new scope on the horizon
- Thread starter Tony C
- Start date
Boyd Allen
Active member
These guys already have one, although at 4.5# it is a tad heavy for a sporter.
http://www.usoptics.com/product.php?partnumber=SN9-4200
http://www.usoptics.com/product.php?partnumber=SN9-4200
A
abintx
Guest
Nice scope ...
Not so nice price !!!
Not so nice price !!!
Boyd
That's a little out of my price range.
I liked Norman E. Johnson's article where he took his dad's spy glass telescope and mounted it on a 22. (precision shooting) It was also informative for me since I've never taken apart a scope to see what's inside. It just got me to thinkin'.
Tony
That's a little out of my price range.
I liked Norman E. Johnson's article where he took his dad's spy glass telescope and mounted it on a 22. (precision shooting) It was also informative for me since I've never taken apart a scope to see what's inside. It just got me to thinkin'.
Tony
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
About $6,300 maxed out. Wonder if we could get a Bear Stearns Sub-Prime Bailout loan on this one???
Pete Wass
Well-known member
I saw a TASCO
A couple of weekends ago that was shaped the same as this scope. The mounts looked a lot like them as well. I sure wish someone would make a set of mounts for 1" scopes that had 1/8 click adjusters on the rear mount; sort of like the one pictured on that site. It is possible, they DID it.
For score shooting it sure is nice to have a predictable movement amount and graduation references to work with. This is the MISSING LINK for Score shooters.
A couple of weekends ago that was shaped the same as this scope. The mounts looked a lot like them as well. I sure wish someone would make a set of mounts for 1" scopes that had 1/8 click adjusters on the rear mount; sort of like the one pictured on that site. It is possible, they DID it.
For score shooting it sure is nice to have a predictable movement amount and graduation references to work with. This is the MISSING LINK for Score shooters.
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Yes it was - -
I was THIS CLOSE to buying it but the rear part of the scope was 30 MM, dang it. If it had been 1" I would have paid the $400 for it in a heart beat.
Obviously if TASCO was able to make that kind of mount, any manufacturer could. I just don't know why someone spending the money on making an expensive scope wouldn't make a system that was as near to bullet proof as possible and make it as usable as possible. Many of us, I'm sure would dig down for "The Rigth Stuff". I won't be digging down very deep for an internally adjustable scope, however.
I was THIS CLOSE to buying it but the rear part of the scope was 30 MM, dang it. If it had been 1" I would have paid the $400 for it in a heart beat.
Obviously if TASCO was able to make that kind of mount, any manufacturer could. I just don't know why someone spending the money on making an expensive scope wouldn't make a system that was as near to bullet proof as possible and make it as usable as possible. Many of us, I'm sure would dig down for "The Rigth Stuff". I won't be digging down very deep for an internally adjustable scope, however.
Dick Grosbier
Club Coordinator
Makes the March look reasonably priced.
Jerry,thats about as stupid a price to pay for a scope i ever seen,a scope costing more than a new rifle.
can't wait to what happens to these over priced jigs when deflation hits hard.
piles of them in junk yards.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Yes BUT
It the March is an internally adjustable scope and I am predicting they will let ya down, just like all the others do, regardless of how much they cost!
You will note that there are garages and repair parts available for mercades and Jaguars, eh ?
It the March is an internally adjustable scope and I am predicting they will let ya down, just like all the others do, regardless of how much they cost!
You will note that there are garages and repair parts available for mercades and Jaguars, eh ?
Last edited:
It the March is an internally adjustable scope and it will let ya down, just like all the rest of them do, no matter how expensive they are!
Pete,don't ya think about 75% of the problems of blaming the scope is the rifle is not shooting and not the scopes problems.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Perhaps Roger BUT
They , for sure "Mess the Bed" and I am convinced, as some other people are that the engineering involved is ultimately faulty and that it is just a matter of time. It is not an if but WHEN.
I think the computer anamation Varmint Al did pretty much shows us why the system inside scopes can not survie, long term. Regardless of how brand loyal people are, the danged things just aren't good enough. With what it costs to go to a match these days, it just isn't worth risking that danged gimble dealie inside them to be 100% all the time.
They , for sure "Mess the Bed" and I am convinced, as some other people are that the engineering involved is ultimately faulty and that it is just a matter of time. It is not an if but WHEN.
I think the computer anamation Varmint Al did pretty much shows us why the system inside scopes can not survie, long term. Regardless of how brand loyal people are, the danged things just aren't good enough. With what it costs to go to a match these days, it just isn't worth risking that danged gimble dealie inside them to be 100% all the time.
Dave Short
New member
Scopes:
The "Boogie Man" of benchrest, for sure.
Yes, they can and do go bad........but wow........I must have the best "scope luck" of all. I made up my mind back when all of this freezing stuff started catching on that:
1)I won't get rid of a known-good scope for any reason. And,
2)I will put any suspect scope through the exact same comprehensive test I always have, and not be sucked into the vortex of "Fixing" one of my aging, but loyal scopes,,,if it ain't broke.
I have yet to have to test one.
The Boogie Man seems to be behind more and more trees every time they open the gate at a range.
-Dave-
The "Boogie Man" of benchrest, for sure.
Yes, they can and do go bad........but wow........I must have the best "scope luck" of all. I made up my mind back when all of this freezing stuff started catching on that:
1)I won't get rid of a known-good scope for any reason. And,
2)I will put any suspect scope through the exact same comprehensive test I always have, and not be sucked into the vortex of "Fixing" one of my aging, but loyal scopes,,,if it ain't broke.
I have yet to have to test one.
The Boogie Man seems to be behind more and more trees every time they open the gate at a range.
-Dave-
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Well Dave - -
You are indeed a "Fortunate Son" as I am sure there a few out there who are. I sent a scope; a newish Burris HBR II to get frozen. The person who froze it asked me, on this forum , if there was a problem with it. I told him that the person who had given it to me said that he questioned it's reliability, The Freezor then told me that one of the turrets was loose in it. Stuff happens.
If you are saying that everyone who experiences a scope problem is halusinating; that is a pretty bold statement for a person to make. You better thank your lucky stars that you have never had a problem. You will, Your luck WILL run out.
You are indeed a "Fortunate Son" as I am sure there a few out there who are. I sent a scope; a newish Burris HBR II to get frozen. The person who froze it asked me, on this forum , if there was a problem with it. I told him that the person who had given it to me said that he questioned it's reliability, The Freezor then told me that one of the turrets was loose in it. Stuff happens.
If you are saying that everyone who experiences a scope problem is halusinating; that is a pretty bold statement for a person to make. You better thank your lucky stars that you have never had a problem. You will, Your luck WILL run out.
Dave Short
New member
Geez, Pete,
I'll quote the second line of my post: "Yes, they can and do go bad."
I didn't say anyone was hallucinating........I will say, though, that better than half of all "Bad" scopes are innocent. I don't think that is a bold statement at all, and well, I actually made this statement.
As for "you WILL have scope problems"..........I never said I hadn't. On two occasions I have been able to verify that I had a problem scope. I was issued a refund for one because they could not correct it in several tries and did not have an identical replacement at the time, the other was "repaired"... the POI shift went away, but it was still as lousy a scope as it was when new.
G'nite Pete...
-Dave-
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Any bad ones are too many
I think we all can agee on that point. Somehow the Boogey Man comments seems to suggest to me that folks imagine more problems than exist; ergo my comments. I have seen enough of them go wrong to suggest that the people who had them were imagining they had problems.
I have a number of good ones too but I still don't truly trust any of them because of the ones I have seen fail. I have come to believe that it is only a matter of time for any of them and some of them are bad from the get go. One bad one is one too many.
I think we all can agee on that point. Somehow the Boogey Man comments seems to suggest to me that folks imagine more problems than exist; ergo my comments. I have seen enough of them go wrong to suggest that the people who had them were imagining they had problems.
I have a number of good ones too but I still don't truly trust any of them because of the ones I have seen fail. I have come to believe that it is only a matter of time for any of them and some of them are bad from the get go. One bad one is one too many.
Last edited:
B
bob harrison
Guest
What I can't understand is: if Weaver or Sightron can make a 36x windage/elevation adjustable scope for we'll say $500, (or Leupold for $900)why can't they make the same scope, without the windage/elevation parts (in essense a frozen scope) for the same price, or less? Why does it cost two arms and a leg for a scope that has less parts and and is simpler/easier to produce? Something doesn't compute.
Bob
Bob
I'm sure they could manufacture this scope you speak of for less than the scopes they are producing now, but why would they? How many of them do you think they would sell the first year in production? Not enough to make it worth their while I would bet. I wonder how many locked up scopes and adjustable bases are out there right now? I have a couple, but my huntin' buddies think I'm a nut. We BR shooters are a very small group and what we deem unacceptable in terms of our equipment is considered extravagant by 99% of the rest of the shooting world.
Pete,
the statement that all internal scopes will go bad is not justified in my opinion. If the design is like the current Leu, Bushnell etc I may agree, but they are all the same and flawed for a NO POI condition. That is not to say that the correct design implemented into the scope would have the same issues. Everyone that "freezes" their scopes puts them into an adjustable mount. Who is to say the mount wont have issues either. It seems the Flexy bar mount works ok as does the rubber sleeve and screw arrangement. My bet is that if the erector tube is mounted in a rubber flex joint or had a metal flex member it would work fine and not have any more POI issues then the current fixed scopes. Unless you have torn apart a March scope and determined that it has the same design flaw as the rest, you are without fact. I personally dont have a March, tore one apart or even seen one apart. However, until I do, I wont either endorse or condemn it. By the way, some old Tascos and the first Japanese BSA scopes had a rubber joint in them. I think I remember Arnold Jewell telling me the Tasco had the best erector tube mount in the business way back. Ya think that may be where he got the idea for his rubber flex and screw design for his external mounts he and Foster made up back then. I may be wrong, if so maybe Arnold will get on and give the real story.
petes quote:
It the March is an internally adjustable scope and I am predicting they will let ya down, just like all the others do, regardless of how much they cost!
the statement that all internal scopes will go bad is not justified in my opinion. If the design is like the current Leu, Bushnell etc I may agree, but they are all the same and flawed for a NO POI condition. That is not to say that the correct design implemented into the scope would have the same issues. Everyone that "freezes" their scopes puts them into an adjustable mount. Who is to say the mount wont have issues either. It seems the Flexy bar mount works ok as does the rubber sleeve and screw arrangement. My bet is that if the erector tube is mounted in a rubber flex joint or had a metal flex member it would work fine and not have any more POI issues then the current fixed scopes. Unless you have torn apart a March scope and determined that it has the same design flaw as the rest, you are without fact. I personally dont have a March, tore one apart or even seen one apart. However, until I do, I wont either endorse or condemn it. By the way, some old Tascos and the first Japanese BSA scopes had a rubber joint in them. I think I remember Arnold Jewell telling me the Tasco had the best erector tube mount in the business way back. Ya think that may be where he got the idea for his rubber flex and screw design for his external mounts he and Foster made up back then. I may be wrong, if so maybe Arnold will get on and give the real story.
petes quote:
It the March is an internally adjustable scope and I am predicting they will let ya down, just like all the others do, regardless of how much they cost!