Scopes are helium filled, where’s my negative mass scope for 2023?
Rifle Scopes New for 2023 Optics
- Thread starter Reload10
- Start date
Scopes are nitrogen filled... But I s'pose someone could helium fill one... LOL
Man...pull a Leupold, going to have to remember that one too. They come out with some new MPVO "hotness" but all I want for Christmas (all I've wanted for the last 3 years) is a damn illuminated PR-2 or CCH reticle in my 3.6-18 for hunting. It boggles my mind that there are so few options for a sub 30 oz scope with decent glass and illuminated moderately populated tree reticle in the 3-15 to 4-20 type range.
I'm on preorder for one of the first batches of the dual reticle. You better have some dang good things to say about it!
I'm hoping this scope ends my quest for the "perfect" hybrid scope for Western MD woods hunting that can also be used for plinking steel at range. I really wanted their 3-24x to work. It was nice but I couldn't get past the parralax. Expecting the same here, but I am a wishful idiot sometimes and couldn't wait for the reviews before giving this one a try.
Among a handful of Bushnell LRTS/LRHS scopes I have on hand, the 3-12 LRTS checks a lot of boxes in what could loosely be called the MPVO segment. Glass and tracking being pretty damn good, weight and length not so much-in the current manner of thinking.
Have asked the Bushy crew on here about why they don’t feel the need to support a segment that begs for a bit of refinement to what is already a good product, and they say market sales just doesn’t support that further development. Not sure Vista marketing is out of touch, based on this thread’s conversation, or whether they just want to leave a massive gap in their product offering between the $7-800 range and the DMR3 lines. To me, the train is leaving the station, and they’re not on board.
Have asked the Bushy crew on here about why they don’t feel the need to support a segment that begs for a bit of refinement to what is already a good product, and they say market sales just doesn’t support that further development. Not sure Vista marketing is out of touch, based on this thread’s conversation, or whether they just want to leave a massive gap in their product offering between the $7-800 range and the DMR3 lines. To me, the train is leaving the station, and they’re not on board.
Yeah, I get that, but I’m kinda a whore for FFP above 8x. Even a well done 6x could benefit from an FFP. My SWFA 1-6 FFP was great until the mag ring froze and died.
A few loud mouths of Snipershide and a few other forums doesn't make a market though.
Considering they actually used to sell the things, if it were a market they thought was worth pursuing they wouldn't have stopped selling them.
I too have been on the quest for the "perfect" scope and have long since concluded it does not exist and never will. Every scope out has a compromise in some area (yes, some are certainly better than others). I do not see how March can get past the optical "laws" that short scopes with very high erector (magnification) equates to finicky parallax, DOF and eyebox but who knows, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. What I do know is that when I set my expectations appropriately, I find I have more tolerance for certain shortcomings. A good example of this was with the Schmidt 3-27x56, initially I thought "this scope is going to be better than the 3-20 and 5-25", but the scope is not better than either of those, but what it does offer is the magnification range of both of those scopes and when you factor that in, it is pretty impressive. I feel the March 1.5-15 is going to be the same way, will it be as good as a good 2-10 and 3-15, I do not think so, but nothing else out there offers the 10x magnification range in FFP and for that I think this scope will open doors of opportunity that previously have not existed. So as long as expectations are set accordingly, I think it will be an impressive scope.I'm on preorder for one of the first batches of the dual reticle. You better have some dang good things to say about it!
I'm hoping this scope ends my quest for the "perfect" hybrid scope for Western MD woods hunting that can also be used for plinking steel at range. I really wanted their 3-24x to work. It was nice but I couldn't get past the parralax. Expecting the same here, but I am a wishful idiot sometimes and couldn't wait for the reviews before giving this one a try.
Longrangesupply.com has it listed at $2,992.00. The MSRP is $3150. I would guess other vendors have similar prices.
New March 1.5-15x42mm Pre-Order Deposit
Here is the depost/pre-order for the latest March 1.5-15x42mm. Please read the terms. I will be ordering this when available in January. They will have a $250 dollar deposit fully refundable UNTIL Jan 14, 2023. Any cancelation after Jan 14, 2023 will forfeit the deposit. Remaining balance...
www.snipershide.com I loved my LRHS! It was close too, just pretty danged heavy, and the elevation turret left just a little to be desired, but it was an awesome concept. If they could do that illuminated and about 4oz lighter, I'd buy 3 of them.
Speaking of march.. Anybody see the gen2 1-10? Looks like a 34mm tube...
The Dual is $3150 but discounted to $2985 with a credit card delivered, with the SH discount, and $2,898 with a check, delivered. FFP is $2,806 with a check, delivered. Link was posted above from others with the pre-order. Only $250 deposit and rest due when it's shipping from Japan. I do not require full payment up front like most do. Shoot me a PM if you have any questions.
Last edited:
When did they say that? After they'd turned the scope into a product line, then split the product line, then booted the original development guys, and severed the relationships with their collaborators?
I didn't see anything on March's site, but if true that does look like a full 34mm tube, no longer have to worry about custom mounts, comes with the new Shuriken lock as well which are really nice locking turrets, like really, really nice almost TT level clicks
@Glassaholic They may be nice but I'm REALLY REALLY hoping for a low profile capped version. If they managed to make it like 2 settings brighter I'd be tempted to unload my atacr to try this out...
JAkelly
Will just have to see if they generate something in Match Pro or Elite Tactical lines. If they’ve swept away their development personnel, that’s another entire conversation. Obvious from the comments here and other mfg’s working in the LPVO/MPVO environment, there is demand out there or there wouldn’t be all the new products coming to market in near future ie March, Leupold, Eotech, etc.
Will just have to see if they generate something in Match Pro or Elite Tactical lines. If they’ve swept away their development personnel, that’s another entire conversation. Obvious from the comments here and other mfg’s working in the LPVO/MPVO environment, there is demand out there or there wouldn’t be all the new products coming to market in near future ie March, Leupold, Eotech, etc.
It's worth mentioning that the whole philosophy behind how we employ optics is dependent on our use cases, and we are beginning to rediscover a number of things that made sense a decade plus ago... still make sense within certain contexts today (shocker!). There is some really interesting stuff to be said about offset red dots and 12 O'Clock mounts for red dots on top of magnified optics, and they do have valid use cases which are highly context-dependent. I don't think that we should immediately say "LPVO BAD. MPVO WITH RED DOT BETTER", just as I don't think that we should try to say that different height mounts are better than other different height mounts... or different zeros are better than other zeros. All of this is contextual, and there is an holistic component to this which combines the optics package with the weapon platform, with the shooter's capabilities, training, and use case/envelope for employment of the components as a combined system to accomplish their needs. So much of this is context dependent that it's not that one set of these choices taken together are unequivocally better than the others, but rather that, for a specific use case for a person/organization, that set of choices makes more sense than others.
We are also at the point where we understand that there is "no free lunch", especially when it comes to nuanced use cases where someone may be "resource limited" or their use case is exceptionally broad. Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) are typically how benefits and penalties are assessed in the equipment world for each piece of equipment, with features and advantages of equipment being weighed against their relative importance or criticality.
What this means for the shooting world is that, depending on what you want/need for your uses, it is generally helpful to know your use cases, the frequency that you will find yourself needing to use the configuration that you have decided on, and the upper and lower limits of capability that you are getting out of the configuration. With this information in hand, you can choose to enhance or compliment the configurations/use envelopes that you already have by either acquiring additional equipment, or changing your tactics/approaches in a manner that enhances or compliments your current equipment.
I had a conversation a couple days ago with a friend of mine who mentioned that, at this point, he was effectively "golf bagging" his guns (eg: he selects guns like he selects golf clubs... different gun for different use case, and he selects what fits best as opposed to what fits "well enough"). Is this the best philosophy? I personally don't think so, but he has the luxury to choose to do so, and so therefore he does. This is very much a question of personal preference.
As others have mentioned, the "super medium" scope isn't a new concept, but I think that the idea is gaining ground as we are seeing many, many more red dots attached either at an offset or on top of magnified optics. While the LPVO still has its place in the shooting world, it's a very attractive concept to have an optic that excels in its job for precision work like a higher-magnification optic does, and then have a red dot that also excels in its role as a red dot for closer distances or for passive aiming. Remember how many people thought that some of us were stupid for mounting RDS on top of Elcans and ACOGs? Well, the MPVO concept with a red dot looks very, very similar to what some of us wrote off as ineffective or inefficient when LPVOs started gaining wider acceptance.
This isn't to say that there is no place for a "super medium" optic, or that LPVO are suddenly obsolete... or even that mounting a red dot to any variable magnified optic is superior to just running the variable magnified optic. All of these are choices, and the only choice in this context that is wrong is the one that does not work for you, given your needs. That being said, when more things are added to any equipment ecosystem, it also comes at the expense of more weight, more size, more complexity, and more things that can break/go wrong. Herein lies the rub, as they say...
Now for the substance as it relates to any large company and their products:
I am biased in what I am about to say, as I have worked in a number of different industries with companies that make products. This is the issue... they make products. They do not necessarily have expertise or experience in fielding and using their products as end-users, nor do they have the ability to adequately translate the wants and needs of end-users to their technical subject matter experts (SMEs). Generally speaking in the commercial environment, their engineers and product designers work on making what they either think the market wants (which is then hopefully validated through their Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation cycles-ideally as prototypes), or what a specific client who is willing to purchase enough of a product to make it monetarily viable for the company tells them it wants, and then submits a large enough purchase order to legally commit to paying the company to develop the product, which the company then views as a less risk-prone way of making money. That probably sounds like a pretty jaded assessment but, unless the leadership at a company are ideologically motivated to do something specific - and companies like this do in fact exist - it is extremely rare for non-specialized teams at larger companies to spend significant internal research and development funds going after product concepts for the sake of "pure possibility and innovation", and when specialized teams are formed to pursue innovation at large companies, there may be significant growing pains or friction that develops between the smaller, innovative team, and the general workforce. Generally speaking, there must be a reason for companies to spend money doing research or pursuing possibilities, and that reason typically is that the resources that they use now will make the company more money later, and the initial risk is viewed by the company's leadership in a manner that they view to be acceptable relative to the reward for the company in the future.
I am speaking from a position of experience in that my job on many occasions is being either the person/a part of a team of people who frequently interface between end-users, technical SMEs, and corporate leadership/administrative/bureaucratic structures to make sure that everyone understands what everyone else is saying, what they need, and what is necessary to deliver successful products or implementation of services as it relates to the end-user, as well as the company's bottom line. Nearly always, this results in lots of time spent trying to sort through miscommunications or poor articulation of what a particular group is saying to another group, due to poor "translation" between groups from misunderstandings between a technical component and a business/bureaucratic component. The end-users just want the device to work for what they are doing, and in the ways that they ask for it to work, which typically means that a company should spend much more time bringing technical SMEs out to get their hands dirty and learn with end-users and vice-versa than they otherwise think is necessary. Every time that I have seen a reasonably socially-adept technical SME actually spend time with their client, I have seen a tremendous amount of positive progress on product or service development shortly thereafter because they understand more about the "why" and the "how" from the client (eg: why the client wants this product or service, how the client uses it within context), and the client understands more about the "how" and the "why" from the SME (eg: how the SME develops and produces the product or service, and why it is important for the client to tell the SME certain things about how they use the product or service under development).
Your use case listed above is absolutely valid, and you are not the only person who I have heard say that they want something similar. If I were to list a few places where I personally think that optics companies could improve their offerings substantially, I would, pending technical feasibility (and I am not a technical SME by any means as it relates to optics or electro-optics) endeavor to do a few things:
-Incorporate lockable, adjustable parallax into more higher magnification LPVO/MPVO.
-Use commonly available/accepted tube diameters (eg: 34mm etc.) and stay away from oddball diameters unless they are also willing to truly support the mounting solution for their oddball tube diameter.
-Offer capped/uncapped turret options that are mix/match on higher magnification LPVO/MPVO.
-Focus on exit pupil and eye relief (eg: make a very forgiving eye box) more, and less on maximum magnification, specifically as it relates to LPVO/MPVO, with a focus less on minimum magnification for MPVO.
-Stop producing "garbage" reticle schematics where only some of the values are listed. That is just plain lazy, and some people actually would like to know this stuff up front as opposed to having to figure it out. (Do you know how much more useful many of the optics with BDC would be if their MIL or MOA subtension values were listed in their entirety?)
-- Also avoid producing reticles that make little practical sense for real world application (albeit, that is a subjective, use case-driven statement).
Again, none of the above is insanely difficult to do in theory, but, in practice, unless a company sees a reason to do it (which typically is spelled "MAKING MONEY") then the innovation needle won't advance on products.
What some manufacturer's are discovering is that just making a scope to fill a gap is not quite enough these days, you have to understand the market audience - what are they looking for. For many mfr's it seems they sit back and say, "hey, Nightforce is selling a boatload of scope X" guess there's a market for that, so let's make a scope in a similar mag range. But there's a lot more to a scope than mag range and this rings especially true for the MPVO market. I could care less about another 2-10 scope, I want a 2-10 that's well though out for the market.
Take this new Leupold 2-10x30, great opportunity to make a new MPVO that could really shake things up, but instead they gave us a fairly heavy (24oz) 35mm tube (why?) scope that offers the same lackluster reticles that have hindered their other scopes for a while now. As beetroot mentioned above, they did a Leupold, so I shouldn't be so surprised.
Take this new Leupold 2-10x30, great opportunity to make a new MPVO that could really shake things up, but instead they gave us a fairly heavy (24oz) 35mm tube (why?) scope that offers the same lackluster reticles that have hindered their other scopes for a while now. As beetroot mentioned above, they did a Leupold, so I shouldn't be so surprised.
Wait, are those specs confirmed for the leupold?...
Ilya sent the specs out and Leupold really Leupolded it.
This is the most well written, philosophically deep reply I've seen on the Hide in a very long time. I appreciate the time and effort put into this response and will have to come back and read it a couple more times.
Agreed, Steiner blew it too with their 2.5-15 - waaaay too heavy. Really opens the door for Nightforce and Vortex. Oddly, the most innovative MPVO to date IMO is the Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42. Yes it's a little heavy and yes it's made in China, but outside of that it is a very impressive scope with a well thought out reticle. If someone were to come out with a Japanese version (or even Philippines) that was closer to 20oz, well that is what I've been looking for.
The March 1.5-15x42 FFP is the closest I've seen with regard to innovation, kudos to the March team on this one, but it's also priced out of most people's wallets, give me a lightweight 2-12 in the $1500 range and now we're talking, but you've got to invest some serious R&D into the reticle, giving me a 2-10/12 with a reticle that is useless at low mag (ahem Trijicon Credo!) just won't do it.
This whole thread has made me really stop and think of the complete package and use. For a Remington 660 in 7mm-08 that is primarily a walking big game rifle that fills in at NRA High Power Silhouette Hunter class, I think my Leupold VX3HD 3.5x10-40 CDS-ZL will do the job just fine.
Granted, I would love a TT or ZCO but need to spend the money getting behind the gun instead.
Granted, I would love a TT or ZCO but need to spend the money getting behind the gun instead.
Last edited:
35mm tube and 24 oz with a 30mm obj. Dammit. They really did Leupold it.
Well, I had hopes for the Leupold. But Leupold reminded me they are, in fact, still Leupold.
Why not take it down to a 30mm tube and scale the objective 2-6mm more in diameter. Would it really be that hard? I’m totally fine with the TMR reticle as it’d just be a standard duplex looking reticle at 2x.
Why not take it down to a 30mm tube and scale the objective 2-6mm more in diameter. Would it really be that hard? I’m totally fine with the TMR reticle as it’d just be a standard duplex looking reticle at 2x.
The Steiner 2.5-15 makes no sense next to the 3-18. I immediately skipped over it after comparing the specs.
Joining the chorus of hopes for a decent lightweight MPVO... so far dissapointed, but well see what happens at Shot.
I think the best option right now is the PA GlX 2.5-10 or 4-16. The NXS 2.5-10 is close but sfp with no tree reticle makes it hard to justify the price, at least to me.
Was really hoping PA would come out with a lightweight 2-12 or 3-18 in their GlX or PlX line. Alas, they are coming out with a 3-18 GlX but it is in a 34mm tube so will probably be heavy.
I think the best option right now is the PA GlX 2.5-10 or 4-16. The NXS 2.5-10 is close but sfp with no tree reticle makes it hard to justify the price, at least to me.
Was really hoping PA would come out with a lightweight 2-12 or 3-18 in their GlX or PlX line. Alas, they are coming out with a 3-18 GlX but it is in a 34mm tube so will probably be heavy.
Looks like I was being generous to Leupold, I thought it'd be a little lighter and shorter.
The lack of imagination in reticle options is disapointing but entirely expected.
If they've managed to change the optical setup to squeeze a little better FOV from it that'd be a nice change, but if it ends up as 52-53ft @ 100yards on 2x, that'll be pretty lame.
Sidestepping the MPVO Leupold discussion and going back to the OG thread question - Any rumors of a ranging bino with a mil reticle? I know Steiner has some pricey options, but I don't love their focus system, or FOV, and my m1050r binos had significant CA to boot. Wouldn't mind seeing Fury HD AB with a mil reticle.
with the 2-10 MK5. Love my 3.6-18 and have been saying I want a lower MPVO version.
New NF 7-35 Atacr prices are dropping like a stones (edit: you gotta call to discover this, and those “like-new demo” scopes? Most likely new but opened). Haven’t spot-checked other Atacr’s or NX8’s.
Something’s up.
So do I buy now, or wait for some announcement of an inevitably more $$$ NF Atacr scope? Then, will current NF 7-35 new prices plummet further making inventory disappear instantly?
Hmmmm…
Something’s up.
So do I buy now, or wait for some announcement of an inevitably more $$$ NF Atacr scope? Then, will current NF 7-35 new prices plummet further making inventory disappear instantly?
Hmmmm…
I think the problem with most OEM’s isn’t that they can’t make these scopes or know that people want them. But they have painted themselves into corners they can’t get out of trying to separate new products from existing lines. Let’s take Nightforce for example. Say they did some reflecting on the NX8 scopes and said we can do better. Let’s make an NX6 line that won’t have the same optical challenges of the 8x erector line. Let’s give it better FOV, better DOF, more forgiving parallax. Let’s say they came out with a 2-12x42 around 22 oz, a 3-18x50 around 26 oz, and 4-24x56 around 30 oz. What did Nightforce just accomplish? Well they just completely ended the 2.5-10x42 NXS, probably cannibalized a lot their 4-16 and 4-20 ATACR line sales (and probably some of their 5-25 too) and basically ended their NX8 line only a few years after releasing it. It feels like it would be suicidal.
You’re not wrong. But the NXS line feels like a “legacy” line at this point right? They’ve been out for a minute now. Acknowledging a product line was not very successful (NX8) doesn’t mean you have to keep producing. You don’t reinforce defeat, but reinforce success.
Modern tactical day optics are FFP. The NXS is absolutely a legacy line at this point. Fuck you can't even get MIL-XT in the NXS line can you?
How is this that much better than the Trijicon 2-10x36?
Couple screenshots from the live CR2 video. Looks to have normal MK5 turrets and parallax. Apparently coming with TMR or PR1 reticle. A 3rd reticle was mentioned but wasn’t sure what it was. Illuminated and non-illuminated versions available.
Attachments
10-4. I'll take my March 1-10 Shortys over this Leupold offering any fucking day. Leupy's late to the party IMO.
So March is going to offer their 1-10 with a 34mm design? They sure do seem to make changes quickly and actually listen to their customers!
Similar threads
