Would you buy this scope?

[copperhead121]

absolutely

 

[wind gypsy]

With 12x on the top end? In FFP? The bottom 3/4 of the mag range the reticle would be invisible.

I don't think people realize they're asking for things that would make this really really bad.

Well the maven reticle is workable 2.5-15x i'd think the same could be done with a 2-12? Id much rather stick with 4x erector and have a 3-12 than 6x for 2-12 as I see little upside in going from 3 to 2 on the bottom end vs my perception of the additional challenges/compromises of 6x vs 4x erector.

 

[wind gypsy]

Perhaps one day your eyes will tell you otherwise. It happens…

Have you found the NXS compact parallax adjustment to make a significant difference? In the one I had, i couldn't even tell it was doing anything when I adjusted it. Generally liked it but didn't like it enough more than 2+ SWFA 3-9s and going from moa to mil back when I had more rifles to scope.

 

[keystone112]

I wonder if the shape of the objective will be more like a Maven RS1.2 and SHV 4-14 or kind of compact like a NX8 2.5-20.

I am hoping for the more traditional stretched out version and not the squished compact.

Partly for aesthetic reasons and I also want more space for the front ring.

 

[wind gypsy]

I wonder if the shape of the objective will be more like a Maven RS1.2 and SHV 4-14 or kind of compact like a NX8 2.5-20.

I am hoping for the more traditional stretched out version and not the squished compact.

Partly for aesthetic reasons and I also want more space for the front ring.

The whole general tone of this optic (not chasing zoom range or making compromises that make it difficult to build) aligns with a longer or more traditional form factor IMO. Longer scope, modest zoom range seems to align with more easily making a scope with a generous eye box, forgiving parallax adjustment, and deep depth of focus.

 

[NDHUNTER24]

I would buy one. If the eye relief is good id likely buy another. Can anyone explain in simple terms which erector system 3X, 4X, or 6X is better and why?

 

[atmat]

I would buy one. If the eye relief is good id likely buy another. Can anyone explain in simple terms which erector system 3X, 4X, or 6X is better and why?

My understanding is that generally, lower multiplier erector systems solve for problems like eyebox, reticle visibility, cost, etc.

Obviously there’s a balance with what people want, though.

 

[wind gypsy]

My understanding is that generally, lower multiplier erector systems solve for problems like eyebox, reticle visibility, cost, etc.

Obviously there’s a balance with what people want, though.

My understanding more specifically is that it is much easier (read: cheaper) to build an optic that is more forgiving of eye placement ("eye box"), larger exit pupils, less prone to parallax errors, with an unfinicky depth of focus, and a clean/sharp reticle at a wide range of settings when there is a lower zoom range. For example - look at the field of view, image quality, and eye placement foregiveness of a spotting scope with a fixed power eyepiece vs a variable one at the same magnifcation. Another example is how the the wide angle eye pieces often have less zoom range than the standard angle ones.

Not saying nobody makes well executed optics with higher zoom ranges but the well executed ones are usually very expensive. The $3k March scope I had with a 8x erector and short form factor was functionally a POS in many regards.