Would you buy this scope?

[Marbles]

You're using the optic at sub 10 feet?

I have, not often. Only once hunting, and I screwed the pooch on that shot. Couple times on slaughtering pigs that would not cooperate and needed a brain shot.

Sub 25 yards 4 times while hunting.

 

[atmat]

Very likely. Make the lateral and top have the thick lines, like an SWFA MilQuad or S&B P4FL. Weight is negotiable. Price needs to be nder $1500. Illumination is preferred.

I would prefer a lower magnification range, like 2.5-10x, but I'm probably an outlier their. Honestly, a 2-8 with a 44mm objective would be my dream scope (well, keeping it simple, dream would be a true 1-8). I've shot at things sub 10 feet.... It is probably a me problem.

Ive been saying I want a reticle as if P3L and SHR had a baby.

 

[Seak_angler]

Sure. Sounds like a winner

 

[Balderdash]

Yep. I don't even need it to adhere to the arbitrary 20 ounce max I often read about; while not being an optics engineer, from my own experiences it seems that somewhere between 20 and 24 ounces on a variable scope with 40mm+ objective is where reliability begins to suffer.

Basically, just have someone bring back the 3-12 LRHS/LRTS with some reticle tweaks. I figure LOW must still have the tooling, and the mechanical design has already proven ro be sound. For me, drop the LRHS doughnut, clear away the top over center and bring the bottom and side heavy lines into 5 mils each from center so that game can be quickly bracketed on low X. Few big game calibers/hunters have use for more than 5 mils windage, and anything over 5 mils elevation can be dialed, which it seems many are doing for any hold over, anyhoo.

Because I like the overall size, feature set, design and reliability, and because over thousands of rounds and a lot of use I have learned to live with the reticles, I have squirrelled away enough 3-12 Bushies to suit my needs for the foreseable future; however, I would gladly upgrade them with better reticles in the same package.

 

[bullmtn]

Interested!

 

[TaperPin]

I think it’s a great idea - there seems to be a big hole between the SFWA scopes and the brands that go above $1k. It would likely be a significant challenge to compete head to head with the $1,200+ models already out there.

FOV vs eye relief has always been a trade off - when I hear good FOV mentioned, specs usually have a minimal eye relief. For guys like me that would be a deal killer. A lack of MOA would also be a deal killer.

I’m also not an early adopter, so even if it turned out to be reliable for a number of years it would be 5 years from now before I’d consider one, unless it was a rebranded version of an existing scope.

I hope it works out - it would be fun to have another good idea take off from here.

 

[TX_Diver]

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?

I’d be questionable at that price as I already have some SWFAs. The feature set makes it tempting but I’m not sure if it’s worth the incremental cost.

But closer to $1k I’d definitely pick one up.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Scope specs:

FFP 3-12x40 to 3-12x44mm

Consistently holds zero through 3-foot drops and 3,000 rounds of constant use.

The reticle is specially designed for 25 to 600 yards, with bold outer posts and correct center aiming references.

Zero Stop

Low profile top turret.

Capped windage.

Large eye box

Good glass

20oz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don’t know how far in the development this thing is, but when do you think something like this could happen?

 

[finner]

In for 1-2 depending on price

 

[swavescatter]

I think I'm good with my NX8 and RS1.2's for now, and with a large batch of Maven's coming in October I suspect that in the year+ this effort would take, many more people would be harder to convince for an incremental improvement.

I think a lot of us COVID-wave gear queers are starting to burn out at the constant incremental upgrading and are just now focusing on killing stuff with what we got.

 

[Mojave]

Ideal would be 2.5-15x44.

But lots of people already make that.

 

[5811]

Ideal would be 2.5-15x44.

But lots of people already make that.

I think the reason for hitting a 4x mag vs 5x or 6x is it would make the eyebox more forgiving, which I would take all day over a high end mag. 12 is plenty. But, I'm just guessing, I have no idea if that's the way it works.

 

[100percent]

Holy shit

See what I did there!

 

[TNHunter18]

I am interested as well, depending on the price. Like the feature set though.

 

[100percent]

I’m sure somebody has said already, but, you would strike gold if you could just get NF to offer a hunting reticle in the nxs 2.5X10.X42. Price be damned!

 

[wind gypsy]

I’m sure somebody has said already, but, you would strike gold if you could just get NF to offer a hunting reticle in the nxs 2.5X10.X42. Price be damned!

And have a capped windage. And FFP. And parallax adjustment that is actually detectable. And NF likes muley freak..

 

[z987k]

As long as there's also parallax adjustment I'd be in for 1 to start and more if I like it as much as I imagine. You're building what I think most hunters actually want.
I think illumination is a waste of money and weight but some people love it.

 

[Balderdash]

I’m sure somebody has said already, but, you would strike gold if you could just get NF to offer a hunting reticle in the nxs 2.5X10.X42. Price be damned!

Yep. Have also been saying that for years and years. Have a number of them and the 3-10 SHV. Like everything but the reticles.

 

[atmat]

I think a lot of us COVID-wave gear queers are starting to burn out at the constant incremental upgrading and are just now focusing on killing stuff with what we got.

I get that and largely agree. But I would say the 6oz weight loss is more than incremental over the RS1.2.

Plus, would love the smaller turrets, improved reticle, etc. — but the driver for me would be the weight savings.

 

[100percent]

And have a capped windage. And FFP. And parallax adjustment that is actually detectable. And NF likes muley freak..

Yeah gypsy! Agreed on your amendments! I hate the thought of that sponsorship but, the juice would be worth the squeeze.