Would you buy this scope?

[hpmr]

Ah. Zerotech. And tenebræx ready

 

[Chris in TN]

Anyone???? Lol

Measuring pixels on the photo of the 18x reticle posted on page 115 would indicate that the center dot is 0.2mrads.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

They got prototypes. They'll post when something is actually available for sale. Now you just have to sit and wait for that post. You're welcome.

Thanks for the insight. Theres more info to be shared, that is what I am waiting for.

 

[prm]

The German #1 (and #4) reticle has been around for 100 years, give or take. It has stood the test of time as a visually intuitive aiming reference. While the additional reference features are nice, the fact that it appears to retain the quick point and shoot in the low light timber capability is what is really nice to me. Best of both worlds.

The parallax wouldn’t be a point of discussion on a 2-8! Yet one more reason to go there.

 

[RockAndSage]

Fathoms

All about them arshins...

 

[Formidilosus]

Which brings up a question for @Formidilosus ...if a 2-8x36 "done right" has a strong possibility of being next in line, is that scope going to have fixed parallax? I'd think that scope would be better with fixed parallax. To me having an adjustable parallax AT ALL on a scope that will see a large majority of its usage inside 500 yards, if not large majority inside point blank, is a liability with very little benefit--it's easier in practice to accidentally spin a parallax knob than it is to spin a elevation dial--but I'm curious what your take on this is.

No parallax on that would be my guess.

I hereby demand that the parallax be displayed in furlongs.

I’m tempted.

 

[Formidilosus]

While functionally irrelevant, there’s zero chance it was an oversight. The M seems an obvious attempt at capturing more of the tacticool bro market.

Stop trolling in the thread. Go somewhere else.

 

[Formidilosus]

How big is the center dot? .1 mi?

.5 MOA IIRC.

 

[solarshooter]

.5 MOA IIRC.

MOA?? Who's trolling now?

 

[nm.otter]

Or where else it’s being sold…

Like most of planet earth?

Truly doesn't matter, as several have pointed out. The numbers could easily be dots or whatever, as long as I can return it to where I need it for a particular use case.

And again, depth of field matters. Higher magnifications reduce DOF (physics).

 

[huntnful]

.5 MOA IIRC.

Thank you

 

[huntnful]

MOA?? Who's trolling now?

The only correct measurement TBH

 

[wyosam]

I hereby demand that the parallax be displayed in furlongs.

I think that is too course. I’d say label it in chains, or mix it up and mark it by .1 increments of furlongs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

The only correct measurement TBH

Lol, I can't convert to MOA, but do have the THLR reticle instructions I've been trying to learn and understand. If the Rokscope has the dots and hashes set up the same as the Minox THLR, the center aiming dot is listed as .12 mil, with the aim-long dot below it at .1mil.

 

[ckleeves]

While functionally irrelevant, there’s zero chance it was an oversight. The M seems an obvious attempt at capturing more of the tacticool bro market.

Do tacticool bros use meters? I only know a handful of Bros but they use yards just like most Americans but my bros might not be real up on what the rest of the bro market is doing. They are rural bros so they are always a little behind the more mainstream bros. Not their fault. I’ll let them know though.

 

[180ls1]

For what it's worth (not much), I don't give a flying F about branding, colors, logos etc... The more effort put into prioritizing my ability to kill with it, the better.

It's a bit "alarming" how much people care about the fluff.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lol, I can't convert to MOA, but do have the THLR reticle instructions I've been trying to learn and understand. If the Rokscope has the dots and hashes set up the same as the Minox THLR, the center aiming dot is listed as .12 mil, with the aim-long dot below it at .1mil.

It’s not. I used a graph board at 100 yards and tried to measure what the reticle dimensions were for most of it, as a true diagram for the THLR wasn’t available- while talking in the phone with the engineer, and guesstimating how much to change the THLR to make it correct for a 3-18x scope. Haha.

 

[nm.otter]

Those 0.1 mrad hashmarks will be a single blur in twilight/under stress.
View attachment 1008370
Remove .1-.2-.3-.4-.6-.7-.8-.9
That will leave whole and half.

I think this is an excellent idea.

I've not been bothered by the 0.1 mil marks on the uber-tall SWFA turrets, but on a low profile turret they're awfully close to the numbers. If you don't actually get rid of them, please consider shortening them (perhaps to the point of being dots).

 

[Stocky]

I just looked it up - yeah, I'd be willing to try that one, for sure.

I have no idea how well Burris Veracity scopes hold up to use/abuse. I've read tons of good reviews of them from people who hunt with them but don't recall a drop test. Put them in the 'I want to like it' category for now.

ETA: Well, crap, no, it is only available on the Veracity PH series, not the regular Veracity. Meh. Not terribly interested in the PH.

Its in the normal veracity in the 2-12

 

[BAKPAKR]

If you have noticed, Form and I don't really care if the masses want it; if we want it, there are enough other people who will want it.

The scopes will be 3-18x44 sub 25oz and DURABLE. The reticle will be a hunting reticle, not a tacdafag reticle—low profile turrets with an elevation turret that stays put with a price tag that won't break the bank. The Maven has come the closest, but IMO, no scope has put this all together yet.

Oops, I didn’t do my research before asking about the weight. So, disregard my question. With the features I have seen in the photos posted, this should be a heck of a scope at less than 25 oz.