Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

The numbers on the parralax knobs are nearly meaningless- they do not, except by coincidence; align with reality. If you want to have numbers that match reality for your ocular seating, you tape over the knob and write your own.

 

[The Guide]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

I view parallax like bore sighting. The number should get you "on paper" but you will still need to fine tune it. The numbers at best are a guess on how your own eye sees through the scope. If you dial to 500 meters for 500 yards, you should be able to tune it for parallax with a slight adjustment. It wouldn't be much.

Jay

 

[ID_Matt]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

500 meters is 546 yards. Are other scopes really small enough increments that you can tell the difference between a 500 yard parallax setting and 546?

 

[wyosam]

Actually parallax in yards, at least in America is quite useful. Yes I realize parallax really needs to be dialed in but in matches or on the clock it is certainly acceptable and faster to dial to the approximated yardage on the parallax knob that corresponds to the range finder or match card. Fine tuning it for when you have lots of time static shooting. In short, I prefer yards for parallax (here in America) which is a measure of distance and mils for the adjustments which is a measure of angle. The only match I have been to that was a complete shit show was with a bunch of fed boys that wanted to play in Meters but couldn't keep gear straight between the American standard of yard in rangefinders and dope cards and the target distances in meters. Unfortunately they are not interchangeable.

Yards/Meters is close enough for parallax. Even at 1000 yards it’s only 85ish yards difference, which isn’t enough parallax error to matter, not to mention you’re probably out of numbers on the knob by then anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wiscgunner]

Obviously I can fix a manufacturing/marketing mistake with tape but it still is missing the market selling a meters scope in America when everyone but tactical timmy ranges in yards including match directors. If I am approximating my yardage, which is almost spot on with my existing scopes, why would I add further known error by approximating it in a different unit of measure?

I don't need nor do I want 2 different units of measure in my head under pressure or we would still be using mil reticles with IPH turrets? I know it may seem nitpicking and the benefit to using yards may be too small for some but there literally is no benefit to putting the parallax in meters...in this market.

If I lived in a different country where my hunting partners, match directors and ranges were in meters then I would push for meters on the parallax knob. I want a common language across the board for my uses.

 

[Formidilosus]

Obviously I can fix a manufacturing/marketing mistake with tape but it still is missing the market selling a meters scope in America when everyone but tactical timmy ranges in yards including match directors. If I am approximating my yardage, which is almost spot on with my existing scopes, why would I add further known error by approximating it in a different unit of measure?

I don't need nor do I want 2 different units of measure in my head under pressure or we would still be using mil reticles with IPH turrets? I know it may seem nitpicking and the benefit to using yards may be too small for some but there literally is no benefit to putting the parallax in meters...in this market.

If I lived in a different country where my hunting partners, match directors and ranges were in meters then I would push for meters on the parallax knob. I want a common language across the board for my uses.

I don’t know how to make this more clear- it does not matter. The yardage markings on parallax are bs feel good- it’s not correct as the parallax free setting changes with the ocular adjustment.


For actual 100y parallax free:

On SWFA side PA- my parallax free is approx 70y on the dial.

On Maven RS1.2- my parallax free is approx 120 yards.

So on, and so forth. And everyone else is different than mine.

Meters, yards- it makes no difference.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

View attachment 1008933

Double levels?

 

[nm.otter]

Also depth of field.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

At the right price point (under $1000), I can see myself purchasing one 3-18x for a dedicated longer range rifle. It’s just not exactly my style. But it seems to fit what most people want in the wider shooting world. It makes sense to lead off with that (just like the Reaper or OG 6.5 should have been the first Unknown suppressors).

Done properly, a reliable 12-20 ounce, FFP, dialing, zero stopped, capped windage, 2-8x36 would be the scope I would want on all my other hunting rifles. I could see myself purchasing at least two, and probably more like four, of those. I’d love something that was better for hunting purposes - across the spectrum - than my SWFA 6x, 10x, 1-6x, and 3-9x scopes.

And, yes, I would love an SWFA 8x gen2 at $350-400, but I’d rather have Form’s ideal 2-8x at $600-800 (a man can dream, right?).

Of course, the perversity of the market is that listing the scope at a more expensive price would probably attract more attention. I wouldn’t be shocked if the 3-18x sold better at a list price of $1499, with a RokSlide discount of $500.

Agreed. I would replace a lot of scopes with a 2-8x36; all my hunting AR’s would rock that scope.

 

[Dualsight]

Short answer is always, YES. I appreciate the collective knowledge and effort that we share with each other here on RokSlide. Now we need to continue to call out and share the information when companies make a scope (or other products) that meets our standards

The above is why I'm posting this but also would like Form's impression on the new reticle revealed in this week's Shot Show from Burris in their Veracity and Veracity PH line.

I am not a fan of FFP reticles because how fine they appear at low magnification where my scopes live while hunting east of the Mississippi. This thread has opened my perception when a properly designed reticle is utilized on FFP.

I am not asking if the Burris Veracity is any good and could not find a drop test thread on the Veracity. The scope itself is much heavier that what others have specified. Just asking Form's impression on the reticle. Thoughts/impression?

 

[Formidilosus]

The above is why I'm posting this but also would like Form's impression on the new reticle revealed in this week's Shot Show from Burris in their Veracity and Veracity PH line.

I am not a fan of FFP reticles because how fine they appear at low magnification where my scopes live while hunting east of the Mississippi. This thread has opened my perception when a properly designed reticle is utilized on FFP.

I am not asking if the Burris Veracity is any good and could not find a drop test thread on the Veracity. The scope itself is much heavier that what others have specified. Just asking Form's impression on the reticle. Thoughts/impression?

Need to see it in real life, but it looks like they tried to copy the Revic reticle. If it is similar, should be visible on low power.