Thanks for engaging with this, folks.
Maybe 'revolution' was too strong? I wasn't meaning for all of hunting, per se, but for the kind of hunting that many Roksliders do. I wasn't meaning a giant increase in animals killed across the board, or even necessarily changing what other people build or buy (although I am optimistic that the Rokstock could influence stock design a lot).
Perhaps I can just say I genuinely think they'll revolutionise my own shooting and hunting.
And skills improvement, and shooting a lot, while clearly not a 'given' is obviously important - I don't believe in gear magically granting skill. But for those wanting to build skill, then I think the list above - and the combination of them - could improve outcomes.
For some context: yes, what we had has 'worked' before. clearly. But gear has the ability to improve or detract from performance, and the rifle system - and the knowledge of how to apply it - are clearly key here.
Yes, we can take this to reductionist extremes: Jacob (and likely others) have stuck actions to 2x4s to show that good fundamentals can overcome poor setups. A lot of stuff has clearly been killed with iron sights. And so on. This clearly doesn't mean that a well-designed stock is easier to shoot, or that some scopes perform better than others.
My main contention was that the four elements in my OP offer us things that weren't available before, and I think that's still valid:
- Stock: No other stock has the features of the Rokstok. Its design will clearly reduce muzzle rise, allowing better sighting of shots, which in turn will allow both immediate feedback as well as follow-up shots. This is not insignificant. Remember that Form said he's basically been wanting this stock to be made for 25 years - and
@Ryan Avery,
@Unknown Munitions, and
@Stockys made it happen.
- Scope: Very few scopes pass durability tests. We've covered here many times that NF reticles aren't great for hunting, and quite a few of us wanted (rightly or wrongly) parallax adjustment, an illuminated centre dot, slightly more magnification, and clearer mil markings than the SWFA. It's almost as if (almost; let's not get literal here, folks!) the RS 1.2 combines some of the best elements of the SWFA 3-9 with the ZP5 with THLR reticle. And from Form's update to the eval thread yesterday, it sounds like Maven specifically wanted to build a scope that did what we wanted - and were open to real teseting and feedback. All of this is a shift.
- Rings: Without good rings we see system failure - yet this is often undiagnosed. Direct rings for the Tikka dovetail have significant benefits. Sportsmatch were sometimes hard to get, not as wide, and didn't have moveable pins. The Mountain Tacticals are okay, but the machining is a little 'meh' to me, and the spacing is set - it's more of a mount than rings. The UM rings have been purpose-designed, and allow for more precise eye relief, shell ejection, spacing on the scope body, and so on. Again, the fact that
@Unknown Munitions listened to the market and made what we needed, is significant.
- Instruction: As Form mentioned in the
Class/clinics in the SE thread, there aren't really any options like S2HU. Phil and Caylen cover some hunting-based content; Chris W is applying his field comp knowledge to a new course, but from the small amount of coverage I've seen of all three, S2HU is unique.
So, 'revolution' may be too strong. But I think the combination of the above has the potential to improve people's shooting by a long way ... and most of us have a long way to go.
I guess all I was ultimately wanting to do was to thank everyone who has put in the years of work to know what works, what could be improved, and get after it, and to thank those who then made it happen.
It seems fortuitous that all of these elements came together in just the last year ... and I for one wanted to just show some gratitude.
)
