Why are not more people using something like this!? (First post edited)...

BTW, where is my NEGATIVE feedback!? Right about now is the time, when someone decides that I am a Jerk, ha ha. Well, it is still early. Let them read my last view post and I bet you $100 bucks that I will get some!

Click to expand...

Well I think negative reviews for disagreeing with someone is a silly thing to do. I disagree with your position regarding this device and you disagree with my position-- but why on earth would I give you a negative review? I still don't agree with your logic, but that's what a debate is for. It's not personal. I work through equations for a living, and my colleagues and I disagree daily, and indeed forcefully, but then we go have coffee together-- it never crosses our mind it is anything more than a disagreement over interpretation of science. Compared to that a debate about a hobby is an entertaining aside. 

That said, you put a question mark in your original post. You didn't really warm to answers that didn't simply support your position. Why put a question mark if you don't really want an answer but simply affirmation? Disagree but don't dig in-- that's also something a lifetime's dealing with equations has taught me.

Anyway I won't give you the negative review. So can I have the hundred dollars please!!!!

Same here. I'll wait for the check in the mail.

It didn't take long... Check my feedback (accuracy). People in here are so predictable, it's not even funny.

Click to expand...

Giving neg feedback over disagreeing shouldnt be something that can be done. If one of the two people or both are insulting each other well I guess that could be looked at differently. It appears the neg you got was for the other thread about neg feedback

Back on topic.

I wont go back over all the points in this thread since theres to many and would take up a ton of space if quoted.

So I have only one question: kmd I said it would be best if the adjustments were internal on an adjustable rail if they were to be expected to keep working and not be damaged by the elements. It sounds like you might agree and said you didnt say they couldnt be internal. So we seem to be pretty clear on that aspect of an added adjuster for a scope instead of turrets. So the question is simple. If you take the time to engineer and make a scope with no adjustments. Then take time to engineer an adjustable base so you can zero said scope. What are you gaining over turrets? You just made another piece to put on the rifle to do exactly what the scopes turrets do. The only thing you have done is move them out of the scope and into a scope base.

I am all for improved technology but I really dont understand what you would gain by using a separate base to adjust a scope instead of turrets that already accomplish this.

I wonder if we could find some common ground in an incremental change rather than a complete replacement? Everyone loves the FX no limit mounts and their similar competition. What if we could have the same scopes but something similar to the no limit rings with measurement and repeatability? How many would be in favor of something that removes nothing from your current scopes but allows for more range or different wedges/shims/settings for different guns or projectiles?

I wonder if we could find some common ground in an incremental change rather than a complete replacement? Everyone loves the FX no limit mounts and their similar competition. What if we could have the same scopes but something similar to the no limit rings with measurement and repeatability? How many would be in favor of something that removes nothing from your current scopes but allows for more range or different wedges/shims/settings for different guns or projectiles?

Click to expand...

I suppose there may be a niche, probably some dedicated range/ competition shooting where such a device might be useful. but I am hard pressed to imagine where. Field Target shooters are great technology enthusiasts and need extremely reliable scope tracking-- may be one of them can pick up this idea and try it. I suspect that they may have considered it and found the current scope technology sufficient for their needs or this device deficient in performance. 

Finally if there is a need for it and enough people want it, someone will build and sell it. After all, those massive scope wheels used in Field Target are of extremely narrow use-- pretty much anyone not competing in FT would be better off in every possible way with a rangefinder-- but since there is a demand there are manufacturers. Very often, on airgun boards, one reads posts like such and such company is missing out by not designing whatever that particular poster's fascination happens to be, but the truth is airgun companies, and scope manufacturers, know their markets far better than we hobbyists imagine we do, and they don't build something mostly because there's no demand. 

I personally think this base idea isn't forward looking at all-- it's actually a century old discarded idea dressed in modern materials.

I am not averse to technology at all. If I have to imagine the future I will dream of a computerized scope where the scope won't have ANY moving parts at all but rather an electronic system where the reticle can be projected at the right part of the lens based on a ballistic calculation straight from the laser RF plus wind input. The laser RF can even be integral to the scope. The technology required already exists and isn't at all fancy. I don't know whether there's a large enough market to offset the extraordinary cost of developing such a scope which will be reliable everywhere from 110 degrees tropical climate to arctic weather. I suspect Uncle Sam's DOD will have to foot the development costs if such technology were to be made practical. 

I wonder if we could find some common ground in an incremental change rather than a complete replacement? Everyone loves the FX no limit mounts and their similar competition. What if we could have the same scopes but something similar to the no limit rings with measurement and repeatability? How many would be in favor of something that removes nothing from your current scopes but allows for more range or different wedges/shims/settings for different guns or projectiles?

Click to expand...

It already exists. I gave the name of a scope rail that adjust from 0 - 70 moa in 10 moa increments with a price tag starting at $507. Long range shooters use it and they say its repeatable. It allows the shooter to use the scopes turrets for adjusting instead of hold over at very long range. Theres also non adjustable rails that are made with 20 moa, 30 moa and 40 moa built into them.

When you say different guns do you mean just one rail you switch around? If thats what you mean that would be a huge waste of time. Imagine needing to sight your rifle in everytime you switched the rail to that rifle. 

You brought up having one for different projectiles. Again that already exists. I can buy a vortex scope and call up vortex and have them make a turret for whatever trajectory I specify and as many turrets as I want. You loosen three set screws and remove the turret then slip the other turret back on and tighten the set screws. 

The examples I posted above are the reasons why I ask what are you going to gain by using this rail? We already know it will most likely cost over $500 based on whats currently out there that falls short of the precision needed for the rail to do whats being asked. You can buy custom turrets for scopes with the trajectory you need them for and they switch out very fast and easy. 

That is great info on the Vortex turrets. I try to keep an open mind and will continue to watch for different ideas wherever they may appear.