S2H Scope Interest

Interest in purchasing a S2H 3-18x44 rifle scope (if passes durability testing)

  • I will purchase 1 and am willing to place a deposit

    Votes: 276 45.0%

  • I will purchase 2 or more and am willing to place a deposit

    Votes: 121 19.7%

  • I will purchase but am not willing to place a deposit

    Votes: 52 8.5%

  • I am interested but not willing to commit at this time

    Votes: 142 23.1%

  • I would not buy this scope

    Votes: 23 3.7%
  • Total voters
    614
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.
 
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!
 
rafiki said:
it was posted recently that a couple people who have disagreed with form were invited to shoot with him…
Click to expand...
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..
 
@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)
 
Wprinkle said:
@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)
Click to expand...
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
 
Chris in TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kaleb said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wprinkle said:
@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)
Click to expand...

Never been done before, huh….


😄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Arken Riflescope Giveaway
Replies
0
Views
227
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Southernfriedwerewolf
  • Locked
Sold Weaver Tactical 2.5-10 mil mil
Replies
6
Views
696
Southernfriedwerewolf
Southernfriedwerewolf
gr8fuldoug
Revic Acura 5-25x50 Riflescope
Replies
0
Views
237
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
New Athlon Riflescopes Are Coming
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Iceman15666
I
E
WTS/WTT Steiner H6Xi 2-12x42mm STR-MIL FFP
Replies
6
Views
978
jreyna
jreyna

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top