S2H Scope Interest

[Chris in TN]

I hate to contribute to the massive derail. but


I've shot nothing other than Mil/FFP scopes for about 15 years, for guns where I have the choice. It is clearly a superior system. However:

the advantages are largely small optimisations in situations that only occur occasionally, only when you hunt in some specific ways. For the vast majority of hunting scenarios I encounter, any aspect of shooting is not terribly difficult or really a factor at all, let alone optimisations in speed and managing mental load, and the small and largely theoretical optimisation available makes no difference.

Let's not get too caught up in the moment and pretend that using Mil based scopes is the single biggest thing that will make a positive difference to your hunting success and anything else is asking for universal failure


I don't use quick drop or "gun number" based wind systems (although I have used similar rules of thumb for many years) and I rarely struggle to kill an animal that I decide to kill. It's actually not that hard.

minor optimisation is far from essential. But then again, what else is there to argue about on the internet?

If this reply was the essence of what's preached by the mil crowd I wouldn't even bother arguing. I can live with what you're saying here. Not that I agree with every word, but you're well within 'agree to disagree, go in peace' territory.

Of course, the hardliners may disown you for it.

SWEET BABY JEZUZ!!!

I go to work for the day and the thread blows up.

Please take your MOA vs MIL arguments to a different thread (and whatever other nonsense infiltrated this thread).

My objectives were to place all the specs up front (edited as questions arose for things I missed) and to gauge interest in 1 easy to find location. Legit questions on the why of the specs are welcome.

If I could, I’d delete about 10 pages worth of bs

Chin up. The bright side is that they now know there's a lot of demand, the thread has stayed bumped and visible, and they now know there's a market space for a moa version of the scope, and I strongly suspect that there's at least one adult in the room over at zerotech that would like to know that.

Man, my shooting conditions without leaving my area can swing from a DA below -5000 to 8000. Plus I shoot different bullets at the range. I'm not swapping out multiple turrets.

You keep harping on can, of course you can use MOA and divide by 4 under stress. But, it is demonstrably a higher load condition, so beyond some nerdy desire, why? You can train people to use DOS, but modern GUIs are more efficient.

There's a lot in what you've said in this thread that I think could be reasonably discussed. I think I can counterpoint your points. I think there's some nuance and context you miss. But you're one of a handful of people who approach this reasonably and I appreciate that, and, at this point, don't know that it would accomplish much to say more. But I think you're coming at this from a reasonable, if imperfect, standpoint. That's worth noting. I'm just tired of arguing.

 

[pathnz]

There's no real reason to use MOA, but what the hell. Take a look at the original designer of the reticle in this scope, a gentleman I know and have hunted with many years ago, and while he understands the clear and obvious superiority of mil-based systems - he hunts frequently with wildly sub-optimal equipment by any metric. Because it is far from the end of the world.

 

[BLJ]

moa version of the scope

Probably be $2k.

 

[solarshooter]

Probably be $2k.

It would be really funny to make a moa version but charge twice as much. Call it the "stick in the mud" edition.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Probably be $2k.

S2H can make up some of their narrow margins by charging twice as much for the MOA version. It also makes sense because it would cost more to design a decent MOA scope using that lovely reticle.

 

[Kimber7man]

About 300 scopes willing to have a deposit placed on them for an early shipment, after just one day of polling….. do the right thing @Ryan Avery

Add 2 more. Heck if the 3-18 NX6 is $1800 it’s like almost getting one for free…

 

[prm]

The quick point and shoot of the bold enough German #1-ish design is far more important to me than the angular units. Prefer Mil, but that is pretty far down my priority list. Just make it FFP with the units the same for the reticle and clicks. But this has been decided, so check that box, moving on. Hope testing is going well!

 

[gledeasy]

I'd be in for 1

 

[betelgeuse]

I buy scope. I shoot the deer.

 

[Dobermann]

Ignore^^

Back to how many do you need!????
View attachment 1011612

Yep, that set of three looks like a good beginning ...

 

[Wprinkle]

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

And the two I know about have declined. Declining the opportunity to prove your point, or be disproven, only solidifies you are interested in nothing but being a blowhard and a troll and trying to be relevant. It takes a special person to stand by a narrative they refuse to prove but will argue on the internet..

 

[DangerRanger]

I buy scope. I shoot the deer.

A prophet among us

 

[Wprinkle]

@Formidilosus @Chris in TN

I have an excellent idea, I came up with it and have never seen implemented in any fashion before....

Lets take say 5 Mil guys and 5 MOA guys. Set up real world scenarios where none of the shooters are aware of distance to target, location of target, wind, etc. All conditions are novel and unknown. 1 at a time they are presented with a scenario. Once the target is spotted the timer begins, the timer is stopped when a hit on target is achieved.

All 10 shooters go through each stage individually, any shooter can use any equipment, gadget's or gear they would use hunting. At the end we add up all the times and the team with the lowest time wins.. Then publish all the data.

We need to come up with a reward and punishment but I am a big fan of "put your money where your mouth is."

Again this is 100% my idea, nothing like it has ever been done before, and most importantly we can settle the MOA vs Mils argument conclusively (sly grin)

 

[BLJ]

It also makes sense because it would cost more to design a decent MOA scope using that lovely reticle.

I just figured they would do it out of spite.

Make the horse drink the water until he understands how thirsty he was.

 

[Kaleb]

@Formidilosus @Chris in TN

I have an excellent idea, I came up with it and have never seen implemented in any fashion before....

Lets take say 5 Mil guys and 5 MOA guys. Set up real world scenarios where none of the shooters are aware of distance to target, location of target, wind, etc. All conditions are novel and unknown. 1 at a time they are presented with a scenario. Once the target is spotted the timer begins, the timer is stopped when a hit on target is achieved.

All 10 shooters go through each stage individually, any shooter can use any equipment, gadget's or gear they would use hunting. At the end we add up all the times and the team with the lowest time wins.. Then publish all the data.

We need to come up with a reward and punishment but I am a big fan of "put your money where your mouth is."

Again this is 100% my idea, nothing like it has ever been done before, and most importantly we can settle the MOA vs Mils argument conclusively (sly grin)

That would be fun and all but the better shooters are going to win either way. I have no dog in it and use mil but a better and more practiced shooter shooting moa will smoke the lesser mil shooter. I guess I'm saying regardless of results it will not prove anything. Nothing has to be proven anyway. Let the mil guys shoot mils and the moa guys shoot moa. If they're interested in trying something new great it's available to them. I just wouldn't worry about trying to prove something that really can't be proven.

Or if I'm wrong by saying that the argument will still go that way. If the mil guy wins the moa guys will say the mil guy was better. If the moa guy/guys win the mil guys won't change their mind and say you should have had a better shooter. Again I'm not needing convinced of anything and don't care I just don't think anything would stop the debate. 600 plus pages of 223 hasn't stopped the debate so I kinda doubt a scope show down would settle this

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

I'm going to say this with the most gentleness I know how to use. I'm not saying it to be mean, or argumentative, but I'm going to say it because it irks me that you believe that strongly enough to go to the trouble to say it.

Quick drop is a dead giveaway that you aren't that great at math and that you are for some reason predisposed to appeals to authority.

We've had yardage-marked BDC knobs for fifty years now, and y'all won't use them because you'd need to own, what, two, maybe three knobs, or do like I do and use glo-paint ($10 worth will last a decade) to smear an indicator on your elevation turret for 300/400/500 yards - and you think that's a bridge too far.

Then you'll turn around and blab about 'quick drop' like it was lightning in a bottle. I've even seen people post about adjusting their load to make 'quick drop' work. You'll literally downgrade your ballistics to make a turret do a trick we were doing (badly, I'll admit - the concept was sound, the implementation was not) before I was born, with yardage-marked turrets from Bushnell and Tasco and Redfield all through the 70's and 80's. Your 'hack' that legions of you appeal to, is nothing more than a poor substitute for the BDC turret we had decades ago. And if you needed multiple turret variations to make yardage-marked turrets work at different elevations, guess what? Your quick drops suffer from the same problem. They'll work across a band of elevations but not everywhere universally, so you either adjust your load or do....gasp.....more math.

Also - it's factually incorrect to say that there's no math involved. You're matching two numbers up (like, 3.9 for 390 or whatever) but that's still math. It's just math that you're not afraid of.

If you're wanting to reply further, just ask yourself.....why? It's a useless diversion. I've said my peace. I'd buy the mrad scope. It wouldn't be the first .mrad-based scope I have, likely not the last, but it wouldn't be my preference, either. And that's all it is - a preference. It's just a preference that dogmatic dudes have convinced each other is something more.

Well said. This is why I really don't care about Mil vs MOA. I learn my load and mark my turrets accordingly, whether it be a custom turret, tags, sharpie etc. Range, dial, shoot.

 

[Wprinkle]

That would be fun and all but the better shooters are going to win either way. I have no dog in it and use mil but a better and more practiced shooter shooting moa will smoke the lesser mil shooter. I guess I'm saying regardless of results it will not prove anything. Nothing has to be proven anyway. Let the mil guys shoot mils and the moa guys shoot moa. If they're interested in trying something new great it's available to them. I just wouldn't worry about trying to prove something that really can't be proven.

Or if I'm wrong by saying that the argument will still go that way. If the mil guy wins the moa guys will say the mil guy was better. If the moa guy/guys win the mil guys won't change their mind and say you should have had a better shooter. Again I'm not needing convinced of anything and don't care I just don't think anything would stop the debate. 600 plus pages of 223 hasn't stopped the debate so I kinda doubt a scope show down would settle this

It was satire.. the aforementioned "test" rather something close to it, has been performed 100's if not 1000's of times (I was only there once). I do not know of one single time Mils was not the victor.. There are a couple guys on here that can speak if MOA has ever won out.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus @Chris in TN

I have an excellent idea, I came up with it and have never seen implemented in any fashion before....

Lets take say 5 Mil guys and 5 MOA guys. Set up real world scenarios where none of the shooters are aware of distance to target, location of target, wind, etc. All conditions are novel and unknown. 1 at a time they are presented with a scenario. Once the target is spotted the timer begins, the timer is stopped when a hit on target is achieved.

All 10 shooters go through each stage individually, any shooter can use any equipment, gadget's or gear they would use hunting. At the end we add up all the times and the team with the lowest time wins.. Then publish all the data.

We need to come up with a reward and punishment but I am a big fan of "put your money where your mouth is."

Again this is 100% my idea, nothing like it has ever been done before, and most importantly we can settle the MOA vs Mils argument conclusively (sly grin)

Never been done before, huh….

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Can we please just stop talking about mils and MOA in this thread?

 

[ckt3]

Can we please just stop talking about mils and MOA in this thread?

10 more pages and we might solve this once and for all!