Would you buy this scope?

[Dobermann]

Just no embarrassing "Form approved" BS this time. Please. For us and Form's sake.

 

[WyldGoose]

Packaging should say “FRAGILE” stenciled.

 

[Dobermann]

Packaging should say “NOT FRAGILE - PLEASE DROP TO SEE FOR YOURSELF” stenciled.

Fixed it for you!

 

[Formidilosus]

All I really want to know at this point is what the parallax goes down to - if 10 m, this could be very good for "field competitions" (not higher-mag NRL type) 22 matches .... @Ryan Avery??

Bruh….

 

[pattimusprime22]

Something is going on in my pants...

 

[wyosam]

Packaging should say “FRAGILE” stenciled.

That would actually be a good name for the scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dobermann]

Bruh….


View attachment 1008744

Woah!

This is going to scoop the 22LR crowd as well then ... will be great for both hunting and field comps.

Very few other scopes out there have a 10 m minimum parallax that pass the drop eval - perhaps just the RS1.2 and the DMR III ... but both are just a little on the chonky side.

 

[RockAndSage]

Packaging should say “FRAGILE” stenciled.

 

[Geewhiz]

Something is going on in my pants...

yucky

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the prototypes all the same size? Side by side pic looks very goofy

Yes they are the same size.

 

[Dobermann]

Bruh….


View attachment 1008744

And just saw this is in metres too, not yards.

Smart move.

 

[elsb0048]

The scope is….




Fantastic with regards to reticle, eyebox, size, turrets, parralax- it is beyond what Ryan or I had hoped for.

3x
View attachment 1008217



18x
View attachment 1008223

I think I can understand some/most of the benefits/designs in of this reticle.
But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

 

[Stocky]

And just saw this is in metres too, not yards.

Smart move.

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I think I can understand some/most of the benefits/designs in of this reticle.
But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

I think because its not needed and it keeps FOV open. But may be corrected.

 

[Tcmo-33]

Well done. I love the fact that these guys involved saw a problem with the current options in scopes and did what they had to do for the greater good of the community. Excited to get full details on this and watch it being treated like a dogs fetching toy.

 

[rafiki]

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I think because its not needed and it keeps FOV open. But may be corrected.

reckon you might be on to something

 

[Dobermann]

You would expect that considering the companies origin wouldnt you.

I would assume parallax could be specc'd in metres or yards. Overall, metres keeps everything decimal, and opens space for .mil audience.

In use, parallax designation won't make any difference - people just turn to what they need in terms of clarity, not what number is used.

 

[Formidilosus]

But is there anything specific function wise about the lack of a top post on the vertical line? (Sorry I'm fumbling reticle words...). Did you already detail that elsewhere in this thread or maybe in the minox thlr thread?

No one holds under in real life functionally. Not having a top post opens the FOV up noticeably.

 

[Kaleb]

No one holds under in real life functionally. Not having a top post opens the FOV up noticeably.

The MQ is my favorite reticle but it is probably because it's my most used for the longest time. I've always thought it would be better upside down.