Would you buy this scope?

[Johnwell]

Pop the O ring off the turret stem. My 3-9 was mushier than mashed potatoes, and now it had better clicks than my Credo. Some risk of water, but seems like it would take a lot to cause an issue. Like submersed.

You, sir, live more recklessly than I.

I’ll just live with my mushy mashed potato turrets..

 

[Hondo64d]

Just to play devil's advocate, besides low profile turrets, what are you getting that you aren't getting from an SWFA 3-15x?

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

Better reticle, lower profile turrets, 10 mils per rev vs five, zero stop, and, I hope, better glass.

John

 

[grfox92]

Better reticle, lower profile turrets, 10 mils per rev vs five, zero stop, and, I hope, better glass.

John

Excellent rebuttal. All good reasons. Although I love the SWFA reticle. I'm curious to see what this new scope has.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

The base erector design/optical system was the same as several other well known, purpose made scopes that are reliable and durable that hold zero from drops and impacts. It has been interesting to learn as this has went on. LOW knows exactly what scopes hold zero long term and hold zero from drops- because they were designed specifically to do so. And… which features reduce the reliability and durability.

I've looked forward to some gear purchases the last few years, but it's been awhile since I've actually felt some excitement about an item coming out. It's enough to have me hold off on several scope purchases until these come out.

This thing about LOW knowing exactly what it takes to build a bomb-proof scope, that's interesting. Not only is it interesting in that it's exactly what you'd expect they should know - it also says a lot more about current scope brands using them for OEM that are making conscious decisions not to prioritize durability.

 

[ElPollo]

I've looked forward to some gear purchases the last few years, but it's been awhile since I've actually felt some excitement about an item coming out. It's enough to have me hold off on several scope purchases until these come out.

This thing about LOW knowing exactly what it takes to build a bomb-proof scope, that's interesting. Not only is it interesting in that it's exactly what you'd expect they should know - it also says a lot more about current scope brands using them for OEM that are making conscious decisions not to prioritize durability.

It would be interesting to know what those other brands are prioritizing instead of durability and repeatability. There are plenty of expensive scopes out there that don’t hold zero, so it can’t just be a cost thing. Perhaps LOW knows what erectors are durable, but their customers don’t.

 

[Speaks]

It would be interesting to know what those other brands are prioritizing instead of durability and repeatability. There are plenty of expensive scopes out there that don’t hold zero, so it can’t just be a cost thing. Perhaps LOW knows what erectors are durable, but their customers don’t.

Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.

Its cause the companies either outright lie their scopes are durable or via omission don't admit they loose zero. Those folks loose their minds because they think they have a durable scope AND those features they like because they assume that a scope company would make the scope properly do the 1 thing it is supposed to do before pursuing other features. They are in denial that they've been duped/suckered. Sadly that usually results in arguing back, no one wants to readily admit being the fool on first impulse.

They have confirmation bias because they can still hit a 10" target (or whatever) at <100yd to kill a deer so the scope still did what they expected and they'll point at dead animals as proof the scope doesn't loose zero (rather than admitting it may loose zero but not in enough magnitude to affect their limited use case).

 

[keystone112]

I keep trying to talk my friend out of buying a ZCO.

He probably thinks I’m crazy.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Go on any long range shooting forum (other than this one) or reddit group and post that SWFA is better than Vortex or Leupod and watch every person loose their mind. Companies are prioritizing what consumers want and its not a rugged scope.

I am glad we have a few and are getting one more.

When I first found SWFA scopes a few years ago, I joined Sniper’s Hide to ask if they were any good. I wanted something to be on a $400 Mauser .22-250 I found on GunBroker (damn near identical to the one I just sold). A couple of people said SWFA were really good “for the price.” Someone else said, “those guys over at RokSlide love them.” I’d never heard of RokSlide.

A host of others told me I needed to spend at least 3x more on the optic than I had on the rifle (that was a rule of thumb or something?) and recommended a bunch of $1500-$5000 optics. “Spend money on glass, not steel, you won’t regret it.” Or words to that effect.

Because those couple of guys told me what I wanted to hear - that there was a $300 scope that would be reliable for learning to dial and shooting groundhogs out to 500 yards - I bought one. It was the most expensive scope I had bought to that point in my life. Prior to that, it was all old Redfields, Leupolds, and really old B&L scopes.

The first time I shot it, my brother and I marveled at the fact that it tracked and repeated. “Look at this! I moved it 1.5 mils left and the impact moved 1.5 mils left!” If we had been watching Jesus rise from the grave we could not have been more amazed. No more shoot three shots, three clicks left, shoot three shots, four clicks right, shoot three shots, one tap with a hammer and five clicks right, shoot three shots, two taps with a hammer and seven clicks left, shoot three shots, accept that it’s now an inch high and half an inch to the right, but stop adjusting because we only have five shots left over for the season! Mirabile visu!

I liked it a lot and used it for many groundhogs. Then I bought one more for my brother. Then I discovered that my older brother already owned one and he really liked it. Now I own six (and a pair of their binoculars). And I’m spending all my money on lead and titanium.

When my friend came shooting with me last weekend, I was bragging on my Tikka with an SWFA scope and telling him how much I liked it. His response, “Dude, you don’t have to convince me.” And he pulled out two Tikkas, one of which had an SWFA on it. The other one had a Leupold (). He’s not on RokSlide.

I really should find someone with one of these “Alpha glass” scopes to go shooting with me so I can see what I can’t see with my current scopes.

All that to say, I am hoping there are example RokScopes I can see and shoot at S2H next summer. I trust the intent behind the RokScope, now I just want to see the execution.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

No more shoot three shots, three clicks left, shoot three shots, four clicks right, shoot three shots, one tap with a hammer and five clicks right, shoot three shots, two taps with a hammer and seven clicks left, shoot three shots, accept that it’s now an inch high and half an inch to the right, but stop adjusting because we only have five shots left over for the season!

Lol this right here should resonate with many folks and can still be witnessed at hunter sight in days at local ranges. Comical and sad.

Ya gotta tap the scope and disregard the first shot or two after adjustment so it "settles in". I remember thinking that was normal at the time.

 

[Speaks]

Its cause the companies either outright lie their scopes are durable or via omission don't admit they loose zero. Those folks loose their minds because they think they have a durable scope AND those features they like because they assume that a scope company would make the scope properly do the 1 thing it is supposed to do before pursuing other features. They are in denial that they've been duped/suckered. Sadly that usually results in arguing back, no one wants to readily admit being the fool on first impulse.

They have confirmation bias because they can still hit a 10" target (or whatever) at <100yd to kill a deer so the scope still did what they expected and they'll point at dead animals as proof the scope doesn't loose zero (rather than admitting it may loose zero but not in enough magnitude to affect their limited use case).

I had a friend this summer showing me his new deer rifle, went out back to shoot it and he stapled a paper plate to a tree 40 yards away and proceeded to put 4/5 shots in the plate (all over it). Then bragged on how accurate the gun was and how well he shot it. In this case I cant even blame the $99 vortex that was on it.

I think thats far more common that we would all like to admit.

I didnt even point out the 3 inch steel plates I had hanging at 200 yards...

 

[WCT3]

Lol this right here should resonate with many folks and can still be witnessed at hunter sight in days at local ranges. Comical and sad.

Ya gotta tap the scope and disregard the first shot or two after adjustment so it "settles in". I remember thinking that was normal at the time.

The cone of fire is also an important aspect of this. I've spent a lot of time chasing zeros around a target while shooting 3 shot groups not realizing that every group is within the cone.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

The cone of fire is also an important aspect of this. I've spent a lot of time chasing zeros around a target while shooting 3 shot groups not realizing that every group is within the cone.

Yep, that too.