Would you buy this scope?

[Kyguy]

No one is saying you have a lack of skill or trying to say that theirs is greater. And to your point of wanting to see a 2" crease shadow and such..... yeah, I know, aim small, miss small.... But I don't need all the X's to still do that. I don't want to be zoomed in that much on an animal. I want to use as much field of view as possible to be able to keep the target in the scope as much as possible after the shot, first to be able to spot my hit/miss if it happens for a better follow-up and secondly to be able to see it where/if it runs. When you're zoomed in, you lose those large (in my mind) advantages. I can't tell you how many times I've been out with people hunting who zoom up to 9x or 10x to shoot at deer or coyote at even 100 yds, and then turn around and ask, "did I hit it?" or "did you see where it ran?"

Everyone hunts differently and they're just talking about what they think will work best for them. Last three does I killed, they were each shot in the head with a muzzleloader at 75 yds from a blind with a scope on 3x, on top of a hill that I didn't want to have to drag them back up.

There's certainly a place for magnification for each person, but for me it isn't in wide open clear areas. I actually find it more useful when I'm in the woods and trying to decide what I'm actually seeing in the clutter. That's why I carry a 8x binocular or monocular in the woods, when lots of people wouldn't carry any at all. I don't like using my riflescope as a viewing tool, it's an aiming device. I've caught other hunters looking at me through their rifle scopes and it isn't a good feeling at all. But that's off topic.

I'm really interested to see how the scope comes out. At this point, I'd really have to be awestruck to buy it though.

 

[atmat]

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?

To me the closest is the Maven. But I don’t need the 6x erector, don’t care to support the company much, and like the advertised reticle of this more.

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.

This wasn’t the intent. Was trying to be respectful in my response and sharing my experience from the last couple years after being on the other end of the spectrum previously.

 

[Kimber7man]

I’ll say this based on my experience this week. I have a 3-15x50 scope and set it at 4X when I’m hunting. Shot a bull elk at 417 yards and cranked the zoom up to get a good sight picture before I pulled the trigger. Looked at my scope settings after the excitement ended and I was at 8X.

Now if it were an antelope, I’d probably have cranked up more magnification for a finer point of aim.

Looking forward to seeing this scope come out.

 

[Dobermann]

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.

For what it's worth - and I know it's only just one reference point for the conversation that followed your post (and you expressed your own preferences) - 3-14 is still within the 5x ratio that Jeff Huber said is the upper limit of what he thinks is mechanically and optically optimal.

 

[Trogon]

I don’t need 15x for hunting, but it is a practical upper range. Makes range work much easier. I dont want to have to pack a spotter every time I zero or do some lead dev. 12 is marginal. Easy pass on 9x scopes for me.