Rifle Scopes Upcharge for Different Reticle Selection

[fast_hand84]

I’m curious as to the reasoning behind such a huge price premium for certain reticles (anything by Horus Vision, for example). While they are not my personal preference (a little too busy for my eyes), I understand the concept. I have also seen some incredible shooters use them very effectively, so I’m not wondering if they are worth the price premium, as they clearly are to many of you.
I’m just curious as to the pricing breakdown. Some of these reticles add $400 or so to the scope, which can be as much as a 30% price increase on some of the lower-priced optics that are available with them, so where is that expense incurred?

They are much more complex than the reticles I run, so I suppose they could be more expensive to produce (machine/tooling setup time, additional processes in glass etching, etc,)?

Or does Horus still maintain the rights to each design, and that premium is actually their business model? That would make sense, as the price premium is pretty consistent, whether it’s on a $1700 scope or a $3k+ model. If that’s the case, do other companies do this also?

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

Horus charges a licensing fee to the scope manufacturer for using the reticle. That price gets passed on to the buyer.

 

[fast_hand84]

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[longshot2000]

that is the biggest difference. Tremor and H58, et. al. will pay $300 or $400 licencing fee last time I looked.

In our shop, we might have price differences based upon supply and demand. Take the Vortex HD Gen III 1-10x, for example. We are waitlisted on the MILRAD scope, but the MOA comes in regularly. Similiar situation with Nightforce NX8. While we list our prices according to manufacturer's policies, we have been known to be more flexible on certain reticles.

 

[beetroot]

Horus charges a licensing fee to the scope manufacturer for using the reticle. That price gets passed on to the buyer.

For the most part this is correct, Leupold charges extra for their own shitty CCH reticle.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

For the most part this is correct, Leupold charges extra for their own shitty CCH reticle.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out they had to pay licensing to Horus due to the similarity to the H reticles.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

For the most part this is correct, Leupold charges extra for their own shitty CCH reticle.

Leupold just like to fuck its customers on the reg. Want illumination? $500. Want a shitty more usable reticle? $300. So that $1200 optic is now $2K to be usable. Even with discounts.........yuck

 

[Chief_Rick]

For the most part this is correct, Leupold charges extra for their own shitty CCH reticle.

I'm just learning about all the different reticles. What's the issue with the Leupold CCH? It looked a lot less cluttered to me. Especially compared to the Horus and Tremor reticles. My only basis for comparison is the Bushnell G3.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

I'm just learning about all the different reticles. What's the issue with the Leupold CCH? It looked a lot less cluttered to me. Especially compared to the Horus and Tremor reticles. My only basis for comparison is the Bushnell G3.

Reticles are mostly subjective. Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and a lot depends on intended use, too.

 

[beetroot]

I'm just learning about all the different reticles. What's the issue with the Leupold CCH? It looked a lot less cluttered to me. Especially compared to the Horus and Tremor reticles. My only basis for comparison is the Bushnell G3.

It's a marginally less cluttered reticle with .25mil hashes, guess they were trying to bridge the gap between MOA and MIL......

 

[Chief_Rick]

Reticles are mostly subjective. Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and a lot depends on intended use, too.

It's a marginally less cluttered reticle with .25mil hashes, guess they were trying to bridge the gap between MOA and MIL......

Thanks.

 

[Steel+Killer]

Some of these reticles add $400 or so to the scope, which can be as much as a 30% price increase on some of the lower-priced optics that are available with them, so where is that expense incurred?

Since when does a company have to justify or explain where an expense is incurred. Doesn't really matter how much it cost them to make it, but just how much the market is willing to pay for it. Kind of like Apple charging more for memory on the iphone.