Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[SDHNTR]

The biggest room for improvement/innovation in all of this would be to produce dead nuts reliability, ala Nightforce, but at meaningfully less weight! The rest just comes down to features dependent on personal preferences. Take current good scope offerings and cut 6-10 ounces without sacrificing reliability. Now we’re really getting somewhere!

 

[Balderdash]

The biggest room for improvement/innovation in all of this would be to produce dead nuts reliability, ala Nightforce, but at meaningfully less weight! The rest just comes down to features dependent on personal preferences. Take current good scope offerings and cut 6-10 ounces without sacrificing reliability. Now we’re really getting somewhere!

I know this is an age old argument, but does a few ounces really make or break your set up? Certainly a few ounces isn't the difference between climbing the next hill or walking a few miles deeper in? You can get reliable scopes (SWFA 3-9, 6x, or NF SHV, NXS 3-10, S&B Klassic) to get the job done in the 19-21 ounce range, which is only a bit more than any "lightweight" offerings you'd find in similar X range scopes. There's plenty of ways to cut weight off your rifle to get a rig in the 8-9lbs all up range, which seems a good weight to settle in and steady up for longer shots anyway.

I sacrificed to the weight gods in scope selection with poor results in the past. Now I take the weight penalty to get something reliable. I actually don't mind anything up to about 28-30 ounces. To me that little bit just isn't a deal breaker in actual use.

 

[sndmn11]

I know this is an age old argument, but does a few ounces really make or break your set up? Certainly a few ounces isn't the difference between climbing the next hill or walking a few miles deeper in? You can get reliable scopes (SWFA 3-9, 6x, or NF SHV, NXS 3-10) to get the job done in the 19-21 ounce range, which is only a bit more than any "lightweight" offerings you'd find in similar X range scopes. There's plenty of ways to cut weight off your rifle to get a rig in the 8-9lbs all up range, which seems a good weight to settle in and steady up for longer shots anyway.

I sacrificed to the weight gods in scope selection with poor results in the past. Now I take the weight penalty to get something reliable. I actually don't mind anything up to about 28-30 ounces. To me that little bit just isn't an actual deal breaker in actual use.

I whole-heartedly agree. I'd rather see a reduction in price than weight. I can go run half a pound off and be a better and richer me if that reduction happened.

 

[roosiebull]

There’s a new company out of Alberta called Apex optics. I spoke to them today and they said drop testing will be a part of their QC process for optics in addition to shock testing, as zero retention is a priority over subjective qualities. They have a business model similar to Maven and will be coming out with a 4-20 scope with a hunting focused FFP reticle eventually. I have high hopes to say the least and the price point is excellent for the quality by all accounts.

I hope Form can get his hands on one, as these check a lot of boxes.

any lower power options?

 

[brn2hnt]

I think the goals for what to test should be to identify any ONE of the following that passes as these would be the only significant changes from SHV/SWFA/Trijicon10/LRTS. In order of what I think would et my attention the most.
1) $200-500 variable
2) 15-20oz variable

When someone requests X scope, that costs the same as the above, weighs the same as the above, I wonder what they think will be gained.

I'd add an increase in reticle usability at low power pretty high up that list as well.

 

[Formidilosus]

There’s a new company out of Alberta called Apex optics. I spoke to them today and they said drop testing will be a part of their QC process for optics in addition to shock testing, as zero retention is a priority over subjective qualities. They have a business model similar to Maven and will be coming out with a 4-20 scope with a hunting focused FFP reticle eventually. I have high hopes to say the least and the price point is excellent for the quality by all accounts.

I hope Form can get his hands on one, as these check a lot of boxes.

So what about this scope makes you believe it offers something tangible over a NF NX8 4-32mm F1? Or the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x*?


I don’t mean this in anything more than a legit question- why do people want these random scopes evaluated? It’s not cheap or quick to do so, what about these scope do people believe brings actual value and legitimate performance?

 

[Antares]

If the nxs 2-10 had a cap on the windage I’d own one.

My company manufactures a custom windage turret cap system that's compatible with all NXS models. Shoot me a PM if you're interested. I can set up a meeting with our engineering team to discuss design options and next steps. Cheers.

 

[sndmn11]

My company manufactures a custom windage turret cap system that's compatible with all NXS models. Shoot me a PM if you're interested. I can set up a meeting with our engineering team to discuss design options and next steps. Cheers.

View attachment 384543

Not interested unless it comes with a lifetime warranty. Will it remain solid through drops?

 

[BjornF16]

Honestly, I would think the SWFA 3-15 updated to HD with the THLR reticle would be a winner

Anyone with a direct line to the owner of SWFA?

 

[roosiebull]

I know this is an age old argument, but does a few ounces really make or break your set up? Certainly a few ounces isn't the difference between climbing the next hill or walking a few miles deeper in? You can get reliable scopes (SWFA 3-9, 6x, or NF SHV, NXS 3-10, S&B Klassic) to get the job done in the 19-21 ounce range, which is only a bit more than any "lightweight" offerings you'd find in similar X range scopes. There's plenty of ways to cut weight off your rifle to get a rig in the 8-9lbs all up range, which seems a good weight to settle in and steady up for longer shots anyway.

I sacrificed to the weight gods in scope selection with poor results in the past. Now I take the weight penalty to get something reliable. I actually don't mind anything up to about 28-30 ounces. To me that little bit just isn't a deal breaker in actual use.

scope weight used to be one of the main "features" i was shopping for... and of course "good glass" i never understood why because i never understood how it could have any real effect in the woods unless it was pretty bad, but boy howdy i still wanted it.... goes for a lot of things "lightweight"

i have learned through trial and error, some weight is just worth packing... most of my rifle hunting is day hunting anyhow, and my day pack is always 7-10# heavier than it actually needs to be... i just don't care in that context, my body adapts to carrying the weight every day. the lightest i weighed my pack last year was 24# day hunting archery roosies, the heaviest was 38# day hunting rifle blacktail, i think i carried around 25 rounds of 6.5creed the whole archery season, haha... we were moving and i didn't want to lose my little ammo pouch.

i don't know how much meat i actually had on my pack when i killed my buck last year, but without my rifle or pistol on the pack, it was 103#, it was a big bodied old buck, bone in, but it was still just a blacktail, and not a freakishly big bodied one, it was just your normal 6 year old buck, which means i was packing a lot of shit i didn't need... a few ounces for a scope that's reliable is a no brainer, unless i'm in some really bad terrain and risk falling, my rifle stays in a gun bearer as i'm moving through country, so i seriously doubt it's even noticeable to carry.... when my wife is with me and we are trying to find something for her to shoot, i pack the rifle as well, so it just doesn't matter.... i am still having a hard time considering 30+oz scopes for my lightweight rifle, considering the hunting i do, but it's not out of the question.... closer to 20oz is better, but i will gladly carry a little extra weight in trade for confidence, that's far more valuable to me.

i had shot my rifle a couple days prior to killing my buck this year, it was 315yds, and i was completely confident in making the shot without question, but i wasn't confident that the scope was shooting where i left it... luckily it was, but i'm over that... it is crazy what some are willing to compromise for a few ounces.

i do like a light bow (shoot a mach 1) but it's a fine match for what i do, which is shooting elk sub 20yds... don't need a target rig for that. i shoot it regularly and well to 80yds, but the vast majority of my elk have been and will be sub 20yds, so packing a heavy bow doesn't make sense, and i don't have to compromise reliability, my rest and sight are heavy, but it's still a light setup (like putting a heavy-ish scope on a light rifle)

 

[roosiebull]

My company manufactures a custom windage turret cap system that's compatible with all NXS models. Shoot me a PM if you're interested. I can set up a meeting with our engineering team to discuss design options and next steps. Cheers.

View attachment 384543

ha! i have one of your custom caps on my swfa, you make a solid product. any chance you will design an ultralight turret cap in the future? i would like to shave a gram or so, your robust turret covers are pretty heavy

 

[Formidilosus]

Honestly, I would think the SWFA 3-15 updated to HD with the THLR reticle would be a winner

Yes it would.

 

[BjornF16]

Yes it would.

Honestly, I would think the SWFA 3-15 updated to HD with the THLR reticle would be a winner

Anyone with a direct line to the owner of SWFA?

(with the 5-20 turrets)

 

[Formidilosus]

(with the 5-20 turrets)

1-6x HD turrets.

 

[Helislacker]

So what about this scope makes you believe it offers something tangible over a NF NX8 4-32mm F1? Or the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x*?


I don’t mean this in anything more than a legit question- why do people want these random scopes evaluated? It’s not cheap or quick to do so, what about these scope do people believe brings actual value and legitimate performance?

Partly because I’m Canadian, but mostly because I’m optimistic about a better reticle being offered. If the scope itself checks a lot of boxes, including zero retention/reliability, and is also open to including better field/hunting reticles then I’m all about it. The more options the better

 

[Wacko]

Don't know if it has been mentioned, but the Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 seems to be a great package. It could be a competitor to the SWFA 3-9 (it's available unlike the 3-9), similar price, the reticle has a lot of elements of the LRHS and THLR in some ways....less clutter too. I also hear some guys in alaska think it is good to go.......

just my 2cents.....if I was independently wealthy I'd buy one and send it for testing....

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

 

[SDHNTR]

I know this is an age old argument, but does a few ounces really make or break your set up? Certainly a few ounces isn't the difference between climbing the next hill or walking a few miles deeper in? You can get reliable scopes (SWFA 3-9, 6x, or NF SHV, NXS 3-10, S&B Klassic) to get the job done in the 19-21 ounce range, which is only a bit more than any "lightweight" offerings you'd find in similar X range scopes. There's plenty of ways to cut weight off your rifle to get a rig in the 8-9lbs all up range, which seems a good weight to settle in and steady up for longer shots anyway.

I sacrificed to the weight gods in scope selection with poor results in the past. Now I take the weight penalty to get something reliable. I actually don't mind anything up to about 28-30 ounces. To me that little bit just isn't a deal breaker in actual use.

Absolutely no disagreement. It’s a compromise we have to make now for reliability. But wouldnt it be nice to not have to make that compromise?

I’m just saying I think we have push the envelope as far as necessary with regard to features. Now it’s time to focus on function and weight. That’s what innovation should do. We don’t need more bells and whistles.

 

[SDHNTR]

I whole-heartedly agree. I'd rather see a reduction in price than weight. I can go run half a pound off and be a better and richer me if that reduction happened.

I like this thought process too!

 

[ChrisAU]

Don't know if it has been mentioned, but the Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 seems to be a great package. It could be a competitor to the SWFA 3-9 (it's available unlike the 3-9), similar price, the reticle has a lot of elements of the LRHS and THLR in some ways....less clutter too. I also hear some guys in alaska think it is good to go.......

just my 2cents.....if I was independently wealthy I'd buy one and send it for testing....

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

I’ve had two, still have one, and it’s one of favorite budget feature rich scopes…took one whitetail with a 6.5 Grendel SBR I built with this on it this fall. I have dialed it a bit and it has tracked and RTZ so far. I can’t afford NF & Trijicon (try as I may) scopes for as many rifles as I’d like to have, and this is one of my favorites right now. Sure, and SWFA is a better optics but like you said, these are available and I can get them not far north of $400. No, it’s not traveling with me to hunt out west, but for what it is I like it.



As an aside, I got a Vortex (I know, puke right!) PST Gen 1 2.5-10x44 in MRAD in today, couldn’t resist the $330 Midway USA price. I needed a cheap scope for a cheap rifle, and man…I really, really like it playing with it. Great reticle, great illumination, some cool design features, and some of the best feeling turrets I’ve ever fingered. At 19oz. So that’s one I’d like to see tested. I think Form has a 2.5-10x32 slated for testing?

 

[DRUSS]

Has the zeiss v6 3-18 been tested? Or another v6 model?