|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722 |
[quote=R_H_Clark][quote=koshkin]I
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. You go on and on about the camerland scope but I don't ever remember anyone asking for a $2,000 fixed 6x with those features...ever. A 6x swfa scope with capped windage and or 6x swfa hd with capped windage has been talked about. People say they'd buy that. Big difference between asking for $4-$800 scope and $2,000.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943 |
Dear SWFA,
A 3-9x40 or 2-7x32 , 1 inch tube scope with a low profile elevation knob, at least 3.5 inches eye relief, and plain duplex please. Use your beefy erector system and weigh between 12 - 15 oz and you have perfection. A solid light weight fixed 4 or 6 with duplex and simply hold over hashes wouldn't suck either. In other words, please duplicate some of the basic Leupold offerings with more ruggedness.
The truth angers those whom it does not convince
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,244
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,244 |
No, it is not for sure at all. If they make scope with this eyepiece diameter and 4" of eye relief, everyone will complain how the image looks too small. If they make it heavier, everyone will complain that it is too heavy for an ultralight. Sometimes you have to make compromises.
The market is weird that way. We'll see how this scope does for SWFA. If my guess is correct and target market for this is hunting ARs, they should do well with it as is.
ILya
Miniscule ER is a poor place to compromise, at least IMO.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034 |
Dear SWFA,
A 3-9x40 or 2-7x32 , 1 inch tube scope with a low profile elevation knob, at least 3.5 inches eye relief, and plain duplex please. Use your beefy erector system and weigh between 12 - 15 oz and you have perfection. A solid light weight fixed 4 or 6 with duplex and simply hold over hashes wouldn't suck either. In other words, please duplicate some of the basic Leupold offerings with more ruggedness. Leupold VX-5HD 2-10x42 just about fits that bill. 30mm tube and 16 ounces.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,722 |
Leupold has many great offerings that people don't have confidence in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
I know a lot of people who hunt with ARs chambered for the likes of 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 300Blackout, etc.
For those applications, anything with more than two inches of eye relief is plenty.
I suspect that this will be an excellent scope for that use.
Personally, I am partial to the 6.5Grendel and it seems to work just fine on pigs.
I probably would not put this scope on a safari gun, but there are plenty of other scopes out there for that.
ILya I don't disagree,but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't just design it with a slightly larger ocular if needed and at least 3.5" eye relief. I really prefer 3.75"-4" because it increases options on where it will work. I just see no advantage to such short ER at the disadvantage of maybe one ounce more weight. As a general disclaimer, I do not do product development with SWFA. I have a cordial relationship with them, so I often get to see prototypes before they are released, but that is largely it. If I were a betting man, I would bet that they looked at the one part of the hunting market that is actually growing and tried to make a scope for that application. I suspect, that they were also trying to get the weight under 10 ounces, so every little bit of weight saving makes a difference. As has been pointed out earlier, there is only so much lightening you can do on the insides before you sacrifice durability, so I suspect the eyepiece was the next logical place to streamline things without sacrificing quality. To be brutally honest, if I were them, I would probably do the same thing. People simply do not buy 32mm objective scopes for conventional big game hunting rifles any more. If you want to introduce a lightweight scope, you have to look outside of the 30-06 boltguns. 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’d sell a schitt load more of them with 4” eye relief than you will with 2.5”.... that’s for phuggin sure. No, it is not for sure at all. If they make scope with this eyepiece diameter and 4" of eye relief, everyone will complain how the image looks too small. If they make it heavier, everyone will complain that it is too heavy for an ultralight. Sometimes you have to make compromises. The market is weird that way. We'll see how this scope does for SWFA. If my guess is correct and target market for this is hunting ARs, they should do well with it as is. ILya I know you are trying hard not to criticize but it isn't like it would be impossible to make it have an ocular just large enough for what is considered normal eye relief. It's not like you have to choose between the smallest ocular in the industry with one of the shortest ER's in the industry or some huge ocular design that adds 4 ounces. It seems an ounce trade off with a slightly larger ocular for 3.5 would have been a better choice IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034 |
I know you are trying hard not to criticize but it isn't like it would be impossible to make it have an ocular just large enough for what is considered normal eye relief. It's not like you have to choose between the smallest ocular in the industry with one of the shortest ER's in the industry or some huge ocular design that adds 4 ounces. It seems an ounce trade off with a slightly larger ocular for 3.5 would have been a better choice IMHO.
I am not trying anything. I am simply looking at it from a different angle. I assure you I gave SWFA all sorts of critical comments, but eye relief was not among those. Mostly, I wanted them to make a version with side focus at the expense of an ounce or two of weight and I want additional reticle options. Perhaps, I might still be able to talk them into it. Short eye relief, where appropriate, offers some interesting advantages. My favorite general purpose airgun scope, for example, is MTC Viper Connect with 1.2"of eye relief. It is almost long enough to be comfortable on 22LR, but only if I take the eye piece cover off. I am trying to get MTC to make a version of it with just a hair more eye relief (1.5" would do) and then it will be my go to choice for the 22LR as well. From a system design standpoint, there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it. ILya
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
.....there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it.
ILya
I don't have a big game hunting rifle application that will allow for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
I know you are trying hard not to criticize but it isn't like it would be impossible to make it have an ocular just large enough for what is considered normal eye relief. It's not like you have to choose between the smallest ocular in the industry with one of the shortest ER's in the industry or some huge ocular design that adds 4 ounces. It seems an ounce trade off with a slightly larger ocular for 3.5 would have been a better choice IMHO.
I am not trying anything. I am simply looking at it from a different angle. I assure you I gave SWFA all sorts of critical comments, but eye relief was not among those. Mostly, I wanted them to make a version with side focus at the expense of an ounce or two of weight and I want additional reticle options. Perhaps, I might still be able to talk them into it. Short eye relief, where appropriate, offers some interesting advantages. My favorite general purpose airgun scope, for example, is MTC Viper Connect with 1.2"of eye relief. It is almost long enough to be comfortable on 22LR, but only if I take the eye piece cover off. I am trying to get MTC to make a version of it with just a hair more eye relief (1.5" would do) and then it will be my go to choice for the 22LR as well. From a system design standpoint, there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it. ILya Just to be clear,I wasn't accusing you of being biased at all. I do understand your points. I just think that longer ER would have made a more versatile and desirable scope for more people. Not saying that it won't be enjoyed as is by many that can use such a configuration. No reason to keep beating the horse,as it is close to death.I mainly wanted you to know that I appreciate and respect your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 |
.....there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it.
ILya
I don't have a big game hunting rifle application that will allow for it. It would be great on a 14/221 for shooting flying squirrels..............
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
.....there are good reasons to have short eye relief, when the application allows for it.
ILya
I don't have a big game hunting rifle application that will allow for it. It would be great on a 14/221 for shooting flying squirrels.............. Yea,that extra FOV would come in handy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,750
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,750 |
If the parallax was set for 50 yards it would be a good pricey .22 scope.
But that's about it for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,034 |
All fair points and thank you.
I'll talk to SWFA and see what else they have planned. They are pretty tight lipped about this stuff, so we'll see if I can pry anything out of them.
I expect to have one of the production scopes here toward the end of the week, so I'll set it up on one of my ARs and head to the range. Fair warning: I am not going to set it up on my 458SOCOM. Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 lives there. It'll go either onto the 223 or the Grendel, but it may also spent some time on a rimfire rifle.
I'll let you know what I think and how it stacks up.
ILya
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,119
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,119 |
All fair points and thank you.
I'll talk to SWFA and see what else they have planned. They are pretty tight lipped about this stuff, so we'll see if I can pry anything out of them.
I expect to have one of the production scopes here toward the end of the week, so I'll set it up on one of my ARs and head to the range. Fair warning: I am not going to set it up on my 458SOCOM. Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 lives there. It'll go either onto the 223 or the Grendel, but it may also spent some time on a rimfire rifle.
I'll let you know what I think and how it stacks up.
ILya Put it on a light weight hunting rifle as its intended for (say a 30-06) and let us know how it works out
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,108
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,108 |
Dear SWFA,
A 3-9x40 or 2-7x32 , 1 inch tube scope with a low profile elevation knob, at least 3.5 inches eye relief, and plain duplex please. Use your beefy erector system and weigh between 12 - 15 oz and you have perfection. A solid light weight fixed 4 or 6 with duplex and simply hold over hashes wouldn't suck either. In other words, please duplicate some of the basic Leupold offerings with more ruggedness. YES THIS. I say split the difference and go 2.5-10 also NO PARALLAX adustment. this is not needed on a 10x max power scope. its just more complication that doesn't need to be there. I purposely buy nightforce 2.5-10 models that are not parallax adjustmable. that why I don't have to care about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,980 |
Bears a startling resemblance to one of my favourite hunting scopes ![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/74962.jpeg) 2.5-10x32 Sightron ![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/74963.jpg) What caliber is that rifle chambered for? ILya It has had a couple of thousand rounds of 7/08 and nearly 800 260's I never even noticed how short the eye relief Was til I read this thread Sure enough it is about 2.5 inches I love the scope and as I said it has been a favourite for over 10 years
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,627
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,627 |
All fair points and thank you.
I'll talk to SWFA and see what else they have planned. They are pretty tight lipped about this stuff, so we'll see if I can pry anything out of them.
I expect to have one of the production scopes here toward the end of the week, so I'll set it up on one of my ARs and head to the range. Fair warning: I am not going to set it up on my 458SOCOM. Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 lives there. It'll go either onto the 223 or the Grendel, but it may also spent some time on a rimfire rifle.
I'll let you know what I think and how it stacks up.
ILya Scope's a goner no matter what you tell SWFA or what they have planned. DOA. LOL. What a goob...LOL. Two and a half " ER. "Hey Boss, got a great idea to loose some money on". LOL  . Now if they could have put the low end power down in the negative range like Swaro did with their new and amazing Z8i 0.75-6 x 20 they'd really have a winner. 2funni
“When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty”
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version)
"And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,220
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,220 |
If the parallax was set for 50 yards it would be a good pricey .22 scope.
But that's about it for me. This...^^^^^^^
“My horn is full and my pouch is stocked with ball and patch. There is a new, sharp flint in my lock and my rifle and I are ready. It is sighted true and my eyes can still aim.”
Kaywoodie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 864
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 864 |
Dear SWFA,
A 3-9x40 or 2-7x32 , 1 inch tube scope with a low profile elevation knob, at least 3.5 inches eye relief, and plain duplex please. Use your beefy erector system and weigh between 12 - 15 oz and you have perfection. A solid light weight fixed 4 or 6 with duplex and simply hold over hashes wouldn't suck either. In other words, please duplicate some of the basic Leupold offerings with more ruggedness. YES THIS. I say split the difference and go 2.5-10 also NO PARALLAX adustment. this is not needed on a 10x max power scope. its just more complication that doesn't need to be there. I purposely buy nightforce 2.5-10 models that are not parallax adjustmable. that why I don't have to care about it. One of their 3-9×42HD MQ's with capped lower profile turrets would be awesome. I would literally replace all of the scopes on my hunting rifles with that configuration. I love my 3-9HD - probably my favorite, but scotch taping the turrets for piece of mind while hunting kind of sucks. I'm even okay with the extra weight for their reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
I know a lot of people who hunt with ARs chambered for the likes of 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, 300Blackout, etc.
For those applications, anything with more than two inches of eye relief is plenty.
I suspect that this will be an excellent scope for that use.
Personally, I am partial to the 6.5Grendel and it seems to work just fine on pigs.
I probably would not put this scope on a safari gun, but there are plenty of other scopes out there for that.
ILya I don't disagree,but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't just design it with a slightly larger ocular if needed and at least 3.5" eye relief. I really prefer 3.75"-4" because it increases options on where it will work. I just see no advantage to such short ER at the disadvantage of maybe one ounce more weight. As a general disclaimer, I do not do product development with SWFA. I have a cordial relationship with them, so I often get to see prototypes before they are released, but that is largely it. If I were a betting man, I would bet that they looked at the one part of the hunting market that is actually growing and tried to make a scope for that application. I suspect, that they were also trying to get the weight under 10 ounces, so every little bit of weight saving makes a difference. As has been pointed out earlier, there is only so much lightening you can do on the insides before you sacrifice durability, so I suspect the eyepiece was the next logical place to streamline things without sacrificing quality. To be brutally honest, if I were them, I would probably do the same thing. People simply do not buy 32mm objective scopes for conventional big game hunting rifles any more. If you want to introduce a lightweight scope, you have to look outside of the 30-06 boltguns. 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 I agree, though I don't think that the people who said they would buy a scope then not buy it are being less than honest. If you say you can build the next Gold Standard scope (w/specs given) a lot of posters will say they would buy one to encourage the builder to move forward with the project.
|
|
|
|
|
629 members (007FJ, 10ring1, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 1234, 10gaugeman, 68 invisible),
2,042
guests, and
1,200
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,880
Posts18,479,095
Members73,947
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
