Would you buy this scope?

[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.

 

[z987k]

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.

Ya, I'm saying it should be less zoom. 3x on the bottom end, 12 on top max. Since that's more than enough for hunting. A 3 or 4x scope is going to be a lot better scope. Look at the swfa 3-9. The most usable FFP scope out there at it's bottom magnification. More so than the Maven, IMO.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Ya, I'm saying it should be less zoom. 3x on the bottom end, 12 on top max. Since that's more than enough for hunting. A 3 or 4x scope is going to be a lot better scope. Look at the swfa 3-9. The most usable FFP scope out there at it's bottom magnification. More so than the Maven, IMO.

I'd be willing to bet it would cut the initial sale volume in half by going with 12x over 15-16x. I understand the reasoning for it all, but there are far more customers out there that are either completely oblivious to the functional aspects, or still just don't want to be limited to that range. Myself included. At some point regardless of functionality, market awareness and consumer demand has to play into the equation, unless the lower volume of sales will still surpass your investment cost.

 

[RockAndSage]

I'd be willing to bet it would cut the initial sale volume in half by going with 12x over 15-16x. I understand the reasoning for it all, but there are far more customers out there that are either completely oblivious to the functional aspects, or still just don't want to be limited to that range. Myself included. At some point regardless of functionality, market awareness and consumer demand has to play into the equation, unless the lower volume of sales will still surpass your investment cost.

I'm all for them doing a 3-12 as part of getting the most field-useful and reliable hunting scope possible, especially as part of their first offering in getting things off the ground and gaining market share. But after that, if they came out with a 3-15 or 4-16, that would be my strong preference. Higher mag helps in some field situations (shadows, etc), and 12 is just a bit limiting compared to 15 or 16. But right now, a bulletproof 3-12 with good glass and a simplified THLR reticle is a slam-dunk hell yes.

Also, I hope whoever is actually designing it is told "and make it look good - it's not allowed to look cheap."

That's my vanity speaking, but don't care. I want that thing looking cool as hell.

 

[z987k]

I'd be willing to bet it would cut the initial sale volume in half by going with 12x over 15-16x. I understand the reasoning for it all, but there are far more customers out there that are either completely oblivious to the functional aspects, or still just don't want to be limited to that range. Myself included. At some point regardless of functionality, market awareness and consumer demand has to play into the equation, unless the lower volume of sales will still surpass your investment cost.

But that more or less already exists. It's the whole reason for a lot of the rokslide counter to what is available things. If you want to go with what the average idiot that has no idea what a useful hunting scope looks like, go get one of the many available mega zoom ffp Christmas trees.
If they are oblivious to functional aspects of a scope, this scope is not for them.

 

[Harvey_NW]

But that more or less already exists. It's the whole reason for a lot of the rokslide counter to what is available things. If you want to go with what the average idiot that has no idea what a useful hunting scope looks like, go get one of the many available mega zoom ffp Christmas trees.
If they are oblivious to functional aspects of a scope, this scope is not for them.

Really? So besides the Maven RS1.2, which 26oz or sub, quality glass, 16x, FFP, usable hunting reticle, tactile turret with zero stop, capped windage, and drop test approved optic is there readily available on the market?

 

[Timberline001]

But that more or less already exists. It's the whole reason for a lot of the rokslide counter to what is available things. If you want to go with what the average idiot that has no idea what a useful hunting scope looks like, go get one of the many available mega zoom ffp Christmas trees.
If they are oblivious to functional aspects of a scope, this scope is not for them.

Harvey_NW and many else, myself included who wants a slightly higher zoom (15 or 16 on the top end is by no means a “mega zoom”) are most definitely not the average idiot. We simply shoot farther than a 12x will allow. The only reliable, weight conscious, and quality glass options sub $2000 in the 4-16 or 2.5-15 range are the mavens and Trijicon credos.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I'm all for them doing a 3-12 as part of getting the most field-useful and reliable hunting scope possible, especially as part of their first offering in getting things off the ground and gaining market share. But after that, if they came out with a 3-15 or 4-16, that would be my strong preference. Higher mag helps in some field situations (shadows, etc), and 12 is just a bit limiting compared to 15 or 16. But right now, a bulletproof 3-12 with good glass and a simplified THLR reticle is a slam-dunk hell yes.

Also, I hope whoever is actually designing it is told "and make it look good - it's not allowed to look cheap."

That's my vanity speaking, but don't care. I want that thing looking cool as hell.

Fully agree, I hope for a sub 24oz 3-15/18x, with a simple FFP reticle, and good glass, that will retain zero through drops, and also a 3" OTB reflex, 5" FOM, 1.625" dia suppressor, that will reduce recoil and bring a 7 PRC down to 136dB with a whoomph tone, for sub $1k.

I guess I'm a dreamer

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

We are overthinking the “zoom” in a western hunting scope again as per usual.

Leave the thing on 6-8X with the planned bold, easy to use MIL reticle and watch animals die from 30 yards in the woods to 800+ yards across a canyon.

Cranking zoom in and out does nothing when big game hunting but slow you down and make you lose animals and shot opportunities. Ask me how I know

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Harvey_NW and many else, myself included who wants a slightly higher zoom (15 or 16 on the top end is by no means a “mega zoom”) are most definitely not the average idiot. We simply shoot farther than a 12x will allow. The only reliable, weight conscious, and quality glass options sub $2000 in the 4-16 or 2.5-15 range are the mavens and Trijicon credos.

Shoot what at further than 12X will allow?

I shot a 24” plate at 1,200 yards on 10-12X last Saturday. Target was down a steep draw and painted to blend into terrain. First shot miss, wind correction, and then 5 back to back hits.

If you can’t see an elk or deer at realistic hunting ranges (say 1,000 and in) at 12X zoom on a scope that’s user error sorry.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Not to mention at 1,000 yards you are going to miss. It’s what happens when hunting and shooting that far. The more you “zoom” the less you see due to tightened image and way less FOV.

Follow up shots are often required when long range hunting and anyone I’ve hunted with who has their scope zoomed in to the max has a horrible time with target reacquisition and follow up shot.

 

[Timberline001]

Shoot what at further than 12X will allow?

I shot a 24” plate at 1,200 yards on 10-12X last Saturday. Target was down a steep draw and painted to blend into terrain. First shot miss, wind correction, and then 5 back to back hits.

If you can’t see an elk or deer at realistic hunting ranges (say 1,000 and in) at 12X zoom on a scope that’s user error sorry.

In most terrain I agree it’s not an issue but I do struggle at 12x to find deer past 600 in trashy newer clear cuts where they blend in really well. The first shot is not an issue but in situations where I needed a follow up shot or was shooting a second deer (doe tags) it was difficult and I found myself needing a little bit more power.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

In most terrain I agree it’s not an issue but I do struggle at 12x to find deer past 600 in trashy newer clear cuts where they blend in really well. The first shot is not an issue but in situations where I needed a follow up shot or was shooting a second deer (doe tags) it was difficult and I found myself needing a little bit more power.

I have that issue with coues deer as well but they are Great Dane sized and blend in better than any other big game animal I’ve hunted. Usually need 10-12x instead of my usual 6-8x after 500 yards.

A bit niche there.

 

[Timberline001]

Higher magnification is also nice for judging deer. I leave my spotting scope a lot on backcountry hunts and use my 5.5-20 NXS to judge deer I’ve found with my binos on the tripod.

 

[Timberline001]

I have that issue with coues deer as well but they are grey hound sized and blend in better than any other big game animal I’ve hunted. Usually need 10-12x instead of my usual 6-8x after 500 yards.

A bit niche there.

Blacktail arnt much bigger and when you throw them in a background the same color it can get tricky.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Shoot what at further than 12X will allow?

I shot a 24” plate at 1,200 yards on 10-12X last Saturday. Target was down a steep draw and painted to blend into terrain. First shot miss, wind correction, and then 5 back to back hits.

If you can’t see an elk or deer at realistic hunting ranges (say 1,000 and in) at 12X zoom on a scope that’s user error sorry.

For me personally, as I said, I understand that 12x max is fully functional out to the limits of more than most terminal ranges of average setups, and I'm practicing getting used to that. But I still want to be able zoom into 16x for load/zero truing at 100 yards, or have clear glass to double check and validate a target in the optic before shooting.

Not saying it's right, or the most optimal, or there isn't a better way. Just saying that right now in my learning journey with the amount of money it takes to obtain these objects, simply put 12x I'm not buying, 15-16x I likely am.

 

[The Guide]

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

This is from the original post. For most hunting scenarios within the original design parameters, 12x is more than enough for most targets.

Jay

 

[Timberline001]

This is from the original post. For most hunting scenarios within the original design parameters, 12x is more than enough for most targets.

Jay

I didn’t catch that. Hopefully next we can get one for extended ranges. There really isn’t enough reliable options.