Do they have a scope that has passed the drop test?What say all the WKR's? Shall we gang up on Maven? I'm in on an email blast if everybody else is
Do they have a scope that has passed the drop test?What say all the WKR's? Shall we gang up on Maven? I'm in on an email blast if everybody else is
I asked Ryan how the new 3.2 was doing and he never replied. Hopefully that means it’s going well.Do they have a scope that has passed the drop test?
The bushnell 3-12 would be the easy option, especially if they could bump it to 4-16
I would too ... though mine weighs in at 26.4 oz / 748 grams.Ya I'd be real happy with that. I have 2 of the original LRHS 3-12's and that scope would be awesome with the THLR reticle.
Just double checking, are you a fan of this reticle?I would too ... though mine weighs in at 26.4 oz / 748 grams.
Apparently, the LRHS2 was done specifically at George's request, so I guess that's the cloest contender we have to a precedent ...
Yep. Very limited time with it so far, but a fan. My initial thoughts so far:Just double checking, are you a fan of this reticle?
How do I pronounce it? Tee Ayche Ell Are, or something like "clear" but with a "TH" sound at the beginning?
Which TrijiconSeems easier for trijicon to put the recticle in a scope that works vs maven building a scope that works and putting the recticle in it.
The Tenmile 3-18x44, while a little long, has a stated weight of 24.4 oz. (691.73g), which gets us pretty closet to spec. Unnecessarily high on the top end, but as long as the 6x erector in that design doesn't compromise FOV and reliability, then perhaps that gives us some headspace at the top end that we don't need to use if we don't want to, and should be good through to 16x ... main thing with the THLR reticle would be that it would need to be large enough at the high end magnification to get the value from the features once zoomed in.Which Trijicon
Ah ok, that scope is a definite no from me due to the ridiculous form factorThe Tenmile 3-18x44, while a little long, has a stated weight of 24.4 oz. (691.73g), which gets us pretty closet to spec. Unnecessarily high on the top end, but as long as the 6x erector in that design doesn't compromise FOV and reliability, then perhaps that gives us some headspace at the top end that we don't need to use if we don't want to, and should be good through to 16x ... main thing with the THLR reticle would be that it would need to be large enough at the high end magnification to get the value from the features once zoomed in.
Personally, if that Tenmile or either the LRHS 3-12 or 4.5-18 came out with the THLR reticle, then the size and weight would be worth it. The ZP5 is amazing, but far more weight and magnification than needed for a hunting scope (I think that package is more suited to military applications, as shown in one of the original videos, but then deleted long ago.)
This. The reticle doesn’t matter if the scope can’t function properly.Do they have a scope that has passed the drop test?
When the licensing fee for the reticle costs almost as much as a complete swfa scope, your price point is complete fantasy.Part of the reason there's been so many SwFAs sold is because of the price. That would be a key aspect of being able to guarantee high sales. If it ended up being a $1000+ scope, I'm way less likely to buy one because I really like my SWFAs.
That's part of the reason, sure. But reliability is ultimately the most important reason for most of us here.Part of the reason there's been so many SwFAs sold is because of the price. That would be a key aspect of being able to guarantee high sales. If it ended up being a $1000+ scope, I'm way less likely to buy one because I really like my SWFAs.