Would you buy this scope?

[Grundy53]

Maven said that they were caught flat-footed by the overwhelming response and that the October shipment would be significant and expected to not sell out immediately like previous shipments. Kind of late for many hunts this year, but probably just a couple weeks away from reasonable availability. They have to place orders 5 months in advance, so by the end of this year availability should be a non-issue.

One would hope. But I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that they don't understand why it is so popular leaves me leary.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[swavescatter]

One would hope. But I'll believe it when I see it. The fact that they don't understand why it is so popular leaves me leary.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

With the amount of orders for THIS specific SKU I think they’re playing dumb. Sort of like Hornady saying you can’t hunt with match bullets.

They don’t want to acknowledge that one out of their 10+ scopes is vastly superior and you should only purchase that one. They even offered up a similar-ish MOA version as a signaled acknowledgement.

There’s no way they haven’t had friends and associates send them dozens of links to this forum. They know.

My theory anyway.

 

[Moccasin]

If the magnification on the low end stayed around 2-3 and the the footprint/weight was similar to a NXS 2.5-10, I’d buy at least 2.

 

[Wrangler13]

-3-12x40. 30mm
-Zero stop exposed elevation
-Capped windage
-Ffp with bold enough reticle for use in the timber too
-NO illumination
-18-20oz max
-$1000-1200 price point

I’d be in for 5

 

[yeti12]

With the amount of orders for THIS specific SKU I think they’re playing dumb. Sort of like Hornady saying you can’t hunt with match bullets.

They don’t want to acknowledge that one out of their 10+ scopes is vastly superior and you should only purchase that one. They even offered up a similar-ish MOA version as a signaled acknowledgement.

There’s no way they haven’t had friends and associates send them dozens of links to this forum. They know.

My theory anyway.

Hornady knows the effectiveness of match bullets on game. They just don't sell them to the general public as hunting bullets for a variety of reasons.

 

[Teodoro]

If I had two exact rifles setup with the same two scopes. One at 2 power and one at 3 power, focused in on a 10” target at 100 yards, you would see nearly zero distinguishable difference between them.

I might be telling you something you already know, but: IME, when folks want 2x instead of 3x, they're looking for something that comes up fast and let's them see stuff that's *not* currently in the crosshairs.

 

[wyosam]

If I had two exact rifles setup with the same two scopes. One at 2 power and one at 3 power, focused in on a 10” target at 100 yards, you would see nearly zero distinguishable difference between them.

Has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on a target 100 yards away. It’s about field of view up close. The VX6 2-12 is one of the best scopes I’ve found for this with a huge FOV, but reading this forum convinced me they can’t be trusted, so I switched my hunting rifles to Credo 2.5-15’s. Those are great scopes, but it is noticeably tighter up close. Of course FOV isn’t dependent on magnification alone. I’m wondering about real world reliability issues on the VX6HD on a 300 and under gun for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I might be telling you something you already know, but: IME, when folks want 2x instead of 3x, they're looking for something that comes up fast and let's them see stuff that's *not* currently in the crosshairs.

Same goes for 30 yards as to what I said above.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on a target 100 yards away. It’s about field of view up close. The VX6 2-12 is one of the best scopes I’ve found for this with a huge FOV, but reading this forum convinced me they can’t be trusted, so I switched my hunting rifles to Credo 2.5-15’s. Those are great scopes, but it is noticeably tighter up close. Of course FOV isn’t dependent on magnification alone. I’m wondering about real world reliability issues on the VX6HD on a 300 and under gun for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re missing the point.

 

[Beetroot]

Has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on a target 100 yards away. It’s about field of view up close. The VX6 2-12 is one of the best scopes I’ve found for this with a huge FOV, but reading this forum convinced me they can’t be trusted, so I switched my hunting rifles to Credo 2.5-15’s. Those are great scopes, but it is noticeably tighter up close. Of course FOV isn’t dependent on magnification alone. I’m wondering about real world reliability issues on the VX6HD on a 300 and under gun for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A VX6 2-12 with a firedot is an amazing scope if you hunt in tight bush.

I didn't have issue with either my VX5 or VX6, and many other rate them. I say buy a used one, do your own testing and I'd you aren't happy buying used means you don't loose much money.

 

[KenLee]

If I had two exact rifles setup with the same two scopes. One at 2 power and one at 3 power, focused in on a 10” target at 100 yards, you would see nearly zero distinguishable difference between them.

You'd see your barrel in the 2x

 

[TaperPin]

Dang it - had this scope been brought out a few years ago, you could triple the profit by selling to European guys stockpiling/hoarding! Lol

 

[colby12]

Yes

 

[atmat]

2x vs 3x is a silly comparison for lower limit. There’s nothing that 2x would allow you to kill that 3x wouldn’t.

I’ve used 6x as close as 20 yards on a fixed scope.

 

[wyosam]

You’re missing the point.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. You said at 100 yards focused on a 10” target, 2x and 3x are nearly indistinguishable, which I would agree with. Later you said same at 30 yards. At that point I’m starting to disagree, but it is also situational. Aiming at a clear target is not a big difference, in the brush on a moving animal the field of view difference is definitely making a difference by then. I’d guess most people shopping for less than 3x on the bottom are thinking about shots inside 30 yards as possibility in the places/ways they hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Perhaps you can enlighten me. You said at 100 yards focused on a 10” target, 2x and 3x are nearly indistinguishable, which I would agree with. Later you said same at 30 yards. At that point I’m starting to disagree, but it is also situational. Aiming at a clear target is not a big difference, in the brush on a moving animal the field of view difference is definitely making a difference by then. I’d guess most people shopping for less than 3x on the bottom are thinking about shots inside 30 yards as possibility in the places/ways they hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post in thread 'Would you buy this scope?'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/post-3803778

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Perhaps you can enlighten me. You said at 100 yards focused on a 10” target, 2x and 3x are nearly indistinguishable, which I would agree with. Later you said same at 30 yards. At that point I’m starting to disagree, but it is also situational. Aiming at a clear target is not a big difference, in the brush on a moving animal the field of view difference is definitely making a difference by then. I’d guess most people shopping for less than 3x on the bottom are thinking about shots inside 30 yards as possibility in the places/ways they hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone thinks they need extreme “low end” and “high end” zoom for killing big game animals when they simply do not in 95+% of actual killing shots. From sitting in dark woods, off hand shots in brush that need FOV, to over 800 yards in clear cuts, variable power scopes are not needed. They hinder more than they aid.

But it’s what everyone wants and what sells because folks don’t actually kill more than one animal per year or less if they’re being honest. Which isn’t a bad thing, but defining requirements for a scope based on that shouldn’t be happening.

 

[Deadspace]

Asking the collective.
With it being a lightweight, durable, 0-600 yard scope. Would making it with a 1” tube instead of a 30mm tube to save even more weight be a good idea? Or is that weight savings almost nothing and not worth getting rid of the extra internal adjustment?

 

[Deadspace]

Everyone thinks they need extreme “low end” and “high end” zoom for killing big game animals when they simply do not in 95+% of actual killing shots. From sitting in dark woods, off hand shots in brush that need FOV, to over 800 yards in clear cuts, variable power scopes are not needed. They hinder more than they aid.

But it’s what everyone wants and what sells because folks don’t actually kill more than one animal per year or less if they’re being honest. Which isn’t a bad thing, but defining requirements for a scope based on that shouldn’t be happening.

I went to a shooting course recently and targets ranged from 25-1500 yards. Other than zeroing, my scope never went above 8x and lived at 5x for the majority of the course.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Asking the collective.
With it being a lightweight, durable, 0-600 yard scope. Would making it with a 1” tube instead of a 30mm tube to save even more weight be a good idea? Or is that weight savings almost nothing and not worth getting rid of the extra internal adjustment?

Very likely to be more fragile (depending on a couple factors), fewer good quality ring options that help to hold zero, and less adjustment as you mentioned.

Just my thoughts on it.