Would you buy this scope?

[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.

 

[ID_Matt]

Double levels?

Gamer gun!

 

[Idhunter777]

Scope specs:

FFP 3-12x40 to 3-12x44mm

Consistently holds zero through 3-foot drops and 3,000 rounds of constant use.

The reticle is specially designed for 25 to 600 yards, with bold outer posts and correct center aiming references.

Zero Stop

Low profile top turret.

Capped windage.

Large eye box

Good glass

20oz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That would be ideal

 

[Chris in TN]

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?

I just looked it up - yeah, I'd be willing to try that one, for sure.

I have no idea how well Burris Veracity scopes hold up to use/abuse. I've read tons of good reviews of them from people who hunt with them but don't recall a drop test. Put them in the 'I want to like it' category for now.

ETA: Well, crap, no, it is only available on the Veracity PH series, not the regular Veracity. Meh. Not terribly interested in the PH.

 

[elsb0048]

Un

I just looked it up - yeah, I'd be willing to try that one, for sure.

I have no idea how well Burris Veracity scopes hold up to use/abuse. I've read tons of good reviews of them from people who hunt with them but don't recall a drop test. Put them in the 'I want to like it' category for now.

ETA: Well, crap, no, it is only available on the Veracity PH series, not the regular Veracity. Meh. Not terribly interested in the PH.

Their website appears as if they only offer it in 'RFP' in their 3-12 which sounds like 'SFP'... Sorta defeats the purpose to me..

Although maybe I'm missing something or they're still updating stuff thru SHOT

 

[LongWayAround]

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.

Set your rangefinder to meters. Make a dope card in meters.

Or...

Don't worry about it.

 

[LongWayAround]

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.

Set your rangefinder to meters. Make a dope card in meters.

Or...

Don't worry about it.

 

[ckleeves]

Scope looks fantastic. I might be in the minority but I wouldn’t hate just a blank parallax knob where it’s easy to scratch in or tape your own numbers and not have anything showing thru or even need tape if you etch your own on a clean slate.

 

[swavescatter]

I hereby demand that the parallax be displayed in furlongs.

 

[atmat]

I hereby demand that the parallax be displayed in furlongs.

Second this motion.

 

[Macintosh]

Third. I call the question.

I have never, not once, had a parallax knob where the numbers matched reality. Not once, including scopes I've owned and others I've tried belonging to friends or squad mates, etc. The numbers are just a rough idea to get you close, so yes, I think yards or meters is functionally irrelevant. Using Meter markings it's just as likely to be closer to actually parallax-free perfect using yards on the ground, as it is to be less so. Also, depth of focus is going to have a big influence on it. I have scopes where parallax setting really makes it blurry transitioning between, say, 300 yards on the dial and then looking to a target at 50 yards, and others where there is considerable wiggle room in parallax insofar as it affects actual focus of the image. As long as this scopes depth of focus isnt so tight that a few yards off is actually BLURRY, it's going to be completely irrelevant.

Which brings up a question for @Formidilosus ...if a 2-8x36 "done right" has a strong possibility of being next in line, is that scope going to have fixed parallax? I'd think that scope would be better with fixed parallax. To me having an adjustable parallax AT ALL on a scope that will see a large majority of its usage inside 500 yards, if not large majority inside point blank, is a liability with very little benefit--it's easier in practice to accidentally spin a parallax knob than it is to spin a elevation dial--but I'm curious what your take on this is.

 

[ezwy]

Scope looks fantastic. I might be in the minority but I wouldn’t hate just a blank parallax knob where it’s easy to scratch in or tape your own numbers and not have anything showing thru or even need tape if you etch your own on a clean slate.

Or get rid of the “m”
People can just assume it’s yards or meters

 

[wesfromky]

Which brings up a question for @Formidilosus ...if a 2-8x36 "done right" has a strong possibility of being next in line, is that scope going to have fixed parallax? I'd think that scope would be better with fixed parallax. To me having an adjustable parallax AT ALL on a scope that will see a large majority of its usage inside 500 yards, if not large majority inside point blank, is a liability with very little benefit--it's easier in practice to accidentally spin a parallax knob than it is to spin a elevation dial--but I'm curious what your take on this is.

How about rimefire though? That looks like it might be a pretty killer rimfire hunting scope as well, but my understanding is the parallax is much more critical?