Would you buy this scope?

[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.

 

[omicron1792]

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.

Maybe it’s just me but a center dot illumination helps me tremendously here in the southeast

 

[Fowl Play]

@Formidilosus I know it’s not typically a stand alone part of your tests, but how accurately do these 3 track in elevation and windage? Have you dialed them along the full range on a board yet?

 

[waspocrew]

I do like the suggested loop of 1-2-3-4-5 then restarting rather than working back down on the illumination. Not a deal breaker though as I doubt I’d use it a ton.

Otherwise, keep everything else the same.

 

[BLJ]

Maybe it’s just me but a center dot illumination helps me tremendously here in the southeast

Same.

 

[benconfused]

Guys - leading a horse to water here, as we're starting to ask more and more redundant questions that have already been answered about the scope. Search the forum for his posts in the last 7-10 days re: scope evals status,

Not trying to be a bad guy here so I apologize.

Let him test.

 

[Kyguy]

For everyone making suggestions for how THEY want the scope..... pretty sure that the three Form is showing and testing are the final format. They aren't changing anything at this point barring a catastrophic failure or weakness exposed during testing.

 

[intunegp]

For everyone making suggestions for how THEY want the scope..... pretty sure that the three Form is showing and testing are the final format. They aren't changing anything at this point barring a catastrophic failure or weakness exposed during testing.

Correct. He said a few pages back that the manufacturer does not consider these prototypes, but a production-ready product and if it doesn't work they won't know how to fix it. I don't think major changes are an option at this point. It comes to market or it gets scrapped and goes back to the drawing board.

 

[Frozenlead]

@Formidilosus, @Ryan Avery what are the values of the Subtensions for the reticle?

.2mil

 

[Schmo]

For everyone making suggestions for how THEY want the scope..... pretty sure that the three Form is showing and testing are the final format. They aren't changing anything at this point barring a catastrophic failure or weakness exposed during testing.

Can I get an amen?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Can I get an amen?

Amen!

 

[mtnbound]

@Formidilosus @Ryan Avery, let me rephrase my question. Does this look correct for the reticle subtensions?