I have seen this before: what people say they would do and what they actually do are not the same thing.
If I were to run a poll here on how many people would buy a 12 ounce 2.5-10x32 scope with 4" of eye relief and then went on to build that scope based on positive feedback, I would go bankrupt. The number of scopes I would sell would end up at best one tenth of the number of people who said they would buy it.
ILya
you mean all the people saying they want fixed power scopes? Then when I post about the cameraland exclusive S&B fixed power scope, they complain. The whole fixed power thing is so overplayed it aint even funny. I am not sure SWFA needed to go the ultralite route. I think they would have sold plenty of robust 2.5-10 models they could have if they kept the weight even at 1 pound or less. Think about the rifles you really care about saving weight on. they are going to have more recoil than heavier guns simply because they are lighter. If I am putting together a light rifle I am probably going to just pick up a tikka t3, in one of the big game calibers. on that gun I will be wanting a scope with 3.5" or a tad more. Leupold makes scopes with eye relief in that range without huge eye pieces.
nose to charging handle means you have to shorten the stock way too much on an AR, it just don't fit right. and I am not going to shoot my gun like that.
That is a good example. Same for everyone clamoring for a fixed power 4x scope. And for everyone who claims they are OK with an objective lens smaller than 40mm.
Outside of a few budget scopes and most of these simply do not sell. Leupold faithful keep the 2.5-8x36 alive. People who want a premium model, buy 3-9x36 Swaro. People who are on a budget, get a 2-7x35 Fullfield II or Diamondback. Nothing else in this size range seems to sell. Maybe Nikon 2-8x32.
