"xphunter" is my old user name since I do most of my shooting and hunting with single-shot XP-100's.
There are several sites that I have not changed my user name to "Ernie" yet. The reason for the change is a dealership for shooting product that has no glass in it and is no way connected to Huskemaw or the LRH site.
The NF is made by the same company that makes Huskemaw, that is why there is such a similarity.
Both are made by the premium OEM manufacture in Japan.
NF assembles there optic in the US and to my knowledge Huskemaw does not.
At first some people thought NF was making the Huskemaw since their box shape is identical on the outside.
If anyone really has a question about the Huskemaw optic I would encourage you to call 307.587.2787 and ask your questions directly.
I have compared it to other scopes. I do not claim to be a optics guru by any stretch, but I did some comparisons with other scopes (Mark 4, VX-3, NF NXS, and a S-3 Sightron) on a ranch on game at medium and ranges beyond 1,000 yards.
The big surprise/disappointment for me in the comparison was not the Huskemaw.
VAnimrod, it seems that this topic is personal to you, as if someone has hurt you.
There is some distance between Gillette and Cody.
In fact, I have never been to Cody, and I am not a dealer for Huskemaw.
I didn't get paid for the article either.
Not personal, I just find it amazing that the only positive reviews on the Huskemaw scopes are from folks associated or affiliated with the "best of the west" group, whereas the rest of the unofficial reviews (and my own experience) put them as over-priced, under-performing marketing gimmicks. What I don't like is seeing folks get ripped off by marketing blitzes and over-priced goods of marginal quality. All of which I find embodied in the Huskemaw scopes, actually, scope, since it seems that they still only have one version.
Name the company that produces both the NF and the Huskemaw. If it's HAKKO, just say it, but beating around the bush won't do much for the advertising. And, assembly of the Huskemaw is where, again? And, their customer service is what, again?
FWIW, if assembly is not done by the same company that build NF, then Huskemaw is not made by the same company that makes NF. They may source parts from the same company, but if that's the case, the same can be said of a LOT of mid and lower tier companies on the market, and that's really not much of a recommendation. It's what parts, whether they parts are the same, and whether they are put together as well and by the same company that counts. On each of those points, I HIGHLY doubt (and in fact on the last one am certain that it's not) that it's the same company that NF uses. Nice try, though.
I'd actually encourage folks to put their hands on, and eyes behind a Huskemaw scope and run it side-by-side with another scope of known quality.
The differences will be apparent, and quickly.
If folks do call, ask specific questions, such as the internal range of adjustment on both windage and elevation, such as the return/repair/warranty policy, such as location (as in nation) in which the scopes are assembled and where any repair work would be done, such as what happens if you change load or switch the scope to another rifle re: their BDC turrets, such as what precise optical standards their scopes are built to, and what tests are used and what are the results of those tests (this ought to come back with a LOT of technical optics speak, if it's actually done).
Check Huskemaw's website, and their reasons why they are better than the competition. Their ONLY claims are to the BDC turrets and their reticle. That's it. Nothing on optical quality of the glass, durability of the scope, warranty, nothing else but the gimmicks. Gimmicks which, if they want to be honest about it, can be found on or added to at very little cost to just about any scope out there. Kenton Industries can build, and does build, comparable turrets for most scopes, and the reticle is a take-off on many other range-finding reticles on the market, such as Leupold's VH or B&C, Sightron's VHR, and similar others as well. Not a great differentiation when the "stuff" doesn't make the difference in the field; the glass does, and esp. when the "stuff" can be equaled or bestest by numerous competitors with better scopes.
Never insinuated that you got paid for the article, but you're pretty quick on the defense of that.
You and I disagree on this one, Ernie. Good luck with that Huskemaw.
If that company is around in 10+ years, and has a track-record to match the price and the hype, and they've improved the quality of their scopes to match the same, then MAYBE they'll be worth it. Until then, I can't see rolling the dice on sup-par optics with no track record and a near-alpha glass price tag.
Of course, YMMV.
