S2H Scope Interest

[Chris in TN]

Dude, this is great. I'm putting that into the rotation.

On a very different note - one of my favorite shooting things to do here at home is to walk to the 500 target, paint it, and walk towards my bench, then stop somewhere short of it, turn, sit, and shoot. And I do it with one shot so if I miss I can walk home kicking myself, which simulates actual hunting pretty well.

 

[Chris in TN]

Added detail, put yourself on a 30s-1min timer to shoot. And walk side to side, up and down hills, as much variation as you can to get different shooting positions, ranges, wind directions, target presentations.

Nice. I wish we had places to do that in the eastern US.

Or, alternately, a shooting range set up like a golf course where you hiked from 'hole' to hole and each shot was different.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You think they would sell 1k a month for the first five months? If I’m reading correctly.

That seems like a bunch of scopes.

The numbers are all hypothetical, but I picked that number because I think RokSlide is good for an initial release of 1000 scopes. I think the pre-sale is an indication of how things will go and the positive or negative reports will determine the rest. If the reports from the initial purchase are good, then a lot of fence-sitters will buy one.

But if only 200, or whatever number, sell in the pre-sale, then S2H should be able to plan a more conservative rollout.

If the first release scopes suck, then all bets are off and all the naysayers can chortle with glee.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Nice. I wish we had places to do that in the eastern US.

Or, alternately, a shooting range set up like a golf course where you hiked from 'hole' to hole and each shot was different.

I have that on my farm. I’m still adding 8” gongs to it so that I have multiple shots depending on where the cow herd is located.

 

[MHWASH]

None of that is correct anymore. 3x and 4x zoom ratio scope development stagnated 15+ years ago. All of the engineering development and work has been on 6/8/10x zoom ratios. Now 8x and especially 10x still have some serious drawbacks, but 6x has been figured out.
Thats the big difference- there are 5x and 6x zoom ratio scopes that are as good or better than the best 4x zoom ratio scopes. The problem, is most of the market is still using 6x zoom ratios scopes from 2018-2020 in design (Tenmile, RS1.2). This scope is a 2025/2026 design. Even in a year and a half, to two years that this has been in the works- the optical system made a large leap in performance; that’s why it was used.

There is no downside in optical quality, weight, or performance with this optical system.

Since this is the case, I'll watch the reviews closely.

 

[Chris in TN]

How would you know? You literally just wrote paragraphs about how you have no idea, no experience, and don’t do what is being discussed.

Just stop.

No one cares what someone who be their own admission, has no experience and no understanding, thinks. No one wants to engage with you or explain it because it has been hashed out ad nauseam, and you are acting like a JA.

Again, you use your experience as a club or trump card. Nobody could possibly have a point that contradicted your understanding of anything without you clubbing them in return. So in that context, why would you asking me to stop, change anything? And if nobody cares why are people posting so many replies? And if being right is so important why aren't your guys correcting the guy who tried to call me out for using 2moa as a universal when I clearly explained up front that it was only an example figure? The guy I was talking to in that example was discussing in good faith. You, sir, are, at this point, not.

You've got guys here swearing that they took one day with mils and got radically better. But you yourself have said - in this thread - that you do better with mrads but you still win everything you compete in with moa - meaning the difference is incremental - and you've said the same for your coaches; they all - per your words in this thread - still excel with moas.

Both of those strongly indicate that any perceived difference is incremental. Yet you won't say a word to that effect to the guys who say 'oh wow I tried it and instantly got way better!'. Nor will you acknowledge that if you're actually right about this, it's a fringe issue.

The whole thing boils down to all the marks of a cult mentality.

But thanks for demonstrating why it's so important to call it out for what it is.

 

[Jake Larsen]

I thought this thread would be a boering poll with an endless list of "I'll buy one" posts. Boy was I wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

I’m very interested in that as well. My two lightest scopes are the SWFA Ultralight and the Trijicon 3-9x40 (~14 ounces). Both are reliable enough, but neither is great for dialing and both are MOA. I may be setting my sights too high, but a reliable 12-16-ounce 2-8x36 dialable scope in mils would be amazing to me.

But it’s gonna be 2-12….

 

[Marbles]

If mrads are faster either a) there's a reason for it, rooted in experience or bias, or b) there's a reason for it rooted in some demonstrable principle of math or science or even psychology.

It is rooted in demonstrably science.

K.I.S.S. that is the theoretical principal at play here (AKA simplicity principle). Seeing as you are arguing for a theory base and that real world data points don't count. Personally, I prefer the other way as theory often gets things wrong (geocentric gravitational theory for example).

MOA (as used in shooting) is a hybrid system of base ten and base four (it actually goes back to the Babylonians and a base 60 system with 360 degrees, 60 minutes, and 60 seconds).

Switching between base ten and base 4 is inefficient and requires more brain power. Put differently, it is not an ergonomic system. It is why most people say 'a dollar twenty five' rather that 'a dollar and a quarter'. Or, 'a dollar sixty-seven' rather than 'a dollar, two quarters, a dime, a nickel, and two pennies'.

It doesn't matter how much you practice, staying in the same base system will be more efficient. That is simple psychology and ergonomics.

In psychology it would be said tha MOA is a higher load, and mils is a lower load. This is support by multiple people finding that switching to the low load system improved their performance.

Starting with your drop argument, which assumes a 100-yard zero. The problem with that assumption is that it's inefficient for the vast majority of hunting that most people do. Guys who teach LR doctrine simply get that one flat wrong. There's a cost to the 100-yard zero and it's reduced efficiency where most of us need it most - the 0-300 yard realm. Period. Full stop. A MPBR zero is more efficient - at least for the 0-300 range where the vast majority of big game is killed - and y'all have low-key conceded that in this scope with a 'aim short' and 'aim long' argument. Congrats. You reinvented the duplex with a MPBR zero. Don't mind us, we're just aiming short and aiming long.

No, zero at 100, then dial to MPBR for walking around is most efficient. After all, you get the advantages of both without the drawbacks of either.

If you really wanted two, you could zero at 100 for easy math, but set your zero stop for the MPBR.

 

[43.6N]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Again, you use your experience as a club or trump card.

Only on the internet is “you have more experience and ability” somehow a negative.

Nobody could possibly have a point that contradicted your understanding of anything without you clubbing them in return. So in that context, why would you asking me to stop, change anything?

I want you to stop because you go into threads, write walls of drivel about things you don’t have experience in, and then argue with everyone that does.

Read this thread, and more so- the owners direct statement-

Thread 'A Plea for Direct Experience'

Dec 5, 2025

"Back in the old days" there would be some reminder posts, every once in a while, calling for folks to chime in with direct experience, and not simply repeat what the group was saying. There was also the infamous "parrot" accusations a while ago, ha. Snyder's UPS/Fedex truck review joke. Etc, etc.

"In my experience" of course can be extrapolated into some topics without harm, so I do not think this is a 100% all the time kind of thing. I'm sure I've broken faith with this "rule" at some point.

But I feel compelled to post, and ask, for this simple go/no go before posting - am I...

• MT_Wyatt
• Replies: 125
• Forum: General Discussion Forum

• 
• 

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Again, you use your experience as a club or trump card. Nobody could possibly have a point that contradicted your understanding of anything without you clubbing them in return. So in that context, why would you asking me to stop, change anything? And if nobody cares why are people posting so many replies? And if being right is so important why aren't your guys correcting the guy who tried to call me out for using 2moa as a universal when I clearly explained up front that it was only an example figure? The guy I was talking to in that example was discussing in good faith. You, sir, are, at this point, not.

You've got guys here swearing that they took one day with mils and got radically better. But you yourself have said - in this thread - that you do better with mrads but you still win everything you compete in with moa - meaning the difference is incremental - and you've said the same for your coaches; they all - per your words in this thread - still excel with moas.

Both of those strongly indicate that any perceived difference is incremental. Yet you won't say a word to that effect to the guys who say 'oh wow I tried it and instantly got way better!'. Nor will you acknowledge that if you're actually right about this, it's a fringe issue.

The whole thing boils down to all the marks of a cult mentality.

But thanks for demonstrating why it's so important to call it out for what it is.

So is dismissing dozens of clear examples and explanations by labeling it as a “cult” your version of a club or trump card? Or just self justification?

 

[rafiki]

it was posted recently that a couple people who have disagreed with form were invited to shoot with him…

 

[mlevimadden]

Again, you use your experience as a club or trump card. Nobody could possibly have a point that contradicted your understanding of anything without you clubbing them in return. So in that context, why would you asking me to stop, change anything? And if nobody cares why are people posting so many replies? And if being right is so important why aren't your guys correcting the guy who tried to call me out for using 2moa as a universal when I clearly explained up front that it was only an example figure? The guy I was talking to in that example was discussing in good faith. You, sir, are, at this point, not.

You've got guys here swearing that they took one day with mils and got radically better. But you yourself have said - in this thread - that you do better with mrads but you still win everything you compete in with moa - meaning the difference is incremental - and you've said the same for your coaches; they all - per your words in this thread - still excel with moas.

Both of those strongly indicate that any perceived difference is incremental. Yet you won't say a word to that effect to the guys who say 'oh wow I tried it and instantly got way better!'. Nor will you acknowledge that if you're actually right about this, it's a fringe issue.

The whole thing boils down to all the marks of a cult mentality.

But thanks for demonstrating why it's so important to call it out for what it is.

You are receiving emotional responses because you are disregarding evidence and personal experiences that multiple people have laid out for you, and I would say you are just trolling at this point.

Very few people on this forum started with a MIL scope. The vast majority of us hunted with MOA scopes for a decade or two. We had the critical thinking skills and open-mindedness to see skilled shooters and hunters switching to MIL scopes and listened to their experiences. We bought a MIL scope to test out, draw our own conclusions and experiences from, and made the switch after seeing the improvements.

People have laid out the reasons MIL is a better system to use under pressure multiple times in this thread for you. You have willfully ignored them or deflected saying it doesn't apply to how you hunt. Feel free to shoot an MOA scope, but don't argue that it's a better system or complain when riflescope companies only release a new scope version in MIL. If you tried to apply some critical thinking, open-mindedness, and try it yourself, you can draw your own conclusions.

It's always the most closed-minded members on Rokslide that throw out the cult accusations. I don't see how wanting to be better hunters and being open to other's experience and testing it for ourselves makes someone a cult member. I think it is the sign of a logical person, whereas you are currently displaying the opposite.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

it was posted recently that a couple people who have disagreed with form were invited to shoot with him…

You finally found the only logical explanation for this contumelious pertinacity. Chris thinks that if he is stubborn enough, he can earn a free trip to S2H.

 

[Marbles]

contumelious pertinacity

Damn you, it has been a while since I needed to use a dictionary due to someone else's vocabulary.

 

[Chris in TN]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We watched that again this week during the snow. It still holds up well for a 25(?) year old film.

It is rooted in demonstrably science.

K.I.S.S. that is the theoretical principal at play here (AKA simplicity principle). Seeing as you are arguing for a theory base and that real world data points don't count. Personally, I prefer the other way as theory often gets things wrong (geocentric gravitational theory for example).

MOA (as used in shooting) is a hybrid system of base ten and base four (it actually goes back to the Babylonians and a base 60 system with 360 degrees, 60 minutes, and 60 seconds).

Switching between base ten and base 4 is inefficient and requires more brain power. Put differently, it is not an ergonomic system. It is why most people say 'a dollar twenty five' rather that 'a dollar and a quarter'. Or, 'a dollar sixty-seven' rather than 'a dollar, two quarters, a dime, a nickel, and two pennies'.

It doesn't matter how much you practice, staying in the same base system will be more efficient. That is simple psychology and ergonomics.

In psychology it would be said tha MOA is a higher load, and mils is a lower load. This is support by multiple people finding that switching to the low load system improved their performance.


No, zero at 100, then dial to MPBR for walking around is most efficient. After all, you get the advantages of both without the drawbacks of either.

If you really wanted two, you could zero at 100 for easy math, but set your zero stop for the MPBR.

I'm not saying real world experience doesn't count. I'm saying that when the grand guru of the forum says the difference is incremental then some other guy says the difference is night and day, there needs to be some reconciliation there. And the base four aspect of MOA isn't a given nor a necessity. We could use 1/2moa or 1/5moa adjustments just as easily (not sure why, though, as 1/4moa works fine). Again, dividing by 4 isn't *that* hard, and isn't even needed for elevation, nor wind. I've demonstrated that well beyond certainty in this thread. Nobody needs to think in fractions of MOA - just dial the turret to the spot between your 300 and 400 yard marks for a 350 yard shot. Whether that's 4 clicks or 24 or 31 doesn't matter.

Having said that, I will happily note that you are maybe the second(?) person in the thread to appeal to the psychology aspect of this, and the first to make any significant attempt to flesh it out, and that is admirable and worth applause. Thank you. It's a start. It's not a finish, but it's a start, and if we ever got to the point of making an exhaustive list of the reasons y'all think mrads are superior, we could put it first, and perhaps have a different thread where we focused on that. If we do, I'm going to posit that one of the goals of training is to teach people how to do things under stress and you can actually train people to divide by 4 under stress (again, if you needed to, which, again, you really don't, since nobody is counting clicks here or being forced to count in wholes-and-quarters when they could just use some form of yardage turret system as I have explained before). But that could be another discussion in another thread. To reiterate, I appreciate the attempt to bring up the psychological aspect. Thank you.

As for zeroing at 100 there's nothing efficient about zeroing then having to dial. Because now you have two 'base' numbers. After a shot do you dial back to zero or dial back to the MPBR mark? Which was it? Think fast, you're halfway to the deer and it jumped up and is trying to run. I really prefer to have a single 'zero' range and never have to think about it at 0-300 yards or so, which, again, is the vast, vast majority of where I, and the vast, vast majority of others, actually shoot game. Approaching this from a triage standpoint, which I'd hope you'd appreciate as you seem to have some sort of med(?) background, if I'm building a model for a shooting solution, I want it to be the strongest where it's going to get used the most.

Point being, that 'just dial to mpbr' introduced the sort of uncertainty you're seeming to want to eliminate. Also, I'm not sure how to set a zero stop (on most scopes, anyway) to 'stop' at ~3moa above zero without hindering it from dialing even further when needed.

 

[UpNorth89]

I'm out of popcorn and beer. We better get this thread back on track.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Damn you, it jas been a while since I needed to use a dictionary due to someone elses vocabulary.

In a thread like this, you have to skip right past the $0.10 words and the $1.00 words and go straight to the $3.44 words.

 

[schmidty3]

Nice. I wish we had places to do that in the eastern US.

Or, alternately, a shooting range set up like a golf course where you hiked from 'hole' to hole and each shot was different.

Its called NRL hunter. But its just a game.