Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

LOW acknowledges and values your drop evals as a pass/fail criteria for their designs?
I assumed as others mention that they just build scopes to a spec, and possibly that they have never heard of Rokslide

They know what Rokslide is. The scopes that they have designed that hold zero from drops, came from a company- that got it from me.

 

[1000yards]

Can we get an updated/new thread? I've skimmed through LOTS of pages. Get a BLUF of WTF and WhereTF everything is at?

Seen 3-12X40, 3-18....2-8X?

It's a 3-18 that weighs 25 oz and is passing drop tests all over the place. Get in and hold on.

 

[benconfused]

Can we get an updated/new thread? I've skimmed through LOTS of pages. Get a BLUF of WTF and WhereTF everything is at?

Seen 3-12X40, 3-18....2-8X?

Filter the thread with Form and Ryan posts only, then you can quickly scan any recent (last 3-5 days) of pictures and eval posts. Form has all 3 prototypes right now.

 

[9487329]

They know what Rokslide is. The scopes that they have designed that hold zero from drops, came from a company- that got it from me.

Would you say that all scope manufacturers in Japan / Philippines / China have the capabilities to start manufacturing scopes to hold zero without any major overhaul of equipment or financial investment?

 

[Formidilosus]

Would you say that all scope manufacturers in Japan / Philippines / China have the capabilities to start manufacturing scopes to hold zero without any major overhaul of equipment or financial investment?

No.

 

[PathFinder]

I'm itching as much as anyone for a couple of these, and would happily drop a deposit for one or two. I've stopped buying scopes and play musical scopes constantly while waiting for this one. The other reasons for being in favor of a production run now are:

• The first three scopes appear to be as solid as anything. Rokslide has gone and bought a bunch of scopes that ended up being good based on smaller sample sizes (RS1.2, Minox, SWFA HDs)
• LOW builds the SWFA HD models, Trijicon, RS1.2, and some NF that work correctly. If this is their durable erector design, it should be on par with those.

From an engineering perspective, doing a small run for testers to use makes sense.

• Larger sample size
• More varied use/testing. Exposure to more conditions (weather, transport, high recoil, etc).
• Results of production in a larger run.
• Build a larger, more accurate model for a big order.
• Build anticipation/order base for said order.

The risk of waiting is that someone else will pull their head out, and make something competitive. Given market history, that's unlikely. But considering the interest in this thread, it's possible.
Eventually, market pressure is going to push the price of these up. Unless S2H and ZT are 100% committed to the $999 price point long term, demand alone will push that up pretty quickly.
Personally, I'm willing to risk full purchase price that it works. I'm pretty soured on every other manufacturer screwing up some major part of the business/product, so $1,000 of risk on a project that is genuinely listening and striving to get it right is acceptable.

 

[nm.otter]

The percentage of these posts offering free business advice is far too high.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes, tried 25in# and 30in#. Cross bolts coming lose at torque. Used fix-it sticks and blue loktite. Never knew of paint pen back then.

Had issues with the hybrid lite rings on a 9# 300norma imp, and problems with their direct mount hybrid Tikka ring on a 8# 300wsm.

Forgot to mention- one of the cross bolts on the Hawkins rings would not seat on the Master Sporter’s pic rail (US optics) and had to be hammered’ish into place. I have used quite a few different rings on that rail without issue before. We’ll see if that causes issues.

 

[woods89]

The risk reward here is not close

Do it right the first time.

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

This.

"If you take the time it takes, it takes less time"- Pat Parelli

 

[RockAndSage]

The percentage of these posts offering free business advice is far too high.

Lol, and people generally take advice seriously in direct proportion to how much it cost them.

 

[Axlrod]

There has to be a better way to collect info on who is willing to pay a deposit. @Ryan Avery can you add a post with a Poll since you started the thread? Or maybe start a new thread with a poll that people can respond to and drop the link here? Then you can keep track of the actual numbers without trying to track comment responses.

What? The way you collect info on those willing to pay a deposit, is the ones that pay with their credit card, are serious. You will have an exact number. It's called put up or shut up.
I'm in for any deposit amount requested.

 

[DangerRanger]

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

Are you confident nightforce did appropriate testing to ensure the design is adequate?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you confident nightforce did appropriate testing to ensure the design is adequate?

Haha. Generally, yes.

 

[The Guide]

Are you confident nightforce did appropriate testing to ensure the design is adequate?

Trust but verify. Advice for all of life.

Jay

 

[JCMCUBIC]

...

"If you take the time it takes, it takes less time"- Pat Parelli

I use that quote often. Usually, I also mention something about taking no longer than it takes as well...

I do think, in this case, the different elements in use are already proven based on other scopes LOW produces. Testing to make sure they work together in this specific implementation should be done, but it takes an infinite amount of time to find an issue that doesn't exist. If the standard drop test is good enough to say a specific model is reliable, it should be good enough for this. Nothing is absolute, but if it meets the standard, multiple times, added to, etc....it should be considered as passed.

On the deposit, I'm good with whatever. I understand some folks don't want to fund a business, assume risk, etc. It's been stated that this isn't being done as a money maker. If UM is having to pay upfront for these and carry the cost, I'd prefer to pay in full upfront. The extra hassle for UM, and each person placing an order, to need to bill/pay for a second payment is extra time and effort. Pay in full in a pre-order, ship it when it arrives. UM places the order + whatever number extra they want on hand for purchase direct. Again, I'm ok with however they wish to do it.

I don't know how many I'll be in for. The thought of a future 2-8 will probably limit me to 2 of the 3-18's.

 

[Formidilosus]

Comparison with the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm.

Both at 40’ish yards.

Tenmile (note: it is not this blurry in real life- the camera just refused to focus correctly)



S2H-





The first thing that jumps out is the large difference in FOV between them. It’s noticeable. Also, while not as much as the photos show- S2H is brighter, crisper, sharper, with better colors.


Of course the difference in reticle is apparent.

 

[khuber84]

I'm a big fan of the tenmile 3-18x44, this thing looks noticeably better. My on complaint of the Triji was the "looking through paper towel tube" feeling and low FOV numbers. Really hoping this new S2H scope cures those woes. I'll be in for a few most likely.

 

[9487329]

I do think, in this case, the different elements in use are already proven based on other scopes LOW produces. Testing to make sure they work together in this specific implementation should be done, but it takes an infinite amount of time to find an issue that doesn't exist. If the standard drop test is good enough to say a specific model is reliable, it should be good enough for this. Nothing is absolute, but if it meets the standard, multiple times, added to, etc....it should be considered as passed.

This. I understand that this scope needs "put up or shut up", but it's also already been dropped more times and more aggressively than many other scopes that have worked incredibly well for people in large quantities in the field. The only issue I could see this scope running into that can't be tested right now is a higher than average failure rate due to manufacturing inconsistency. I find that pretty unlikely given the consistency we've already seen from LOW. Send it. I'm down for the non-refundable