lose zero within 7 shots? **refer to above asterisk-ed point**. Of those who would switch, how many would buy a scope with less "features" TODAY?
For me, I am fine with the compromises that I make with the scopes that I own. If I were to pursue this, I would reach out to Maven, but still think it would be a hard sell.
@cfossen has designed scopes with them, and subsequently won NRL seasons with those scopes. Their perspective MIGHT be to ask what should be improved if no issues have arisen in use? (see asterisk-ed point above). If I were Nightforce, I would have to ask what about the F1 SHV doesn't satisfy. When weight is brought up, I would shake my head and chuckle due to the request for a "value" price point and the want to cut weight. Then I would tell you that our brand isn't one that wishes to compete on price, and maybe talk about how fat barrels, attached rails, heavy slings, etc., might be a better place to cut weight.
To emphasis my point, I do have TWO 3-12 Bushnell LRTS that can be purchased for less than $1k. My bet is that I cannot sell either for more than $700. That seems to directly conflict with the notion that a demanding market exists, or that this very niche market actually knows what it wants.
@SDHNTR I am not picking on your comments, they were a good summary example of what I have heard from some folks.