Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

All I really want to know at this point is what the parallax goes down to - if 10 m, this could be very good for "field competitions" (not higher-mag NRL type) 22 matches .... @Ryan Avery??

Bruh….

 

[pattimusprime22]

Something is going on in my pants...

 

[wyosam]

Packaging should say “FRAGILE” stenciled.

That would actually be a good name for the scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

Bruh….


View attachment 1008744

Woah!

This is going to scoop the 22LR crowd as well then ... will be great for both hunting and field comps.

Very few other scopes out there have a 10 m minimum parallax that pass the drop eval - perhaps just the RS1.2 and the DMR III ... but both are just a little on the chonky side.

 

[RockAndSage]

Packaging should say “FRAGILE” stenciled.

 

[Geewhiz]

Something is going on in my pants...

yucky

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the prototypes all the same size? Side by side pic looks very goofy

Yes they are the same size.

 

[Dobermann]

Bruh….


View attachment 1008744

And just saw this is in metres too, not yards.

Smart move.

 

[elsb0048]

The scope is….




Fantastic with regards to reticle, eyebox, size, turrets, parralax- it is beyond what Ryan or I had hoped for.

3x
View attachment 1008217



18x
View attachment 1008223

I think I can understand some/most of the benefits/designs in of this reticle.
But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

 

[Stocky]

And just saw this is in metres too, not yards.

Smart move.

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I think I can understand some/most of the benefits/designs in of this reticle.
But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

I think because its not needed and it keeps FOV open. But may be corrected.

 

[Tcmo-33]

Well done. I love the fact that these guys involved saw a problem with the current options in scopes and did what they had to do for the greater good of the community. Excited to get full details on this and watch it being treated like a dogs fetching toy.

 

[rafiki]

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I think because its not needed and it keeps FOV open. But may be corrected.

reckon you might be on to something

 

[Dobermann]

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I would assume parallax could be specc'd in metres or yards. Overall, metres keeps everything decimal, and marking this as metres opens space for .mil audience.

In use, parallax designation won't make any difference - people just turn to what they need in terms of clarity, not what number is used.

 

[Formidilosus]

But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

No one holds under in real life functionally. Not having a top post opens the FOV up noticeably.

 

[Kaleb]

No one holds under in real life functionally. Not having a top post opens the FOV up noticeably.

The MQ is my favorite reticle but it is probably because it's my most used for the longest time. I've always thought it would be better upside down.

 

[Wiscgunner]

I would assume parallax could be specc'd in metres or yards. Overall, metres keeps everything decimal, and opens space for .mil audience.

In use, parallax designation won't make any difference - people just turn to what they need in terms of clarity, not what number is used.

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

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.

too good.

I’d like to propose in addition to S2H and classified approved badges there should ‘Goon’ and/or ‘Zealot’ badges on here. I’m not sure on criteria, but we need this.

 

[Formidilosus]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

The numbers on the parralax knobs are nearly meaningless- they do not, except by coincidence; align with reality. If you want to have numbers that match reality for your ocular seating, you tape over the knob and write your own.

 

[The Guide]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

I view parallax like bore sighting. The number should get you "on paper" but you will still need to fine tune it. The numbers at best are a guess on how your own eye sees through the scope. If you dial to 500 meters for 500 yards, you should be able to tune it for parallax with a slight adjustment. It wouldn't be much.

Jay

 

[ID_Matt]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

500 meters is 546 yards. Are other scopes really small enough increments that you can tell the difference between a 500 yard parallax setting and 546?