Would you buy this scope?

[prm]

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

 

[Gstew1930]

i think this project would be easy if we could get nightforce to put a new reticle in the 2.5-10 & make it FFP. That would be my ideal scope. i know thats easier said than done

 

[Beetroot]

Really curious to see what this scope ends up being. 3-14 is a very odd magnification range.

 

[atmat]

Really curious to see what this scope ends up being. 3-14 is a very odd magnification range.

Why? There’s a ton of 4.666666666666x erectors

Lol

 

[cuerro viejo]

i think this project would be easy if we could get nightforce to put a new reticle in the 2.5-10 & make it FFP. That would be my ideal scope. i know thats easier said than done

Maybe update the glass a touch too.

 

[HighUintas]

The swfa gen2 3-15 is in stock right now. It wasn't out of stock all that long after the initial release. I think maybe they'll be doing better in the future after they're through this gen2 rebuild

 

[Dobermann]

• 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.)

- Good catch on the magnification - I'd been thinking about the comparisons to both the LRHS and RS1.2, and then didn't include both in my list the first go round. Have fixed that now in my post.

- I personally find a difference between ~26 and ~24 oz is noticeable and can change how the gun feels. Perhaps not the most important issue, but I'd take as low a weight as possible while still reliable.

- There's a difference between "manufacturer", "optics company" (who would be behind it), and brand. Just sayin'.

- I don't think it's about "more durable", but "more vetted across a larger sample size as durable". My guess is that there'd be a difference between @Formidilosus testing a couple of RS1.2s and seeing a handful used in the field, and reporting those results, vs testing quite a few for something that he's actively assisting in bringing to market. Don't want to speak for him, here, though, so will leave that for him if he wishes.