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.

 

[Dobermann]

My thoughts, in addition to notes above.

Price: RS is MSRP $1200. This new scope price (TBD)

A bigger challenge to me is the SWFA 3-15 Gen 2. $749, decent reticle, 22.7oz, company has a good rep for ruggedness, customer support less so, seemingly durable scope. For hunting, what can't I do with this that I can with an RS?

I don't know, but my guess is that it will be cheaper than the RS1.2. However, I'm guessing that the fact that it has the added benefits would make it a likely alternative to the RS1.2 for many.

For the SWFA, I'm hoping that this scope will have better glass than the SWFA. Reticle will be better, and specifically designed for hunting. Weight shouldn't be significantly too much more. Turrets should be better size.

Overall, I personally think it's not a question of "what can't I do with this that I can do with other scope X"? We can all do things with scopes that are not as optimal - and have had to for years. The RS1.2 is vast improvement on 99% of what's out there for sure. But if the new scope is an improvement again, many of us will likely move to it (this is Rokslide, after all!, where many of us chase what performs better ... )

 

[Dobermann]

A 3-14 you say? IE a ~5x erector based off an existing design basis in the interest of bringing to the market sooner. My guess remains.

There's always the chance that we were both wrong. Or that we were all wrong ...

 

[Axlrod]

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

I would pay cash money and be happy, if they would put a new reticle in my 38oz ATACR!

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

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

I presume its really a 5x and one/both of those numbers is being rounded off for simplicity. IE if you had a 2.8-14 you'd probably just call it a 3-14 right? And if your next question is why not 3-15 it probably has something to do with a crossover point on the perceived usability of the eyebox or something were it diminished past 14x or such.

There's always the chance that we were both wrong. Or that we were all wrong ...

Obviously. I was only speculating for the fun of it.

 

[prm]

I've owned a couple scopes that should have stopped 1x or 2x prior to their advertised max. Maybe it is a 5x erector (3-15x) they are stopping a bit short to keep a very good image across the whole range? Probably not, but as stated, I've owned a couple that should have.

 

[ztc92]

I've owned a couple scopes that should have stopped 1x or 2x prior to their advertised max. Maybe it is a 5x erector (3-15x) they are stopping a bit short to keep a very good image across the whole range? Probably not, but as stated, I've owned a couple that should have.

This is how I feel about the SWFA 3-15, I rarely used it above 12x but as a 3-12x scope it was excellent.

 

[RockAndSage]

- 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.

Something that's missing here, is that OEM manufacturers doing private label work for other companies do so to the specifications they're contracted for. If an optics company is contracted to make a more durable scope by making more effective use of adhesives, tougher materials, and beefing up internals, they will do just that. Customer details end-state capabilities, OEM experts find the best way to get there.

 

[Axlrod]

Something that's missing here, is that OEM manufacturers doing private label work for other companies do so to the specifications they're contracted for. If an optics company is contracted to make a more durable scope by making more effective use of adhesives, tougher materials, and beefing up internals, they will do just that. Customer details end-state capabilities, OEM experts find the best way to get there.

Interesting thought, but to play devils advocate for a minute. One example would be Maven. They presumably have all scopes made by the same OEM. Maven says all their scopes are the same durability wise. In reality they are not.
So somewhere between "customer details" and "OEM experts" there is a disconnect. I have no idea why, but I go with trust but verify. Or more accurately, trust that Form verifies.

 

[Dobermann]

Something that's missing here, is that OEM manufacturers doing private label work for other companies do so to the specifications they're contracted for. If an optics company is contracted to make a more durable scope by making more effective use of adhesives, tougher materials, and beefing up internals, they will do just that. Customer details end-state capabilities, OEM experts find the best way to get there.

Bingo!

And that's always been the issue.

 

[RockAndSage]

Interesting thought, but to play devils advocate for a minute. One example would be Maven. They presumably have all scopes made by the same OEM. Maven says all their scopes are the same durability wise. In reality they are not.
So somewhere between "customer details" and "OEM experts" there is a disconnect. I have no idea why, but I go with trust but verify. Or more accurately, trust that Form verifies.

Lol, I hear what you're saying. On balance though, I'm more inclined to believe an OEM will manufacture to verifiable specs under contract, than I am to believe a marketing guy from a brand, be it Maven or others.

 

[Dobermann]

Interesting thought, but to play devils advocate for a minute. One example would be Maven. They presumably have all scopes made by the same OEM. Maven says all their scopes are the same durability wise. In reality they are not.
So somewhere between "customer details" and "OEM experts" there is a disconnect. I have no idea why, but I go with trust but verify. Or more accurately, trust that Form verifies.

That one has turned out to be something of a mystery.

I've only got two reference points. (What comes next is a mash-up of facts about that scope, some general facts, and some speculation.)

First, there were some hints/statements that Maven had taken some advice on that scope. I can't now recall if Maven confirmed that. Either way, Maven then said their lines about "it's just the same as the others" ... but it appears to be not. So either its the same construction (which would not make sense, unless other variables change things, such as the size and weight of their other models); or there's something different about the construction that they know about (but can't/won't acknowledge, for fear it will call the rest of their lines in disrepute maybe??); or there's something different about the construction that they didn't know about (sometimes in manufacturing, certain components that are of a higher quality have been left over from other jobs and can be substituted in; sometimes an engineer, foreman, etc can see an opportunity to improve something at the last minute, and so on).

And second ... sometimes, you can just get lucky.