Would you buy this scope?

[180ls1]

Appreciate the idea, but already being done.

What about a QR code to a youtube video talking through and showing an install or two?

 

[Formidilosus]

What about a QR code to a youtube video talking through and showing an install or two?

Yes sir, already being done.

 

[brucemt]

The “cRok scope”

 

[43.6N]

Honest question:
When you get a scope cerakoted, does that interfere with ring fitment? Or is that a non-issue?

That OD green mockup a few pages back reminded me of the S&B fixed 6x from the AI L96 sniper system. That would be a seriously cool color option as long as it does not interfere with rings.

 

[blue_ridge]

I agree with a smaller, classy logo. Here’s one basic idea. You can change to any of a million fonts, but the white outline and black fill looks classy, timeless.

 

[tysonES]

@Ryan Avery


First prototype from Japan.

View attachment 1000023


View attachment 1000024

Is that a locking diopter on the ocular?

 

[BjornF16]

you got my vote. View attachment 1000112

This…or nothing

 

[JDMBEND]

This approval is much more important

View attachment 1000558

Perfect match

 

[ChrisAU]

While it feels not that important of a question, but since we’ve spent 9 pages talking about the branding on the bell, @Formidilosus how is the turret feel? Any other scopes that the feel reminds you of? It’s one of the first ways into my heart for a scope.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I don't think they are in the S2H guys hands yet. They have only received pictures

 

[Dark timber]

I vote for Borat’s face etched on the windage cap.

 

[Fowl Play]

Scope form factor looks great. I think you guys should consider releasing with 2 reticle options, the THLR you guys are set on and a more traditional hash mark Mil scope that works at low power. Since the scope is just a compilation of LOW components that you guys are testing for robustness, by not having a more traditional reticle, you are leaving low hanging fruit for your competitors to take away market share form you. For instance, a Maven "RS 1.3" that's this exact same scope in 3-18x with the Mil reticle they use is going to be a huge issue... especially if a competitor comes out with the same thing that has a "cooler logo" (evidenced by the fact there's like 3 pages just talking about the logo now).

Also realizing that this scope coming out is effectively the end of the scope testing section of the forum I'd assume, which is a bummer, but understandable. As a failed scope would have to be taken with a grain of salt since you are now a competitor.... and testing additional scopes that pass eats away at your potential sales...

 

[mddat]

Scope form factor looks great. I think you guys should consider releasing with 2 reticle options, the THLR you guys are set on and a more traditional hash mark Mil scope that works at low power.

I believe Form mentioned there will be 2 reticles offered, exactly like you described. I believe it was mentioned in the shoot 2 hunt podcast thread

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Also realizing that this scope coming out is effectively the end of the scope testing section of the forum I'd assume, which is a bummer, but understandable. As a failed scope would have to be taken with a grain of salt since you are now a competitor.... and testing additional scopes that pass eats away at your potential sales...

I don’t think this is at all how Form works. I fully expect that he will continue to test new scopes in the same way as he has previously done. The people who trust his methods aren’t going to stop trusting him because he helped design a new scope. They will stop trusting him if the new scope turns out to suck, but he says it is good.

Nor does it take into account that S2H doesn’t appear to have a goal of “making all other scopes obsolete.” This is about finding ways to make the gear they want to use and selling it to consumers. If not everyone likes it, that’s immaterial to them. That attitude is a double-edged sword, since it means they are unlikely to ever make a product that takes a large market share.

 

[blue_ridge]

I agree, there’s years of testing history. No reason they can’t continue it. They intended goal for this testing was established way before a S2H scope comes on the market, so no one can accurately or truthfully say they fail scopes because they are trying erase the competition or elevate their own scope.

 

[HuntHarder]

The "conflict of interest" will be up to the end user to decide. No doubt some will think differently about the drop tests, knowing he has his own scope. The vast majority of the drop test "believers" will not fall into that category imo. It's similar to podcasters that have always used a particular product, well before they podcasted, then said product comes on as a sponsor. I see it in Rogan's arena often. At the end of the day, you either believe the tester, or you don't.

 

[BBob]

IMO There won’t be any conflict of interest as far as advertising drop performance. They know good and well that a bunch of you are going to drop your scope when you get it and any flaw or zero shift will be quickly called out. Look at the responses to the UM failures on Rokstok’s and UM rings. The bar is high and they know it. Plus the people behind it want it to work as advertised so why would they tell you any different just to sell a product

They will stop trusting him if the new scope turns out to suck, but he says it is good.

He would lose so much face and credibility forever if he did that and in no way could I foresee him doing that. Does anyone really think he would? Kinda absurd to even suggest that would ever happen. Q to be clear I’m not saying you are suggesting that at all.

 

[Fowl Play]

I don’t think this is at all how Form works. I fully expect that he will continue to test new scopes in the same way as he has previously done. The people who trust his methods aren’t going to stop trusting him because he helped design a new scope. They will stop trusting him if the new scope turns out to suck, but he says it is good.

Nor does it take into account that S2H doesn’t appear to have a goal of “making all other scopes obsolete.” This is about finding ways to make the gear they want to use and selling it to consumers. If not everyone likes it, that’s immaterial to them. That attitude is a double-edged sword, since it means they are unlikely to ever make a product that takes a large market share.

Maybe, here’s how I see it.

Forms not paying his own money to acquire the majority of the scopes he tests. The scopes Form tests mostly come from manufacturers wanting an unbiased test or Rokslide (S2H). I doubt either of those providers are going to be as inclined to provide scopes as readily now. But time will tell.

 

[BBob]

The scopes Form tests mostly come from manufacturers wanting an unbiased test or Rokslide (S2H).

Don’t most of the scopes come out of donated optics or donated and testers personal monies? How many Mfg’s have sent scopes for testing?

That’s just a question not a call out aimed at you since I haven’t tracked mfg submitted test scopes. I thought it was small to near non existent but could be wrong.

 

[WCT3]

Don’t most of the scopes come out of donated optics or donated and testers personal monies? How many Mfg’s have sent scopes for testing?

That’s just a question not a call out aimed at you since I haven’t tracked mfg submitted test scopes. I thought it was small to near non existent but could be wrong.

I believe this is correct. There were a couple companies talking about bringing scopes and watching the test themselves but as far as I know it hasn't happened yet.