I wanted to make a couple of comments as there are many people I'm guessing like myself who post little, but read a lot of the posts of others. So the comments that are made by a few can have an impact on many who never post. On any given area of interest or hobby there are those who are in the know and then the rest who know a lot less and I'll put myself in the latter when it comes to hunting and scopes. I hunt, but not to the degree and certainly not professionally as some of you.
What I find troubling is the focus on the need to spend extraordinary amounts on equipment of diminishing returns. I'm going to speak to you Pete Lincoln, I've been to your website and your a gifted gunsmith and an accomplished hunter and you must be fairly intelligent to work with satellites. You have the ear of S&B as they have adopted some of your suggestions and if I remember corrrectly you have even suggested new reticle designs to them as well. There is no disputing that S&B are fine makers of scopes and its got to fill you with some pride that they consult with and adopt some of your ideas. On the other hand some of your posts sound a like an advertisement for S&B. When I hear you say things like, 'just ask the US Marine Corps' if there not better. I'm not doubting they are better, I have no idea the extreme conditions and testing that they were tested under, and I'm sure given the application S&B justifiably won the contract and I have no problem with the cost difference given the application and environment they will be subjected to. However, lets have a little perspective here Pete when was the last time you jumped out of a C130 at 20,000 feet with an oxygen tank in the dead of night behind enemy lines with a top notch Marine Corp squad? The Marines' application is life and death under ultra harsh conditions on top of that the Marines etc. want these scopes to function for many many years, look at how long the Unertl scopes have been used by the military. However the majority of the rest of us will never need to have this level of perfection and ruggedness for an infrequent hunt. If a person is a professional guide, if someone is hunting ultra dangerous game in Africa, or if you live in a state like Montana and hunt every weekend that the season is open then maybe S&B cost difference is justified. Pete when I hear you say you've had all these other brands such as Leupold fail on you in the field for example vs. S&B which hasn't I'm curious what your doing that you have had so many other non S&B scopes fail? Do you run through the woods deliberately banging these scopes into trees etc. until they fail? Do you take the scope off the rifle and use it as a hammer occasionally? I heard that was done with a US Optics scope and it didn't affect its operation. If Leupold and some of the other manufacturers were as bad as you sometimes portray them, they would be out of business. Yet year after year people take game with these lesser priced scopes, I mean when you take the shot in a Leupold, Weaver, Nikon or Pentax and it results in a good kill dead is dead, is it not? The commmon sense side of me looks at it this way, is it better to make 20% on a $2,000 scope (which is mid range for S&B as some of their scope are over $3k) or 20% on a $500 scope this isnt rocket science or in your case retasking a satellite, now is it? Frankly I dont know the margin on scopes maybe its 30-40%.
I want to make one thing clear I have no problem if someone buys S&B and Pete if your the only dealer on the planet that sells them; I just think it needs to be pointed out that those who dont buy S&B aren't lepers and will have an extreme high probability of taking as much game and doing so reliably etc. as the next guy who has a S&B.
What I find troubling is the focus on the need to spend extraordinary amounts on equipment of diminishing returns. I'm going to speak to you Pete Lincoln, I've been to your website and your a gifted gunsmith and an accomplished hunter and you must be fairly intelligent to work with satellites. You have the ear of S&B as they have adopted some of your suggestions and if I remember corrrectly you have even suggested new reticle designs to them as well. There is no disputing that S&B are fine makers of scopes and its got to fill you with some pride that they consult with and adopt some of your ideas. On the other hand some of your posts sound a like an advertisement for S&B. When I hear you say things like, 'just ask the US Marine Corps' if there not better. I'm not doubting they are better, I have no idea the extreme conditions and testing that they were tested under, and I'm sure given the application S&B justifiably won the contract and I have no problem with the cost difference given the application and environment they will be subjected to. However, lets have a little perspective here Pete when was the last time you jumped out of a C130 at 20,000 feet with an oxygen tank in the dead of night behind enemy lines with a top notch Marine Corp squad? The Marines' application is life and death under ultra harsh conditions on top of that the Marines etc. want these scopes to function for many many years, look at how long the Unertl scopes have been used by the military. However the majority of the rest of us will never need to have this level of perfection and ruggedness for an infrequent hunt. If a person is a professional guide, if someone is hunting ultra dangerous game in Africa, or if you live in a state like Montana and hunt every weekend that the season is open then maybe S&B cost difference is justified. Pete when I hear you say you've had all these other brands such as Leupold fail on you in the field for example vs. S&B which hasn't I'm curious what your doing that you have had so many other non S&B scopes fail? Do you run through the woods deliberately banging these scopes into trees etc. until they fail? Do you take the scope off the rifle and use it as a hammer occasionally? I heard that was done with a US Optics scope and it didn't affect its operation. If Leupold and some of the other manufacturers were as bad as you sometimes portray them, they would be out of business. Yet year after year people take game with these lesser priced scopes, I mean when you take the shot in a Leupold, Weaver, Nikon or Pentax and it results in a good kill dead is dead, is it not? The commmon sense side of me looks at it this way, is it better to make 20% on a $2,000 scope (which is mid range for S&B as some of their scope are over $3k) or 20% on a $500 scope this isnt rocket science or in your case retasking a satellite, now is it? Frankly I dont know the margin on scopes maybe its 30-40%.
I want to make one thing clear I have no problem if someone buys S&B and Pete if your the only dealer on the planet that sells them; I just think it needs to be pointed out that those who dont buy S&B aren't lepers and will have an extreme high probability of taking as much game and doing so reliably etc. as the next guy who has a S&B.
