Would you buy this scope?

[mxgsfmdpx]

they'd rather develop a scope that'll have have a wider market appeal, rather than a very very niche one.

And yet the RS1.2 is Mavens number one selling optic (likely more than all of their other scopes combined) and is still perpetually on back order since release… Should be making folks think a bit about this “very very niche” market likely being much larger than we presume.

 

[realunlucky]

And yet the RS1.2 is Mavens number one selling optic (likely more than all of their other scopes combined) and is still perpetually on back order since release… Should be making folks think a bit about this “very very niche” market likely being much larger than we presume.

Of course, saying yes and swiping the credit card are two very independent things of each other. One is pretty easy for everyone to do.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Of course, saying yes and swiping the credit card are two very independent things of each other. One is pretty easy for everyone to do.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

How would they be perpetually sold out for 9 months straight if folks weren’t swiping credit cards?

 

[Beetroot]

And yet the RS1.2 is Mavens number one selling optic (likely more than all of their other scopes combined) and is still perpetually on back order since release… Should be making folks think a bit about this “very very niche” market likely being much larger than we presume.

I think scope company's like Maven, Vortex, Nightforce etc, need to embrace the market, but an OEM isn't going to, at least not one like LOW. They have to make a product that will appeal to dozens of different companies and will be in the market for 5-10 years, they aren't going to design/develop a base model that only sells 1000 units a year if they can develop one that will shift 5-10x that much.

Unfortunately the market moved away from MPVOs when LVPOs became popular, so OEMs have shifted towards producing high magnification scopes and LPVOs, the nature of being an OEM means that they aren't going to be trend setters in the market, rather than producer scope base models that meet the market where it already is.

Vortex just released the new Viper HD scopes and didn't include an FFP for the 3-15x44 which would almost fit the OP criteria exactly. But they don't see that there is a market for it, so only did FFP in the 5-25x50 model.
I'd say there is definitely a market there, but perhaps it's just not big enough for Vortex to bother with.

Steiner is another case study, the initial HX6i 2-12 FFP scope only came out in MOA and with a BDC reticle, as their sales show that this was going to have the highest market appeal.
Seems like (with a lot of convincing) they are now doing a MIL model, but instead of doing a THLR style reticle they've gone for a crazy Christmas tree, which again suggests that they think the main market is somewhere other than Rokslide slide members.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I think scope company's like Maven, Vortex, Nightforce etc, need to embrace the market, but an OEM isn't going to, at least not one like LOW. They have to make a product that will appeal to dozens of different companies and will be in the market for 5-10 years, they aren't going to design/develop a base model that only sells 1000 units a year if they can develop one that will shift 5-10x that much.

Unfortunately the market moved away from MPVOs when LVPOs became popular, so OEMs have shifted towards producing high magnification scopes and LPVOs, the nature of being an OEM means that they aren't going to be trend setters in the market, rather than producer scope base models that meet the market where it already is.

Vortex just released the new Viper HD scopes and didn't include an FFP for the 3-15x44 which would almost fit the OP criteria exactly. But they don't see that there is a market for it, so only did FFP in the 5-25x50 model.
I'd say there is definitely a market there, but perhaps it's just not big enough for Vortex to bother with.

Steiner is another case study, the initial HX6i 2-12 FFP scope only came out in MOA and with a BDC reticle, as their sales show that this was going to have the highest market appeal.
Seems like (with a lot of convincing) they are now doing a MIL model, but instead of doing a THLR style reticle they've gone for a crazy Christmas tree, which again suggests that they think the main market is somewhere other than Rokslide slide members.

The “main market” is without a doubt, not for people who shoot and kill often, you are 100% correct.

Rokslide is a niche but I think it’s a bigger niche, that’s growing and not shrinking, is what I was trying to convey. Proof is in the pudding with the RS1.2 and SWFA scopes.

 

[Beetroot]

How would they be perpetually sold out for 9 months straight if folks weren’t swiping credit cards?

You have no idea how many scopes they've sold though.
If they just ordered the minimum order allowed from LOW and they are only arriving 20 at a time then that'll explain it.

There is also a huge amount of hype built up around that scope, thus a huge number of people wanting to buy one. There is every chance that once the initial buyers have got their scopes the demand will drop way down.
Maven isn't going to order 10,000 of these things on the off chance they cracked the code on the perfect hunting scope.

 

[realunlucky]

How would they be perpetually sold out for 9 months straight if folks weren’t swiping credit cards?

I wasn't taking about Maven, I was taking about this thread in general.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Beetroot]

The “main market” is without a doubt, not for people who shoot and kill often, you are 100% correct.

Rokslide is a niche but I think it’s a bigger niche, that’s growing and not shrinking, is what I was trying to convey. Proof is in the pudding with the RS1.2 and SWFA scopes.

But a big market for a single scope company (like Maven) isn't enough to get an OEM (like LOW) to spend precious time developing the worlds most perfect 3-12x40 scope, when they could develop the perfect 1-10 LPVO or 5-30x56 scope and sell 10x as many of them.

OEMs have limited man hours available for their engineers/designers and can't justify designing scopes for a niche market when they could go after a much bigger mainstream market.
For better or for worse.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I wasn't taking about Maven, I was taking about this thread in general.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Then why did you quote me and my post regarding the market potential and the Maven scope?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

But a big market for a single scope company (like Maven) isn't enough to get an OEM (like LOW) to spend precious time developing the worlds most perfect 3-12x40 scope, when they could develop the perfect 1-10 LPVO or 5-30x56 scope and sell 10x as many of them.

OEMs have limited man hours available for their engineers/designers and can't justify designing scopes for a niche market when they could go after a much bigger mainstream market.
For better or for worse.

As a 20 year employee for an optical OEM, I know exactly what you’re saying. We have direct access to LOW.

They will make an optic with set requirements if you’re already established. They don’t care because you are buying from them as a supplier with yearly EAUs. They will ship you forecasted scopes per month until you change something (knowing that you will still get product for the agreed upon term). I can explain how all of this works but I don’t feel like typing it all out here.

 

[WKR]

The “main market” is without a doubt, not for people who shoot and kill often, you are 100% correct.

Rokslide is a niche but I think it’s a bigger niche, that’s growing and not shrinking, is what I was trying to convey. Proof is in the pudding with the RS1.2 and SWFA scopes.

Whilst I agree with some of your points and wish the scope manufacturers would be more in tune with what we want, I think statistically speaking, people that want the kind of scope that generated this thread (myself included) are overwhelmingly in the minority when it comes to sales. Rokslide is a bit of an echo chamber so sometimes it can make you think that most other consumers have the same preferences as you, when in reality, outside of forums like these, guys are buying leupold and vortex on the daily.

 

[WKR]

I also agree with the previous posts about glass quality. While I dont think its the most important part of the equation on this hypothetical riflescope, for $1000-$1500 i would want it to be on par with the mavens,zeiss,nf that are in the same price bracket.

 

[N2TRKYS]

As a 20 year employee for an optical OEM, I know exactly what you’re saying. We have direct access to LOW.

They will make an optic with set requirements if you’re already established. They don’t care because you are buying from them as a supplier with yearly EAUs. They will ship you forecasted scopes per month until you change something (knowing that you will still get product for the agreed upon term). I can explain how all of this works but I don’t feel like typing it all out here.

Why did SWFA never get stock delivered?

 

[clperry]

I have 3 RS1.2’s with plans to buy 4 more. If these actually were real and available as you spec’d them, I’d buy a couple immediately with a couple more to follow. If I liked them better than the mavens I have, I’d sell them and replace them. So, it’s possible I could be in for 8 ish at least. If it came in at 1k or a little lower, it would happen considerably faster. If there were some fixed power versions, I’d have at least 4 also.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Balderdash]

Br.

The Maven/Weaver 2-10x38?
Or the Trijicon/Weaver 2-10x36?
Neither of these scopes meet all the specs outlined, nor does the LRS 3-12.

For the most part you can't go to an OEM and say I want X scope, with X changes, example; the Trijicon 2-10x30 but with adjustable parallax, 10mil turrets and a bigger objective.
In most cases these changes cannot be made without a partial redesign, and many OEMs aren't willing to do it unless you are Vortex ordering 50,000 scopes a year through them.

The OEMs aren't going to spend thousands of dollars and months of their time redesigning a scope unless you commit to a huge order to make it worth their time. And even then they have limited time and resources, that they'd rather develop a scope that'll have have a wider market appeal, rather than a very very niche one.

BR:

I apologize for not explaining the point I was trying to make more clearly. The reference to the Maven/Weaver 2-10 wasn't in the context that it's an available contender for manipulating to fit the OP; instead, it was a reference to a scope model that was available from one brand and substantially the same as a model now offered under another brand. By extension, I was pointing out that the design process to get a scope that meets the OP need not be from the ground up when the 3-12 LRHS was LOW built, hasn't been offered for some time under any brand, and would be exceedingly close to what the OP stated. Weight is a couple of ounces off, but I'd bet that an updated LRHS with a better reticle would sell and, like others, I'll point to how popular the Maven RS1.2 is.

 

[Schmo]

But a big market for a single scope company (like Maven) isn't enough to get an OEM (like LOW) to spend precious time developing the worlds most perfect 3-12x40 scope, when they could develop the perfect 1-10 LPVO or 5-30x56 scope and sell 10x as many of them.

OEMs have limited man hours available for their engineers/designers and can't justify designing scopes for a niche market when they could go after a much bigger mainstream market.
For better or for worse.

Yup,
But . . . As has been mentioned. If Leupold would see the light, make their already existing Mark 4HD hold up to drops, we’d have a great solution without a new scope needing designed. And they obviously see a need for that type of scope since they developed it.

 

[slatebuilder]

Fixed 6x or 8x with preference going to 6x. The vast majority of our hunting is <300 yards, most of it in the timber. Our home range has steel to 500 meters for practice. 6x would be my first choice.

 

[Axlrod]

Theoretically or realistically?

Realistically there aren't any OEMs that offer a scope that meets these specs and getting a custom design is going to cost too much/require more units than what Rokslide members will be to commit too.

Even if a new design could be justified and an OEM found who will do it, the time to develop test and manufacture is going to be years.

Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but the following are from Ryan's initial post:

Consistently holds zero through 3-foot drops and 3,000 rounds of constant use.
Seems to me this probably has already happened.

The reticle is specially designed for 25 to 600 yards, with bold outer posts and correct center aiming references.
"Reticle IS" Seems to me it is already designed.

I may be way off, but a year ago I thought there was no way an entity in no way affiliated with a stock company could single handedly bring to market a stock not designed by corporate engineers and bean counters. At any rate none of this is for me or anyone else to worry about. The question was "Would you buy this scope?" Not " Can this scope be made?" or " Do you want a scope nothing like the one listed in the OP?"

 

[Schmo]

I may be way off, but a year ago I thought there was no way an entity in no way affiliated with a stock company could single handedly bring to market a stock not designed by corporate engineers and bean counters. At any rate none of this is for me or anyone else to worry about. The question was "Would you buy this scope?" Not " Can this scope be made?" or " Do you want a scope nothing like the one listed in the OP?"

Thanks for that! That’s been my sentiment as well. This isn’t a discussion as to whether they can get a company on board, they’re just asking if we’d buy it. Different topic completely

 

[KenLee]

<$1000 yes, over $1000 maybe.

Presume you guys would probably get a manufacturer that already builds quailty optics with a amazing warranty to make it. Like Vortex.

I just threw up a little