Would you buy this scope?

[BBob]

Perhaps LOW knows what erectors are durable, but their customers don’t.

He said “purpose made” so maybe they were never sold or available to the public and those customers knew exactly what they were getting.

purpose made scopes

 

[Grizzle]

No it doesn't but if it could be reliable and be good in low light it would worth more to me personally

 

[RockAndSage]

If it’s not repeatable and durable, I don’t give a crap how clear the glass is

Same - which is why I sold off most of my Swaros.

But this is a false choice - we don't need to choose between rugged vs optical excellence, if excellent glass comes with this new scope.

 

[HighUintas]

"Official" sun raise and sun set times are very different than when you have enough light to actually see

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

? I must have misunderstood his point

 

[nm.otter]

"Official" sun raise and sun set times are very different than when you have enough light to actually see

Twilight -- astronomical, nautical, or civil?

 

[WCT3]

I generally have pretty good eyes but my night vision must just suck. Legal shooting light here is 30 mins after sunset but by 20 mins past it's always dark enough that I wouldn't be comfortable shooting with very few exceptions.

 

[ElPollo]

Same - which is why I sold off most of my Swaros.

But this is a false choice - we don't need to choose between rugged vs optical excellence, if excellent glass comes with this new scope.

You’re right its a false choice. Its never as simple as A verses B. There are always multiple things you are considering.

To me reticles come after durability and repeatability, but are still more important than glass. Thenyou have size/weight, turret design, zero stops, etc. For me glass comes further down the list than you. And that’s fine. I’ve been using SWFAs because they check the big boxes for me. I am good with glass that is not so good, goofy-ass giant turrets with no zero stop if I can get a durable repeatable scope with a good reticle, that doesn’t weigh a ton. It’s also nice that it doesn’t break the bank.

The scope that’s being discussed in this thread ticks a lot of those same boxes. 1) If comes to market the durability and repeatability will be a given. 2) The reticle has been an important design feature following things that are important to me, visibility in low light and complex backgrounds, speed and simplicity of use even at lower magnifications without illumination. 3) Better, and smaller turrets with a zero stop. 4) Not a ridiculous zoom range because I really don’t particularly need or want 15x or larger on a scope. 5) Reasonable weight and size which is often determined by the features you add or don’t add and the zoom range. Illumination, parallax adjustment, built-in levels, and other do-dads are included in this. Features can make a scope more useable, but the increase cost, complexity, and weight. 6) Useable glass, but it doesn’t have to be great because it’s number six on my list.

That’s my list for evaluating scopes at this time. Yours will be different and that’s okay. The scope that Form and Ryan are working on likely ticks a lot of boxes for both of us. But I’m a weirdo and I know it. I would love to see them make a scope like what they are discussing in a fixed 8x50 or 8x56 for great light transmission and less weight. Basically an S&B with a mil reticle and turrets. Unfortunately, being a weirdo means you have to learn to make do without reaching your optimal. For me right now, that’s a sub $400 SWFA 6x with glass people consider sub-par and giant, goofy-ass turrets. Maybe that’ll change when they come out with this one.

 

[dirtytough]

It doesn’t take alpha glass to kill deer and elk up to and beyond legal shooting hours. People have been using shitty glass for decades. Remember when Weaver and Redfield were on everyone’s guns? I am comfortable with less glass and more ass in my scopes. If it’s not repeatable and durable, I don’t give a crap how clear the glass is.

It doesn’t take a durable scope to kill deer and elk. People have been using Leupold and Vortex for decades.

 

[Grizzle]

I generally have pretty good eyes but my night vision must just suck. Legal shooting light here is 30 mins after sunset but by 20 mins past it's always dark enough that I wouldn't be comfortable shooting with very few exceptions.

That's where practise and the right equipment can really pay off where legal. Like Id said before in BC we are legal to an hour after sunset as long as we don't use artificial light. Many opportunities would be missed if my equipment or abilities limited me to 20 minutes after sunset. I always wondered why most guys on here poo poo low light performance but it makes sense if you're not able to take advantage of it. It's rare to have more than about 45 minutes of usable light after sunset but that first and last 15 minutes kill alot of animals. The rs 1.2 is usable with illumination but is a noticeable step back in low light performance from the leupolds they replaced. I'm hopeful this new scope is an improvement on the 1.2s glass, anything less would be a compete fail for me.

 

[ElPollo]

It doesn’t take a durable scope to kill deer and elk. People have been using Leupold and Vortex for decades.

Haha. You’re right, if you’re comfortable making a mess out of killing an animal. But the Leupold scopes they make now are not the ones they used to make. And that’s readily apparent. I used to use them and wish I could again. Note that I didn’t include Vortex in that because they never were reliable.

That said, if your metrics for evaluating scopes are different than mine, great.

 

[WCT3]

That's where practise and the right equipment can really pay off where legal. Like Id said before in BC we are legal to an hour after sunset as long as we don't use artificial light. Many opportunities would be missed if my equipment or abilities limited me to 20 minutes after sunset. I always wondered why most guys on here poo poo low light performance but it makes sense if you're not able to take advantage of it. It's rare to have more than about 45 minutes of usable light after sunset but that first and last 15 minutes kill alot of animals. The rs 1.2 is usable with illumination but is a noticeable step back in low light performance from the leupolds they replaced. I'm hopeful this new scope is an improvement on the 1.2s glass, anything less would be a compete fail for me.

An hour after sunset is crazy to me. I have a lot less issues with visibility in the morning going from light to dark so I think my eyes are just very slow to adjust to the dark as the sun sets. Occasionally, in the right conditions (open field or hillside, clear night, etc.) I can make it to a little past 30 minutes in the evening.

 

[fwafwow]

I generally have pretty good eyes but my night vision must just suck. Legal shooting light here is 30 mins after sunset but by 20 mins past it's always dark enough that I wouldn't be comfortable shooting with very few exceptions.

Same for me. Even if I'm looking at an open field, I have decided that 30 minutes past official sunset is generally too late for me. If I've been watching a particular deer for long enough and I'm just waiting for the right shot, I'm more likely to shoot past sunset, but if there are multiple deer moving around, then I may hold off for fear of shooting the "right one".

Getting older sucks.

 

[Kimber7man]

You’re right its a false choice. Its never as simple as A verses B. There are always multiple things you are considering.

To me reticles come after durability and repeatability, but are still more important than glass. Thenyou have size/weight, turret design, zero stops, etc. For me glass comes further down the list than you. And that’s fine. I’ve been using SWFAs because they check the big boxes for me. I am good with glass that is not so good, goofy-ass giant turrets with no zero stop if I can get a durable repeatable scope with a good reticle, that doesn’t weigh a ton. It’s also nice that it doesn’t break the bank.

The scope that’s being discussed in this thread ticks a lot of those same boxes. 1) If comes to market the durability and repeatability will be a given. 2) The reticle has been an important design feature following things that are important to me, visibility in low light and complex backgrounds, speed and simplicity of use even at lower magnifications without illumination. 3) Better, and smaller turrets with a zero stop. 4) Not a ridiculous zoom range because I really don’t particularly need or want 15x or larger on a scope. 5) Reasonable weight and size which is often determined by the features you add or don’t add and the zoom range. Illumination, parallax adjustment, built-in levels, and other do-dads are included in this. Features can make a scope more useable, but the increase cost, complexity, and weight. 6) Useable glass, but it doesn’t have to be great because it’s number six on my list.

That’s my list for evaluating scopes at this time. Yours will be different and that’s okay. The scope that Form and Ryan are working on likely ticks a lot of boxes for both of us. But I’m a weirdo and I know it. I would love to see them make a scope like what they are discussing in a fixed 8x50 or 8x56 for great light transmission and less weight. Basically an S&B with a mil reticle and turrets. Unfortunately, being a weirdo means you have to learn to make do without reaching your optimal. For me right now, that’s a sub $400 SWFA 6x with glass people consider sub-par and giant, goofy-ass turrets. Maybe that’ll change when they come out with this one.

Would love to try a S&B Klassik 8x56 with P3 reticle and 4.8 mil BDC turret.

 

[nm.otter]

I would love to see them make a scope like what they are discussing in a fixed 8x50 or 8x56 for great light transmission and less weight.

After spending a bit of time with the 6x I'm intrigued by the idea of a brighter 8x.

 

[Grizzle]

An hour after sunset is crazy to me. I have a lot less issues with visibility in the morning going from light to dark so I think my eyes are just very slow to adjust to the dark as the sun sets. Occasionally, in the right conditions (open field or hillside, clear night, etc.) I can make it to a little past 30 minutes in the evening.

Conditions make a huge difference for sure. Snow covered feilds vs under a tight canopy are very different. Dark is dark and I don't push shooting times past what I can confidently see and have a good ability to recover. The point I was trying to get across is that the better it is in low light the more valuble the scope will be to users like me and not everyone has the same requirements for low light performance

 

[ElPollo]

After spending a bit of time with the 6x I'm intrigued by the idea of a brighter 8x.

The 6x easily gets me to 30 minutes before sunrise in most conditions. But at 56, my eyesight is starting to struggle with those little hash marks in the reticle. Particularly with a little mirage.

 

[ElPollo]

Would love to try a S&B Klassik 8x56 with P3 reticle and 4.8 mil BDC turret.

That does not seem to be an option for the 8x56 anymore, at least according to the S&B website.

 

[amassi]

That does not seem to be an option for the 8x56 anymore, at least according to the S&B website.

S&B used to do the modification for you if you were inclined, in fact I have a fixed 6x klassik on the shelf I was going to send Before S&B US rep left the cost was $650 for reticle and turret installed. Now that everything is handled overseas not sure if they still will or if cost has increased.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

The scope that’s being discussed in this thread ticks a lot of those same boxes. 1) If comes to market the durability and repeatability will be a given. 2) The reticle has been an important design feature following things that are important to me, visibility in low light and complex backgrounds, speed and simplicity of use even at lower magnifications without illumination. 3) Better, and smaller turrets with a zero stop. 4) Not a ridiculous zoom range because I really don’t particularly need or want 15x or larger on a scope. 5) Reasonable weight and size which is often determined by the features you add or don’t add and the zoom range. Illumination, parallax adjustment, built-in levels, and other do-dads are included in this. Features can make a scope more useable, but the increase cost, complexity, and weight. 6) Useable glass, but it doesn’t have to be great because it’s number six on my list.

This order of priorities is almost identical to mine, though how much each one matters is not evenly spaced out, and several could easily move a bit higher or lower. Biggest difference is I'd put glass above turrets, zoom range, and weight, as I'm entirely willing to carry a few extra ounces for an additional 20-30 minutes of low-light usability, and the ability to see deeply into shadows on a bright day.

I'd also add a 7th, which would be to break out illumination into its own category. At least a dot in the center, preferably, or tiny cross-segment. I literally will not buy a scope if it doesn't have this, because I've experienced unacceptable limitations and loss in not having it. My rifle hunting and need for a rifle isn't exclusively limited to big-game in Nevada, so the more usability in artificial light or moonlight the better (coyotes, hogs, emergency predator situations, etc).

I completely respect if someone doesn't have these same preferences or needs, but hey - if we're getting access to an excellent hunting scope being made with community input, I'd much rather have an optimal scope, than an unnecessarily minimized one.