S2H Scope Interest

[BLJ]

To be fair, there's no way I'd let a muley catch me using an MOA scope. It might think I'm there to shoot squirrels or something.

Don’t be bad mouthing the MOA guys hunting squirrels.
I was just joking.

 

[Formidilosus]

If that’s the case, is a future 2-12x36 more likely than a 2-8x36? Especially considering that the S2H reticle seems to have solved the typical FFP usability issues…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe. It’s going to be more about- “this is the specs that we require, these are the attributes that we require; what is the best path to achieve them?” It may be a revamp of a 3-4x zoom ratio scope systems, it may be something else. We did not want a 6x ratio scope- that was stated right from the start. However, after a year or so of development, we were told that the 6x system that is in this scope was better in all aspects than what we had started with, and asked to trust them. They were right. So their input will help guide what is chosen.


It has been interesting to learn from the source what has transpired in development with regards to all of this.

 

[Chris in TN]

Have you done long term, comparative testing of hit rate and time, using both MOA and mil scopes with the same shooters, and using the best known optimized techniques for both?

Of course I haven't and you know that, which is why you ask. It's your trump card move. You've probably shot more than everyone in this thread. And when faced with any sort of push-back on anything at all, that's your go-to weapon. I've said my peace here and if you can't argue with the math or physics or geometry behind it I'm not interested in switching gears and arguing about experience. You'll beat me every time there.

And in saying that, I'm not arguing that your observations are wrong or inaccurate or dishonest. I don't think that for a moment. But I do think you're reaching conclusions about the superiority of one system over the other based on some fairly small but still real biases. And I also think that *if* I'm wrong - if there was some hypothetical difference in the two systems - it's so small as to be utterly meaningless to the vast, vast majority of shooters.

I'm thrilled to see the new scope come to market. But I'll never be thrilled to see people use experience as a club. If you read historical accounts of literally any figure in any realm where someone pushed their industry or trade forward and made tech or training advances, hindsight shows they had biases or errors that weren't known in real time. The same people who broke the sound barrier in planes thought it was impossible for a long time. They were brilliant, but not correct about every little thing. The stubbornness that makes you push for better products makes it harder to consider whether there's a bias or assumption you aren't seeing. And yes, I'm just as susceptible to that as you or anyone else and I'll freely concede that I have to be aware of the same. Stubbornness can be a virtue or a vice and is often both.

 

[JFK]

A 3-18x can be shot on a lot of powers other than 18x. Making a scope and reticle that is actually usable on all magnification from 3-18x has been the issue.

Very true. I didn’t mean to shit on the work being done. I’m sure this project is somewhat dependent on a third party existing platform and appealing to a broad base…some of whom like higher powered scopes. My point was just meant to say that a solid, modern, 2-10 or 3-12 ffp/mil scope was what I was hoping for and is lacking in the market. Essentially a swfa 3-9 form factor/weight with short fat turrets, capped windage, zero stop. Big zoom range gets tricky to make the reticle work in all ranges, smaller zoom ranges are less so. Nonetheless I wish you guys luck on a successful launch and I might eat my words once it’s out.

 

[pathnz]

Have you done long term, comparative testing of hit rate and time, using both MOA and mil scopes with the same shooters, and using the best known optimized techniques for both?

Where can we find the report?

 

[Formidilosus]

Very true. I didn’t mean to shit on the work being done. I’m sure this project is somewhat dependent on a third party existing platform and appealing to a broad base…some of whom like higher powered scopes. My point was just meant to say that a solid, modern, 2-10 or 3-12 ffp/mil scope was what I was hoping for and is lacking in the market.

This is what people are missing about this- this scope is better in every aspect to any 2-10x or 3-12x scope that I know of. There has been no compromise in that, that I can find.

Essentially a swfa 3-9 form factor/weight with short fat turrets, capped windage, zero stop. Big zoom range gets tricky to make the reticle work in all ranges, smaller zoom ranges are less so. Nonetheless I wish you guys luck on a successful launch and I might eat my words once it’s out.

It is the modern 3-9x SWFA. The reticle is excellent at all powers from 3x to 18x, it has short fat turrets, zero stop, and very low profile capped windage.

One can read what I have written about scopes and design for years- nothing changed. This isn’t some “they slapped a name on a scope” thing. This scope was speced exactly how Ryan and I wanted, and the only change was from a 3-14x to a 3-18x because the optical system was better.

 

[solarshooter]

Of course I haven't

And I also think that *if* I'm wrong - if there was some hypothetical difference in the two systems - it's so small as to be utterly meaningless to the vast, vast majority of shooters.

The people who have tried both, with any level of experience, are telling you over and over again it IS NOT A MEANINGLESS DIFFERENCE. You have not tried both. Until you do, you are arguing from pure theory and 0 experience. You need to try it and see the SIGNIFICANT difference for yourself.

 

[Wprinkle]

Don't you see that calculating a base wind value is literally a one-time-per-load calculation (uh, mental gymnastic exercise) that wouldn't make a lick of difference if it took half an hour because you only have to do it once per load?

I'll happily concede that mrads work well. I'll concede that mrads are undoubtedly best if you're learning in an environment where the instructors and teammates are using mrads. But I have yet to see you guys even address the notion that mrad versus moa is - if I concede for the sake of argument that one system is better - an incredibly minor aspect of shooting. I don't care if you failed math in the fifth grade and dropped out after that or if you're an engineer with a PhD; being able to read the wind - especially out west - is light years more important than whether you're compensating for it in one measurement system or another. Instead, what I get is 'well if you attended the right class you'd understand'.

The inability to frame this debate in such a context is telling.

View attachment 1012124

I do admire your commitment despite unequivocally proven evidence to the contrary...

 

[JFK]

This is what people are missing about this- this scope is better in every aspect to any 2-10x or 3-12x scope that I know of. There has been no compromise in that, that I can find.





It is the modern 3-9x SWFA. The reticle is excellent at all powers from 3x to 18x, it has short fat turrets, zero stop, and very low profile capped windage.

One can read what I have written about scopes and design for years- nothing changed. This isn’t some “they slapped a name on a scope” thing. This scope was speced exactly how Ryan and I wanted, and the only change was from a 3-14x to a 3-18x because the optical system was better.

Good deal. Should be a success. Especially at $1000.

 

[Chris in TN]

The people who have tried both, with any level of experience, are telling you over and over again it IS NOT A MEANINGLESS DIFFERENCE. You have not tried both. Until you do, you are arguing from pure theory and 0 experience. You need to try it and see the SIGNIFICANT difference for yourself.

Shooting is a science and you're trying really hard to tell me 'bro you just gotta see this' as if there's some unexplainable but real phenomena at play here and if I'd just set aside the math and experience it I'd be a true believer too.

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.

I'm saying it has to be one of those two and you haven't shown me the latter. At this point I'd frankly be thrilled if someone could show me something beyond 'the math is easier' which is shaky at best.

 

[Jake Larsen]

The people who have tried both, with any level of experience, are telling you over and over again it IS NOT A MEANINGLESS DIFFERENCE. You have not tried both. Until you do, you are arguing from pure theory and 0 experience. You need to try it and see the SIGNIFICANT difference for yourself.

Very well said. To drive this point home:

I made the switch after ONE AFTERNOON of shooting a buddies MIL based system. I had 10 years of pretty serious shooting under my belt in MOA. In a matter of a few hours of getting schooled up and some practice, I was outperforming my MOA based systems that I had thousands and thousands of rounds on.

So according to @Chris in TN logic, those couple hundred rounds somehow magically made me a considerably better shooter in one afternoon, vs 10 years and thousands of rounds of practice in an MOA based system.

Or maybe, MIL is a more intuitive system that matches up to real world ballistics much better and is therefore faster to use especially when stressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[solarshooter]

Shooting is a science and you're trying really hard to tell me 'bro you just gotta see this' as if there's some unexplainable but real phenomena at play here and if I'd just set aside the math and experience it I'd be a true believer too.

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.

I'm saying it has to be one of those two and you haven't shown me the latter. At this point I'd frankly be thrilled if someone could show me something beyond 'the math is easier' which is shaky at best.

Yes, calculating trajectory is a physics problem that can be solved with math, and done in whatever angular units you prefer. No argument there. It can also be simplified and solved mentally in either system, again no argument. The phenomenon at play is our ability to do that math under stress. The more complicated the math, the harder it is to do correctly or at all. I'm not asking you to set aside the math, I'm asking you to use different units which happen to have a scalar of 1 rather than 3.4, which makes the math MUCH easier. Now, you won't appreciate that ease until you put yourself under time pressure with novel ranges and winds and test your hit rates with each system. Anyone who has done this reaches the same conclusion as to which system is superior. And it is a large difference.

And note that the time pressure is not really about forcing yourself to make marginal shots on short time, it's about creating stress in a practice environment with inanimate targets where there would otherwise be none.

 

[ckt3]

MILs: Americans discover the superiority of base 10

 

[NateTP38]

This is what people are missing about this- this scope is better in every aspect to any 2-10x or 3-12x scope that I know of. There has been no compromise in that, that I can find.

Dumb, probably obvious question - but not weight, correct? I am working on putting together a rifle for my 9 year old daughter; weight is a major concern so that she can handle it herself. 25oz is too heavy for this project, but 2-8x36 that was mentioned is very intriguing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Dumb, probably obvious question - but not weight, correct? I am working on putting together a rifle for my 9 year old daughter; weight is a major concern so that she can handle it herself. 25oz is too heavy for this project, but 2-8x36 that was mentioned is very intriguing.

No, not necessarily. Weight has gotten close as well.

 

[Chris in TN]

I'm asking you to use different units which happen to have a scalar of 1 rather than 3.4, which makes the math MUCH easier.

And note that the time pressure is not really about forcing yourself to make marginal shots on short time, it's about creating stress in a practice environment with inanimate targets where there would otherwise be none.

I don't understand the 3.4 comment. I've already described not only than an moa system could be devised (I mean, I use it - won't say I've perfected it, I'm not the standard here, and make no claim to be) but how 3moas of wind holds could very easily be used to very quickly 'bracket' wind. At no point in that did I need to divide anything by 3.4 because I wasn't observing anything in mils in the first place. Two moa base wind (hypothetical number for a hypothetical rifle) at 500 for 10mph, multiplied by the actual wind (6mph wind means 60% or a little over one moa and shoot. If the range is 287, split the wind in half-ish. If the range is 500+ (or the wind is greater than 10-12mph) we're now making a category error and trying to apply a fast formula to what ought to be a precise calculation done with great care. We aren't at war with the elk, we're trying to kill them cleanly.

Second paragraph - yes, fair point that I'll freely concede.

 

[43.6N]

Well this thread has completely gone off the rails, so I’ll jump back in. IMO there’s no hack.
It’s just that the patterns are more readily apparent and more quickly applied in mils.

6.5cm is dropping 1 mil every 100 yds between 300-700. That’s a consistent pattern that is super easy to grasp and take advantage of.

A bullet with a G1 bc of 0.5, drifts 0.1mil every 100 yds in a 5 mph wind. AND it scales proportionally. A 10mph wind causes 0.2mil drift/100yds.
A bullet with a g1 bc of 0.6, drifts 0.1mil every 100yds in a 6mph wind.
Again easy pattern to notice and take advantage of.

Yes mil/moa scale proportionally. So do Celsius and Fahrenheit. You can do the math any way you want. One set of numbers just makes the bigger picture so much easier to grasp quickly and in the moment WHILE STAYING TARGET FOCUSED.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Very well said. To drive this point home:

I made the switch after ONE AFTERNOON of shooting a buddies MIL based system. I had 10 years of pretty serious shooting under my belt in MOA. In a matter of a few hours of getting schooled up and some practice, I was outperforming my MOA based systems that I had thousands and thousands of rounds on.

So according to @Chris in TN logic, those couple hundred rounds somehow magically made me a considerably better shooter in one afternoon, vs 10 years and thousands of rounds of practice in an MOA based system.

Or maybe, MIL is a more intuitive system that matches up to real world ballistics much better and is therefore faster to use especially when stressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have pretty much the same story. Had to go through the pain of selling all my MOA scopes and getting all MIL but I am SO GLAD I finally bucked up and made the change. I have explicitly seen better hit rates for myself with wind gun number on windy days.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Dunning-Kruger is out in force. We aren’t changing his mind even though people with experience are giving him good advice.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Dunning-Kruger is out in force. We aren’t changing his mind even though people with experience are giving him good advice.

At a certain point it’s not for him. It’s about making the logical argument in a way that others who are reading can see it. I personally know of 3 guys who are aware of these threads and reading, all of whom will be making the jump from MOA to MILs if they choose to use this scope. I’m sure there are many many more.

And I want this scope to be a roaring success. because then we might get a 2-8x36 also

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk