Would you buy this scope?

[Formidilosus]

If you had to pick between those hawkins ultralight tactical and the UM premier rings, what's your choice?

Neither.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is driving me nuts (and it's a short trip), so I'm just going to throw it out there.

• Consider changing the increment of illumination to "loop" (1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5...) rather than subsequent presses (1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1). Some, like me, do not like (putting it mildly) the button but understand the weight savings and bulk. If you press one too many times and miss the intentional setting, do you really want to cycle 9x to get back to where you want it set? The "loop" is about half that many presses.

I will ask about that.

• Consider illuminating more than just the center dot.
  • One, when illumination is needed just illuminating the center dot, does it not eliminate seeing all the windage markings? If the center dot is not visible under the ambient conditions, how are the windage marks visible?
  • Two, maybe a lot of you are not old enough or just haven't experienced it yet; by mid 40's around 33% start to experience astigmatism; at mid 60's that jumps to 67% and rapidly increases as one gets older. Depending on the severity, the illuminated red dot no longer appears as a dot. The non-illuminated black etched dot is fine, but a single red illuminated dot is useless. Illuminating a greater area forces the brain to take in more information somewhat mitigating the center dot explosion/starburst/comet appearance.

Appreciate the suggestion, but that’s a hard no. Just the center dot, and that it goes very dim was a requirement from us.


In light low enough that someone needs illumination, they should not be shooting far enough to need windage.
On top of that, illuminating more of the reticle blows out your vision and lose what is behind it.

• Consider either a choice of either red or green illumination or integrating both as Nightforce does in the NX6 line. Why? The worst color for colorblind people is red. Also, green greatly mitigates the explode/starburst/comet appearance for astigmatism. Illumination is great to have, and I know green consumes more energy, but is Illumination needed all the time?

I see a large comet on all illuminated red center dots no matter how great the glass. Non-illuminated black is crystal clear. For me a crosshair is better, if illuminated and the color is green it's great!

Everything else on this S2H scope is fantastic and would not bother me at all if there was an upcharge for an option with the above features.

Note: Edited for grammar.

Again, appreciate the suggestion, but that was discussed and decided against. Anything that adds complexity is not good for reliability or durability. It also adds cost, to an already very expensive scope- that is going to be sold way under what it should.

 

[pattimusprime22]

Neither.

Nightforce then? What's the durable/reliable choice for putting on a pic rail?

 

[Formidilosus]

Nightforce then? What's the durable/reliable choice for putting on a pic rail?

Yes- NF UL pic rings or whatever they call them now.

 

[Dobermann]

View attachment 1011652

Well ... Form did say once here that he'd used that as a lubricant for AR15s ...

 

[Castle Rock]

I was going to add a few examples of a more illuminated reticle and forgot. Here are two:

That’s exactly what you don’t want, it just washes out the image

 

[Speaks]

Illuminated reticle or even dots are something I always think I want but actually have never liked in practice. I generally loose the target before the reticle.

What I always thought would be kind of cool is one that would project something like a large 2moa red dot vs trying to lite up the reticle its self.

I occasionally have issues at night taking my dogs out with wolves at the edge of the yard. Dont expect to ever have to shoot one but I will take a rifle out with me, scope is useless but one set at 3x with a red dot in it might be. No idea if this would actually work, and in no way suggesting it for this scope, but always wondered if it might be feasible on an optic.

 

[1000yards]

One tiny red dot, as dim as possible. This is the way.

 

[Johnwell]

Sure, what are you looking for?

I’m not the one who asked originally, but I’d like to see a FOV and low light compression at 3x, 6x, and 9x vs the 3-9 SWFA.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m not the one who asked originally, but I’d like to see a FOV and low light compression at 3x, 6x, and 9x vs the 3-9 SWFA.

I’ll get it, but they are very different scopes. The SWFA is the best 3-9x’ish scope on the market for general hunting regardless of price, but it is not in the same class as the S2H scope.

 

[Johnwell]

I’ll get it, but they are very different scopes. The SWFA is the best 3-9x’ish scope on the market for general hunting regardless of price, but it is not in the same class as the S2H scope.

I understand they’re not really in the same class. Reason for comparison is really because the millquad is my current favorite hunting reticle; and I wanted a visibility comparison in low light/low contrast. If you think the 3-15 or 5-20 would be a better comparison I could go for that too.

The other reason for the 3-9 comparison is because of the tunneling FOV it gets below ~4x. Just curious how much this picks up over that.

Still crossing my fingers for the 2-8 (or whatever it ends up being) as it fits my eastern hunting use case much more closely. I would buy that one for sure. A 1.5-9 would also be pretty cool and keeps with the 6x erector..

The 3-18 is probably overkill for anything I could use it for. But I could see it replacing my 5-20 swfa to save 5oz on that rifle.

 

[BLJ]

A 1.5-9

With a 42mm objective.

 

[TX_Diver]

Sure, what are you looking for?

Mainly just curious on FOV and how the retitles compare. Something like the comparisons you posted with the NF, maven, etc.

Been using an SWFA 3-9 with no real complaints, but it does seem like this would be a little better and fix some of the minor complaints that are there on the SWFA.

 

[Balderdash]

Another vote for center only illuminatiion.

Or an option for none at all to save some componentry. The reticle pictured with even mediocre glass is likely going to be plenty usable in heavy cover with low light without being lit at all. I've done a lot of hunting and shooting with a few non lit LRHS/LRTS's, SWFA 3-9, 6x and 5-20's, and have made some pretty long shots early and late with them, including an elk at 575 a few minutes before season close, and I could always see what I needed to see just fine.