S2H Scope Interest

[The Guide]

@BjornF16 : What is this thread about? Consolidating interest in a scope? Or debating MOA vs MIL?

It is a study showing that no matter good your intentions are in life, the people around you dictate the outcome of what happens along the way.

Jay

 

[Rich M]

The metrics are nice. I just bought a scope for low light.

Will look at it if I need another one or a dialing scope.

 

[chutinlead]

I saw this and the new NX6 and instead picked up a 2.5-10x42 NXS for the same dollars. There is no guarantee that this S2H scope passes drop tests from a company that has never had a scope pass before.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I saw this and the new NX6 and instead picked up a 2.5-10x42 NXS for the same dollars. There is no guarantee that this S2H scope passes drop tests from a company that has never had a scope pass before.

It’s made by LOW and it’s already passed drop tests.

 

[JF_Idaho]

I saw this and the new NX6 and instead picked up a 2.5-10x42 NXS for the same dollars. There is no guarantee that this S2H scope passes drop tests from a company that has never had a scope pass before.

The manufacturer has had many scopes pass the eval.

 

[BLJ]

It’s made by LOW and it’s already passed drop tests.

The MIL version passed.
We can’t be certain about the MOA version at this time.




Sorry.

 

[solarshooter]

At the end of the day there have been perhaps two or three of the mrad crowd in this thread that have articulated a reason for the superiority of mrads and a context in which their reasoning works - specifically, the psychology of doing mentally hard things under pressure. I genuinely appreciate the two(?) guys who mentioned it and the one who began to flesh it out. But that was done on page 12(?) when the fight actually started on page one when, in a thread about buying a scope, a potential buyer stated a preference - a preference that up until yesterday had been fairly well tolerated here and a preference that a sane person might think a scope maker might like to hear of. So, man, the rest of y'all........if this bothers you that much or angers you that much, I don't know what to tell you. But showing up to hang out for more than five minutes with a group of dudes who get this wrapped around the axle about something so minor, uh, no. Heck no.


Man, I like you and enjoy your posts - even that one - but I'm guessing that by now you're rethinking that post about how great mrads were, on page one.

So back to the debate....

The point about psychology and doing math under stress and base-4 versus base-10 under stress, is a good one. Or at least within the realm of 'fair'.

But the counterpoint that a yardage-marked turret works as well or better than quick-drop (because for a lot of people, QD requires some form of adjustment like -0.2 or whatever) was largely ignored. There's no base-4 measurement with a yardage-marked turret. Just dial to the big green dot (or liquid paper painted '4' or whatever) on the turret, for 400 yards. Done.

Then the argument switched to quick wind and bracketing. Same thing - nobody is dividing their wind holds by 4 to get some quarter-minute wind hold. It's simply not an issue. For wind a moa scope's 'adjustments' in the field are in full moa (or 2 moa) values. No need to do quarter anythings. You do that once then don't have to bother again. In one way that's arguably superior to the mrad system for wind because the mrad scope in question here doesn't use an increment of 1 unit, it uses an increment of 0.2 units.....but nobody's talking about that.

(Nor would I be, normally, because I don't think it's any bigger of a deal than the base-4 clicks)

If y'all want to get together and try that or make fun of some guy on the internet who has enough of a life to not travel cross-country to prove it out....ehhh, knock yourselves out. Believe me. Don't believe me. Call me a liar. Call me a troll. Call it D-K effect. Burn me in effigy as a heretic (which is exactly what most of this thread looks like). But at least consult a psychologist or a math professor about experimental design before you do your test, and don't call it a 'test' based on what some dude on the internet said. If you're going to bother to do tests, do good ones. Experimental design is a thing and to do this one properly would be waaaaaay more complex than starting with some group of existing good shooters, and no matter which way the test goes it's not going to settle any debate, though it might open up some great questions about math education in America - and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it opens up a door to think about how to better train people under pressure and whether that's a question of training, ability, or systems - or some combo thereof. It's a fascinating question.

I'm simply a guy who'd like to get better but isn't terribly interested in how important you think Z-rated tires are for the Sunday drives I do simply because I enjoy driving moreso than any desire or need to be a F1 level driver. For context/background, I started down the road of statistically meaningful groups almost twenty years ago, when I saw people on the internet posting three shot groups with M193 and calling it 'moa'. That led me to learn what M193 specs were and how they were tested, etc. Fascinating, but I figured out quickly that a guy who barely had time to load any ammo at all and at the time wasn't ever shooting past 200-250 yards, could live with some uncertainty. Started an interest in longer range shooting and figured out that shooting game animals past maybe 300 yards lost its luster (for me). I'm not going to bother going down some tangential road to a tiny incremental (or so it's argued) theoretical gain in speed when I don't shoot fast anyway, and don't need that increment for the way I do shoot (while hunting, especially). And I'm not going to take anyone seriously when they try to pretend it's a big deal either way. It isn't. Never will be. You look silly when you take the posture that it's a big deal either way. I joined this forum in large part because of Form's drop tests and the value I saw in them and I still see that in this scope project and recognize its worth. But at the same time....a lot of the unique stances this forum takes are things I've came around to largely on my own over the years and it boggles my mind to be shouted down as a rube because I disagree with someone on 5% (or less) of his shooting stuff - and those are nuanced disagreements, not blanket disagreements. I'm not arguing that mrads are bad - they aren't - or that moas are somehow superior - they aren't, unless we want to go off into the weeds about full-unit 1moa wind holds.

Milliradians have been around about a century now and didn't take off until the last decade or so. We'll all be dead before this debate is settled, if ever.

 

[The Guide]

The MIL version passed.
We can’t be certain about the MOA version at this time.




Sorry.

The MOA version will come with a mil to moa conversion chart with a mil reticle and mil dials.

Jay

 

[Chris in TN]

The MOA version will come with a mil to moa conversion chart with a mil reticle and mil dials.

Jay

But the turrets will be marked in IPHY anyway.