Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

The risk reward here is not close

Do it right the first time.

I agree. But, we’re also up against that we only have 3 samples. If I’m going to do it in full, it will be a minimum of 10, with each having 10,000 rounds on it. That will be 6 months for the next batch, and probably 6-12 months for the round counts.

If that can be done in a month a week or 6 months

Yeah. Theres just not much real risk with LOW. Either they work or they don’t. There is nothing cheaped out in this scope- quite the opposite. I think it will probably be 3-4 weeks and a judgement call is made. Maybe a smaller initial batch for those that want them.

 

[HighUintas]

I'd vote heavy use on all 3 photos this year, plus whatever extra photos you can get for a higher sample. Run them through the ringer all year or as long as needed.

 

[Corey0372]

Yes. I do not expect to have any issues.
The real decision is that there is a 6 month lead time once the go ahead is given, and the order is placed. So- it’s a catch22. If we give it enough to fully vet them to a level I would want- they won’t be here by hunting season. On the other hand, we can say yes to whatever order number in a week or two, and have a high confidence factor that the scopes are good.

I’m not sure what the answer is.

Something could also go wrong on the manufacturing or shipping end between the order being placed and hunting season that leads to them not being here on that timeline anyway. Machine could break on their end and set it back a month or two regardless, supplier for something could go under and now you have to find another one, etc.

It would probably piss people off to not have them by this fall, but probably piss people off more (including you and the S2H crew) if they aren't right.

Tough place for you guys to be for sure. Whether they come out this fall or next spring I'll likely snag one.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Trust their process.

 

[DangerRanger]

I agree. But, we’re also up against that we only have 3 samples. If I’m going to do it in full, it will be a minimum of 10, with each having 10,000 rounds on it. That will be 6 months for the next batch, and probably 6-12 months for the round counts.





Yeah. Theres just not much real risk with LOW. Either they work or they don’t. There is nothing cheaped out in this scope- quite the opposite. I think it will probably be 3-4 weeks and a judgement call is made. Maybe a smaller initial batch for those that want them.

Sounds reasonable and I’d be willing to go for a first batch if you were confident.

 

[benconfused]

I agree. But, we’re also up against that we only have 3 samples. If I’m going to do it in full, it will be a minimum of 10, with each having 10,000 rounds on it. That will be 6 months for the next batch, and probably 6-12 months for the round counts.





Yeah. Theres just not much real risk with LOW. Either they work or they don’t. There is nothing cheaped out in this scope- quite the opposite. I think it will probably be 3-4 weeks and a judgement call is made. Maybe a smaller initial batch for those that want them.

@Formidilosus - Take the appropriate time to fully vet this thing before rushing into an order. All of you are being impatient because we're so close to the finish line.

I don't care that we miss hunting season this Fall and not use it. If you rush it, and find a hidden defect that could have been avoided during QA/UAT, what is this crowd then going to say? They're going to be pissed about it on the backend when they have to send them back.

Run the scope through its paces, Winter S2H is coming up, summer S2H after that if you decide to wait that long (I don't know how many test cases apply between those two events and the extreme weather ranges along the way, etc).

My two cents that you didn't ask for.....

 

[Formidilosus]

Sounds reasonable and I’d be willing to go for a first batch if you were confident.

Haha. That’s the issue- I am never really “confident”. I’m not confident my new NF is going to work. grin.

 

[112Savage]

I agree. But, we’re also up against that we only have 3 samples. If I’m going to do it in full, it will be a minimum of 10, with each having 10,000 rounds on it. That will be 6 months for the next batch, and probably 6-12 months for the round counts.





Yeah. Theres just not much real risk with LOW. Either they work or they don’t. There is nothing cheaped out in this scope- quite the opposite. I think it will probably be 3-4 weeks and a judgement call is made. Maybe a smaller initial batch for those that want them.

I would say the verification process is the most important part. Honestly, nothing else on the market exists with verification and testing like this. NF, Vortex, and Leupold can claim military contracts but the scopes they sell to the public aren’t the same. If you don’t have durability verification you just have another IOW scope from an unknown maker in a sea of available scopes. Sure Rokslide is pushing the shorter timeline but only because we “know”. People outside of rokslide need to see the value.

On the other hand 90% of the sales with this reticle will be to Rokslide so…

 

[ckt3]

I think it will probably be 3-4 weeks and a judgement call is made. Maybe a smaller initial batch for those that want them.

Small initial batch sounds like a great option and low risk if it comes with a “you can swap for an updated version if we find anything wrong with the initial version” guarantee. Acts as beta testers in a way to get even higher confidence in scope performance before full launch.

But I know absolutely 0 about this topic. Just brainstorming.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Nothing is 100% failure free- nothing. However, the project t is specifically for zero retention and functional reliability. If they don’t consistently work, it won’t come to market.

I know there’s pressure/excitement to get this done, including from me. But don’t screw it up now.

ETA: To clarify, I’m buying either way. But I still have two rifles wearing vx5hds…

 

[Fabel.52]

My opinion only of course.

Sure, it's a risk but it's a calculated and educated risk. It's being tested by the one of the few people who actually test scopes correctly. If there is trust in the manufacturers process. Then I don't believe you will find something in 6 months you won't find in two weeks. Maybe just a larger sample size of testing is what you will mostly gain.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Well, that’s the fast option I mentioned. It won’t take a month to get several thousand rounds on them and heavy use.

That seems like a fair compromise. Hard to imagine any issues crop up given the abuse the samples went through. While before hunting season would be nice - my guess is there will be more of us that want them than scopes regardless of timing.

 

[Scottyboy]

I’m in the other side of the “don’t rush things” coin. This idea/project started in 2024….lets call it 18 months later we have a prototype. With a 6 month lead time (*yes, I understand prototype vs production is different, very different). I’d be willing to say a LOT of time, energy and effort has already been invested that we will never hear or see, the fact the first 3 work better than almost anything we have seen so far, just shows all that time was well spent in the design. I know where I’m hedging my bet of future scopes working or not.

 

[benconfused]

I would say the verification process is the most important part. Honestly, nothing else on the market exists with verification and testing like this. NF, Vortex, and Leupold can claim military contracts but the scopes they sell to the public aren’t the same. If you don’t have durability verification you just have another IOW scope from an unknown maker in a sea of available scopes. Sure Rokslide is pushing the shorter timeline but only because we “know”. People outside of rokslide need to see the value.

On the other hand 90% of the sales with this reticle will be to Rokslide so…

This is a great callout. We tout this drop test, and now we're talking about short-cutting it, in order to sell the product.

Not only that - we're suggesting to do a pre-order, which is exactly what Ryan and Jake have regretted doing early on with the Rokstok.

Shame on us.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m in the other side of the “don’t rush things” coin. This idea/project started in 2024….lets call it 18 months later we have a prototype. With a 6 month lead time (*yes, I understand prototype vs production is different, very different). I’d be willing to say a LOT of time, energy and effort has already been invested that we will never hear or see, the fact the first 3 work better than almost anything we have seen so far, just shows all that time was well spent in the design. I know where I’m hedging my bet of future scopes working or not.

To clarify- to LOW these are not prototypes. They are full on production models, if these don’t work they said they won’t know what to do to fix them.

 

[huntnful]

I like the idea of a smallish first batch, ASAP. I mean it's $1000, not $100,000. Let the people that are willing to test one, go for it. And if something is a little off on the first batch, oh well. That's what they signed up for. I'd have no reserves ordering one personally. And then let the testing and field use continue extensively on the units that you want to use for that purpose.

 

[Scottyboy]

This is a great callout. We tout this drop test, and now we're talking about short-cutting it, in order to sell the product.

Not only that - we're suggesting to do a pre-order, which is exactly what Ryan and Jake have regretted doing early on with the Rokstok.

Shame on us.

nobody is suggesting a pre order except for those of us, myself included, that are having a bit of fun…relax. And I’d say short cutting the drop test to be a stretch. Which scope that has been posted has been dropped 40+ times?

 

[Scottyboy]

To clarify- to LOW these are not prototypes. They are full on production models, if these don’t work they said they won’t know what to do to fix them.

even better, the arguably most notable scope mfg saying this. Take my money, now, please.

 

[112Savage]

To clarify- to LOW these are not prototypes. They are full on production models, if these don’t work they said they won’t know what to do to fix them.

If they wouldn’t know how to “fix” them, then we’re looking at waaaaay longer than 6mo or a year.
Then it would be deconstruction/reconstruction of other scopes to form more prototypes or possible shelving/ saying good enough.
Money in v. money out is a thing and since making a reticle apparently costs five figures, I’m sure someone needs ROI in this venture. It does seem like the parent company (whoever it is)… is invested in making durable scopes.

 

[Kyguy]

To clarify- to LOW these are not prototypes. They are full on production models, if these don’t work they said they won’t know what to do to fix them.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm not interested in this scope, but I am invested in following your process to bring it to market. Take the time to do what YOU need to do to be confident in the product. In the end, it's YOUR name that will be associated with this, whether it's a success or a flop. I truly believe that it's not a money thing for you. You're not only trying to improve one scope.... you're trying to improve an entire industry.

Let's be honest.... do you want to listen to people piss and moan that it didn't come by hunting season, or do you want to listen to people piss and moan about the scope not delivering on the expectations of durability?

As for what LOW said..... Sometimes it takes breaking something that shouldn't theoretically break, to understand what needs to be done to make it better.