Which scope as a new host for the THLR reticle?

[NSI]

Your post was spot-on and actionable and could be applied to any of the companies if someone does a little linked-in stalking on the other companies. That strategy makes perfect sense, no quibble from me.
The point I was trying to make earlier still stands though--the proposal at hand is NOT simply asking for a production run of an existing product, a la gap LRHS, it is asking for a specific product change to an existing product, a change that we dont know what costs or issues come with it (contact with THLR seems notably absent from this post). My skepticism has nothing to do with the product or my own reaction to the reticle, it is simply trying to point out that there are surprisingly (shockingly?) large costs associated with what seem like minor changes like this, and as a result I 'll be floored if they come through with it. My suggestions are rooted in what seem to me to be more-likely avenues for getting a version of the scope, ie mainly focused on companies that already have BOTH products (reticle and suitable-footprint scope, ie minox) and asking them to combine those things. Also a long shot, also possibly the wrong way, but from where I sit and with the experience I have in product management I think potentially more likely. No reason that you cant try both avenues, either.

On reflection, it would seem that going after Minox for their 3-15 probably is a straightforward path, though the price will likely be high. Anybody got contact there? Perhaps this is something THLR himself can mediate given their existing business relationship?

-J

 

[Mountainrancher]

T

On reflection, it would seem that going after Minox for their 3-15 probably is a straightforward path, though the price will likely be high. Anybody got contact there? Perhaps this is something THLR himself can mediate given their existing business relationship?

-J

the 3-15 is still a 34 mil tube and 30+oz. That added with the high price tag doesn’t really make it the do all end all solution in my opinion. Although it would me a cool scope it’s not the one people are going to put on every rifle in their safe.

 

[freddyG]

Any reliable scope sporting the THLR is going to be expensive, thus making it a very niche product. That’s probably why no company wants to touch this project.

 

[Dobermann]

That’s probably why no company wants to touch this project.

We don't know that yet, but thank you for your optimism and helpful contribution to this thread.

 

[Castle Rock]

Unfortunately he is correct

 

[Dobermann]

Except that part of what led to this as an idea was a scope company some time back saying that they could add a reticle to an existing model if a certain number of pre-sales were accounted for ...

 

[HighUintas]

Maybe we just need to convince a company of the type of reticle to put in a scope. It doesn't have to be THE thlr reticle

 

[Dobermann]

Maybe we just need to convince a company of the type of reticle to put in a scope. It doesn't have to be THE thlr reticle

You're welcome to do that, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

[Castle Rock]

Thomas’s reticle is fairly good but it is just a step in the evolution of long range reticles

 

[Dobermann]

Thomas’s reticle is fairly good but it is just a step in the evolution of long range reticles

Inasmuch as it builds on what has come before, of course. But it's also something of a radical departure.

And if by 'evolution' you mean that others have come after it that are better, I'd love to see them.

I think the point of this thread is that the THLR reticle offers us things that others do not. If others want to create threads to design other or better reticles, go for it.

 

[freddyG]

Except that part of what led to this as an idea was a scope company some time back saying that they could add a reticle to an existing model if a certain number of pre-sales were accounted for ...

I have no doubt that a company would do this(even Nightforce), if a certain number of units were ordered, and paid for. Kind of like a group buy. They just aren’t willing to take on the risk themselves.

 

[Dobermann]

I have no doubt that a company would do this(even Nightforce), if a certain number of units were ordered, and paid for. Kind of like a group buy. They just aren’t willing to take on the risk themselves.

Yep, so that might be the strategy we adopt.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I agree with the pre-order, pre-pay being a strong stimulus for a company to pursue it.

 

[Macintosh]

If you work through a retailer—maybe unknown munitions, I don’t know—the retailer is going to take some markup. I don’t know exactly what that is in optics, let’s just say 25%. If they take pre-payments, then they can still order and pay for, let’s say 1000 scopes, without actually having already sold 1000 scopes. Then their inventory is paid for and their money is not tied up in inventory sitting on a shelf, and the remainder they can sell over time and that’s all profit. You pay a bit more, but it’s a lot easier to reach your minimum order quantity. Depending on the retailer, you also get the benefit of their existing relationship (both financial as well as logistics) with the company, and probably their better access to the company as a result. Not every retailer is going to have a relationship with the manufacturer, but some of them might. Anyone tried reaching out to some of the likely retailers?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

If you work through a retailer—maybe unknown munitions, I don’t know—the retailer is going to take some markup. I don’t know exactly what that is in optics, let’s just say 25%. If they take pre-payments, then they can still order and pay for, let’s say 1000 scopes, without actually having already sold 1000 scopes. Then their inventory is paid for and their money is not tied up in inventory sitting on a shelf, and the remainder they can sell over time and that’s all profit. You pay a bit more, but it’s a lot easier to reach your minimum order quantity. Depending on the retailer, you also get the benefit of their existing relationship (both financial as well as logistics) with the company, and probably their better access to the company as a result. Not every retailer is going to have a relationship with the manufacturer, but some of them might. Anyone tried reaching out to some of the likely retailers?

No, but I did reach out to LOW with this exact business plan, and they told me to kick rocks because I hadn't been selling optics for 3 years. So, whoever the retailer is, they also need to be involved in optics already.

GAP is probably the best fit to that criteria, and they have history getting unique scopes produced. Has anyone contacted them yet?

 

[BjornF16]

What about SWFA in their 5-20 scope?

 

[Macintosh]

LOW is a factory. Trijicon is a design and marketing company. My guess is that low has enough business that they have no interest in working with any entity who isn’t already a verifiable fully capable design and marketing company—99.9% of the time they would be wasting their time, not because you are a tire kicker per se, but because most people have no idea everything that goes into producing a finished optical product, and more importantly have no track record of delivering on an actual order they can produce. They’re not in the business of handholding or teaching someone what goes into providing a factory the specifications necessary to produce a rifle scope or spec and procure parts and materials, etc, they’re in the business of building stuff. That’s not to take anything away from you or the idea, they simply have a role that only picks up after a project is a certain distance along on the path from idea to finished product. It would be like going to a bank and asking them to loan you money to build your house before you even have land to put it on because you just had a first interview for a job that “went really well”—it would come as no surprise when they asked you to show some form of proof that you could pull this off and pay for it before they invest their time and resources on you.
This whole thing is all about managing the risk of companies who have no assurance that your hare-brained idea (and since there’s nothing else like it you can point to, odds are it actually is a harebrained idea from a investment perspective) has legs.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

LOW also does design, or claims to:

OEM/ODM - Light Optical Works

Light Optical Works, Ltd. of Suwa City, Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Learn about our OEM services for binoculars, rifle scopes, spotting scopes, and field scopes.

www.light-op.co.jp

 

[Macintosh]

Right—but they arent going to invest their capability for just anyone because its a significant cost for them up front and therefore a significant risk, they still have a business model and it takes too much time and recourses for them to work outside of that model. I don’t know low, and I don’t know the details of what they do and don’t offer, so my intention is not to be totally precise here, Im speaking in generalities, but I am speaking from the experience of working with numerous factories who offer similar services in other industries.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

right. and the threshold for being worth LOW's while is 3+ years selling optics. Business model, consumer interest, 1,000 unit initial order size, intial product specifications, testing plans, etc are not enough for them to waver on this requirement. It's not speculation - I literally tried that exact approach in June 2023.

Most of the scopes that function properly are made by LOW, including all of the low cost options, hence my focus on them. To get LOW to make us the scope + reticle discussed in this thread, whatever entity is approaching them needs to have 3+ years of optics sales. UM doesn't fit that criteria, but GAP, Gunwerks, Trijicon, Nightforce, SWFA and many others do.