S2H Scope Interest

[huntnful]

Finally! A MOA guy that’s reasonable!

Hahaha I’m a “it makes VERY little difference in comparison to 99% of the other things involved in killing something” guy.

 

[Dobermann]

Mil being better doesn’t matter. You have whole generations married to MOA. Nobody is converting for one scope.

You might be surprised ... many of us here have converted to mils for lesser scopes and lesser reticles ...

 

[uglymud]

In for one too start with.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

 

[Coopsdaddy]

I sold my two NXS moa scopes and bought mill scope because of the overwhelming advise on here.Thats a easy decision if you want to get the most out of the knowledgeable guys on this forum,im definitely not one of them but appreciate all the advice they give.
Don’t be so hard headed!

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

Some of you folks need to update your software. S2H didn’t start developing products based on what’s “popular with hunters” or what would sell in huge numbers. Their interest has always been making shit that they wanted, that didn’t exist.
In fact, on a certain level, they also have an interest in changing what is popular amongst hunters and the hunting industry for the benefit of all of us since popular thought is largely based on old myths. And a lot popular stuff doesn’t actually work very well.

This isn’t S2Hs scope - it is ZeroTechs scope. Zero tech will 100% offer this in MOA, or at least use the drop tested design to offer something in MOA that is similar. They 100% care about what’s popular and making money.

 

[glock233]

This isn’t S2Hs scope - it is ZeroTechs scope. Zero tech will 100% offer this in MOA, or at least use the drop tested design to offer something in MOA that is similar. They 100% care about what’s popular and making money.

I don’t know about that. I’m sure there’s an agreement covering the use of the joint product, etc.

 

[Chris in TN]

This isn’t S2Hs scope - it is ZeroTechs scope. Zero tech will 100% offer this in MOA, or at least use the drop tested design to offer something in MOA that is similar. They 100% care about what’s popular and making money.

I generally agree. *edited in light of my next post down*

On a very related note there’s another thread running right now on this site where people complained about a vendor’s product changes. The vendor showed up and is listening and largely setting aside his own views of what might be ‘better’ to listen to his customers about what they want or need or prefer and why they like it. He hasn’t dropped his convictions about improving his product but he has listened and responded and not simply lectured them on why his catfish was better without hot sauce.

Wise vendor, imo.

 

[Chris in TN]

I don’t know about that. I’m sure there’s an agreement covering the use of the joint product, etc.

The last thing I want to do or want to see anyone do is speculate on the inner workings of agreements we aren’t privy to.

I might disagree with the way certain things are being done here, but I will freely consider that market participants have the right to stand on convictions, and make agreements, and all of that good stuff. I will likely continue to argue the stance that consumers should be given choices on this issue, but I am not interested in crafting those arguments in such a way as to attempt to cause a divide between two people that have partnered to make a very important thing happen here. That is not my intent.I hope their partnership is profitable and long. I applaud what’s being done here overall. This is the best news in the world of hunting optics in years, current discussion notwithstanding.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The last thing I want to do or want to see anyone do is speculate on the inner workings of agreements we aren’t privy to.

… I am not interested in crafting those arguments in such a way as to attempt to cause a divide between two people that have partnered to make a very important thing happen here. That is not my intent.I hope their partnership is profitable and long.

Well said. It seems some people would rather see this partnership fail - because that would confirm their prejudices - than have the product come to fruition.

 

[The Guide]

This isn’t S2Hs scope - it is ZeroTechs scope. Zero tech will 100% offer this in MOA, or at least use the drop tested design to offer something in MOA that is similar. They 100% care about what’s popular and making money.

You don't read very well nor do you listen to the podcast. Just because you say something won't make it manifest for you. I don't have the crayons nor the paper to explain it to you but ZT doesn't excessively own the rights to this model scope as S2H and ZT both invested in the design of this scope. This is a combined effort collaboration. Stop being such a contrarian. You are basically telling @Ryan Avery and @Unknown Munitions that this isn't really their scope.

Jay

 

[streamerfish]

You don't read very well nor do you listen to the podcast. Just because you say something won't make it manifest for you. I don't have the crayons nor the paper to explain it to you but ZT doesn't excessively own the rights to this model scope as S2H and ZT both invested in the design of this scope. This is a combined effort collaboration. Stop being such a contrarian. You are basically telling @Ryan Avery and @Unknown Munitions that this isn't really their scope.

Jay

I think some people are just trolling at this point...

 

[Marbles]

I think ZT should make the scope in Streck, it is at least as good as MOA, but probably better like mils.

They should make a true MRAD version as well so it actually lines up with 2π.

Of course we still need the NATO mil version.

Last should be the heathen MOA version and it should only be marked in minutes and seconds to keep the system pure and the Babylonian gods happy (60 is a devine number, which is why time and angular measure are in minutes and seconds).

 

[Chris in TN]

which is why time and angular measure are in minutes and seconds).

I was thinking the other day that we should redo our calendars and divide years into either 100 or 1000 days and days into ~10 hours or 100 hours, each composed of 100 seconds. All we'd have to do is change the length of a second. It would probably end up being like 3.4 real seconds or something.

It's crazy that the luddites won't get on board with this.

 

[Chris in TN]

I think ZT should make the scope in Streck, it is at least as good as MOA, but probably better like mils.

Forget all of that. Make a scope without internal adjustments at all and put the adjustments in the mounts with no graduations and we all have to figure it out for ourselves by screwing windage screws like the old Redfield mounts. When those are set we can lock the windage parts with set screws and hold wind in the reticle. Elevation should be one knob and one side of the mount is marked in mils, the other side is marked in moas.

(Once upon a time I've done the math to spitball how far to move a Redfield windage rear ring - don't really want to again)

They should make a true MRAD version as well so it actually lines up with 2π.

Of course we still need the NATO mil version.

I almost raised that point the other day but feared it would sound like trolling.

Dang. Missed opportunity.

 

[Wprinkle]

You don't read very well nor do you listen to the podcast. Just because you say something won't make it manifest for you. I don't have the crayons nor the paper to explain it to you but ZT doesn't excessively own the rights to this model scope as S2H and ZT both invested in the design of this scope. This is a combined effort collaboration. Stop being such a contrarian. You are basically telling @Ryan Avery and @Unknown Munitions that this isn't really their scope.

Jay

I don't understand his level of stupidity but you have to admire his commitment to it.

 

[Marbles]

I was thinking the other day that we should redo our calendars and divide years into either 100 or 1000 days and days into ~10 hours or 100 hours, each composed of 100 seconds. All we'd have to do is change the length of a second. It would probably end up being like 3.4 real seconds or something.

It's crazy that the luddites won't get on board with this.

See, you are going about this wrong (expected for an MOA user). Years and days are based on the earths orbit and arbitrarily breaking them up is pointless.

However, hours, minutes, and seconds are arbitrary. Even in SI a second is defined as 9,192,631,770 radiations from a cesium-133 atom.

So, our current day has 86,400 seconds in it. If you make a second slightly smaller, you can get 100,000 seconds per day pretty easily. The rest is so simple it is obvious, unless you start dividing by 4.

 

[Chris in TN]

I think some people are just trolling at this point...

In fairness, the fish do seem to be biting.

 

[id_jon]

I was thinking the other day that we should redo our calendars and divide years into either 100 or 1000 days and days into ~10 hours or 100 hours, each composed of 100 seconds. All we'd have to do is change the length of a second. It would probably end up being like 3.4 real seconds or something.

It's crazy that the luddites won't get on board with this.

Some french folks tried that and it didn't go so well

 

[Chris in TN]

Some french folks tried that and it didn't go so well

History shows over and over that when people rise up and start changing everything and become radically iconoclastic, things get weird afterwards. The people that tear down monuments one day will be bulldozing bodies into mass graves the next. It's why why wise people make changes slowly if at all.

 

[Marbles]

Some french folks tried that and it didn't go so well

The Chinese used a form of decimal time for thousands of years, until Europeans came along. So perhaps we should say decimal time gave us gunpowder? (Seeing the other random connection that has been made).

The Greeks divided daylight into 12 units and adjusted the length of the units to fit the length of the day.

History shows over and over that when people rise up and start changing everything and become radically iconoclastic, things get weird afterwards. The people that tear down monuments one day will be bulldozing bodies into mass graves the next. It's why why wise people make changes slowly if at all.

Jumping to mass murder is an interesting choice. Enough mass murder has been committed by humans that you can take ANY concept you want and tie it to humans who committed mass murder (murder being distinct from killing).

Many monuments are built to paper over mass murder. Just look at the former USSR if you want examples. Do you think tearing down monuments to Stalin was bad? What about the pesky colonials who destroyed a monument to King George on 7/9/1776?

Now, WTF happened. The history of the mil, and why it is 6,400 mil per circle rather than 6,283.185 MRAD per circle is more appropriate.