Would you buy this scope?

[benconfused]

Not 100% decided yet. They are going to get a lot of use very quickly, and we’ll know if there’s an issue. With what is inside these things, I highly doubt that there will be. They are not $1,000 scopes inside. They have what according to LOW is the most durable erector system and components they can make in a scope like this.

What are the internal differences between what LOW offers on this scope vs what NF offers related to durability (believe you said earlier NF isn't made by LOW but I may have misread).

 

[benconfused]

25oz on the dot according to my scale.

View attachment 1009826

So comparable to the Maven RS1.2 that sits at 26oz. On a Rokstok with this optic, does the balance feel heavy forward similar to the Maven, or is the eye relief / distance to eye a little better on the prototypes?

 

[waspocrew]

@Formidilosus I apologize if this has been covered already:

Is the elevation turret locking? As in, won't turn unless you lift up the turret to make your correction?

 

[Kyguy]

@Formidilosus I apologize if this has been covered already:

Is the elevation turret locking? As in, won't turn unless you lift up the turret to make your correction?

What else is a locking turret, other than that?

 

[9487329]

Will not be a locking turret. A locking turret would compromise other aspects that are more important.

@waspocrew

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus If you had a theoretical scope with 9/10 optical clarity and a 1-100x zoom range, exactly the same clarity / distortion at every power from 1-100x, what power would you set the scope at to shoot groups at 100 yards?

(fully understanding that this is a dumb question, and it really doesn't matter)

Doesn’t really matter. 10-20x probably.

 

[Formidilosus]

What are the internal differences between what LOW offers on this scope vs what NF offers related to durability (believe you said earlier NF isn't made by LOW but I may have misread).

LOW does make NF scopes- some at least. I’m not positive of all of it, and what I am I cannot say.

 

[Ice-kub]

Not 100% decided yet. They are going to get a lot of use very quickly, and we’ll know if there’s an issue. With what is inside these things, I highly doubt that there will be. They are not $1,000 scopes inside. They have what according to LOW is the most durable erector system and components they can make in a scope like this.

This is the part that makes me curious. Is the robustness from the springs that hold the erector tube against the turrets? That is weak point of most scopes that lose zero, correct? The springs cannot hold the erector tube against the turret firmly when dropped or driving down bumpy roads?

 

[Formidilosus]

Scope #1 taken offf the tikka and put on the BAT. So same rifle, rings and ammo from the last two. Same surface for the drops.


First I didn’t boresight and held center of the target well below the dots. It was getting dark and I was rushing. Couldn’t see the hit (it’s the tape). So then boresighted and two rounds high. Adjusted and next 8 in the left dot.



Drop Eval:

15x drops from 36”. Same surface and pad as the last two. No point of impact shift whatsoever.







That is all 3 today, and the scopes did exactly what the manufacturer said they would. Now they get mounted on rifles and start the shooing.

 

[Shortschaf]

Dang that is really impressive for this mag range and weight--not to mention on the pilot production run. Really appreciate ya'lls effort with this @Formidilosus @Ryan Avery et al.

I will be buying one or three of these

 

[omicron1792]

Especially not if we end up getting a 2-8 or 2.5-10. Which might be easier to argue for since it would have less crossover with the 3-18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t they probably do a 2-12 since the 6x erector is already built?

 

[BAKPAKR]

@waspocrew

Do you realize that a completely different scope was contemplated when the quoted statement was made?

 

[9487329]

Do you realize that a completely different scope was contemplated when the quoted statement was made?

Clearly not lol.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

Wouldn’t they probably do a 2-12 since the 6x erector is already built?

As mentioned, there's a fair bit of crossover and the size will be very close between the two. A 2-8 or 2.5-10 is a notably different.

 

[prm]

I don’t see that much differentiation between a 3-18 and a 2-12. A 2-8, especially with a 36 or 38 obj starts to be a different scope. From a sales standpoint I’d want to offer two different capabilities.

 

[BAKPAKR]

I don’t see that much differentiation between a 3-18 and a 2-12. A 2-8, especially with a 36 or 38 obj starts to be a different scope. From a sales standpoint I’d want to offer two different capabilities.

Well, a 20 oz 3-12 was what some of us were hoping for. I understand why that didn’t work out, but I can still wish.

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

 

[keystone112]

The difference for me would be tube size and weight. If it’s going to be 20 or more ounces and a 30mm tube, just make it a 2-12x42.

 

[waspocrew]

What else is a locking turret, other than that?

Didn't mean to upset you - some can confuse that with a zero stop. Clearly Form understands the difference.

 

[Schmo]

That is all 3 today, and the scopes did exactly what the manufacturer said they would. Now they get mounted on rifles and start the shooing.

Seems like a dream. I’m gonna need at least one of these…

 

[eoperator]

How is the glass/eybox/viewing experience compared to 4-16 atacr?