Would you buy this scope?

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

@Formidilosus @Ryan Avery why not price the new S2H scope closer to competitors like Maven or NF? Don’t get me wrong, I will happily buy one for $999 but if your product is as good or better then why not price it accordingly?

 

[BLJ]

“Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man”

 

[Formidilosus]

View attachment 1012189

Haha.

 

[Okie_Poke]

I wish that would be true, but I also doubt it.

I’m eternally hopeful but share your skepticism.

Someone posted Cliff Gray’s recent podcast earlier in which he mentions the drop test and claims some industry insiders have indicated to him that they are aware of the side-impact problem and how to fix it but can’t acknowledge it because it would kill the value of their current inventory. He speculates that within a few years the industry will quietly self correct, except for a couple of brands with large market share who refuse to believe there is a problem. I want to believe him, but I think the only way that has any chance of coming to pass is if S2H sells a metric shit ton of these scopes.

Ryan also mentioned in one of the nx6 threads that Nightforce told him they are aware of the reticle criticism on here (directed a lot at the 2-12’s 20 mil tree) and are “listening.” Again, I’ll actually believe it when it happens, but maybe. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Choupique]

can’t acknowledge it because it would kill the value of their current inventory.

Thats such a bitchmade approach. Trijicon did it and didnt go out of business.

 

[alexnelon]

Thats such a bitchmade approach. Trijicon did it and didnt go out of business.

Agreed. To be fair though, I'd be shocked speechless if Trijicon sells 3% as many rifle scopes as Vortex or Leupold to start with.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Agreed. To be fair though, I'd be shocked speechless if Trijicon sells 3% as many rifle scopes as Vortex or Leupold to start with.

Yeah, I kinda assumed those two were the couple of big brands Cliff referred to who don’t believe there’s a problem and won’t adjust. I have no idea any brand’s share of any scope market though.

 

[Dobermann]

That looks correct to me. Fancier than what I drew. . I’ll leave this here for all the MOA fans though.

I never realized how intuitive MOA was before now!

And so easy to memorize.

Folks: we've been doing it wrong the whole time.

 

[Tahoe1305]

That looks correct to me. Fancier than what I drew. . I’ll leave this here for all the MOA fans though.

I’ll take one of these with the green illum values printed please

 

[atmat]

I never realized how intuitive MOA was before now!

And so easy to memorize.

Folks: we've been doing it wrong the whole time.

View attachment 1012242

I get the joke. But you could just as much design a scope with clean MOA measurements, convert them to awkward mil measurements, and say, “Look how confusing mil is.”

I only use mil btw.

 

[mtnwrunner]

I never realized how intuitive MOA was before now!

And so easy to memorize.

Folks: we've been doing it wrong the whole time.

View attachment 1012242

You have way too much time on your hands.

 

[BLJ]

I get the joke. But you could just as much design a scope with clean MOA measurements, convert them to awkward mil measurements, and say, “Look how confusing mil is.”

I only use mil btw.

You’re going to get yourself in trouble saying things like that……………

 

[Dualsight]

I will ask about that.





Appreciate the suggestion, but that’s a hard no. Just the center dot, and that it goes very dim was a requirement from us.


In light low enough that someone needs illumination, they should not be shooting far enough to need windage.
On top of that, illuminating more of the reticle blows out your vision and lose what is behind it.





Again, appreciate the suggestion, but that was discussed and decided against. Anything that adds complexity is not good for reliability or durability. It also adds cost, to an already very expensive scope- that is going to be sold way under what it should.

Thank you and appreciate your responses; succinct and definitive. Your work in this area is much appreciated. There are ads, YouTube videos, and other media popping up more frequently with direct and indirect references to the groundwork you have and are now laying.

 

[ckt3]

I never realized how intuitive MOA was before now!

And so easy to memorize.

Folks: we've been doing it wrong the whole time.

View attachment 1012242

This is an artifact of converting from mil design to MOA. The inverse would equally prove your point the opposite way.

 

[The Guide]

This is an artifact of converting from MIL design to MOA. The inverse would equally prove your point the opposite way.

Did the funny bone get fragmented around here? I'm pretty sure the comment @Dobermann made was a tongue in cheek joke. I use both Mils and MOA. I no longer try and buy MOA scopes but when was the last time you saw a basic duplex that had MIL/MIL adjustment? I shoot with a lot of people who only know MOA. When shooting MOA guns and giving them MOA calls, there is a lot more uncertainty on what to dial than there is using MIL scopes and using MIL calls. There is more feedback asking to repeat the call especially if you dont do the rounding for them. I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds. I have found that a lot of people suck at rounding. Up 12.7 MOA vs up 3.7 MIL is troublesome for some people. Most people just don't practice enough at long distances to be efficient and competent regardless of the measurement of angle that they use.

Jay

 

[ckt3]

Did the funny bone get fragmented around here? I'm pretty sure the comment @Dobermann made was a tongue in cheek joke. I use both Mils and MOA. I no longer try and buy MOA scopes but when was the last time you saw a basic duplex that had MIL/MIL adjustment? I shoot with a lot of people who only know MOA. When shooting MOA guns and giving them MOA calls, there is a lot more uncertainty on what to dial than there is using MIL scopes and using MIL calls. There is more feedback asking to repeat the call especially if you dont do the rounding for them. I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds. I have found that a lot of people suck at rounding. Up 12.7 MOA vs up 3.7 MIL is troublesome for some people. Most people just don't practice enough at long distances to be efficient and competent regardless of the measurement of angle that they use.

Jay

To be honest, I thought this was the other thread for this scope, which is now on its 10th page of a MOA vs mil debate, so I thought the comment above was an earnest critique. I’ve only ever used mil and don’t really care but figured I’d point it out.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds.
Jay

I almost never look at my Shooter app for my MOA scopes because I never dial them, never shoot them at more than 100 yards, and give them out as loaner rifles. I was mind blown when you pointed this out and i had to go check it.

That’s pretty wild. Quite the oversight in Shooter.

 

[BLJ]

Chairgun is like that.
And if so remember correctly StreLok as well.

4 is 5
8 is 7
3 is 2
1 is 0
9 could also be 0. Depending.

It’s really pretty simple.

 

[HuntHarder]

AB will round to the nearest 1/4moa or .1mil. Choose "Round" vs. "Precise." Just realized my screenshot included my volume bar. "Round" is behind it in the "Hold precision" tab.

 

[Dobermann]

You have way too much time on your hands.

That was @Frozenlead's image, not mine. I just posted it in-line rather than an attachment for those who hadn't clicked on it to see its brilliance ...