Would you buy this scope?

[Dobermann]

View attachment 1008627

We're ALL there ... and that's the whole point!

The person who has said the most not to "trust" anything that @Formidilosus says is ... Form.

But many have not wanted to test their own gear, and have asked him to do the work for us ...

People can't have it both ways ... and then still complain about it. (Well, okay, some are, but ya can't fix stoopid.)

 

[JCMCUBIC]

“I’m in the cult, you are not” needs to be printed on a t-shirt and included with every scope!

No. Only those purchased through the "pre sale"....

 

[Schmo]

Actually, it's funny you say this.

I know you're new here, and I'm not going to type out the whole history of the drop testing, but the short version is:

• Form made claims about scopes not holding zero; people said he didn't have proof.
• Form gave examples of sample sizes seen, types of impacts and failures, etc; people said they wanted tests.
• Form did tests; people said they had too many variables.
• Form showed how variables were removed; people said they needed visual proof.
• Form provided photos; people said they wanted video.
• Form provided video; people said they wanted it uncut.
• Form provided uncut videos ... and people said they were too long, and perhaps he was doing his own test wrong.
• Form said "Don't believe me at all - do your own testing". Some did, and got same results, while others said no way were they testing their completely reliable scope ... and anyway, drop testing is silly.

In other words, we've seen all the arguments come and go here.

And the point we're up to is that people are about to be given a scope that works well for many hunting scenarios, and will be robust.

Very very well said my friend

 

[RockAndSage]

Actually, it's funny you say this.

I know you're new here, and I'm not going to type out the whole history of the drop testing, but the short version is:

• Form made claims about scopes not holding zero; people said he didn't have proof.
• Form gave examples of sample sizes seen, types of impacts and failures, etc; people said they wanted tests.
• Form did tests; people said they had too many variables.
• Form showed how variables were removed; people said they needed visual proof.
• Form provided photos; people said they wanted video.
• Form provided video; people said they wanted it uncut.
• Form provided uncut videos ... and people said they were too long, and perhaps he was doing his own test wrong.
• Form said "Don't believe me at all - do your own testing". Some did, and got same results, while others said no way were they testing their completely reliable scope ... and anyway, drop testing is silly.

In other words, we've seen all the arguments come and go here.

And the point we're up to is that people are about to be given a scope that works well for many hunting scenarios, and will be robust.

And above all - he has spent hundreds of hours of his life doing these tests. Part of his life gone forever, that he cannot get back. Why?

To help other people.

That gets lost more than anything, in all of this.

 

[BigE]

Short answer is always, YES. I appreciate the collective knowledge and effort that we share with each other here on RokSlide. Now we need to continue to call out and share the information when companies make a scope (or other products) that meets our standards

 

[alexnelon]

You are never buying one.

The heck I’m not. Trust me I wouldn’t be in here with the goons and zealots if I wasn’t extremely interested in the product and its development.

 

[Schmo]

The heck I’m not. Trust me I wouldn’t be in here with the goons and zealots if I wasn’t extremely interested in the product and its development.

Can I ask a genuine question? I am sincerely asking this, not to be sarcastic. I am quite curious about your attitude. You were bashing UM and basically called them a thief, then you decided to question Form’s honesty. Now you’re calling many of us goons & zealots. I don’t wear my feelings on my sleeve, but when you first started posting, I thought you were pretty solid. After your attitude in this thread, I don’t feel that way anymore. I’m not the police here. It’s probably not really any of my business. I just wanted to ask a genuine question. If you’d rather, feel free to pm me. I do hope everything on the home front is all good!

 

[Kyguy]

Actually, it's funny you say this.

I know you're new here, and I'm not going to type out the whole history of the drop testing, but the short version is:

• Form made claims about scopes not holding zero; people said he didn't have proof.
• Form gave examples of sample sizes seen, types of impacts and failures, etc; people said they wanted tests.
• Form did tests; people said they had too many variables.
• Form showed how variables were removed; people said they needed visual proof.
• Form provided photos; people said they wanted video.
• Form provided video; people said they wanted it uncut.
• Form provided uncut videos ... and people said they were too long, and perhaps he was doing his own test wrong.
• Form said "Don't believe me at all - do your own testing". Some did, and got same results, while others said no way were they testing their completely reliable scope ... and anyway, drop testing is silly.

In other words, we've seen all the arguments come and go here.

And the point we're up to is that people are about to be given a scope that works well for many hunting scenarios, and will be robust.

Yup. I started breaking my own shit. It's a revelation for sure. I've got other stuff on range toys or rifles that just sit around, but for the rifles that I spend money to use, AKA hunting.... It's Nightforce or Trijicon at this point, thought I will admit that I beat the snot of a Bushnell 4500x 2.5-10 (the last version of the Elite from Korea) and it held up pretty well. I was surprised but it sucked when they warrantied it, because the replacment was a R5 and they're bleh.

 

[RockAndSage]

but when you first started posting, I thought you were pretty solid. After your attitude in this thread, I don’t feel that way anymore.

Kinda had the same impression, but the takes on UM and this scope seem out of character compared to the rest of what he usually says.

 

[fwafwow]

So….. we may need another lame tangent. Have we talked about packaging? Plain white box like older SWFAs? Clamshell like box like Maven? Maybe some cool graphics with some not completely subtle old-school subliminal advertising or references? I’m guessing AI can weave in some BOAL or other references that are not obvious to the FNG/untrained eye.

 

[Stocky]

Kinda had the same impression, but the takes on UM and this scope seem out of character compared to the rest of what he usually says.

If I was UM/S2H Id probably black list him to be fair. Everyone's free to an opinion but not the consequences. Itd be pretty wierd to call someone a prick then expect them to want to hangout. If UM/S2H is as bad as he seems to I can not see why anyone would want to do any business with them anyway.