SHOT SHOW 2024 NEW RIFLESCOPES

[Denys]

@Glassaholic
I resisted pasting the whole thread here. I read what you wrote and it really boils down to personal impressions and memory. I suspect you have had very little time with the Majesta and it's been a year or more since that time. Working from memory and from different conditions makes it difficult to compare.

One thing that got my attention was your comment about details mattering. I totally agree. You mentioned that the NX8 had 26° AAOV. I am not familiar with that line of riflescope, so I went looking at the on-line data. Come to find out that the 2 NX8 I studied, the 2.5-20X50 F1 and the 4-32X50 F1 do indeed show they have 26° and 28° AAVO, respectively. But some numbers looked askew. I did some further research, and these values are for the maximum magnification. At the minimum magnification, their AAOV is the common 20°. These scopes have what I believe is called "dual vision". It is my understanding that having a wide-angle view at high magnification is fairly easy to achieve; it is much more difficult to have the same at the low magnification. The March Majesta has 25° AAOV from 8X to 80X.

The figures that I collected sometime back for the S&B 6-36X56 also showed the same propensity for dual vision; the high mag was wide, the low mag was normal and that was for the Euro model. The US model had a more normal FOV. I am told that dual vision, looking through a tunnel, is much more accepted in Europe but that US customers, not so much; hence the 2 models, Euro and US.

Details matter.

 

[Glassaholic]

@Glassaholic
I resisted pasting the whole thread here. I read what you wrote and it really boils down to personal impressions and memory. I suspect you have had very little time with the Majesta and it's been a year or more since that time. Working from memory and from different conditions makes it difficult to compare.

I had the Majesta for several weeks (yes, over a year ago), enough to do short range and long range preliminary testing. I say preliminary because I never intended to do a full review of the scope as SFP is not my forté, it was sent to me as a courtesy to get my first impressions of the scope. I have not mentioned this scope before because I really have no need to, I only mentioned it with regard to Gary's comments in the video which I found to be a bit misleading. But I do understand his excitement with a scope that has no equal within the industry for the magnification range it offers and the value proposition for the F-Class crowd.

One thing that got my attention was your comment about details mattering. I totally agree. You mentioned that the NX8 had 26° AAOV. I am not familiar with that line of riflescope, so I went looking at the on-line data. Come to find out that the 2 NX8 I studied, the 2.5-20X50 F1 and the 4-32X50 F1 do indeed show they have 26° and 28° AAVO, respectively. But some numbers looked askew. I did some further research, and these values are for the maximum magnification. At the minimum magnification, their AAOV is the common 20°. These scopes have what I believe is called "dual vision". It is my understanding that having a wide-angle view at high magnification is fairly easy to achieve; it is much more difficult to have the same at the low magnification.

I am not familiar with your term "AAOV" maybe Apparent Angle of View? I use AFOV (Apparent Field of View) which directly relates to the numbers above and is different from the angle of view. For many scopes AFOV is not a linear value so as a general rule I track AFOV based on the max magnification, it's not perfect, but because many scopes struggle at bottom magnification (as you point out with the NX8) and because most users do not use lowest magnification frequently (typically somewhere in the mid range) I just track the one figure at max mag. That being said, Nightforce is notorious for designs that have low AFOV values at min. mag but increase rather quickly (not linearly) - unfortunately we don't know the actual values because we would need precise measuring tools throughout the mag range to identify the AFOV at different magnifications. This is why I've started charting the actual mrad value of hash marks on the reticle but even this is not perfect and can deviate slightly depending on the diopter setting as well as the actual magnification mark vs. the printed magnification mark.

The March Majesta has 25° AAOV from 8X to 80X.

Again, I am not certain what you are referring to as AAOV? But I decided to run the Majesta's numbers through my spreadsheet (which has the formula for calculating AFOV) and this is what I get:
March's specs for Majesta are:
CORRECTION: 16.4' @ 8x and 1.64' @ 80x (at 100 yards)
When plugged into my calculator this is what I get for the Majesta: At 8x the AFOV is: 25.03° and at 80x the AFOV is: 25.06° (I had mistakenly grabbed the FOV values from the non-Majesta scope with the previous numbers)

The figures that I collected sometime back for the S&B 6-36X56 also showed the same propensity for dual vision; the high mag was wide, the low mag was normal and that was for the Euro model.

Where are you getting your figures? Schmidt 6-36x56 Euro version is listed at 21.9' @ 6x and 3.75' @ 36x. When plugged into my calculator I get the following: At 6x the AFOV is: 25.05° and at 36x the AFOV is: 25.78°

The US model had a more normal FOV. I am told that dual vision, looking through a tunnel, is much more accepted in Europe but that US customers, not so much; hence the 2 models, Euro and US.

Yes, there has been long discussion about the neutered USA version but it's not because Europeans like to look through a tunnel, it is because of a patent by Swarovski that limits the AFOV in long range scopes sold in the USA. For some reason it appears Japanese manufactured scopes get a pass on this patent while European scopes do not.

 

[Kiba]

I had the Majesta for several weeks (yes, over a year ago), enough to do short range and long range preliminary testing. I say preliminary because I never intended to do a full review of the scope as SFP is not my forté, it was sent to me as a courtesy to get my first impressions of the scope. I have not mentioned this scope before because I really have no need to, I only mentioned it with regard to Gary's comments in the video which I found to be a bit misleading. But I do understand his excitement with a scope that has no equal within the industry for the magnification range it offers and the value proposition for the F-Class crowd.

I am not familiar with your term "AAOV" maybe Apparent Angle of View? I use AFOV (Apparent Field of View) which directly relates to the numbers above and is different from the angle of view. For many scopes AFOV is not a linear value so as a general rule I track AFOV based on the max magnification, it's not perfect, but because many scopes struggle at bottom magnification (as you point out with the NX8) and because most users do not use lowest magnification frequently (typically somewhere in the mid range) I just track the one figure at max mag. That being said, Nightforce is notorious for designs that have low AFOV values at min. mag but increase rather quickly (not linearly) - unfortunately we don't know the actual values because we would need precise measuring tools throughout the mag range to identify the AFOV at different magnifications. This is why I've started charting the actual mrad value of hash marks on the reticle but even this is not perfect and can deviate slightly depending on the diopter setting as well as the actual magnification mark vs. the printed magnification mark.

Again, I am not certain what you are referring to as AAOV? But I decided to run the Majesta's numbers through my spreadsheet (which has the formula for calculating AFOV) and this is what I get:
March's specs for Majesta are: 13.2' @ 8x and 1.3' @ 80x (at 100 yards)
When plugged into my calculator this is what I get for the Majesta: At 8x the AFOV is: 20.16° and at 80x the AFOV is: 19.86° so not anywhere close to the 25° claimed? By comparison when I plug in the numbers for the March 5-42x56 (at 42x) I get 26.07° which is what we'd expect. So either March's Majesta numbers are off for their FOV at 100 yards or the claim of 25° is wrong???

Where are you getting your figures? Schmidt 6-36x56 Euro version is listed at 21.9' @ 6x and 3.75' @ 36x. When plugged into my calculator I get the following: At 6x the AFOV is: 25.05° and at 36x the AFOV is: 25.78°

Yes, there has been long discussion about the neutered USA version but it's not because Europeans like to look through a tunnel, it is because of a patent by Swarovski that limits the AFOV in long range scopes sold in the USA. For some reason it appears Japanese manufactured scopes get a pass on this patent while European scopes do not.

Details matter, touché

Not sure where you pulled your majesta numbers from, but the FOV specs March provides for the 8-80 majesta high master with the 25 degree wide angle eyepiece work out to be 24.96 degrees AFOV @ 8x and 24.75 degrees @ 80x. See below...

 

[Denys]

@Glassaholic
I use the metric numbers provided: 0.545m @ 80X and 5.45m @ 8X. The US values are 1.64ft @80X and 16.4ft @8X.

The numbers you listed are for the older 8-80X56, not the Majesta.

Swarovski has A patent on wide angle eyepieces using A method. DEON uses another method that does not infringe on the patent.

 

[Glassaholic]

@Glassaholic
I use the metric numbers provided: 0.545m @ 80X and 5.45m @ 8X. The US values are 1.64ft @80X and 16.4ft @8X.

The numbers you listed are for the older 8-80X56, not the Majesta.

Well shame on me for not paying closer attention, I did not realize March has a non-Majesta 8-80x56 and I looked again and indeed that was the one I pulled FOV values for. I will edit my post so no one gets confused.

 

[Glassaholic]

Not sure where you pulled your majesta numbers from, but the FOV specs March provides for the 8-80 majesta high master with the 25 degree wide angle eyepiece work out to be 24.96 degrees AFOV @ 8x and 24.75 degrees @ 80x. See below...

View attachment 8349295

As mentioned above I did not realize there were two 8-80x56 scopes and had inadvertently grabbed the "old" scope specs instead of the new Majesta specs. That said, these are the numbers I am getting when I plug into my spreadsheet:
16.4' @ 8x and 1.64' @ 80x (at 100 yards). At 8x the AFOV is: 25.03° and at 80x the AFOV is: 25.06°

These numbers are slightly better than your numbers so want to make sure my spreadsheet calcs are setup correctly, can you check your numbers again?

 

[Kiba]

As mentioned above I did not realize there were two 8-80x56 scopes and had inadvertently grabbed the "old" scope specs instead of the new Majesta specs. That said, these are the numbers I am getting when I plug into my spreadsheet:
16.4' @ 8x and 1.64' @ 80x (at 100 yards). At 8x the AFOV is: 25.03° and at 80x the AFOV is: 25.06°

These numbers are slightly better than your numbers so want to make sure my spreadsheet calcs are setup correctly, can you check your numbers again?

Your numbers are correct, as are mine... There is a difference in AFOV depending if you use March's imperial vs metric specs. That's why these AFOV calculations should have a big note next to them that says "dependent on accuracy of manufacturer provided specs." In this case it could be simple rounding error down to 2 decimal places in the numbers March provided if say the metric numbers were rounded down and the imperial numbers rounded up to 2 decimal places.

 

[Denys]

Well shame on me for not paying closer attention, I did not realize March has a non-Majesta 8-80x56 and I looked again and indeed that was the one I pulled FOV values for. I will edit my post so no one gets confused.

Yeah, the March-X 5-50X56 and 8-80X56 were introduced about 12 years ago. They have ED lens and they were the first of the March-X series which denotes 34mm tubes with the 4mm thick walls. The X series has expanded to include FFP scopes, so you have the March-X for SFP and the March-FX for FFP. The first one in the -FX series was the March-FX 5-42X56 HM. (The -FX series is currently as follows: March-FX 1-10X24, -FX 1.5-15X42, -FX 4.5-28X52 and the March-FX 5-42X56.)

The next one in the -X series was the March-X 10-60X56 HM, which was one of the first ones to introduce the High Master Lens system which uses Super ED lenses. That riflescope became a darling in the F-class world for its resistance to mirage and its magnification range.

The March-X 8-80X56 HM WA Majesta is the latest one in the -X series. It is not a next gen of the existing 8-80X56, it's a completely new design, using Super ED lenses, the wide-angle eyepiece and some extra magic for "shimmer resistance".

As far as riflescopes are concerned, I'm guessing that 80X is about as high as you can go in magnification with a 56mm objective. The Majesta is already heavy at 41oz, going to a 60 or 72mm objective to enable higher magnification, would make it way to heavy and bulky.

Interestingly, the original 8-80X56 is quite popular with airgunners who love very high magnification.

 

[Glassaholic]

Your numbers are correct, as are mine... There is a difference in AFOV depending if you use March's imperial vs metric specs. That's why these AFOV calculations should have a big note next to them that says "dependent on accuracy of manufacturer provided specs." In this case it could be simple rounding error down to 2 decimal places in the numbers March provided if say the metric numbers were rounded down and the imperial numbers rounded up to 2 decimal places.

Ahhh, gotcha. Are you using the same formula on the metric conversion as you do with the imperial? If so that might be the issue. My spreadsheet has the formula you helped me with for 100 yards, but you can't just convert the metric to feet because the metric values are at 100 meters (which is farther than yards), so you have to run a calculation on the metric conversion to get the equivalent of 100 yards (not meters) so the AFOV calculation works correctly. I've had to do this with a number of manufacturers who only list their FOV values in meters at 100 meters. With the Majesta you would take the 5.45 meters and convert to feet which is 17.88 but then divide by 1.093 to get the equivalent value at 100 yards (instead of 100 meters). When I do that the 17.88/1.093 comes out to 16.358 which when rounded up equals the 16.4' that March lists for 100 yards.

 

[Kiba]

It's an angular measurement, so metric vs imperial doesn't matter to the arctan calculation as long as the view width and distance to target are in the same units-- meters, yards, inches, femtometers, furlongs, it doesn't matter and the arctan will return the same value as long as the width and length are in the same units.

99% sure we're just splitting hairs and seeing slight deviations in AFOV between metric and imperial units because of March rounding to 2 decimal places in the specs.

I used meters from the March specs only because it's faster as it saves having to do a conversion from feet to yards.

 

[Denys]

The spreadsheet I put together allows me to specify "f" or "m" for the values I enter from the various website. My formula uses feet @ 100 yards if "f" or meters @ 100 meters if "m". I did it this way because lots of sites have the values in imperial only and others have them in metric only. When they have both, I use the metric value as that usually seems to be more accurate.

 

[Glassaholic]

It's an angular measurement, so metric vs imperial doesn't matter to the arctan calculation as long as the view width and distance to target are in the same units-- meters, yards, inches, femtometers, furlongs, it doesn't matter and the arctan will return the same value as long as the width and length are in the same units.

99% sure we're just splitting hairs and seeing slight deviations in AFOV between metric and imperial units because of March rounding to 2 decimal places in the specs.

I used meters from the March specs only because it's faster as it saves having to do a conversion from feet to yards.

I trust your math a lot more than mine!

 

[Glassaholic]

The spreadsheet I put together allows me to specify "f" or "m" for the values I enter from the various website. My formula uses feet @ 100 yards if "f" or meters @ 100 meters if "m". I did it this way because lots of sites have the values in imperial only and others have them in metric only. When they have both, I use the metric value as that usually seems to be more accurate.

I like this idea of “f” and “m” and think I may put that in my spreadsheet but am curious why your numbers for the euro Schmidt 6-36 were so far off mine?

 

[Kiba]

I trust your math a lot more than mine!

That makes one of us.

 

[Denys]

I like this idea of “f” and “m” and think I may put that in my spreadsheet but am curious why your numbers for the euro Schmidt 6-36 were so far off mine?

I'm sure it's because I used different specs than the ones you have. I got them some months ago from S&B website. There were two sheets, as I remember, one for US and on for Euro version. The Euro version had the dual vision thing, and since I was only interested in what people can get in the US, I used the US version and that's why my AAOV numbers are different than yours, I would guess.

I am always expanding and reviewing my spreadsheet.

 

[Rocketmandb]

I really like this concept that March revealed this week as well. To me after seeing a scope design like this makes me wonder why has anyone done this before. I really like it, seems like one of those inventions that are an absolute no brainer.

I have a version of this on my March Genesis, where there are no rings, and they supply two mounts with a pic clamp (one high, one lower). There are a few issues with this:

1) You have only one adjustment forward and backward for the scope, and that's to move it along the pic rail. You lose the ability to move the scope in relation to the mount. I'm finding this to be slightly problematic as I would like to move the scope rearward, but I'm on the last notch on the pic rail.

2) You're counting on the reticle being perfectly aligned with the scope body - not always the case.

3) You're counting on the pic rail being aligned correctly on the action. On high end customs, this is likely not an issue. On factory rifles...

 

[Denys]

I have a version of this on my March Genesis, where there are no rings, and they supply two mounts with a pic clamp (one high, one lower). There are a few issues with this:

1) You have only one adjustment forward and backward for the scope, and that's to move it along the pic rail. You lose the ability to move the scope in relation to the mount. I'm finding this to be slightly problematic as I would like to move the scope rearward, but I'm on the last notch on the pic rail.

2) You're counting on the reticle being perfectly aligned with the scope body - not always the case.

3) You're counting on the pic rail being aligned correctly on the action. On high end customs, this is likely not an issue. On factory rifles...

We discussed these three points at length at SHOT with DEON. This is just a concept but like everything else when it comes to optics, it's not a fit-all solution and it's not going to replace the current mechanisms that are highly adjustable.

It is believed that this would appeal to shooters who like a simple mounting solution. On multiple forums, one can read about people asking for information about which size ring to get and other stories about people messing up their scopes during mounting. This solution would appeal to such shooters.

Point #2 is very valid, but that boils down to manufacturing tolerances and DEON has demonstrated that if anyone can do that, it would be them. Witness the dual plane reticles.

Point #3 is also very valid and I like your caveat. One way to think about this is that at the prices of March scopes, they are probably not being mounted on low-end factory rifles. However, even high-end rifles can be wonky, but one would think that would be less frequent and would be remedied quickly.

But all good points. Let's see what the DEON engineers come up with.

I love innovative thinking.

 

[Convex]

It is believed that this would appeal to shooters who like a simple mounting solution. On multiple forums, one can read about people asking for information about which size ring to get and other stories about people messing up their scopes during mounting. This solution would appeal to such shooters.

It's not for everybody, but what is, it will be a perfect solution for a boatload of folks.

It'll solve more problems than it creates for folks who just need it simple,

 

[Convex]

2) You're counting on the reticle being perfectly aligned with the scope body - not always the case.

Denys...

I've watched some videos of March at the shot show, didn't one of their folks mention that w/this they make sure the reticle is lined up w.the scope base or am I incorrect?

 

[Denys]

I'm sure you're correct, and as I mentioned in my earlier response, making sure a reticle is perfectly center and leveled in a riflescope is certainly something that DEON can deliver, and I pointed to the fact they make riflescopes with dual reticles as an example of manufacturing capabilities.

 

[TheOE800]

I'm sure it's because I used different specs than the ones you have. I got them some months ago from S&B website. There were two sheets, as I remember, one for US and on for Euro version. The Euro version had the dual vision thing, and since I was only interested in what people can get in the US, I used the US version and that's why my AAOV numbers are different than yours, I would guess.

I am always expanding and reviewing my spreadsheet.

US version data sheet has had the wrong data for a year or two now. At least when I checked it earlier last week it still looked wrong to me.

 

[Rocketmandb]

We discussed these three points at length at SHOT with DEON. This is just a concept but like everything else when it comes to optics, it's not a fit-all solution and it's not going to replace the current mechanisms that are highly adjustable.

It is believed that this would appeal to shooters who like a simple mounting solution. On multiple forums, one can read about people asking for information about which size ring to get and other stories about people messing up their scopes during mounting. This solution would appeal to such shooters.

Point #2 is very valid, but that boils down to manufacturing tolerances and DEON has demonstrated that if anyone can do that, it would be them. Witness the dual plane reticles.

Point #3 is also very valid and I like your caveat. One way to think about this is that at the prices of March scopes, they are probably not being mounted on low-end factory rifles. However, even high-end rifles can be wonky, but one would think that would be less frequent and would be remedied quickly.

But all good points. Let's see what the DEON engineers come up with.

I love innovative thinking.

My point 1 is the only one affecting me right now, and I don't have a solution other than leaning in more or shortening my LOP. With that said, I otherwise love the scope.

I'm actually surprised they haven't taken the basic concept of the Genesis (e.g. external housing for a fixed scope) to other models. It's actually better for medium range and in where you're not dialing a ton. You're always looking through the middle of the glass, but the ends of the scope move. It's not an issue unless you're at like 20+ mils - which is an adjustment most people will never play with.

 

[Denys]

My point 1 is the only one affecting me right now, and I don't have a solution other than leaning in more or shortening my LOP. With that said, I otherwise love the scope.

I'm actually surprised they haven't taken the basic concept of the Genesis (e.g. external housing for a fixed scope) to other models. It's actually better for medium range and in where you're not dialing a ton. You're always looking through the middle of the glass, but the ends of the scope move. It's not an issue unless you're at like 20+ mils - which is an adjustment most people will never play with.

Yes, I figured you were only mentioning the first point as being your experience. However, the other two points are very valid and certainly something to consider in this system. Point #2 about having the reticle perfectly level to the body of the scope is something that DEON can control, but point #3 about wonky receivers/bases, that is not onder the scope manufacturer's control and is thus a very valid point.

As to why they have not taken the Genesis concept to other scopes, I have no idea, but it might well be because of your point #3. This would not be as much of an issue with Genesis, because it's most usually mounted on fairly sophisticated rifles because of its purpose (ELR), but that's just a guess on my part. I would suggest that you send them a note and ask them directly. We know they are very responsive. If you do ask them, please let us know what they say.

 

[chevy_man]

This is going to sell a lot of scopes for March.

You don't have to shop for 2 separate things, a scope and a set of rings when you buy a scope. It's lined up right by U taking it out of the box and putting it on your rifle (unless there's something wrong w/your rifle).

No scuffs/scratches from the rings to knock the price of your scope down if you ever decide to sell it.

If you're a "fumble fingers"/accident prone "Klutz" who doesn't pay attention to detail, you can still get your scope on right.

Whatever the minuses are this is too convenient to go away.

Rings are the last things I think about when buying a scope. I generally stop by the store once I have the scope and buy what will fit.

The Genesis needed it's own mounting because of what it does.

I wouldn't ever shop for a scope that is integrated because inevitably it wouldn't fit. I was moving a scope the other day, and rings that cleared just fine on one gun didn't clear the bolt handle on another. $100 at the lgs for taller rings and I was back in business in 15 minutes.


I'm not sure who has trouble lining up a scope. I always just zoom them out and eyeball it. I swear most guys make it worse trying to use all the different gadgets. Then it drives them nuts because it doesn't look right.
Eyeball, verify tracking is good enough, and get to shooting.

 

[Convex]

There was a discussion about this a while ago, I remember it, and Lowlight touched on this in that discussion.

.... and what was touched upon was someone else also mentioning this..

"According to Sniper’s Hide, a significant 40% of the class had their rifle scopes improperly set up. Ensuring precise scope setup is crucial for accurate shooting, especially in low-light conditions. Properly aligned scopes contribute to better accuracy, consistent point of impact, and overall shooting performance. If you’re part of that 40%, consider revisiting your scope setup to optimize your shooting experience"....

You're not sure who has trouble lining up a scope, but I'm sure there are a few folks out there that have had/will have trouble lining up a scope, something Denys alluded to, and this can address that.


It's like anything else in life, you can take it or leave it, and then you assess later if you're that farther along because of the choice you made.



I've mentioned that it's a good thing to learn how to set up your scope via a class like Lowlight's if you haven't figured it out yourself and this is also an option you can take or you can leave without anybody passing judgement on why somebody made one choice or the other.

 

[Glassaholic]

There was a discussion about this a while ago, I remember it, and Lowlight touched on this in that discussion.

.... and what was touched upon was someone else also mentioning this..

"According to Sniper’s Hide, a significant 40% of the class had their rifle scopes improperly set up. Ensuring precise scope setup is crucial for accurate shooting, especially in low-light conditions. Properly aligned scopes contribute to better accuracy, consistent point of impact, and overall shooting performance. If you’re part of that 40%, consider revisiting your scope setup to optimize your shooting experience"....

You're not sure who has trouble lining up a scope, but I'm sure there are a few folks out there that have had/will have trouble lining up a scope, something Denys alluded to, and this can address that.


It's like anything else in life, you can take it or leave it, and then you assess later if you're that farther along because of the choice you made.



I've mentioned that it's a good thing to learn how to set up your scope via a class like Lowlight's if you haven't figured it out yourself and this is also an option you can take or you can leave without anybody passing judgement on why somebody made one choice or the other.

Maybe even a bigger problem is that it is likely safe to assume that of those 40% the vast majority have no idea their scope is mounted improperly, so they continue to make the same mistake(s) even after getting new scopes because the previous one did not perform as they hoped and it may have never been the "scopes" fault. The same goes for setting up the diopter, I think a lot of poor opinion about certain scopes have been formulated due to improper diopter setting, it's happened to me before and is easy to overlook.

 

[Denys]

Rings are the last things I think about when buying a scope. I generally stop by the store once I have the scope and buy what will fit.

The Genesis needed it's own mounting because of what it does.

I wouldn't ever shop for a scope that is integrated because inevitably it wouldn't fit. I was moving a scope the other day, and rings that cleared just fine on one gun didn't clear the bolt handle on another. $100 at the lgs for taller rings and I was back in business in 15 minutes.


I'm not sure who has trouble lining up a scope. I always just zoom them out and eyeball it. I swear most guys make it worse trying to use all the different gadgets. Then it drives them nuts because it doesn't look right.
Eyeball, verify tracking is good enough, and get to shooting.

That's good feedback, but allow me to address one aspect you mentioned that is really not an issue; ring height selection.

The concept mechanism that was show at SHOT is actually a system. There would be a series of attachments that would provide: added height, canted mounts, and perhaps even cantilevered mounts. If the scope is too close to the receiver, add a spacer. If you want a 20° ramp, use a 20° canted spacer, or there might be several different angles; pick one, add them together, etc. The Genesis system has some of these parts.

 

[Convex]

Maybe even a bigger problem is that it is likely safe to assume that of those 40% the vast majority have no idea their scope is mounted improperly, so they continue to make the same mistake(s) even after getting new scopes because the previous one did not perform as they hoped and it may have never been the "scopes" fault. The same goes for setting up the diopter, I think a lot of poor opinion about certain scopes have been formulated due to improper diopter setting, it's happened to me before and is easy to overlook.

Whenever I've taught or mentored photography students starting out many have no idea their camera they've just bought/holding in their hands, has a diopter so they can adjust for their eyesight even though the manual for that camera has specific instructions on how to adjust the diopter.

Out of arrogance or embarrassment many don't read/skim through a manual and will break something on the camera 5 minutes after they've unboxed it.

I tell them, you buy an expensive optic, whatever it is, forget ego/what anybody else thinks/somebody passing judgement on you, read the manual a couple of times/call/ask somebody if you don't understand something.

You're right, it's also easy to overlook something, especially for folks just starting out, and many of them are afraid to ask when the time to ask a lot of questions is when you're starting out which is when you don't know what you don't know.

Taught a class once, had an argument w/a student who'd just bought a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD, a camera I've used for about 30 years. I was explaining how you can load up the magazine w/the film and advance the shutter release to ck function.

As I start to explain he interrupts me and says "you can't do that". He doesn't know what he doesn't know.

He's telling me I can't do it because w/the dark slide inserted into a magazine, there's an interlock which prevents you from advancing the shutter.

There's a "diamond shaped" very small hole to the extreme right on the dark slide which you insert in the magazine, and you can pull out the dark slide about a quarter of an inch (to where the diamond shaped hole is), switch the camera to multi-exp, and wind and push the shutter release all day without exposing the film you've loaded in the camera. The dark slide is almost all the way in, but you can still advance the shutter release.

That's because pulling the dark slide out ever so slightly (to the diamond shaped hole) defeats the interlock.

He doesn't know that because this procedure is in one small paragraph in the back of the manual and it's hard to find.

He doesn't know that he doesn't know that. I show him on his camera. Folks laugh.

That's a real problem w/anybody starting out trying to learn anything and w/certain disciplines you can't be in a rush.

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ That's it right there - "He doesn't know what he doesn't know." Some of us strive to learn beyond the norm and are willing to make mistakes along the way, others think they know or are unwilling to ask at the fear of sounding unknowledgeable on the subject. My parents were about to help my 3 order siblings with college, when I decided to go to college my parents divorce left little for assistance on my behalf so I had to front the bill, up until then I was a lazy learner and had many excuses as to why, but once I realize that I was paying for my education I took it much more seriously and got over my fear of looking stupid and started asking lots of questions, and as a result - I excelled. I think every kid should have to pay for their own school at some point to give them a bit of ownership