Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[Beetroot]

The best thing Bushnell could do is to make a solid reticle in the 3-12x, and something like a 3-18x or 4-16x with smaller objective, then bring back the Bausch and Lomb name and brand it under that as a high end hunting scope.

Is it not the case though the same hunters who wouldn't touch a Bushnell scope because they were bad 10 years ago are the kind that wouldn't buy a FFP/Mil scope anyway?

I find it hard to believe that people calling for better FFP/Mil scopes are almost mutually exclusive with the average hunter.

I talked to a guy just the other day who didn't know what a 6.5CM was, as well as there are still lots of guys making fun of the "6.5 manbun".
One of the most accomplished hunters I no had never heard of Vortex and still thought the Mark 4 was a high end scope.

I don't doubt there is a niche market for crossover/FFP hunting scopes but it'll be a very long time before they are main stream.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is it not the case though the same hunters who wouldn't touch a Bushnell scope because they were bad 10 years ago are the kind that wouldn't buy a FFP/Mil scope anyway?

I find it hard to believe that people calling for better FFP/Mil scopes are almost mutually exclusive with the average hunter.

I talked to a guy just the other day who didn't know what a 6.5CM was, as well as there are still lots of guys making fun of the "6.5 manbun".
One of the most accomplished hunters I no had never heard of Vortex and still thought the Mark 4 was a high end scope.

I don't doubt there is a niche market for crossover/FFP hunting scopes but it'll be a very long time before they are main stream.

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make. How does a random person not knowing what a 6.5cm is have to do with a scope?

 

[Beetroot]

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make. How does a random person not knowing what a 6.5cm is have to do with a scope?

Perhaps I quoted the wrong post of yours, shouldv'e quoted this one.

The niche for the scope isn’t the problem, those specific scopes are their own problem.

I tend to agree with Caberslash that it's not simply a marketing/name brand issue as to why Bushnell couldn't sell the LRHS/LRTS, it's that the market isn't big enough for Bushnell to invest in, if it were they would've seen a huge success with the GAP LRHS2 and re-introduced the 3-12 as well.

I agree with you that if the 3-12 was released today it would get a better reception but I still don't think Bushnell would sell enough to keep the model alive. In fact if it were released today most people would complain it was to heavy and still not buy it.

It's not the case that a random person I meet doesn't know what a 6.5cm is, it's that many of these people exist and they out number the people of Rokslide and Snipershide asking for a new LRHS 3-12 1000:1, Bushnell isn't going to chase the tiny niche market regardless of how loud we are.

But perhaps Maven or another small company will.

 

[DangerRanger]

I think the point they were making was that the same hunting group that won’t buy a bushnell because of the name won’t be swayed by the name change to Bausch because they won’t be in the market for a ffp/mil scope anyway

I would love to see a B&L line that competes with the S&B Klassiks but was Japanese and a little cheaper

 

[Formidilosus]

Perhaps I quoted the wrong post of yours, shouldv'e quoted this one.


I tend to agree with Caberslash that it's not simply a marketing/name brand issue as to why Bushnell couldn't sell the LRHS/LRTS, it's that the market isn't big enough for Bushnell to invest in, if it were they would've seen a huge success with the GAP LRHS2 and re-introduced the 3-12 as well.

I am in the world of shooters that hunt and hunters that shoot. A lot of them. Out of all of them- with one exception, no one wants the LRHS or LRTS for exactly what I stated- donut and stupid odd/uneven marked tree reticle. Each I’m of these people own 5-10 FFP mil/mil scopes, they all want the same scope, and yet no one wants the LRHS, especially the 4.5-18x version. There were probably 40-50 LRHS and LRTS scopes in the group I hunt and shoot with and almost all of them got sold for SWFA 3-9x’s.


The market, even for Bushnell, doesn’t have to sell tens of thousands to make it worthwhile. I know what the number is for several companies, and it’s way less than most people think. The issue is companies have decisions being made by people that don’t hunt and don’t shoot. They just copy what every other company is doing.

 

[Balderdash]

Perhaps I quoted the wrong post of yours, shouldv'e quoted this one.


I tend to agree with Caberslash that it's not simply a marketing/name brand issue as to why Bushnell couldn't sell the LRHS/LRTS, it's that the market isn't big enough for Bushnell to invest in, if it were they would've seen a huge success with the GAP LRHS2 and re-introduced the 3-12 as well.

I agree with you that if the 3-12 was released today it would get a better reception but I still don't think Bushnell would sell enough to keep the model alive. In fact if it were released today most people would complain it was to heavy and still not buy it.

It's not the case that a random person I meet doesn't know what a 6.5cm is, it's that many of these people exist and they out number the people of Rokslide and Snipershide asking for a new LRHS 3-12 1000:1, Bushnell isn't going to chase the tiny niche market regardless of how loud we are.

But perhaps Maven or another small company will.

Obviously, there's different circles of people with different appetites for new products and different ideas. I can only speak to my own experiences, but based on what I see in the field, at camps and at the range, there's enough folks looking for reliable dialing, moderate X, moderate weight, decent FFP hunting reticle scopes to have a market worth serving. Look how frequently SWFA is sold out of 6X and 3-9's; all these scopes are going somewhere, and although there's quite a few in there, they're not all going in my personal cache.

Further, the hunters who pay BC little mind, are happy with the '06 they've had for 3 decades, send a couple down the pipe a year (maybe) to sight in, and only care to use a duplex or simple BDC - that maybe wont ever get varified at distance, aren't really in the market for a lot of new, likely more pricey scopes.

What makes me shake my head is the high number of high X, high weight, SFP, BDC reticle scopes out there. Seemingly every company offers a ton of suchlike options that are presumably aimed at big game hunters.

 

[Beetroot]

I am in the world of shooters that hunt and hunters that shoot. A lot of them. Out of all of them- with one exception, no one wants the LRHS or LRTS for exactly what I stated- donut and stupid odd/uneven marked tree reticle. Each I’m of these people own 5-10 FFP mil/mil scopes, they all want the same scope, and yet no one wants the LRHS, especially the 4.5-18x version. There were probably 40-50 LRHS and LRTS scopes in the group I hunt and shoot with and almost all of them got sold for SWFA 3-9x’s.


The market, even for Bushnell, doesn’t have to sell tens of thousands to make it worthwhile. I know what the number is for several companies, and it’s way less than most people think. The issue is companies have decisions being made by people that don’t hunt and don’t shoot. They just copy what every other company is doing.

I don't disagree with you at all, perhaps it is driven by the number crunches. But I get the feeling they be right to do so.

For everyone person that says the hate doughnuts there's another who loves "the circle of death". For everyone who says they just want a reliable FFP/Mil scope there is another who doesn't want it to weigh 26+ oz.

It might be the case that a single run of scopes doesn't need to be huge, but if Bushnell can sell 1000 Match pros with the same Xmas tree reticle, or 250 each of the 3-12 with a THLR, G2, G2 with not donought and a G2 with a doughnut but no tree, I can see why they take the easy option.

Considering how many people "just want a reliable FFP Mil scope" yet nit pick every little detail (weight, turret configuration, reticle, length, Mil per revolution) I can see why Bushnell doesn't bother.

The question has been asked directly to then multiple times on Snipershide about bringing back the LRHS, but each time they say it didn't sell and they don't see a market for it.
There are many people on the Hide trying to get companies to make the same thing Rokslide wants but none of them are convinced.

Either they are all stupid, or they have data that we don't and are making the smart business decision. I'm still on the fence about which it is.

 

[freddyG]

Either they are all stupid, or they have data that we don't and are making the smart business decision. I'm still on the fence about which it is.

They aren’t stupid, just incompetent. Form nailed it. How can a group of people who don’t shoot, build a scope for those that do? Makes no sense. It’s easy for companies to dismiss it and make excuses, but that’s the whole issue.

I run into this quite often. Enthusiasts often know more about a product/company than longtime employees. That’s why there are so many substandard products out there.

 

[DJL2]

I run into this quite often. Enthusiasts often know more about a product/company than longtime employees. That’s why there are so many substandard products out there.

My Dad would take me car shopping with him as a teen because, guaranteed, I would know more about what was on the show room floor than anyone working there (save the mechanics, but they don’t work the sales floor).

The flip side is that sometimes knowing what the market needs doesn‘t sell - witness the Gen 1 Toyota Tundra; very carefully designed as a work truck, but completely ignored by people more interested in buying a cod piece than a work vehicle.

That’s the problem Form highlights with optics. 12+ mrad of wind holds are utterly useless for anyone not trying to engage low flying air craft. They’re there because they look sexy. 32 mrad of elevation holds (looking at you, ZCO MPCT1) are equally useless - and yet they’re there, because they’re sexy. People buying into features for how they imagine they might one day maybe think about shooting… and not the shooting they actually do. But, hey, it’s got great glass!

It‘s right up there with guys basing all their rifle decisions on Elk hunting... when they’ve never hunted Elk, or anything at all, and have no plans to do so.

 

[Beetroot]

I run into this quite often. Enthusiasts often know more about a product/company than longtime employees. That’s why there are so many substandard products out there.

It is definitely true that enthusiasts know more about the products than many employees, but it's definitely not all employees. Those working in the engineering/design department will know more about the actual product, and those in sales and marketing know what sells.

It's still entirely possible they make a substandard product (for some use cases atleast) it's whether they are knowingly doing this or not that's impossible to know.

 

[Beetroot]

The flip side is that sometimes knowing what the market needs doesn‘t sell - witness the Gen 1 Toyota Tundra; very carefully designed as a work truck, but completely ignored by people more interested in buying a cod piece than a work vehicle.

The even better example is the Land Rover Defender.
Land Rover had been making a vehicle that had cult like status for 70 years, that had a loyal fan base and instant brand recongnition.

They intentionally killed it off and replaced it with a new model that did not, and would not appeal to their fan base as that fan base wasn't buying the vehicle in enough numbers to justify it's production.
Where as the new model is now one of their best selling models.

There is obviously a lot more to this story and personally I think Land Rover could've/should've done things differently. But you can't say the sales and marketing people were incopentent (maybe the engineers are thought...) as they were 100% right.

 

[DJL2]

That's a raw nerve you just hit. Curse our dammed import restrictions! I really wanted a 110, would settle for a 90, but it's damn near impossible to find someone willing to part with either. The new version isn't even within the realm of consideration for me - just a travesty... and I'm sure they'll sell a bunch.

I recently parted ways with a Wrangler JK; best I could do ;-).

Hijack complete... sorry.

 

[Beetroot]

That's a raw nerve you just hit. Curse our dammed import restrictions! I really wanted a 110, would settle for a 90, but it's damn near impossible to find someone willing to part with either. The new version isn't even within the realm of consideration for me - just a travesty... and I'm sure they'll sell a bunch.

I recently parted ways with a Wrangler JK; best I could do ;-).

Hijack complete... sorry.

I'm sure some people would consider those import restrictions a blessing rather than a curse!
But yes, lets not derail the thread more than I already have....

 

[Macintosh]

There are a zillion armchair quarterbacks who actually know better and are probably correct that there is a market…but unfortunately thats not how things work. If project A is profitable, but project B is slightly MORE profitable…guess which project gets back-burnered. Companies can only design and maintain and market a finite product range. Being over-assorted makes you less focused across your business and less profitable. So companies focus on what sells the best to capture the biggest part of a bell curve amongst their main target audience. The peanut gallery could be correct, but that doesnt mean doing that would be a good business decision. It is somewhat humorous to think that not 1, but NEARLY ALL companies making rifle scopes are “incompetent” in their product offering…2 points makes a line, 3 confirms its a line and a dozen points means its really, really a line, no question at all. Based on that alone I am very confident the economics of what is being asked for is a long way off. I simply dont think there are almost a dozen or so companies, nearly the entire global manufacturing base of rifle scopes, all neatly aligned around making the wrong products.

 

[freddyG]

It is definitely true that enthusiasts know more about the products than many employees, but it's definitely not all employees. Those working in the engineering/design department will know more about the actual product, and those in sales and marketing know what sells.

It's still entirely possible they make a substandard product (for some use cases atleast) it's whether they are knowingly doing this or not that's impossible to know.

I’m confused. So if engineers know more than enthusiasts, but don’t know that the scopes they designed can’t steer a bullet, how is it that they know more? Or are you saying that they don’t care about it either way, as long as they get a paycheck?

 

[freddyG]

There are a zillion armchair quarterbacks who actually know better and are probably correct that there is a market…but unfortunately thats not how things work. If project A is profitable, but project B is slightly MORE profitable…guess which project gets back-burnered. Companies can only design and maintain and market a finite product range. Being over-assorted makes you less focused across your business and less profitable. So companies focus on what sells the best to capture the biggest part of a bell curve amongst their main target audience. The peanut gallery could be correct, but that doesnt mean doing that would be a good business decision. It is somewhat humorous to think that not 1, but NEARLY ALL companies making rifle scopes are “incompetent” in their product offering…2 points makes a line, 3 confirms its a line and a dozen points means its really, really a line, no question at all. Based on that alone I am very confident the economics of what is being asked for is a long way off. I simply dont think there are almost a dozen or so companies, nearly the entire global manufacturing base of rifle scopes, all neatly aligned around making the wrong products.

So is offering a product for sale that fails to accomplish it’s primary function, defined as competence?

 

[amassi]

There are a zillion armchair quarterbacks who actually know better and are probably correct that there is a market…but unfortunately thats not how things work. If project A is profitable, but project B is slightly MORE profitable…guess which project gets back-burnered. Companies can only design and maintain and market a finite product range. Being over-assorted makes you less focused across your business and less profitable. So companies focus on what sells the best to capture the biggest part of a bell curve amongst their main target audience. The peanut gallery could be correct, but that doesnt mean doing that would be a good business decision. It is somewhat humorous to think that not 1, but NEARLY ALL companies making rifle scopes are “incompetent” in their product offering…2 points makes a line, 3 confirms its a line and a dozen points means its really, really a line, no question at all. Based on that alone I am very confident the economics of what is being asked for is a long way off. I simply dont think there are almost a dozen or so companies, nearly the entire global manufacturing base of rifle scopes, all neatly aligned around making the wrong products.

Explain why leupold has 120 skus and none do what they’re designed to ? Surely they could afford to dump 2/3 of those if the remaining functioned


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beetroot]

I’m confused. So if engineers know more than enthusiasts, but don’t know that the scopes they designed can’t steer a bullet, how is it that they know more? Or are you saying that they don’t care about it either way, as long as they get a paycheck?

I'm not saying anything, other than we can sit here and speculate why companies do what they do but for the most part we will never really know (some people do actually know, and Form may well be one of them).

What I am saying is no company goes out of their way to make a terrible product that they know they can't sell.
I also know that companies that employees dozens of staff aren't willing to take a risk on a product they don't think there is a market for, especially not when there are safe markets for them to play in.

Hence why I don't see Bushnell ever releasing the LRHS, no matter how "easy" it would be to make it a marketable product.
As to why most scopes don't pass the drop test, I can't possibly offer an explanation but other people have tried.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

R&D and testing cost $. If people gobble up your product either way, it's clear that there's more profit if you don't spend that money on r&d. Consumers are letting the unreliable scope companies get away with trash products, plain and simple.

 

[Macintosh]

Once a business goes past the point of being a passion-project, it’s just a business. With a bottom line and likely shareholders or investors to answer to, and less cynically employees to keep employed. The CEO’s and execs job is NOT to make a better product, its to increase revenue and profit. I think people are misunderstanding a companies goal.

To directly answer the questions, leupold almost 100% views the criteria for what their product is supposed to do differently. Of the xx number of leupold customers who keep them employed, very few of them are unhappy with the product. You all know this—despite all the hand wringing on this site it is a constant procession of “which scope, the vx5 or the…”, and “I’ve been using leupold scopes for 30 years and never had a problem, look at all my dead critters”—because its a tiny fraction of a minority of users that have had problems significant enough to call it quits. They not only havent had a problem, they have brand loyalty! Id say that incompetent company exec is doing something right, even if their definition of a “good product” is different than mine.

The problem is not that company execs are incompetent. The problem is that shooting and hunting consumers are incompetent. Its not up to the exec, its up to US to demand it enough that they can no longer realistically sell products that dont meet this requirement. Companies only answer to their customers, and 99% of their customers are not asking for this. Continuing to blame “incompetent company execs” for this is not addressing the only way this will change.