If the manufacturer was listening, what realistic thing would you change about your favorite optic?

[rhsc]

Athlon: Contract with LOW to build a Cronus 2-12x42 as a true crossover scope but also with a finer reticle center dot. MSRP somewhere around $1,500.00 and (maybe) sell a gazillion of them. Transition the manufacture of all your China-made optics to somewhere else.

 

[rothgyr]

March:
1. Blasphemy - make one or two "normal" scopes with a 5x or 6x erector ratio (e.g. 3-18, 4-20, 5-30, 6-36)
2. Do not artificially restrict the exit pupil of said scope
3. Update the FML-TR1 and FML-3 reticle to extend all the way to edge at low mag
5. Tone down the .2 mrad hash marks by the FML-TR1 / FML-3 center a touch
6. Label the distance on parallax knob
7. Crack the code on non-translating turrets

ZCO:
1. Adapt all that sweet engineering known how to a 34mm tube (or even a 30mm) for a cross over design.
2. Give a bottom post on the MPCT1 after... 10 mrad at most, 6-8 is more reasonable.

S&B:
1. Just pay someone else for their reticles... presumably the margins on your optics can cover the expense.
2. If I have to choose between S&B and TT/ZCO, you will lose every time... adjust pricing or design accordingly.

Vortex:
1. Make something between the monster that is the Razor HD G3 and the LHT
2. Eliminate the thin top crosshair from the XLR-2 reticle above 3 mrad
3. Give me the XLR-2 side/bottom posts in (or the whole damn thing in lieu of) the EBR-7D, eliminate the top crosshair above 3 mrad

Zeiss:
1. LRP turrets... non-translating
2. LRP turrets... smaller than a top hat
3. LRP S5 tube/body... slim and tone, maybe some yoga

Kahles:
1. update/modernize your k318i, call it a k318i DLR and sell many
2. Something other than a SKMR trees would be great, but I can deal with the plain SKMR

General, to whoever wants to take up the gauntlet:
- make a competitor to the Razor HD LHT... the under 25 oz. full featured FFP optic space is a lonely one

Someone get this man in touch with the manufacturers. Imagine what March could accomplish if they'd just do something with a normal erector.

And seriously, s&b reticles are the main reason I could never buy one. Heck, just pay Vibbert royalties on the JVCR, or a pr2, mil-xt, mil-c, or scr2 variant. Ditch Horus and the grid reticle already.

 

[beetroot]

This is the can of worms inside Pandora’s box thread, but maybe (just maybe) some mfr’s will look, listen and learn.

There's no new ideas in this thread.

Any manufacturer listening to the market would already have already heard these "requests" dozens of times from this forum.

The way I see it is either:
-they aren't listening
-what people want is impossible/financially not viable
-the voice of a very vocal, very small minority

It's fun to dream but ultimately if the business case was there, then companies would be doing these things.

 

[beetroot]

Someone get this man in touch with the manufacturers. Imagine what March could accomplish if they'd just do something with a normal erector.

Would they though?
They've made the 4.5-28x52 (6.2x ratio) which all the reviews suggest does a good job of fixing the optical issues with their other designs.
Does that actual translate into an increase in sales?

March is known for building 8x and 10x scopes and that's why people buy them, if they start doing 4x, 5x, 6x ones whos to say they don't them compete with every other manufacturer on the market and get less sales?
I don't see the 4.5-28 March ever get mentioned when people are discussing high end scopes, it's still just the usual brands (NF, ZCO, TT, etc).

Companies actually like making money and spend a lot of time and money on market research.
They may seem like they have their heads in the sand to us but they're the ones with the actual sales figures, so know what sells and what sits on the shelf.

 

[Jeff Gahler]

For everyone to quit asking 2k plus for a 1-10 and quit putting circles in the reticles.. love to have one that was hunting based for popping yotes day and night

Vortex 1-10 can be had for $1700 and works great with clip ons

 

[stevieb92]

I'll repeat this. Vortex: Razor HD Gen 2 and 3 rifle scopes in black. That is all.

 

[Glassaholic]

There's no new ideas in this thread.

I agree (well maybe some). I meant Pandora's box for the Hide, not necessarily for the manufacturers

Any manufacturer listening to the market would already have already heard these "requests" dozens of times from this forum.

I think you're right, none of this should be "new" news for them if they've been paying attention.

The way I see it is either:
-they aren't listening
-what people want is impossible/financially not viable
-the voice of a very vocal, very small minority

Spot on, but you forgot one thing and that is - manufacturers don't see a big enough return on investment for a particular design

It's fun to dream but ultimately if the business case was there, then companies would be doing these things.

I think that is the case for most, but there are some who are simply too stuck in their own ways and think they own a big enough market share that whatever they make they think will be fawned over by their loyal fan base (I'm thinking of a company that starts with L and ends with d and rhymes with... well, nothing )

 

[BoilerUP]

Bushnell would make a LRTSi2 4.5-18x44 with illuminated G4P reticle, ED glass and 10mil turrets.

 

[FuhQ]

Id tell Zeiss they need to offer the entire Conquest V-series (4, 6, & 8) in MIL/MIL configuration and the 6-24x50 & 5-30x56 models with a 34mm tube, and a thinner version of the Z-MRi reticle in them. Maybe call it the Z-MRi-T. Other than that, they’re excellent hunting scopes with good glass.

 

[mi650]

I'd like to see an American scope brand(s) manufacture their entire scope (glass, coatings, everything) here in the US. I'm not talking about assembled here in the US either. Hell I'd like to see several brands do this such as Nightforce, Leupold, Vortex or USO.

Agreed, especially if they can get the glass right.

Is there an American company that can make glass as good as, or even close to, Swarovski? (I honestly don't know.)

 

[Jeff Gahler]

Ahh!

NFshv 3-10 in mil!

Perfect lower price option for ARs 22s etc

 

[Glassaholic]

Brilliant DJL, you and I on the same page here. I would add the following:

March:
1. Blasphemy - make one or two "normal" scopes with a 5x or 6x erector ratio (e.g. 3-18, 4-20, 5-30, 6-36)
2. Do not artificially restrict the exit pupil of said scope
3. Update the FML-TR1 and FML-3 reticle to extend all the way to edge at low mag
5. Tone down the .2 mrad hash marks by the FML-TR1 / FML-3 center a touch
6. Label the distance on parallax knob
7. Crack the code on non-translating turrets

March:
1. Get a brighter illumination module like most of the competition
2. Improve optical performance of your high erector FFP scopes (if the 3-24x52 performed as good (optically) as the Schmidt & Bender US 3-20x50 I don't think I'd want much more)
3. Make a scope that doesn't hold anything back (doesn't need to be short or light) that optically stands with the best of the best - superb resolution including edge to edge, forgiving eyebox, forgiving DOF and parallax.
4. Offer Shuriken lock turrets (they are amazing) for all your FFP scopes and optional capped windage

ZCO:
1. Adapt all that sweet engineering known how to a 34mm tube (or even a 30mm) for a cross over design.
2. Give a bottom post on the MPCT1 after... 10 mrad at most, 6-8 is more reasonable.

ZCO
1. Design a good crossover reticle that doesn't use thick sharpie lines, circles or any other geometric shape in the tree, just make the tree a set of dots like the Gen 3XR, FML-TR1, Mil-XT et al (again, nothing that hasn't been said before)
2. 10 mil turret option for all the scopes
3. Offer caps with your scopes

S&B:
1. Just pay someone else for their reticles... presumably the margins on your optics can cover the expense.
2. If I have to choose between S&B and TT/ZCO, you will lose every time... adjust pricing or design accordingly.

S&B
1. Brighten the illumination
2. Tree reticle that works at 3x on the 3-20 US
3. Make a lighter weight FFP crossover scope with a reticle that works at bottom and top mag

Vortex:
1. Make something between the monster that is the Razor HD G3 and the LHT
2. Eliminate the thin top crosshair from the XLR-2 reticle above 3 mrad
3. Give me the XLR-2 side/bottom posts in (or the whole damn thing in lieu of) the EBR-7D, eliminate the top crosshair above 3 mrad

Vortex:
1. Bring back the AMG long range scope, but make it something in the 3-18 range and a reticle that works at 3x
2. Offer the XM-157 NGSW-FC to civilians sooner rather than later

Zeiss:
1. LRP turrets... non-translating
2. LRP turrets... smaller than a top hat
3. LRP S5 tube/body... slim and tone, maybe some yoga

Zeiss
1. A good crossover reticle design

Kahles:
1. update/modernize your k318i, call it a k318i DLR and sell many
2. Something other than a SKMR trees would be great, but I can deal with the plain SKMR

Kahles - I think you captured it here, nothing more to add

General, to whoever wants to take up the gauntlet:
- make a competitor to the Razor HD LHT... the under 25 oz. full featured FFP optic space is a lonely one

Would love to see this

Some mfr's you missed:

Nightforce:
1. As others mentioned, stop it with the rotating ocular.
2. Offer the FC-DMx reticle in the NX8 2.5-20
3. Remind your engineers that FOV actually matters on the low end in your ATACR line
4. ATACR GenII with 6x erector
5. Lightweight NX8 1.5-12x42 (maybe even 1.5-12x36) with FC-DMx reticle

Steiner
1. Brighter illumination
2. T6Xi 3-18x56 with a mrad tree reticle that works at 3x but not too thick at 18x
3. M7Xi GenII 4-28x56 with greatly improved optical performance (same with 2.9-20)

Tangent Theta
1. Larger numbers on the big turret!
2. 6x erector design that performs as good or better than 5x design
3. TT318M 3-18x50 under 30oz with 10 mil toolless turrets and > 20 mil travel
4. Get a daylight bright illumination module
5. Improved flare control with sun in front of objective

Leupold
1. Get off your high horse and listen to the community!
2. Stop charging money for illumination!
3. Use a 34mm tube in Mark5
4. Offer a real mrad tree reticle for the 3.6-18x44

Minox
1. Get the sister company Blaser 4-20x58 and 2.5-20x50 GSO designs and put full elevation non-translating turrets and mrad tree reticles in it

Blaser
1. Put full elevation (greater than 20 mrad travel) esposed non-translating turrets and mrad tree reticles in the 4-20x58 and 2.5-20x50 Infinity Scopes

Burris
1. Brighter illumination
2. 3.3-18x50 with mrad tree reticle that works at 3.3x but not too thick at 18x
3. MPVO with LPVO style reticle

Bushnell
1. Improve your entire Elite Tactical line with better optics, better FOV and better reticles

Sig Sauer
1. Better scopes, better turrets, better reticles
2. Better HUD that syncs directly with Kilo LRF Units

As a general rule for all manufactures

• Bright illumination (bright enough to be seen during daytime on bottom magnification)
• Non-translating turrets!!!
• Larger numbers on the turrets!!!
• FFP Reticle that works at bottom magnification but not too thick at the top
• Tree reticles that have dots
• Toolless turrets
• Illumination auto shutoff and shake awake
• Better QC of $2k class scopes
• Lighter weight FFP crossover designs
• More scopes in the 3-18x56 range for FFP crossover use (reticle has to be usable at bottom mag)
• More lightweight MPVO options with LPVO style reticles
• Adopt a universal ringless mounting system like the Zeiss Integrated Rail System
• More USA made and sourced optics

I'm sure there's more but that's what pops to mind for now

 

[Glassaholic]

Agreed, especially if they can get the glass right.

Is there an American company that can make glass as good as, or even close to, Swarovski? (I honestly don't know.)

Vortex AMG was "close". There is a new AMG team at work and I am excited to see what they'll bring to the market especially with the advancements made in the optical manufacturing arena since the original AMG was introduced

 

[mi650]

Vortex AMG was "close". There is a new AMG team at work and I am excited to see what they'll bring to the market especially with the advancements made in the optical manufacturing arena since the original AMG was introduced

Interesting. I've never even looked at an AMG.


When I got my 1st ATACR, I was really surprised by the rotating ocular so I emailed NF. The answer was that's what they had to do to meet the mil-spec for waterproofing. I still don't get it, and it's something I can't get over. I've tried a few more times, and always end up selling them.

 

[FuhQ]

Nightforce needs to fix the glass in the ATACR F1 5-25x56, and also fix the tunneling and give it edge-to-edge image, instead of it looking like you’re looking through a black paper towel roll…image through the scope feels constricted.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Interesting. I've never even looked at an AMG.


When I got my 1st ATACR, I was really surprised by the rotating ocular so I emailed NF. The answer was that's what they had to do to meet the mil-spec for waterproofing. I still don't get it, and it's something I can't get over. I've tried a few more times, and always end up selling them.

I mentioned this before but us .mil bois like the rotating ocular-put some sole adhesive tape on it and use that for manipulating the magnification. I doubt they will get rid of that

 

[Silverbullet2]

Have an internal level.

 

[mi650]

I mentioned this before but us .mil bois like the rotating ocular-put some sole adhesive tape on it and use that for manipulating the magnification. I doubt they will get rid of that

I think I'm missing something here. I'm talking about the reticle focus changing with the magnification.

Granted, it's not a lot, but it's still changing.

 

[hafejd30]

Nightforce needs to fix the glass in the ATACR F1 5-25x56, and also fix the tunneling and give it edge-to-edge image, instead of it looking like you’re looking through a black paper towel roll…image through the scope feels constricted.

Those 5-25 atacr are known to be the worst glass of the atacr line up. That’s why when you first got it I asked you to tell us what you thought. It’s the only atacr I haven’t owned and was curious if they improved it. The tunneling though is every model

 

[Hoody2shoes]

I think I'm missing something here. I'm talking about the reticle focus changing with the magnification.

Granted, it's not a lot, but it's still changing.

I misunderstood what you were saying-some dudes don't like the whole ocular piece being the magnification ring.

That's interesting. I don't have too much experience outside of the 1-8 and the 7-35 but I don't recall having that issue.

 

[leendertp]

Id tell Zeiss they need to offer the entire Conquest V-series (4, 6, & 8) in MIL/MIL configuration and the 6-24x50 & 5-30x56 models with a 34mm tube, and a thinner version of the Z-MRi reticle in them. Maybe call it the Z-MRi-T. Other than that, they’re excellent hunting scopes with good glass.

Agreed, I think a mil V4 would sell tons.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Realistic? Are you forgetting where you're posting?

This is snipershide where 90% of members want $3K+ optics for $500-$1000 and thats not possible so they just buy the cheap shit and tell everyone else it's just as good. If it goes on long enough more join the party and you have a "JuSt As GoOdEr" circle jerk and you'll never in your life see so many buckets of cum on a riflescope until the next time it happens.

 

[b6graham]

Realistic? Are you forgetting where you're posting?

This is snipershide where 90% of members want $3K+ optics for $500-$1000 and thats not possible so they just buy the cheap shit and tell everyone else it's just as good. If it goes on long enough more join the party and you have a "JuSt As GoOdEr" circle jerk and you'll never in your life see so many buckets of cum on a riflescope until the next time it happens.

aka Arken

 

[Niles Coyote]

Leupold's PR-2 reticle would replace NF's Mil-XT

 

[Glassaholic]

Well, I think an apology is in order. I did not follow the request of this thread or the title but fell in line with a lot of other comments and made it more about what I'd like to see changed in every scope manufacturer. So, to be fair, I want to specifically answer your question.

Every optic has compromises-If the manufacturer was listening, what realistic thing would you change about your favorite optic? I'm not talking about the mythical 10oz, ffp 1-8 that's bullet proof, German glass, and costs $100. I'm talking realistic change(s) to your favorite optic

First of all, we have to define what our favorite optic is, do we have different categories to choose from, if so then let me try it this way:

• Favorite Alpha Class Long Range Optic: Tangent Theta 5-25x56 - please print larger numbers on that big turret for us geezers, improve flare control and get daylight bright illumination (this might change once I get my hands on the new Schmidt 6-36x56 but wish Schmidt had the Gen 3XR reticle)
• Favorite Long Range Gas Gun Optic: March 4.5-28x52 - brighter illumination, non-translating turrets
• Favorite Long Range Rimfire Optic: Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56 - offer black (big shocker), get a better locking mechanism (see Schmidt DTII+ and March Shuriken), print larger numbers on the turret
• Favorite mid range crossover optic: Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 - improve turret clicks, get brighter illumination, better 3x reticle design
• Favorite lightweight mid range crossover optic: Vortex FFP LHT 4.5-22x50 - change magnification range to 3.5-18x50, put much better turrets in there, improve illumination, improve FOV (makes me wonder if Vortex released this mag range and hasn't addressed the 3-18 with the Razor G3 because a new AMG is coming that will fit all this criteria, if something like an AMG 3-18x50 is released then I will be in high heaven). If the March 3-24x52 had better glass and illumination I think this scope would take over this spot for me.
• Favorite Ultra Short optic: ZCO 4-20x50 - offer 10 mil turrets, offer crossover oriented reticle with dots in tree and usable at 4x, include Tenebraex caps
• Favorite MPVO: Doesn't exist, right now the March 1.5-15x42 is probably my "favorite" but wish this scope performed better optically above 10x, leaves the door open for an excellent 2-12x42 design...
• Favorite LPVO: Vortex Razor G3 1-10x24 - offer in black or use same color as XM-157, offer side parallax adjustment and exposed locking turret

 

[FuhQ]

Agreed, I think a mil V4 would sell tons.

I’ve said that on their IG numerous times, but no response from them.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Well, I think an apology is in order. I did not follow the request of this thread or the title but fell in line with a lot of other comments and made it more about what I'd like to see changed in every scope manufacturer. So, to be fair, I want to specifically answer your question.


First of all, we have to define what our favorite optic is, do we have different categories to choose from, if so then let me try it this way:

• Favorite Alpha Class Long Range Optic: Tangent Theta 5-25x56 - please print larger numbers on that big turret for us geezers, improve flare control and get daylight bright illumination (this might change once I get my hands on the new Schmidt 6-36x56 but wish Schmidt had the Gen 3XR reticle)
• Favorite Long Range Gas Gun Optic: March 4.5-28x52 - brighter illumination, non-translating turrets
• Favorite Long Range Rimfire Optic: Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56 - offer black (big shocker), get a better locking mechanism (see Schmidt DTII+ and March Shuriken), print larger numbers on the turret
• Favorite mid range crossover optic: Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 - improve turret clicks, get brighter illumination, better 3x reticle design
• Favorite lightweight mid range crossover optic: Vortex FFP LHT 4.5-22x50 - change magnification range to 3.5-18x50, put much better turrets in there, improve illumination, improve FOV (makes me wonder if Vortex released this mag range and hasn't addressed the 3-18 with the Razor G3 because a new AMG is coming that will fit all this criteria, if something like an AMG 3-18x50 is released then I will be in high heaven). If the March 3-24x52 had better glass and illumination I think this scope would take over this spot for me.
• Favorite Ultra Short optic: ZCO 4-20x50 - offer 10 mil turrets, offer crossover oriented reticle with dots in tree and usable at 4x, include Tenebraex caps
• Favorite MPVO: Doesn't exist, right now the March 1.5-15x42 is probably my "favorite" but wish this scope performed better optically above 10x, leaves the door open for an excellent 2-12x42 design...
• Favorite LPVO: Vortex Razor G3 1-10x24 - offer in black or use same color as XM-157, offer side parallax adjustment and exposed locking turret

No apology needed! I think those are smart, simple fixes. I believe any 10x erector lpvo needs parallax adjustment. I think it would solve a lot of the rg3's issues.

If you look at my complaints about the atacr 1-8... they are fairly small and simple fixes most of which is tweaking the reticle.

On a side note-is it possible to fix parallax to specific magnification amounts on lpvo's? Not technically user adjustable but as the mag increases so does the parallax setting. 1x @50, 2x @100, 3@150, etc?

 

[Evintos]

Sub-24oz LPVO with a minimum of 10,000 hour battery life on a CR2032 without shake awake.

 

[koshkin]

Interesting thread.
One of the things you want to keep in mind is that most manufacturers do pay attention to what is being said here and in a few other places. However, they have to make what sells and a lot of what is being asked has very narrow audience and questionable marketability.
Some of the things brought up here are already in the pipeline for a few manufacturers.
From a feasibility standpoint, yes, it is possible to shift parallax with magnification, but not simple. S&B's Dual CC LPVO does exactly that and if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive I would own one. I really liked it when I was testing it. I would have the distance parallax set at 250m and close focus at 20m or something along those lines.
Every time someone says "just make scope ABC with glass from scope XYZ" I start hitting my head against the wall. Image quality is heavily dependent on scope design. This whole idea that you can take a decent scope and swap out lenses for something out of different glass and get better results is nuts. Then again, I can't even convince people that tube diameter has no bearing on light transmission, so might as well give up.
Sticking with 10mrad turrets is a good idea in many situations, although I can argue this both ways. Tangent has 6mrad and 15mrad turrets. Both are awesome, so I guess it comes down to the manufacturer.
On taking a light weight scope and making the FOV wider while adding beefier turrets: there is a good chance it will no longer be a lightweight scope. That's one of the compromises.

ILya

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Excellent reply-those points are exactly why I named the thread what I did and provided what I think would be realistic upgrades to my favorite scope as an example

 

[beetroot]

On taking a light weight scope and making the FOV wider while adding beefier turrets: there is a good chance it will no longer be a lightweight scope. That's one of the compromises.

ILya

Do you think there is actually a decent market for light weight FFP MVPO type scopes?
I've been following this "market" for many years now, it keeps coming up on the hide and other forums that it's not a secret there is a market then (albiet a small one).

You mentioned somewhere that an FFP 3-15x42 LHT is probably not going to happen as Vortex doesn't see a market.
Bushnell said their was no market for the LRHS/LRTS so they aren't bringing it back.
Despite a vocal miniority saving the LRHS 3-12 was/is the dogs bollocks GAP bought out the LRHS2 as the 4.5-18 only.

I'm guessing between OEMs not offering many MVPO type scopes and scope companies thnking (or knowing) they wont sell very well, theres a bit of a stalemate type situation. That combined with the physical constraints of making one lightweight enough for people to actually buy is the final straw for this market segment.

 

[beetroot]

Realistic? Are you forgetting where you're posting?

This is snipershide where 90% of members want $3K+ optics for $500-$1000 and thats not possible so they just buy the cheap shit and tell everyone else it's just as good. If it goes on long enough more join the party and you have a "JuSt As GoOdEr" circle jerk and you'll never in your life see so many buckets of cum on a riflescope until the next time it happens.

The way I remind myself I'm in the minorty when it comes to this industry/market is by thinking about the promo videos companies use.

The Vortex 1-10 release video was cringy AF but the plebs on instagram thought it was "dope".
Leupolds "Be relentless" BS sounds like they are selling womens hygiene products.

We are but a tiny share of the market for these companies.

 

[koshkin]

Do you think there is actually a decent market for light weight FFP MVPO type scopes?
I've been following this "market" for many years now, it keeps coming up on the hide and other forums that it's not a secret there is a market then (albiet a small one).

You mentioned somewhere that an FFP 3-15x42 LHT is probably not going to happen as Vortex doesn't see a market.
Bushnell said their was no market for the LRHS/LRTS so they aren't bringing it back.
Despite a vocal miniority saving the LRHS 3-12 was/is the dogs bollocks GAP bought out the LRHS2 as the 4.5-18 only.

I'm guessing between OEMs not offering many MVPO type scopes and scope companies thnking (or knowing) they wont sell very well, theres a bit of a stalemate type situation. That combined with the physical constraints of making one lightweight enough for people to actually buy is the final straw for this market segment.

I think there is a market for FFP MPVO type scopes, but I do not think it is a big market. People who shoot a lot tend to like scopes of this type. People who buy fancy scopes and only shoot at 100yards off the bench are likely a much bigger crowd and they buy high magnification stuff.
It is not that Vortex doesn't see a market, they have 3-15x44 ad 2-10x32 models in their PST Gen2 line, but more likely there are other things they want to do ahead of that (some of them are really cool and coming soon).

The scope I would really like them to make would be 2.4-12x42 FFP in the Razor HD-LHT line. I would not change a thing in terms of turrets and all that. Even pushbutton illumination that I dislike overall can stay. It would not be a huge seller for Vortex, but it would prevent people from going to other brands if they want something along these lines. The 4.5-22x50 would probably outsell it by 8-to-1, but you need both.
Now, for a smaller company, the volume of a decent MPVO might be sufficient.

That is really one of the constant decisions I have to make for myself: I know the OEMs; I can identify several small niches where a small company could do well. I could start this and probably do OK. It is a lot of time and effort and I can't be without income while it all comes through. Then, if I prove that this niche is indeed viable, a more established player will come in, undercut me by 10% and push me out of the market.

Then, there is the "me to" marketing mentaility. Marketing people are not natural risk takers because that can mean their jobs. They really dislike taking the initial risk.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

Do you think there is actually a decent market for light weight FFP MVPO type scopes?
I've been following this "market" for many years now, it keeps coming up on the hide and other forums that it's not a secret there is a market then (albiet a small one).

You mentioned somewhere that an FFP 3-15x42 LHT is probably not going to happen as Vortex doesn't see a market.
Bushnell said their was no market for the LRHS/LRTS so they aren't bringing it back.
Despite a vocal miniority saving the LRHS 3-12 was/is the dogs bollocks GAP bought out the LRHS2 as the 4.5-18 only.

I'm guessing between OEMs not offering many MVPO type scopes and scope companies thnking (or knowing) they wont sell very well, theres a bit of a stalemate type situation. That combined with the physical constraints of making one lightweight enough for people to actually buy is the final straw for this market segment.

Part of the issue is it’s got to be the “right” MPVO. Too many thought taking an existing design and throwing in a new reticle would suffice, or offering a decent reticle in a poor design. I realize this is personal opinion but a proper FFP MPVO needs to go below 3x on the bottom (preferably be closer to 2x) and offer 12x or higher on the top end and have a reticle that works as well at the bottom as it does the top, I think several LPVO reticles would suffice and all this needs to be wrapped up in a package that is preferably under 25oz or darn close to it. Athlons Helos G2 2-12x42 is a very nice design with one gaping flaw - it’s Chinese. Trijicons 2-12x36 had so much promise but they handicapped it with a useless reticle (useless for low mag work). Manufacture a quality 2-12 from Europe, Japan or even the Philippines and put in the proper reticle and we’re in business. March’s 1.5-15x42 is the closest I’ve seen at trying to accomplish this but I think they reached too far with a 10x erector and short design and IQ suffers at higher mags as a result, but man I love the idea of this scope even if the execution isn’t quite what I’d hoped it would be so it may stay a while. Leupold’s 2-10 just doesn’t have the top end needed for an effective MPVO (IMO) but it will sell just because of the name. Nightforce, Vortex and Steiner/Burris have the wherewithal to attempt this - who wouldn’t jump at an ATACR 2-12x42 with FC-DMX or a Vortex Gen3 2-12x42 with EBR-9 mrad reticle. There are a bunch of guys dropping $3k, $4k and higher for KAC’s and LMT’s, even more building really nice DMR/SPR style rigs wanting to put some good glass on it. I believe there is a market, but only for the right scope and that is the risk that any mfr has to take when considering this market. So far only a few have dared to enter, but hopefully it will encourage others to follow suit.

 

[NHR]

I wish Primary Arms would sell the PLX-C 1-8 with a simple reticle. Remove half the "features" and all of the pubic hairs on the main stadia. Cut the mil holdover down to ~7-10 max.

Basically use the FC DMx or Athlon 1-10 reticle. I'd even tolerate the Chevron if the rest of the reticle wasn't a mess.

 

[DJL2]

Well, I think an apology is in order. I did not follow the request of this thread or the title but fell in line with a lot of other comments and made it more about what I'd like to see changed in every scope manufacturer. So, to be fair, I want to specifically answer your question.


First of all, we have to define what our favorite optic is, do we have different categories to choose from, if so then let me try it this way:

• Favorite Long Range Gas Gun Optic: March 4.5-28x52 - brighter illumination, non-translating turrets
• Favorite mid range crossover optic: Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 - improve turret clicks, get brighter illumination, better 3x reticle design
• Favorite lightweight mid range crossover optic: Vortex FFP LHT 4.5-22x50 - change magnification range to 3.5-18x50, put much better turrets in there, improve illumination, improve FOV (makes me wonder if Vortex released this mag range and hasn't addressed the 3-18 with the Razor G3 because a new AMG is coming that will fit all this criteria, if something like an AMG 3-18x50 is released then I will be in high heaven). If the March 3-24x52 had better glass and illumination I think this scope would take over this spot for me.
• Favorite Ultra Short optic: ZCO 4-20x50 - offer 10 mil turrets, offer crossover oriented reticle with dots in tree and usable at 4x, include Tenebraex caps

The decision for the FML-TR1 or FML-3 not to run the reticle to the edge of the glass (or nearly) on 3x / 4.5x is an odd one considering the same people make the FMC-1, FMC-3, FML, FML-1, FML-TRH, FMA-1, FMA-2, FMA-3, FML-LDK, FML-PDK, FML/FMA-MT... clearly, someone at March understands the utility of etching the reticle on more than just the center of the glass ;-). When @koshkin asked them to optimize 15-20x, I'm not sure he meant "the reticle doesn't need to be useable at 4.5x."

 

[koshkin]

The decision for the FML-TR1 or FML-3 not to run the reticle to the edge of the glass (or nearly) on 3x / 4.5x is an odd one considering the same people make the FMC-1, FMC-3, FML, FML-1, FML-TRH, FMA-1, FMA-2, FMA-3, FML-LDK, FML-PDK, FML/FMA-MT... clearly, someone at March understands the utility of etching the reticle on more than just the center of the glass ;-). When @koshkin asked them to optimize 15-20x, I'm not sure he meant "the reticle doesn't need to be useable at 4.5x."

That one was actually me. I do not like it when reticle lines go all the way to the edges, especially on eyepieces with very wide FOV. The reticle was sized for the 5-42x originally. On the 4.5-28x, I would run it a little wider, but still not all the way to the edge.

15-20x optimization referred to image quality optimization on the 4.5-28x.

ILya

 

[DJL2]

That one was actually me. I do not like it when reticle lines go all the way to the edges, especially on eyepieces with very wide FOV. The reticle was sized for the 5-42x originally. On the 4.5-28x, I would run it a little wider, but still not all the way to the edge.

15-20x optimization referred to image quality optimization on the 4.5-28x.

ILya

Damn it, man! I suppose a more FML-LDK oriented solution might work? Keep the crosshairs compact and thicken them? The scope itself is compact, (relatively) light... easy to see the desire to put it on something that might get carried and used on low mag and in low(ish) light. The optical system being what it is, having a cross hair that works for the shooter at low mag, particularly in low light, seems like a good idea.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I'd like to see an American scope brand(s) manufacture their entire scope (glass, coatings, everything) here in the US. I'm not talking about assembled here in the US either. Hell I'd like to see several brands do this such as Nightforce, Leupold, Vortex or USO.

You do realize this was done (Vortex AMG) and everything but the reticle was made and assembled in the US. It was a such a good idea they discontinued it and lost money on every one sold.

Feel free to start a optics company and show us all how its done.

 

[johnnyvw]

Agreed, especially if they can get the glass right.

Is there an American company that can make glass as good as, or even close to, Swarovski? (I honestly don't know.)

Depends on what you mean by "American". The major glass companies are multi-national. They don't make every product in every country. Schott has US facilities, but is a German company. They even have facilities in China. Same with Corning. You might as well get over hoping for 100% "Made in America" (or any particular country), that ship has sailed. Best you can hope for is designed and assembled in the USA.

 

[psharon78]

You do realize this was done (Vortex AMG) and everything but the reticle was made and assembled in the US. It was a such a good idea they discontinued it and lost money on every one sold.

Feel free to start a optics company and show us all how its done.

Or, how about these so called "American" companies, build a glass manufacturer company that can compete with the absolute best of European and Japanese glass.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Or, how about these so called "American" companies, build a glass manufacturer company that can compete with the absolute best of European and Japanese glass.

Thats just a stupid take for alot of reasons.

Yea just build a few billion dollar facility, train a workforce that has no experience in any of the processes, and HOPE there is enough business to support this all while competing with companies who have been doing it for decades and already have the infrastructure. If it was economicaly viable, it would probally already be done.

You can get US made optics, they are just going to cost you a fortune. Might have to join NRO or NASA to play with one.

 

[Denys]

Damn it, man! I suppose a more FML-LDK oriented solution might work? Keep the crosshairs compact and thicken them? The scope itself is compact, (relatively) light... easy to see the desire to put it on something that might get carried and used on low mag and in low(ish) light. The optical system being what it is, having a cross hair that works for the shooter at low mag, particularly in low light, seems like a good idea.

I co-designed the FML-PDK and FML-LDK reticles over 4 years ago with a friend, who is a long time PRS competitor. We started from a clean sheet, and he worked out the Christmas tree, while I concentrated on the stadia crosshairs. The two were designed to complement each other in the PDK design, and we also submitted the LDK design (without the Christmas tree) to DEON, because we thought it was a nice clean design that would satisfy the shooters who do not like Christmas trees in their reticle. Wide angle FOV designs were new(ish) and the 4.5-28X52 has the second widest FOV of any riflescope, right behind the March-FX 5-42X56 HM, so we wanted to take more advantage of the huge FOV, without overpowering the view. The Christmas tree really comes into its own after 12-14X and the main crosshair extension disappear around that time. (I'm writing this from memory.)

When you design a reticle, you are faced with choices and compromises, and this is where I bring out my DC vs AC comment. DC stands for Designer's Choice, and AC stands for Anyone's Choice. The designer or design team, has a vision of the product and the design evolves to fit that vision. Along the way, many decisions are made by DC rules not AC rules.

One of the decisions has to do with illumination. If you want illumination, there is a minimum line thickness required for the illuminated segments. We elected to forego illumination because we wanted to keep the lines thin when zooming in in order to preserve the clean design at higher magnifications. On the other hand, we beefed up the extensions to the stadia crosshairs for lower magnifications and lower light conditions.

A few years later, DEON created the PDKI (for illumination), in which they thickened the lines for illumination purposes and extended the stadia crosshairs even further out.

Now that you have the story, I would like to know why the MTR-PDKI would not work for you. It has illumination and longer (almost to the edge) thick stadia extensions.

 

[mi650]

Depends on what you mean by "American". The major glass companies are multi-national. They don't make every product in every country. Schott has US facilities, but is a German company. They even have facilities in China. Same with Corning. You might as well get over hoping for 100% "Made in America" (or any particular country), that ship has sailed. Best you can hope for is designed and assembled in the USA.

Yep, I learned this lesson years ago when I was in the fastener biz. It just takes a certain % of added value to call something 'Made in the USA'.

 

[NateSavannah]

Dear Zco,
Please integrate some super badass dual focal plane reticles into your 420 and 527 line so its not just useable but super badass at low mag.
Please and thank you.

PS Please make a LPVO thats worth a shit. Everyone elses suck.

 

[rlsmith1]

5. Lightweight NX8 1.5-12x42 (maybe even 1.5-12x36) with FC-DMx reticle

Could not agree more, if the FC-DMx reticle could be updated to provide more refined holdovers that would be ideal. The whole MIL holds down the center line are a little tricky at distance (I just love floating dots). If we are really dreaming, some sort of dual focal NX8 in this mag range would be awesome

 

[rothgyr]

Interesting thread.
One of the things you want to keep in mind is that most manufacturers do pay attention to what is being said here and in a few other places. However, they have to make what sells and a lot of what is being asked has very narrow audience and questionable marketability.
Some of the things brought up here are already in the pipeline for a few manufacturers.
From a feasibility standpoint, yes, it is possible to shift parallax with magnification, but not simple. S&B's Dual CC LPVO does exactly that and if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive I would own one. I really liked it when I was testing it. I would have the distance parallax set at 250m and close focus at 20m or something along those lines.
Every time someone says "just make scope ABC with glass from scope XYZ" I start hitting my head against the wall. Image quality is heavily dependent on scope design. This whole idea that you can take a decent scope and swap out lenses for something out of different glass and get better results is nuts. Then again, I can't even convince people that tube diameter has no bearing on light transmission, so might as well give up.
Sticking with 10mrad turrets is a good idea in many situations, although I can argue this both ways. Tangent has 6mrad and 15mrad turrets. Both are awesome, so I guess it comes down to the manufacturer.
On taking a light weight scope and making the FOV wider while adding beefier turrets: there is a good chance it will no longer be a lightweight scope. That's one of the compromises.

ILya

Get ready for a dumb question - what about reducing minimum parallax on a scope? I love my FDNs, but min parallax is 50 on the 17x and 75 on 25x. Why is it that the G3 razor's parallax (10yds) is lower than the G2 (32yds), or that the 7-35 ATACR has 11yds min parallax where the 5-25 has a min of 50yds? Does changing the magnification range compared with erector size change minimum parallax?

With NRL22 and PRS Rimfire getting more popular, I imagine a lot of optics manufacturers could up their sales margins if their parallax could make to down to 25yds or less.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I always get a kick out of min parralax. After shooting a shot load of nrl22 and prs22, rarely are shots under 50 and when they are parralax doesn't matter. You can clean the course with a TT or any other 50m parralax. It's not an issue at all.

 

[koshkin]

Get ready for a dumb question - what about reducing minimum parallax on a scope? I love my FDNs, but min parallax is 50 on the 17x and 75 on 25x. Why is it that the G3 razor's parallax (10yds) is lower than the G2 (32yds), or that the 7-35 ATACR has 11yds min parallax where the 5-25 has a min of 50yds? Does changing the magnification range compared with erector size change minimum parallax?

With NRL22 and PRS Rimfire getting more popular, I imagine a lot of optics manufacturers could up their sales margins if their parallax could make to down to 25yds or less.

It is just a matter if designing for it. Broader range is a little more of a challenge, but not that much more.

 

[ma smith]

I always get a kick out of min parralax. After shooting a shot load of nrl22 and prs22, rarely are shots under 50 and when they are parralax doesn't matter. You can clean the course with a TT or any other 50m parralax. It's not an issue at all.

Agree that NRL22 is fine backed off to 8x when .25 targets at 25m

IIRC the .mil and LEO guys req'd ~10M parallax (S&B and NF). Others copied that at a later date. Not worth explaining more here.