Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig BDX Scope Review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="catorres1" data-source="post: 1632099" data-attributes="member: 80699"><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong>Sig BDX Scope Review Continued</strong></span></p><p></p><p><strong>Final Impressions</strong></p><p></p><p>When I got my first demo on the BDX system, I was really focused on the RF integration with the Kestrel, something I had really been wanting to see for a while. To be honest, when Sig showed me the scope integration during that demo, I basically dismissed it as unneeded, too much tech, and slightly gimmicky. A solution in search of a problem. But the RF's were really exciting to me, so I obtained a 2400 and took it with me last season to really wring it out. I was impressed by it, and during that time, as I hunted with my sons, thought maybe the scope concept might be a somewhat interesting angle to explore, just to get a deeper feel for the whole system. I still thought the scope integration did not bring much to the table, but thought it might be useful for getting holds sorted when hunting with kids, but not much more. To me, the RF alone was the star. Having used it for several months now under various conditions, my opinion has changed. I am, frankly, quite impressed with the concept and execution of the BDX system as a whole.</p><p></p><p>Don't get me wrong, I have some level of discomfort with a bunch of tech, and a great level of discomfort having to rely on it entirely. And working in marketing, I have a healthy distrust of all the useless 'innovations' that are constantly hoisted on to the market, hyped to make people buy stuff they don't really need, and offering little to no real improvement over what they already have. But after seeing how the BDX system successfully compresses the workflow in action, my opinion shifted. In our experience this last season, it makes getting a shot off with fewer mistakes in terms of data entry and implementation easier, faster, and more secure. </p><p></p><p>Are there ways Sig can improve? Of course. There are various things I mention about the 2400 BDX that I would like to see addressed, and some about the 3k BDX that I'll cover when I finish reviewing it. Speaking strictly to the scope, I would like to see the tech moved upscale in their line. While the glass is up to the task, I prefer the glass on my VX6, for example, so seeing it move into their higher range would be great. Along with that should come higher power erector arrays, more elevation, and perhaps exposed but locking turrets with clicks that are more positive and a zero stop. Internal to the reticle, I'd like more than 8 dots to be available for holds, maybe 10 or even 20. </p><p></p><p>But most of these things are 'would likes', not weaknesses, at least when you are just looking at the scope. The system works as it is, and I suspect Sig launched it at the lower end to make it more financially accessible to more people. Overall, the system is well thought out, it does what it advertises and, in my experience so far, actually brings tangible benefits to the table for those that want to utilize them in whatever capacity they are comfortable with. The BDX system just makes the tech more streamlined, less fiddly, and less prone to data transfer error by letting all the stuff we are already using communicate. And it does it fast. Some people will be good with that, others, not so much. But regardless, I think there is value in each of the component parts, even as standalone devices, highlighting a notable strength of the system which is, however much of the solution you choose to utilize, the BDX system has something to offer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="catorres1, post: 1632099, member: 80699"] [SIZE=5][B]Sig BDX Scope Review Continued[/B][/SIZE] [B]Final Impressions[/B] When I got my first demo on the BDX system, I was really focused on the RF integration with the Kestrel, something I had really been wanting to see for a while. To be honest, when Sig showed me the scope integration during that demo, I basically dismissed it as unneeded, too much tech, and slightly gimmicky. A solution in search of a problem. But the RF’s were really exciting to me, so I obtained a 2400 and took it with me last season to really wring it out. I was impressed by it, and during that time, as I hunted with my sons, thought maybe the scope concept might be a somewhat interesting angle to explore, just to get a deeper feel for the whole system. I still thought the scope integration did not bring much to the table, but thought it might be useful for getting holds sorted when hunting with kids, but not much more. To me, the RF alone was the star. Having used it for several months now under various conditions, my opinion has changed. I am, frankly, quite impressed with the concept and execution of the BDX system as a whole. Don’t get me wrong, I have some level of discomfort with a bunch of tech, and a great level of discomfort having to rely on it entirely. And working in marketing, I have a healthy distrust of all the useless ‘innovations’ that are constantly hoisted on to the market, hyped to make people buy stuff they don’t really need, and offering little to no real improvement over what they already have. But after seeing how the BDX system successfully compresses the workflow in action, my opinion shifted. In our experience this last season, it makes getting a shot off with fewer mistakes in terms of data entry and implementation easier, faster, and more secure. Are there ways Sig can improve? Of course. There are various things I mention about the 2400 BDX that I would like to see addressed, and some about the 3k BDX that I’ll cover when I finish reviewing it. Speaking strictly to the scope, I would like to see the tech moved upscale in their line. While the glass is up to the task, I prefer the glass on my VX6, for example, so seeing it move into their higher range would be great. Along with that should come higher power erector arrays, more elevation, and perhaps exposed but locking turrets with clicks that are more positive and a zero stop. Internal to the reticle, I’d like more than 8 dots to be available for holds, maybe 10 or even 20. But most of these things are ‘would likes’, not weaknesses, at least when you are just looking at the scope. The system works as it is, and I suspect Sig launched it at the lower end to make it more financially accessible to more people. Overall, the system is well thought out, it does what it advertises and, in my experience so far, actually brings tangible benefits to the table for those that want to utilize them in whatever capacity they are comfortable with. The BDX system just makes the tech more streamlined, less fiddly, and less prone to data transfer error by letting all the stuff we are already using communicate. And it does it fast. Some people will be good with that, others, not so much. But regardless, I think there is value in each of the component parts, even as standalone devices, highlighting a notable strength of the system which is, however much of the solution you choose to utilize, the BDX system has something to offer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig BDX Scope Review
Top