Would you buy this scope?

[Johnwell]

Are the mag ranges set in stone? I know my opinion means nothing but a 3-15 or 3-18 would be slick

I have to ask, would it really make that much difference to go from 14x to 15x on the upper end? I get the argument for 18x on the upper end, but I’m not sure I’d even notice the difference between 14x and 15x.

Not that my opinion matters either, I’m not really in the market at the moment

 

[swampy14]

I have to ask, would it really make that much difference to go from 14x to 15x on the upper end? I get the argument for 18x on the upper end, but I’m not sure I’d even notice the difference between 14x and 15x.

Not that my opinion matters either, I’m not really in the market at the moment

the only mag ranges I saw were 3-12 and a 2-10 I believe (I didn’t read all 67 pages of this thread just kinda skimmed). Which are more than usable. 3-18 I think is a great middle ground for hunting and long range shooting.

I was going to purchase a maven rs1.2 towards the end of the year but I wouldn’t mind waiting.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

the only mag ranges I saw were 3-12 and a 2-10 I believe (I didn’t read all 67 pages of this thread just kinda skimmed). Which are more than usable. 3-18 I think is a great middle ground for hunting and long range shooting.

I was going to purchase a maven rs1.2 towards the end of the year but I wouldn’t mind waiting.

The latest number that Form posted was 3-14x.

 

[dreamingWest]

Maybe this scope will be released by the time Tikka also releases a 6 CM with 18-20" factory threaded barrel.

 

[Dobermann]

Maybe this scope will be released by the time Tikka also releases a 6 CM with 18-20" factory threaded barrel.

Well ... it would be a great combination!

 

[7LRM]

Yes,
Can you post a picture Ryan?

 

[gtriple]

the only mag ranges I saw were 3-12 and a 2-10 I believe (I didn’t read all 67 pages of this thread just kinda skimmed). Which are more than usable. 3-18 I think is a great middle ground for hunting and long range shooting.

I was going to purchase a maven rs1.2 towards the end of the year but I wouldn’t mind waiting.

The less magnification range = less movement in the parts and less weight.

I'd rather have a bomber, sub 20oz 3-9 with exposed elevation and a good useable reticle. I don't know what the fascination is with these massive zoom ranges trying to solve every problem. I just want a scope to solve 1 problem perfectly instead of 3 problems marginally.

 

[Kyguy]

The less magnification range = less movement in the parts and less weight.

I'd rather have a bomber, sub 20oz 3-9 with exposed elevation and a good useable reticle. I don't know what the fascination is with these massive zoom ranges trying to solve every problem. I just want a scope to solve 1 problem perfectly instead of 3 problems marginally.

I'm with you on this..... especially when so many people say that they're shooting on 6x or 8x regardless of the top end power. Make it simple and stout.

 

[RockAndSage]

I'm with you on this..... especially when so many people say that they're shooting on 6x or 8x regardless of the top end power. Make it simple and stout.

In principle this makes sense and I'd agree - but it also entirely depends on the circumstances of the hunt, and on the quality and competence of the engineering of the optic.

"so many people" probably does not include those in vast, open country, for example. What's useful for me in Nevada and most of the West maxes out around 15x, as higher than that it's hard to stay on the animal after the shot. And any lower than 9-10x, it feels pretty imprecise if a buck is out past 200yds. To me, personally. Plus, with a higher top-end magnification, you do seem to get better optical clarity/image a few mag levels lower than you would, than if the setting you want is the max magnification. IE, if you want to shoot at 9x, your image will be better at 9x if the scope's top-end is 15x, than if its max is 9x.

I'm extremely happy to see this scope being spec'd at 3-14x. That's almost perfectly optimal for what I do in the field, and gives options and capability that just wouldn't be there at 3-9x. And given that Test & Eval samples will be put through the rigors of the drop-tests before being put into production, the durability and reliability we'll likely see is both a relief and damned encouraging. Especially with a simplified THLR reticle. I'm more than happy to pack around another 6oz or so for bomb-proof reliability, a top-end of 14x, and broad usability. That's an absolute hell yes in my book.

 

[atmat]

And any lower than 9-10x, it feels pretty imprecise if a buck is out past 200yds. To me, personally.

Not to argue with you, because it’s your personal opinion.

But I wouldn’t be past 2x zoom (if I could) at 200 yards. Even at 600 yards I would be far lower than 9x on any big game animal.

It “felt” really imprecise to me in the beginning, as I used to be a big zoom guy. But overtime I’ve seen I actually perform way better despite my initial discomfort with less zoom.

All that to say, if you practice with less you may find it’s better over time.

 

[gtriple]

In principle this makes sense and I'd agree - but it also entirely depends on the circumstances of the hunt, and on the quality and competence of the engineering of the optic.

"so many people" probably does not include those in vast, open country, for example. What's useful for me in Nevada and most of the West maxes out around 15x, as higher than that it's hard to stay on the animal after the shot. And any lower than 9-10x, it feels pretty imprecise if a buck is out past 200yds. To me, personally. Plus, with a higher top-end magnification, you do seem to get better optical clarity/image a few mag levels lower than you would, than if the setting you want is the max magnification. IE, if you want to shoot at 9x, your image will be better at 9x if the scope's top-end is 15x, than if its max is 9x.

I'm extremely happy to see this scope being spec'd at 3-14x. That's almost perfectly optimal for what I do in the field, and gives options and capability that just wouldn't be there at 3-9x. And given that Test & Eval samples will be put through the rigors of the drop-tests before being put into production, the durability and reliability we'll likely see is both a relief and damned encouraging. Especially with a simplified THLR reticle. I'm more than happy to pack around another 6oz or so for bomb-proof reliability, a top-end of 14x, and broad usability. That's an absolute hell yes in my book.

9-10x at 200 yards!!? I can quarter a deer with peep sights on my muzzleloader no problem at 200 yards. That's without any magnification.

I shoot my ultralight AR out to 600 yards with a fixed 5x.

The whole optical clarity thing is due to glass quality (or lack thereof). My 4-16 ATACR is 100% perfect quality at 16x. But that's a heavy son of a gun.

I'm in agreement that a 3-14 is a great all-around scope. But it just isn't going to be the lightweight king that a 3-9 or even 4-12 could be. The Maven RS1.2 is already filling this niche, so I wonder how different this scope is going to be.

 

[RockAndSage]

But I wouldn’t be past 2x zoom (if I could) at 200 yards. Even at 600 yards I would be far lower than 9x on any big game animal.

9-10x at 200 yards!!? I can quarter a deer with peep sights on my muzzleloader no problem at 200 yards.

Ok.

 

[Evanoff12]

Yes!

 

[lak2004]

In principle this makes sense and I'd agree - but it also entirely depends on the circumstances of the hunt, and on the quality and competence of the engineering of the optic.

"so many people" probably does not include those in vast, open country, for example. What's useful for me in Nevada and most of the West maxes out around 15x, as higher than that it's hard to stay on the animal after the shot. And any lower than 9-10x, it feels pretty imprecise if a buck is out past 200yds. To me, personally. Plus, with a higher top-end magnification, you do seem to get better optical clarity/image a few mag levels lower than you would, than if the setting you want is the max magnification. IE, if you want to shoot at 9x, your image will be better at 9x if the scope's top-end is 15x, than if its max is 9x.

I'm extremely happy to see this scope being spec'd at 3-14x. That's almost perfectly optimal for what I do in the field, and gives options and capability that just wouldn't be there at 3-9x. And given that Test & Eval samples will be put through the rigors of the drop-tests before being put into production, the durability and reliability we'll likely see is both a relief and damned encouraging. Especially with a simplified THLR reticle. I'm more than happy to pack around another 6oz or so for bomb-proof reliability, a top-end of 14x, and broad usability. That's an absolute hell yes in my book.

I can ring a 10" steel at 600 and 800 yards with a fixed 6x swfa. It was covering up the target, but that's good enough and further than I'm willing to shoot an animal at this point. I'll stick with inside of 500.

 

[Kyguy]

In principle this makes sense and I'd agree - but it also entirely depends on the circumstances of the hunt, and on the quality and competence of the engineering of the optic.

"so many people" probably does not include those in vast, open country, for example. What's useful for me in Nevada and most of the West maxes out around 15x, as higher than that it's hard to stay on the animal after the shot. And any lower than 9-10x, it feels pretty imprecise if a buck is out past 200yds. To me, personally. Plus, with a higher top-end magnification, you do seem to get better optical clarity/image a few mag levels lower than you would, than if the setting you want is the max magnification. IE, if you want to shoot at 9x, your image will be better at 9x if the scope's top-end is 15x, than if its max is 9x.

I'm extremely happy to see this scope being spec'd at 3-14x. That's almost perfectly optimal for what I do in the field, and gives options and capability that just wouldn't be there at 3-9x. And given that Test & Eval samples will be put through the rigors of the drop-tests before being put into production, the durability and reliability we'll likely see is both a relief and damned encouraging. Especially with a simplified THLR reticle. I'm more than happy to pack around another 6oz or so for bomb-proof reliability, a top-end of 14x, and broad usability. That's an absolute hell yes in my book.

Each has their own preference. I'm just quoting Form and many other who talk about keeping their scopes at 6x-8x for all their hunting, regardless of range, and the plethora of SWFA 6x hunters who never find themselves wanting more X's. I shoot a steel prairie dog target all the time with scopes set on 2x or 3x, at 242 yds (max at the range I use). Deer and turkeys are frequent visitors too, so I've spent hours looking at them through various magnifications. I could easily kill deer all day long at 242 yds with 2x or 3x. Turkeys maybe not quite so much, depends on how tall the grass is at any given moment. But cranking up to 6x or more is plenty for that too when the grass is high. Not that we ever get to use rifles on turkeys in kentucky. Lol.

 

[DTOM83]

For me, I'd prefer to have a higher magnification than just 12x but the rest of the specs look great. If only 12x i'd prefer to have a 2x min magnification...not sure if that exists.

 

[Kyguy]

It's doable. There's several companies that offer the magnification range 2-12.

 

[RockAndSage]

But I wouldn’t be past 2x zoom (if I could) at 200 yards. Even at 600 yards I would be far lower than 9x on any big game animal.

9-10x at 200 yards!!? I can quarter a deer with peep sights on my muzzleloader no problem at 200 yards.

I can ring a 10" steel at 600 and 800 yards with a fixed 6x swfa.

I could easily kill deer all day long at 242 yds with 2x or 3x.

Yes, all four of you are making points that are plenty valid.

All of which can be done with equipment already on the market, right?

So why are we even discussing what you can do with gear already on the market?

Respectfully, I can't tell how much of these quotes are sincere, as opposed to it being d*ck measuring responses to my stated optics preferences. My statement above is most definitely not coming from a lack of skill. I've dropped real, live targets out past 400 yards with irons, keep my LPVOs set right around 2.3x in the field for a reason, and fired patched round-ball out of primitive muzzleloaders by the thousands before I was able to drive a car. My preferences for a 3-14x are most certainly not based on ignorance, lack of experience, or lack of capability.

I don't need the tool and firing solution to be 'just fine' though - I want it to be excellent. Because preference and perceived utility. If you don't find preference or utility in it, don't buy it. But I don't want to aim at "deer vitals", I want to put a bullet right through a 2" crease-shadow or patch of colored hide at 300yds, in any lighting conditions, with a fast and effective reticle, via a bomb-proof scope. I don't want "can be done", I want the best solution for the broadest set of circumstances possible.

And right now, there's nothing on the market that checks all these boxes the proposed scope in this thread meets. So it's a hell yes for me.

 

[lak2004]

Yes, all four of you are making points that are plenty valid.

All of which can be done with equipment already on the market, right?

So why are we even discussing what you can do with gear already on the market?

Respectfully, I can't tell how much of these quotes are sincere, as opposed to it being d*ck measuring responses to my stated optics preferences. My statement above is most definitely not coming from a lack of skill. I've dropped real, live targets out past 400 yards with irons, keep my LPVOs set right around 2.3x in the field for a reason, and fired patched round-ball out of primitive muzzleloaders by the thousands before I was able to drive a car. My preferences for a 3-14x are most certainly not based on ignorance, lack of experience, or lack of capability.

I don't need the tool and firing solution to be 'just fine' though - I want it to be excellent. Because preference and perceived utility. If you don't find preference or utility in it, don't buy it. But I don't want to aim at "deer vitals", I want to put a bullet right through a 2" crease-shadow or patch of colored hide at 300yds, in any lighting conditions, with a fast and effective reticle, via a bomb-proof scope. I don't want "can be done", I want the best solution for the broadest set of circumstances possible.

And right now, there's nothing on the market that checks all these boxes the proposed scope in this thread meets. So it's a hell yes for me.

Not trying to invalidate or say you have a lack of skill. Just saying a 6x can get it done and the lower the zoom range, the lower the weight, which I would guess is what many of us are chasing. With the caveat that sacrificing weight doesn't sacrifice durability or ability to hold zero.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

~1.5x per 100 yards is more realistic for me at the range. Can't hardly see a 2 MOA orange dot at 800 on 8x. I've been putting off a visit to the optometrist though.