Would you buy this scope?

[Okie_Poke]

A bit. Looks like between 24-26oz. There just ain’t a way around it, with the required design being used.

Lost me at 24oz
Probably not going to displace a Maven

Why do all this? What do you get that the Maven RS1.2 doesn't offer? AT 20oz, that would be pretty awesome. or at $1000. At 25 and $1500, it doesn't seem like a substantial competitive advantage. Didn't the Maven do really well in Form's tests? at 26oz, the Maven is heavy. Sure.
I mean this curiously. I seriously don't know, but I know something of how hard it is to make a competitive product like this.

This was my first reaction upon reading 24-26 oz. But . . . if they nail the reticle and everything else (I'm taking tracking, rtz, and durability as a given based on Form's "it's not coming out if it's not right" statement), the extra few ounces probably won't be a deal breaker. But I agree, it's going to have to be noticeably better than the Maven to get me to spend additional $ at the same weight. If it's got a smartly designed FFP reticle I can comfortably use in close timber and out to 5/600, I'll still give it a hard look even if she is a bit chubby.

 

[HighUintas]

My issue with weight is that I don't like the balance of the rifle with a 26oz scope on top. I've had a 9.5oz, 12.5oz, 19oz and 26.5oz scope on my Tikka with factory stock. Based on the 19 vs 26.5, I think my tipping point is probably somewhere around 20oz. I really don't like the feel of the balance radially with the rs1.2 on top and the extra bulk is noticeable when carrying/still hunting.

I think if the swfa 3-9 could be reworked a bit to meet the requirements, it would be stellar.

However, if it ends up priced and weighing no more than the rs1.2, I'll likely switch over to it. I could just go with the swfa 3-15, but I don't care much for their milquad reticle. The maven shr-mil reticle is awesome.

 

[Okie_Poke]

My issue with weight is that I don't like the balance of the rifle with a 26oz scope on top. I've had a 9.5oz, 12.5oz, 19oz and 26.5oz scope on my Tikka with factory stock. Based on the 19 vs 26.5, I think my tipping point is probably somewhere around 20oz. I really don't like the feel of the balance radially with the rs1.2 on top and the extra bulk is noticeable when carrying/still hunting.

I hear you on this. My only thought is that so long as they keep from putting a >44mm objective or >30mm tube on it, and keep the top turret low-profile-ish, it shouldn't "feel" as heavy because it won't be as top heavy. I had a 50mm objective scope that was the same weight as the scope that replaced it, but the smaller objective scope didn't "feel" as heavy to me on the rifle becasue it was mounted lower. That's a one-off experience, though, so maye I'm just thinking wishfully here.

 

[sickles107]

I don't understand this - not being contradictory, but can you explain why you feel so strongly about non-illuminated?

I personally feel just as strongly about illuminated - the idea of not having any illumination at all on a reticle makes about as much sense to me as leaving your sunglasses on after the sun goes down. Why on earth would I not want a little red dot where my bullet goes, when the rest of the reticle just isn't showing up?

Is it a weight thing? Some sort of perceived reliability thing? Genuinely asking for the reasoning on this.

For me it's a selfish desire for simplicity. Don't care about weight. It's the idea of having a knob hanging off the side of my scope that I don't use or need. Also very used to fixed swfa scope with nothing on left side.

I hunted predators for years at night without illumination. Have also used illuminated scopes in the past and never felt the need to turn it on.

Not saying those that think they need it, or think an expensive scope should have it, are wrong. Just my personal wishes.

 

[eLightfoot]

For me it's a selfish desire for simplicity. Don't care about weight. It's the idea of having a knob hanging off the side of my scope that I don't use or need. Also very used to fixed swfa scope with nothing on left side.

I hunted predators for years at night without illumination. Have also used illuminated scopes in the past and never felt the need to turn it on.

Not saying those that think they need it, or think an expensive scope should have it, are wrong. Just my personal wishes.

I’ve used two bush lrhs scopes as my main work horse scopes for the last 8-9 years. Both are illuminated. Not once have i ever even felt compelled to use it.
Curious how often people are actually using illumination?

 

[Formidilosus]

It's the idea of having a knob hanging off the side of my scope that I don't use or need.

The illumination button is flush/inside the parallax knob, which is itself low profile.

 

[prm]

What I am waiting to see:
Reticle
Price

Isn’t everything else more or less known? Durable (that will be a requirement), 3-14, FFP, 24-26oz, 40-44mm obj (I think that was mentioned?), edit: it has illumination. I think capped windage was mentioned but I could be wrong. These knowns are mostly what I’d like to see. A little lighter would be nice. Anything else unknown is down my list of things I care about.

Though I’d like a quick focus eyepiece. I can take or leave illumination, zero stops, or locking turrets.

I am picky about reticles but what I can glean from previous comments this will be viable in low light, timber situations. Then there will be price. I’m not optimistic here, but it will either fit in my budget, or not.

 

[JMac23]

I don't understand this - not being contradictory, but can you explain why you feel so strongly about non-illuminated?

I personally feel just as strongly about illuminated - the idea of not having any illumination at all on a reticle makes about as much sense to me as leaving your sunglasses on after the sun goes down. Why on earth would I not want a little red dot where my bullet goes, when the rest of the reticle just isn't showing up?

Is it a weight thing? Some sort of perceived reliability thing? Genuinely asking for the reasoning on this.

Same I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want it. But if you don’t, take the battery out.

It would be mental to release a new scope without it.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Same I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want it. But if you don’t, take the battery out.

It would be mental to release a new scope without it.

Nah that’s too easy. Instead, we should cater to his preference so he can incorrectly optimize his system.

 

[JMac23]

For me it's a selfish desire for simplicity. Don't care about weight. It's the idea of having a knob hanging off the side of my scope that I don't use or need. Also very used to fixed swfa scope with nothing on left side.

I hunted predators for years at night without illumination. Have also used illuminated scopes in the past and never felt the need to turn it on.

Not saying those that think they need it, or think an expensive scope should have it, are wrong. Just my personal wishes.

Nobody “needs” lots of things.

Or even “thinks” they need it.

But lots of us if we are spending money would like certain things. Me personally I want a red dot. I chase Sambar which blend into the Australian bush like nothing else and so it’s helpful to me.

Do I need it, no. Have I shot plenty of deer without it. Absolutely.

But do I want it, well yes.

 

[RockAndSage]

The illumination button is flush/inside the parallax knob, which is itself low profile.

It's great to hear you guys are making low-profile a priority with the turrets.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's great to hear you guys are making low-profile a priority with the turrets.

I believe, that will not be a complaint on this scope.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

If we're tossing out guesses. Outside of nightforce, isn't trijicon the only company that has acknowledged impact testing without getting defensive/deflective?

They already make FFP scopes that have held up, etc. The 2-10x36 credo for example isn't far off the mark including the street pricing. Scale back to a 4x erector (which trijicon has in other scopes), bump up the objective lens size, delete the illumination and ditch the tree reticle.

Put my guess in that hat.

A 3-14 you say? IE a ~5x erector based off an existing design basis in the interest of bringing to the market sooner. My guess remains.

 

[left hunter]

Maybe part of the new “tested” hunting line that Meopta is supposedly working on?

 

[BCsteve]

I really hope its Vortex! Lol Minds would be blown!

 

[TxLite]

Maybe part of the new “tested” hunting line that Meopta is supposedly working on?

Not sure meopta could get the weight down. All the meoptas I’ve used have been tanks

 

[Dobermann]

To everyone who's saying "how can this be better than the RS12, LRHS 3-12", etc , here's a thought experiment:

What if the new scope:

• Had higher magnification than the LRHS, and almost the same as the RS1.2 (14x vs 15x likely won't make much real difference to most in practice)?
• Was lighter than the LRHS and RS1.2?
• Had a better, purpose-designed reticle than the LRHS and RS1.2?
• Was overseen by an optics company who has been doing this for a long time, and has both a track record and longevity?
• And enough models had gone through drop testing that this wasn't just a few RS1.2s, but enough for Form and Ryan to personally stand behind it?

We're not talking about a single feature here. We're talking the scope as a package, and the context in which it has been designed and is being offered to us.

Wouldn't THAT be enough of a combination of things to get your attention? It would mine ...

 

[prm]

To everyone who's saying "how can this be better than the RS12", etc , here's a thought experiment:

What if the new scope:

• Had higher magnification than the RS1.2? (already said it's 14x, so no)
• Was lighter than the RS1.2? (RS is 26, this is possibly 24-26, so maybe a little better)
• Had a better, purpose-designed reticle than the RS1.2? (Valid possibility)
• Was made by an optics company who has been doing this for a long time, and has both a track record and longevity? (TBD - though performance matter more than brand to me)
• And enough models had gone through drop testing that this wasn't just a few RS1.2s, but enough for Form and Ryan to personally stand behind it? (Isn't the RS considered a durable scope? How much more durable would this be? I don't see this as having potential to be a strong differentiator.)

...

My thoughts, in addition to notes above.

Price: RS is MSRP $1200. This new scope price (TBD)

A bigger challenge to me is the SWFA 3-15 Gen 2. $749, decent reticle, 22.7oz, company has a good rep for ruggedness, customer support less so, seemingly durable scope. For hunting, what can't I do with this that I can with an RS?

 

[jfk69]

My thoughts, in addition to notes above.

Price: RS is MSRP $1200. This new scope price (TBD)

A bigger challenge to me is the SWFA 3-15 Gen 2. $749, decent reticle, 22.7oz, company has a good rep for ruggedness, customer support less so, seemingly durable scope. For hunting, what can't I do with this that I can with an RS?

While I mostly agree, SWFA’s ability to keep that scope in stock has been a bit problematic.

 

[prm]

^^I agree, hence the “customer support less so” comment. Same for 6x and 3-9 the last few years.