Would you buy this scope?

[alexnelon]

@Formidilosus

Will the 3-18 fit well on a 2-piece base in a long action? I have Burris XTR base rails on my new Sauer 100 but just wondering if I should be planning to swap those bases out for a rail.

My SHV f1 is already within about 2mm of being all the way to the rear, for reference.

 

[omicron1792]

Ehhh. Not really. It’s a relatively new design.






Ground up design. Will take a bit.

Wouldn’t you just use the proven 6x erector and make a 2-12x?

 

[mwoolsey5]

Which scope bumpers would be best to pair with this scope? The 44 mm or 44mm Long?

Trying to have everything lined up so I can get in as much practice as possible before hunting season.

I emailed the Scope Bumper team with a link to the scope on S2H's page. I wanted to share their response here because I made a simple mistake that I could see a lot of others making as well. While the Objective Lens is 44mm, the Objective Outer Diameter is 52mm. So it looks like anyone interested in scope bumpers would need the 52mm size.

As for Long vs Regular, "Longs are only needed for certain ocular housings where the diopter adjustment ring is at the very end". When I look at the pictures of the scope, this appears to be the case and would require a Long bumper, but correct me if I interpreted that incorrectly.

 

[svivian]

Ehhh. Not really. It’s a relatively new design.

Can you elaborate? When I spoke to the zero tech guys at their booth they went pretty in-depth and it did not sound as if it was a new design on the erector system.

 

[BBob]

Can you elaborate? When I spoke to the zero tech guys at their booth they went pretty in-depth and it did not sound as if it was a new design on the erector system.

This was his comment as to that a ways back.

The erector being used is “new”, and this scope is supposedly the first that will have it.

Post in thread 'Would you buy this scope?'

Nov 1, 2025

All that would be great! I am just wondering what you can do to spec out a different manufacturing process to make the scope more reliable than say a Tract or Maven using the same internals

It’s not the same internals- even a turret type change effects durability and reliability.

I am simply curious as to how, which would lead me to wonder why all the other brands that use Light Optics don't do it.

Because they don’t demand it. They don’t demand it, becaus they don’t understand it or care. Very few companies give a rip at all about reliability and durability...

• Formidilosus

• 

 

[svivian]

This was his comment as to that a ways back.

Post in thread 'Would you buy this scope?'

Nov 1, 2025

All that would be great! I am just wondering what you can do to spec out a different manufacturing process to make the scope more reliable than say a Tract or Maven using the same internals

It’s not the same internals- even a turret type change effects durability and reliability.

I am simply curious as to how, which would lead me to wonder why all the other brands that use Light Optics don't do it.

Because they don’t demand it. They don’t demand it, becaus they don’t understand it or care. Very few companies give a rip at all about reliability and durability...

• Formidilosus

• 

Ahh thank you sir!

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

From memory of posts. They wanted to get access to LOW, they got access to LOW and approached them about the subject scope with the adage of 4x erectors being more durable, good eyebox, etc. historically. LOW said "Hey we've made advances on 6x erector systems for both durability and optics, etc. Check out these details and we can make it durable, yadda yadda.". Lots more talk I am sure and fast forward to delivering this scope and it proving out.

The fact LOW already had an improved 6x erector design in the works is why this ended up being a 3-18x and on this timeline is my interpretation from the thread.

The smaller / lighter scope since referenced has been stated it would need to be designed from the ground up to meet the needs and that will take a couple years. Why can't they use the 6x errector? I would speculate its because it wouldn't hit the weight goal.

I have no inside knowledge, that is just my interpretation of the information posted here.