Would you buy this scope?

[cuerro viejo]

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.

X2, it has to outperform in durability and weight or price point to be an optimal replacement

 

[atmat]

If it can come with lower profile turrets and an improved THLR reticle, I’d be happy to pick it up over the Maven.

Plus, you’d be supporting a company who wants to cater to us (instead of Maven, who sorta mocked Rokslide).

 

[walk2112]

X2, it has to outperform in durability and weight or price point to be an optimal replacement

The modified version of THLR reticle is a standout/special thing too to some people looking to buy

 

[nagibson1]

If it can come with lower profile turrets and an improved THLR reticle, I’d be happy to pick it up over the Maven.

Plus, you’d be supporting a company who wants to cater to us (instead of Maven, who sorta mocked Rokslide).

mocked- how so?

 

[atmat]

mocked- how so?

In an interview, they were dismissive of the drop tests and then went on to say that the RS1.2 is no more robust than any other scope they make.

 

[JRem257]

I think the mocking thing has been blown out of proportion. I saw a video at a show overseas where the same guy is bragging about the scope passing the drop test… I’m guessing the last thing they want is “wannabe Forms” running up warranty claims because they don’t know how to properly duplicate the tests.

 

[Bama67]

Seems like the 24oz scope space is pretty well covered.

I'm interested in a durable, light scope. Very few options there.

 

[alpine_troop]

Seems as if the perception of what a durable, functional scope should weigh is skewed heavily by the dearth of popular scopes that achieve a lighter weight yet sacrifice heavily on durability and zero retention. 24-26 oz is pretty damn good in reality.

In other words: I too am waiting for someone to bring to market a pound of steel that weighs 10 oz.

 

[WyldGoose]

I can see the estimated weight of 24-26 oz for the prototype making sense.
My SWFA 3-9 42mm is 20 oz, and we know that the tube gauge thickness is appropriate for durability. Sure, with shorter turrets that scope could shave maybe half an oz to an oz.

But add the mechanical parts for a zero stop, whatever it takes for 3-14 magnification, and material for a 44mm objective(original post mentions 40mm-44mm)…gonna gain some weight…

 

[Harvey_NW]

I can see the estimated weight of 24-26 oz for the prototype making sense.
My SWFA 3-9 42mm is 20 oz, and we know that the tube gauge thickness is appropriate for durability. Sure, with shorter turrets that scope could shave maybe half an oz to an oz.

But add the mechanical parts for a zero stop, whatever it takes for 3-14 magnification, and material for a 44mm objective(original post mentions 40mm-44mm)…gonna gain some weight…

But the Trijicon Huron 3-9/3-12x40 are specd at sub 16/18oz and the 3-9 passed the drop test with no issues. Granted, there's room for improvement in the eyebox, reticle, and turrets. Just sayin..

 

[prm]

The modified version of THLR reticle is a standout/special thing too to some people looking to buy

I don’t think any conclusions can be drawn at this point. The intent sounds positive, but without seeing it how can we know? Soon enough we’ll see it and can draw conclusions.

 

[Formidilosus]

But the Trijicon Huron 3-9/3-12x40 are specd at sub 16/18oz and the 3-9 passed the drop test with no issues. Granted, there's room for improvement in the eyebox, reticle, and turrets. Just sayin..

So 16oz, SFP, with small capped turrets and no zero stop- or even a way to not inadvertently spin the turrets; sub par eyebox, sub par reticle, no parralax adjustment?

Yep. It’s lighter.

 

[Formidilosus]

There is a lot of guessing going on. People certainly are free to think that Ryan and I have spent the last 4-5 years to get a company to make what we personally want to shoot, and that what we want is just a straight copy of what’s already out there…. Sure. It’s possible.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Too many of yall care about getting some light weight thing. Until somebody invents some unicorn new material, just accept that toughness and durability have a weight component. If you’re talking about shaving 1/4oz off your scope by shortening turret heights or something, dude just chop off the handle of your toothbrush, carry one less pair of socks, bring water tablets or a gravity filter instead of a big pump filter, etc. I do not get the fixation with shaving weight off a critical item so you can skirt the razor thin margin of durability.

 

[walk2112]

I don’t think any conclusions can be drawn at this point. The intent sounds positive, but without seeing it how can we know? Soon enough we’ll see it and can draw conclusions.

Agreed, just saying it’s a something that could set it apart from existing scopes if executed well.
Probably best if it walks the line between simplifying certain aspects of current THLR reticle without going too simple/lacking measuring references

 

[atmat]

I think the mocking thing has been blown out of proportion. I saw a video at a show overseas where the same guy is bragging about the scope passing the drop test… I’m guessing the last thing they want is “wannabe Forms” running up warranty claims because they don’t know how to properly duplicate the tests.

It wasn’t enough to make me not buy their scopes or anything. But I’d rather choose a company who says, “Hey, we want to work with you and build what you want” over one that says, “Ha, those drop tests are funny. That formidisl guy doing them. Yeah our scopes are totally the same as every other scope.”

All else equal, it sways my vote. If Maven is better, though, I’ll keep buying the Maven.

 

[RockAndSage]

Just incase any designers/manufacturers/engineers/influencers of this project are here and interested in my 0.000001% of market share....


View attachment 831113

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

Illumination adds less than an ounce.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Illumination adds less than an ounce.

remove battery and I doubt it’s that much

 

[nagibson1]

There is a lot of guessing going on. People certainly are free to think that Ryan and I have spent the last 4-5 years to get a company to make what we personally want to shoot, and that what we want is just a straight copy of what’s already out there…. Sure. It’s possible.

my assumption is that this conversation is about bringing something that is your very solid custom choice to broader production and a market. I have no doubts a true prototype to vision would be great.
I'm also sure I don't even understand the particular cocktail, in that I know I don't know why you prefer a particular reticle and FFP exactly. I fear it's a little like a modern suburban neighborhood- the main road in is shared, and then people start going every which way in the last 1/4 mile. The specs at the beginning of this convo are a good mix of a lot of things that could make an ideal scope. But I wonder if you lose the really particular people in some detail, and the more ignorant ones (like me) to not being able to tell the difference between it and generally similar scopes that will be $150 less and a better known name.
I do hope I can get a good used scope or two on Rokslide when these come out.