1-4 Variable optic options

[bp7178]

I've spent enough money on optics over the last few years and tried quite a few combinations. My experiance leads me to be in absolute agreement with you.

[Canonshooter]

Belmont31R, I guess it's safe to assume that you have purchased the SS 1-4X scope (or at least used it extensively) to arrive at your conclusions?

[Utah1]

I have not been on this board for awhile and find this thread interesting. I have used the SWFA SS 1-4X24 HD now for about five months. I've used three different scopes on six different rifles and have fired over 3000 rounds using this scope and I have yet to find fault with it. I have used it from 25 yards out to 800 yards and find the ruggedness, glass quality, precision of adjustments, illumination and reticle design to be all I could ask for. The best argument I've read regards battery life, yes long life would be better but there is room for a spare and all batteries die eventually. I'll admit to being biased against bullet drop compensator designs and prefer mildots and mil adjustments.
In my view the purpose of the 1-4 optic is to maximize the effectiveness of a carbine in all lighting conditions from up close out to the effective range of the carbine. I have not tried all the 1-4 scopes on the market but I have looked hard at most of them and I believe the SS 1-4X24 HD offers the best combination of glass, quality and design for this application regardless of price. Some of these arguments sound like the owner of a Purdey shotgun owner brow beating the owner of a Browning shotgun because his shotgun cost thirty times more so it has to be better. Try some and find what you like and run with it.

[bp7178]

I guess by the flip side you've used/owned a Short Dot for a equal testing period?

I have used it from 25 yards out to 800 yards

This is where you lost me. I need/want an optic capable from 0-800 yards.

In the thread on battery life on Opticstalk, Hokie says the battery life on the daylight setting is 8-12 hours. This is the lowest I've read.

I agree that the SS is an extremely capable scope, but I disagree with your contention that it does so at any price. This is simply not true. At it's particular price point, the SS holds it's ground, but not when you start looking beyond that price point.

We have to remember that price is a feature of a product, just like everything that's listed on a spec sheet. There are reasons the S&B costs about $2k more. There is definate sliding scale. This isn't to imply the SS is junk, more than one user is happy with it. But you are making tradeoffs for price. This can't be ignored, nor really looked at as a bad thing.

On some level, it's asinine to compare a $800 dollar scope to a $2800 dollar one.

I wouldn't compare a DPMS to a SR15E3. (Not to compare the SS to a DPMS....but you get the idea).

[Alaskapopo]

I have not been on this board for awhile and find this thread interesting. I have used the SWFA SS 1-4X24 HD now for about five months. I've used three different scopes on six different rifles and have fired over 3000 rounds using this scope and I have yet to find fault with it. I have used it from 25 yards out to 800 yards and find the ruggedness, glass quality, precision of adjustments, illumination and reticle design to be all I could ask for. The best argument I've read regards battery life, yes long life would be better but there is room for a spare and all batteries die eventually. I'll admit to being biased against bullet drop compensator designs and prefer mildots and mil adjustments.
In my view the purpose of the 1-4 optic is to maximize the effectiveness of a carbine in all lighting conditions from up close out to the effective range of the carbine. I have not tried all the 1-4 scopes on the market but I have looked hard at most of them and I believe the SS 1-4X24 HD offers the best combination of glass, quality and design for this application regardless of price. Some of these arguments sound like the owner of a Purdey shotgun owner brow beating the owner of a Browning shotgun because his shotgun cost thirty times more so it has to be better. Try some and find what you like and run with it.

I have used the Swarovski Z6- BRT and feel that its the best solution going right now. The S&B 1-4 short dot is right on its heals. (the only reason I place it second is because its a 1-4 not a 1-6) The next step down to their place is a long one.
Pat

[Canonshooter]

There are reasons the S&B costs about $2k more.

This is where I think traction is lost. What are those reasons?

Is it better optical quality? Apparently, there are at least a few users who see no difference.

Is it because the dot is more daylight visible? The point here is this - it has to be because the S&B crosshair reticle is so fine it's difficult to discern at 1X.

Is it because it has better repeatablity of adjustment? That has not proven to be the case...

Is it because it is more durable? Until someone is willing to do some objective destructive testing, this will remain conjecture.

So, the point here is not why a $800 scope could be equal or even surpass a $2500 one in practical application, but rather why does the $2500 scope cost so much more?

So, please educate me why the S&B is worth $2k more....

[bp7178]

Do your own google work bud. I can type until my fingers fall off. I will never convince you of anything because your mind is already made up.

Is any of that even a serious question?

[Utah1]

I guess by the flip side you've used/owned a Short Dot for a equal testing period?



This is where you lost me. I need/want an optic capable from 0-800 yards.

In the thread on battery life on Opticstalk, Hokie says the battery life on the daylight setting is 8-12 hours. This is the lowest I've read.

I agree that the SS is an extremely capable scope, but I disagree with your contention that it does so at any price. This is simply not true. At it's particular price point, the SS holds it's ground, but not when you start looking beyond that price point.

We have to remember that price is a feature of a product, just like everything that's listed on a spec sheet. There are reasons the S&B costs about $2k more. There is definate sliding scale. This isn't to imply the SS is junk, more than one user is happy with it. But you are making tradeoffs for price. This can't be ignored, nor really looked at as a bad thing.

On some level, it's asinine to compare a $800 dollar scope to a $2800 dollar one.

I wouldn't compare a DPMS to a SR15E3. (Not to compare the SS to a DPMS....but you get te idea).

No I have not used the Short dot for a comparable time but I have used one and it was just for one range session. Nor am I suggesting that a 1-4 scope is optimal for shooting at 800 yards but I have successfully done so. My argument is that the quality and design, for me, is the best offering on the market to compliment a carbine in all lighting conditions from close range out to the practical range of the carbine and I'll stand by the statement. Much of what you are paying for with top tier optics is the quality of the glass. It is no secret that S&B and some of the German companies offer the best glass available anywhere. In a 24X long range optic this is a noticeable improvement. However, in a 1-4 optic the glass in the SS 1-4 HD is better than it needs to be for carbine ranges. It is the clarity of the optics that allowed me to hit a 14" disc at 800 yards not the 4X magnification. I believe the reticle of the SS 1-4 HD is a superior design. Design requires thinking not money. The FFP feature of the SS 1-4 HD allows it to "switch" between a functional "red dot" at 1X to a mildot with .1 mil adjustments at 4X and the circle has moved out of the way. I have put this scope up against an Aimpoint in timed and scored drills from 25 yards out to 100 yards. It kept up with the aimpoint under 50 yards and beat it past 50 yards. The technique in using it is different from the Aimpoint. With the Aimpoint one superimposes the dot on the target and fires. With the circle of the SS HD scope you look through the circle find the target and fire. At longer range this offers a more precise sight picture because of the Ghost cross hair inside the circle. The eye is grabbed by a circle and it automatically centers an object in the center, just like the rear sight of an AR and the front post. To my eye a single bright dot is blurry and less precise. Those with better vision may not have this problem. Some don't like the thickness of the circle reticle of the SS HD design. I find it allows me to use the scope very quickly with out illumination. That big thick circle is not found in nature and is not lost in back ground clutter. It grabs the eye and centers objects within it very quickly. I see this as an advantage over the short dot design when the illumination is off or the battery fails. The same is true in dim light with the illumination setting set low enough to not over power your vision. Both designs work well. However, if you turn on a weapons light or get hit with a bright light, that bold, now black SS HD reticle, jumps into view while that thin cross hair is lost while your eyes adjust.
Moving on to the business side of the cost issue. The SWFA design was designed by optically knowledgeable people who know where optics are made and what factories offer quality. They had their scopes manufactured in Japan by people they trust to SWAFs specifications. They are dealing with the dollar to yen exchange rather than the dollar to Euro exchange. They are also working without high R&D costs. They are marketing their products directly to the public without the distributor and wholesaler mark up, ( I assume). Regardless they are operating with fewer cost that they have to pass along to the end user. Thus it can be argued that the value to cost ratio with the SWFA product is better than most other optics.

I'll stand by my statement. I would take the SS HD over the short dot if they were the same price. Buy what you want, it's your money but I don't think I've compromised anything in my choice in buying the SS HD. At some point it is asinine to think that spending more for a tool will automatically get you better functionality. The Cadillac Esplanade was just judged far less reliable than my Ford explorer.

[Utah1]

I have used the Swarovski Z6- BRT and feel that its the best solution going right now. The S&B 1-4 short dot is right on its heals. (the only reason I place it second is because its a 1-4 not a 1-6) The next step down to their place is a long one.
Pat

I have not had the pleasure of trying the Swarovski Z6 but I have tried other models and they are truly remarkable. Obviously I would prefer a 6X to a 4X but this thread is addressing 1-4 optics. I would have to see the reticle design to assess it's suitability for my needs. With the short dot I have no argument with it's overall quality. I simply find it's reticle design less functional than the SWFA SS HD design. I guess what steps up or down is a matter of opinion. To me an optic is a tool. I want dependability, precision and function and I have that with the SS HD. Beyond that we are back to the Purdey VS Browning shotgun argument. I do want to try a Z6 even though it may cost me some money.

[Canonshooter]

Do your own google work bud. I can type until my fingers fall off. I will never convince you of anything because your mind is already made up.

Is any of that even a serious question?

Perhaps due to my profession, I have insight into manufacturing and marketing that others may not. I see how I may be coming across as contentious, so a bit of background;

I work for an old, well-established publicly-owned manufacturer (whose identity I wish to keep confidential) as a product manager. I handle about 70 million dollars (yearly sales) for the company out of their approximately 1.4 billion in total sales.

There is a common misconception among the buying public that how much a product costs to buy is directly related to the cost of manufacturing it. This is positively not true. The selling price for a product is set by market conditions.

For example, we sell hundreds of thousands of a certain kind of valve that is used in every home. Because it is such a large market, many of our competitors sell a comparable valve. The gross margin on this kind of valve is typically very low, in the 20 to 25 percent range. A product that costs $2.00 to make and sells to a customer for $2.66 has a GM of 25%. No one stays in business for very long at that level - especially a large company with plenty of overhead and high profit expectations by the stock holders.

We also make larger "commercial" versions of the very same valve. However, the market for those valves is substantially smaller, so the market price is much higher in relation to cost of manufacture. At the top of the scale we have some very large valves, which typically produce an 80% or better gross margin. This valve may only cost 6 times more to make ( $12.00 ) but sells in that market for $60 - almost 23 times more. Other than physical size and capacity, it is in most ways identical to the valve that costs $2 to make.

Interestingly, our younger competitors are now entering this "big valve" market more aggressively with their own products. As expected, they gain entry by selling at a lower price - perhaps accepting a lower GM. However, our analysis of the competitor's product shows that it is every bit as good as ours from a practical use standpoint, and actually superior in design and materials from a manufacturing standpoint. What has been a "cash cow" for decades for the company by virtue of a very long product life and limited market is now being challenged. If the gloves were to come off, we would need to go back to the drawing board in regards to design and manufacturing technique to be able to compete on manufacturing cost.

Like the company I work for, it seems to me that S&B has enjoyed leadership in a niche market for a long time. I can gaurantee you that like our big commercial valves, these scopes are HUGE cash cows for S&B, as it's the only way to justify the relatively limited production. Now that more competitive product is entering the market, the pressure is on because sooner or later, consumers will realize that the $2500 scope is not really worth $1700 more than the $800 scope. This is especially true if the company is old and a well-known name in its industry (like the company I work for and the prices we are able to command for our products), a position that S&B has obviously profitted handsomely from for quite some time.

In my industry, our customers are getting smarter. They want to know why they should pay more for my valve than the competitor's, and sometimes the simple truth is that the competitor's valve is every bit as good and benefits from more modern design and cost-effective manufacturing processes.

It's interesting to note that S&B now has a 1-8X which they are selling for the same price as the old 1-4X. Conventional marketing wisdom would indicate it should sell for more, but I suspect they can not do this because the once niche market is becoming more crowded with other choices. From a product management standpoint, this is taking a defensive marketing approach - offer an "improved" product at no increase in price to help prevent further erosion of market share. As more scopes like the SWFA enter that market, expect the S&B prices to come down. It is, after all, entirely market driven.

So, as an informed consumer with perhaps an unfair advantage of how products are priced and taken to market, my question remains - what does the extra $1700 for a S&B 1-4X get for me over the SWFA 1-4X? Perhaps I need to contact S&B's product manager directly to get that answer. ;-)