Would you buy this scope?

[mxgsfmdpx]

Asking the collective.
With it being a lightweight, durable, 0-600 yard scope. Would making it with a 1” tube instead of a 30mm tube to save even more weight be a good idea? Or is that weight savings almost nothing and not worth getting rid of the extra internal adjustment?

Very likely to be more fragile (depending on a couple factors), fewer good quality ring options that help to hold zero, and less adjustment as you mentioned.

Just my thoughts on it.

 

[wyosam]

Everyone thinks they need extreme “low end” and “high end” zoom for killing big game animals when they simply do not in 95+% of actual killing shots. From sitting in dark woods, off hand shots in brush that need FOV, to over 800 yards in clear cuts, variable power scopes are not needed. They hinder more than they aid.

But it’s what everyone wants and what sells because folks don’t actually kill more than one animal per year or less if they’re being honest. Which isn’t a bad thing, but defining requirements for a scope based on that shouldn’t be happening.

Ok, so you define what people need. Got it. If we’re lumping things together for the average hunter, then we can all simplify a lot by ignoring all of it and shoot a fixed 4 with a duplex, since most game is killed at ranges where max PBR is the most effective way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I went to a shooting course recently and targets ranged from 25-1500 yards. Other than zeroing, my scope never went above 8x and lived at 5x for the majority of the course.

My scopes almost never leave 4-8x as well. Usually left somewhere around 6x while hunting.

Just had multiple sight pictures on a charging sow brown bear near dark in thickish woods along the river bottom on Wednesday night. Maven left on 6x from the moose shot. Zero issues.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Ok, so you define what people need. Got it. If we’re lumping things together for the average hunter, then we can all simplify a lot by ignoring all of it and shoot a fixed 4 with a duplex, since most game is killed at ranges where max PBR is the most effective way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect. The requirements were set in post 1, which I had zero to do with.

MPBR with duplex and fixed 4 is not the way either.

 

[Sadler]

Very likely to be more fragile (depending on a couple factors), fewer good quality ring options that help to hold zero, and less adjustment as you mentioned.

Just my thoughts on it.

Those reasons make sense.

My scopes almost never leave 4-8x as well. Usually left somewhere around 6x while hunting.

Just had multiple sight pictures on a charging sow brown bear near dark in thickish woods along the river bottom on Wednesday night. Maven left on 6x from the moose shot. Zero issues.

She almost made that trip a two’fer! Nice moose by the way. I’ll be taking my 223AI to AK next year loaded with 77TMKs. Hopefully this new scope will be available by then.

 

[wyosam]

Incorrect. The requirements were set in post 1, which I had zero to do with.

MPBR with duplex and fixed 4 is not the way either.

I responded to your post, not the OP. You continue to define what the way is. You said a fixed power scope is best for most hunters, not me. Most of those average hunters shoot their one game animal inside 300, the vast majority of those at less than half that. A complicated reticle or spinning turrets will do them more harm than good. Just using some of your argument on the average hunter and what they need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Teodoro]

Everyone thinks they need extreme “low end” and “high end” zoom for killing big game animals when they simply do not in 95+% of actual killing shots. From sitting in dark woods, off hand shots in brush that need FOV, to over 800 yards in clear cuts, variable power scopes are not needed. They hinder more than they aid.

This is all getting pretty far afield of whether we'd buy this scope -- which I agree is probably more useful to more people as 3-12 than a 2-10. (My answer: I'm cheap, so I'd probably wait until they hit the used market.)

I'm responding to your implication that a 2x bottom end doesn't have a meaningful hunting application.

There's a reason people who compete at shooting stuff up close and fast run red dots rather than scopes. Actually, I took the chance last year to rock up to one of those contests with a fixed 4x scope. I wasn't slow, but it was pretty clear I was playing tennis in galoshes.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Most of those average hunters shoot and miss or injure their one game animal inside 300, the vast majority of those at less than half that, because they use proven to fail methods like MPBR.

I fixed the post for ya.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

This is all getting pretty far afield of whether we'd buy this scope -- which I agree is probably more useful to more people as 3-12 than a 2-10. (My answer: I'm cheap, so I'd probably wait until they hit the used market.)

I'm responding to your implication that a 2x bottom end doesn't have a meaningful hunting application.

There's a reason people who compete at shooting stuff up close and fast run red dots rather than scopes. Actually, I took the chance last year to rock up to one of those contests with a fixed 4x scope. I wasn't slow, but it was pretty clear I was playing tennis in galoshes.

Agree. The product has been defined, this thread is to gather potential market data, and like @realunlucky said a couple pages back. Guys raising their hand in a thread and guys raising their credit card are two different things.

I think this Rokscope (please don't call it that haha) will be very successful with Form and Ryan driving it with a legit company that understands (AKA not arrogant Maven).

 

[rickyw]

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

If the reticle were usable on low power in lower light, yes

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

If I had two exact rifles setup with the same two scopes. One at 2 power and one at 3 power, focused in on a 10” target at 100 yards, you would see nearly zero distinguishable difference between them.

I worry about 25yd shots. Not 100yd shots.
I carry two rifles when hunting. One is the close up rifle and the other is the more than 100yd rifle.

If I was somewhere else then it would change.

 

[wyosam]

A VX6 2-12 with a firedot is an amazing scope if you hunt in tight bush.

I didn't have issue with either my VX5 or VX6, and many other rate them. I say buy a used one, do your own testing and I'd you aren't happy buying used means you don't loose much money.

Oh I’ve got a couple of them still sitting in my safe, have hunted with them a bunch. Last winter I just spent too much time reading this forum and replaced them with something sturdier, though I’ve never had issue with either of my vx6’s. I am thinking about putting one back on my brush gun (which is pretty much my primary in AK). The Leopold covers are top notch, and it’s got a lot less to hang up while alder bashing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[duckhunter175]

If possible Id prefer a 5x range (3-15) or 4x range (4-16), keep the 44mm obj and a locking elevation turret.

Everything else sounds great-- I'd be interested to see what the reticle would look like. I think March nailed usable low power FFP in the 3-24 and no illumination needed.

The more I think of it the more this seems like a great project for March-- they have the weight savings dialed, reticle is good to go, use a 4x instead of 8x erector, capping the windage and keep the elevation as it is and then maybe some of the perceived parallax/focus issues would be resolved??

EDIT: It wouldn't touch the $1k... or $1500 mark probably....

 

[atmat]

I carry two rifles when hunting. One is the close up rifle and the other is the more than 100yd rifle.

Lol wut?

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

Lol wut?

That Alaskan brush is brutal. I hunt with a boat. So it’s fairly simple to carry two rifles.

My “long” range rifle scope is quite challenging in the alders and willows. But sure is nice when a bull pops out 300yds away.

I did just make the change from a 4-14 scope to a 2-12 scope for one rifle hunting.

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

Has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on a target 100 yards away. It’s about field of view up close. The VX6 2-12 is one of the best scopes I’ve found for this with a huge FOV, but reading this forum convinced me they can’t be trusted, so I switched my hunting rifles to Credo 2.5-15’s. Those are great scopes, but it is noticeably tighter up close. Of course FOV isn’t dependent on magnification alone. I’m wondering about real world reliability issues on the VX6HD on a 300 and under gun for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just went with a vx6 2-12 and replaced a SHV 4-14 with it. So far it does make a huge difference IMO/E with it.

My daughter took her first moose with it at 250yds with a 6.5cm. Damn proud of her.

I like that 12x max and I don’t need more than 12x but lower end is nice for alders/willows range limitations.

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

Everyone thinks they need extreme “low end” and “high end” zoom for killing big game animals when they simply do not in 95+% of actual killing shots. From sitting in dark woods, off hand shots in brush that need FOV, to over 800 yards in clear cuts, variable power scopes are not needed. They hinder more than they aid.

But it’s what everyone wants and what sells because folks don’t actually kill more than one animal per year or less if they’re being honest. Which isn’t a bad thing, but defining requirements for a scope based on that shouldn’t be happening.

I considered getting a 4x or 6x fixed for my rifle. Went with the vx6 2-12 and it stays on 2x unless we have time. Daughter had it dialed up to 6x for her shot at 250yds.

 

[Jimbee]

I don't think you can best the 6x milquad SWFAs I bought a few years ago for <$300 so stop this nonsense.

 

[HighUintas]

As described I'd consider one at $1500.... Probably get one at some point and maybe a second down the line.

At $1000 I'd get 2 as quickly as possible.

No parallax and no illumination. 0-600 it's unneeded and adds complexity and weight

 

[bigsky_hunter]

For the FOV vs magnification argument it all depends on what someone needs more. I would take an extra 4’-5’ FOV on the lower end vs an extra 2x on the top end. Not sure what the perceived “people” who kill 1 animal a year would want. And no I won’t be buying this scope unless import rules change.