Would you buy this scope?

[grfox92]

Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Specs are 3-14, right around $1500 IIRC, Form shared some renderings of low-profile turrets, and the simplified TLHR reticle. Can't tell you where it's all posted at in this thread, but it's in here somewhere.

I could have sworn it was supposed to be right around the “magic number” - aka $999. In a world where reliable scopes can be had for $350-$650-$1000, a $1500 scope is a nonstarter for me.

 

[gtriple]

I could have sworn it was supposed to be right around the “magic number” - aka $999. In a world where reliable scopes can be had for $350-$650-$1000, a $1500 scope is a nonstarter for me.

I’ve bought multiple Maven Rs1.2s for sub $1000 and several Nightforce NXSs for about $1000. I’m still failing to see how this is any different than the RS1.2 other than maybe a slightly better reticle.

 

[Okie_Poke]

I’ve bought multiple Maven Rs1.2s for sub $1000 and several Nightforce NXSs for about $1000. I’m still failing to see how this is any different than the RS1.2 other than maybe a slightly better reticle.

It may not be. We’ll need to see it to know if it’s worth buying. Maybe the reticle is more than a little better. Maybe it’s a tish lighter. Maybe there are a couple other creature comforts Form and Ryan want that other folks may or may not value. Maybe it’s a total flop. I’m just glad there wasn’t a presale.

It’s really too bad the 3D suppressor printing wizard at Unknown can’t print glass. They’d have a full line of scopes out by now if he could.

 

[RockAndSage]

I could have sworn it was supposed to be right around the “magic number” - aka $999. In a world where reliable scopes can be had for $350-$650-$1000, a $1500 scope is a nonstarter for me.

This is where the $1500 number is coming from, which I'm absolutely willing to pay, for the specs as outlined.

All:

It’s a serious question from Ryan. This is not just a feeler post. No presale or other nonsense.


If a 3-12x40’ish mil/mil scope was offered that was consistently reliable and durable, was tested heavily, had multiple reticles that were truly usable/visible from 3-12x, a good/great eyebox and DOF, low profile zero stop elevation and capped windage; and was under $1,500- would you buy it?

The specs were updated to 3-14 later on. Reliability is only one of the things I'm looking for though, personally, and price-point is a secondary function of that.

The only thing that would keep me from paying more as currently outlined, is if it had crap glass - everything else absolutely makes it worth it. If it had legit alpha glass, coatings, and optical performance, I'd happily pay $2k or more, depending on performance. But I think the intent is to make the Toyota Land Cruiser of North American hunting scopes here, not the Lexus.

So, for me personally, bottom-line economy of price point is not what matters. I'm looking for a sweet-spot set of capabilities, at a price point that makes it fair value. Okay glass with all these other features and overall bomb-proof capability/durability? At $1200-1500? Hell yes.

 

[grfox92]

This is where the $1500 number is coming from, which I'm absolutely willing to pay, for the specs as outlined.




The specs were updated to 3-14 later on. Reliability is only one of the things I'm looking for though, personally, and price-point is a secondary function of that.

The only thing that would keep me from paying more as currently outlined, is if it had crap glass - everything else absolutely makes it worth it. If it had legit alpha glass, coatings, and optical performance, I'd happily pay $2k or more, depending on performance. But I think the intent is to make the Toyota Land Cruiser of North American hunting scopes here, not the Lexus.

So, for me personally, bottom-line economy of price point is not what matters. I'm looking for a sweet-spot set of capabilities, at a price point that makes it fair value. Okay glass with all these other features and overall bomb-proof capability/durability? At $1200-1500? Hell yes.

Just to play devil's advocate, besides low profile turrets, what are you getting that you aren't getting from an SWFA 3-15x?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[nobody]

They released them in February. Unfortunately, they were priced at $2,900 and couldn’t pass the drop test. The whole project had to be canned. LOW almost filed bankruptcy. Whole big thing. We had a funeral for a bird.

Now that you say that, I remember the quote from the office about the funeral for a bird.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

I promise it’s my only meme on this thread, can’t resist an office tangent.

Still excited for this optic, I need 2 when they’re ready

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This is where the $1500 number is coming from, which I'm absolutely willing to pay, for the specs as outlined.




The specs were updated to 3-14 later on. Reliability is only one of the things I'm looking for though, personally, and price-point is a secondary function of that.

The only thing that would keep me from paying more as currently outlined, is if it had crap glass - everything else absolutely makes it worth it. If it had legit alpha glass, coatings, and optical performance, I'd happily pay $2k or more, depending on performance. But I think the intent is to make the Toyota Land Cruiser of North American hunting scopes here, not the Lexus.

So, for me personally, bottom-line economy of price point is not what matters. I'm looking for a sweet-spot set of capabilities, at a price point that makes it fair value. Okay glass with all these other features and overall bomb-proof capability/durability? At $1200-1500? Hell yes.

Thanks. I could have sworn there was some later discussion elsewhere of “the magic number” in regard to the UM scope offering (just as there was for the suppressors). I don’t think I just imagined it. I will take a look and listen around to see if I can find that source. It might have been on the S2H podcast or in another thread.

Consider the below not directed at you, but as a statement “general to the topic.”

As others have asked, I will reiterate, in a world where SWFA (also made by LOW), Trijicon, and Maven make reliable scopes in the $350-1000 range, what need or niche does this LOW-made scope fill? Lower turret profile doesn’t seem worth all that extra money to me.

And I am not willing to pay more for glass better than those three manufacturers offer. I hesitate to say “never,” but I am unlikely to ever shoot at game more than 0.5 second time-of-flight away. And I can see my 12” steel at 900 with my SWFA scopes.

But, it’s not up to you to defend or justify the price. I simply wouldn’t touch it at $1500. And even at $1000, I would have to have a real need for it. I haven’t purchased a SWFA 3-9x ($600) or 3-15x ($750) because I can’t justify it over the 6x or 10x at $350.

Remember that the RokScope and SWFA are going to be made in the same factory. The RokScope would have to be objectively better (get it?) than the SWFA 3-15x to justify costing an extra $250 more, much less $750 more.

 

[dreamingWest]

It sounds great to me. You're getting a seriously well thought out hunting scope. A purpose built hunting reticle, appropriate zoom ratio that likely has a superior eye box, possibly lighter weight, low profile turrets (be honest, SWFA looks terrible), all from a company that cares about these qualities and didn't just luck into it.

I still care about aesthetics on my rifles. As long as these don't look terrible, with like an obnoxious logo or weird color, I plan to buy at $1500 or less.

 

[RockAndSage]

Just to play devil's advocate, besides low profile turrets, what are you getting that you aren't getting from an SWFA 3-15x?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

Nah, fair question. A similar one could have been asked about one or two of the Nightforce or Trijicon offerings.

The THLR reticle is a very big factor for me. Enough so that I almost pulled the trigger on the Minox ZP5 that has the original one - and that thing is a hog of a scope, far bigger, heavier, and long-range capable than I want, need, or am capable of using at my own present skill level. But that reticle offers capability for speed, usability at low and high mag, and low-light usability I'm just not aware of in other offerings, that are very useful for me at my current skill-level and my hunting priorities inside of 400yds. If Nightforce or Trijicon offered it in one of their scopes, I probably would have 3 now and wouldn't be commenting in this thread.

The low-profile turrets and a good zero-stop elevation are another major pairing of factors, along with what, IIRC, sounds like might be the low-end/starting point of HD glass.

Those are all functional issues that put the proposed scope well ahead of an SWFA for me, personally.

 

[RockAndSage]

It sounds great to me. You're getting a seriously well thought out hunting scope. A purpose built hunting reticle, appropriate zoom ratio that likely has a superior eye box, possibly lighter weight, low profile turrets (be honest, SWFA looks terrible), all from a company that cares about these qualities and didn't just luck into it.

I still care about aesthetics on my rifles. As long as these don't look terrible, with like an obnoxious logo or weird color, I plan to buy at $1500 or less.

As much as I hate to admit it, this really is a factor. The SWFA looks terrible. It was a relief to see the turret renderings Form posted, as they look pretty damn good.

 

[atmat]

Nah, fair question. A similar one could have been asked about one or two of the Nightforce or Trijicon offerings.

The THLR reticle is a very big factor for me. Enough so that I almost pulled the trigger on the Minox ZP5 that has the original one - and that thing is a hog of a scope, far bigger, heavier, and long-range capable than I want, need, or am capable of using at my own present skill level. But that reticle offers capability for speed, usability at low and high mag, and low-light usability I'm just not aware of in other offerings, that are very useful for me at my current skill-level and my hunting priorities inside of 400yds. If Nightforce or Trijicon offered it in one of their scopes, I probably would have 3 now and wouldn't be commenting in this thread.

The low-profile turrets and a good zero-stop elevation are another major pairing of factors, along with what, IIRC, sounds like might be the low-end/starting point of HD glass.

Those are all functional issues that put the proposed scope well ahead of an SWFA for me, personally.

This post is exactly where I’m at, too.

I have SWFA 6x’s on everything right now. But I’d love for this to be the scope that replaces most of them.

 

[gtriple]

As much as I hate to admit it, this really is a factor. The SWFA looks terrible. It was a relief to see the turret renderings Form posted, as they look pretty damn good.

Every SWFA I've had has had mushy turrets too. Not a fan. I like a really audible and noticeable turret click.

 

[benconfused]

Specs are 3-14, right around $1500 IIRC, Form shared some renderings of low-profile turrets, and the simplified THLR reticle. Can't tell you where it's all posted at in this thread, but it's in here somewhere.

Was bored on a work call and scrolled. Here is all I could find on this particular thread, if helpful:
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/post-4032766



https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/post-4047484



https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/post-4049625



https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/post-4101793

 

[Formidilosus]

I won’t say much until the test scopes come in, which we are being told will be by the end of this year. Should have been this month or next, but an improvement to the optical design was offered and we chose to use it.

Again, not having any yet- everything about it supposed to be better. LOW states that reliability is absolutely unchanged- if anything, better. The glass is supposed to be better. Slightly shorter, slightly lighter. The power range is improved- with no negative effects to FOV, eye relief, or eyebox.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

$1k was mentioned at some point (maybe on the podcast) but at this point it’s pointless to speculate or state wishes, THAT SHIP SAILED. They pursued a prototype, it is what it is, if it comes to market we can all review the features vs price and decide if we are customers.

Hopefully they’ve gotten something from Japan by now, but who knows.

 

[Johnwell]

…The power range is improved- with no negative effects to FOV, eye relief, or eyebox.

Does this mean it’s no longer a 3-14?

 

[Formidilosus]

Does this mean it’s no longer a 3-14?

Correct.

 

[Felix40]

Obviously nobody likes the turrets on the SWFA scopes very much. That needs to be updated. I’m willing to pay for that.

A different reticle usually isn’t a big upcharge. They could add that to their current scope line and I wouldn’t expect it to cost hundreds of dollars more.

I have no complaints about the glass in my 3-9 or 3-15 scopes. Totally usable in all the conditions I’ve needed to use them.

So going from $750 up to $1500 really doesn’t make sense to me. I thought the whole point of this project was to make something that most people can afford and would be the go to reliable hunting scope for normal working class dudes.

 

[nm.otter]

Every SWFA I've had has had mushy turrets too. Not a fan. I like a really audible and noticeable turret click.

The 6x Gen2 turrets click nicely, and the zero stops work well -- but they're still quite tall (and the windage catches on stuff way too easily).