>>63820823I like Ben. I watch him personally and respect both him and his opinion. He has a specific way of doing things, and I do believe it works. In my opinion, his perspective is valid. We addressed his video in the comments, and I won’t be commenting on him further. As a viewer and fan, my opinion wouldn’t be objective. That said, I’m also not the one responsible for responding to him officially.
He has actually used a product that comes off the same production line. In fact, he owns at least one—possibly two—of our optics that should be using the same or a comparable emitter he’s previously reviewed. Maybe he hasn’t gotten around to those yet. I hope he finds the time to try them out. I genuinely think we make a solid product. Our single reticle models shouldn’t display the dual dot issue, and I think he might actually like some of our gear.
A similar concern was raised by some highly experienced shooters—one of them a GM. We already have brighter emitters in production, not even specifically as a response to their issue, but as part of an ongoing effort to work around it. These improvements were already in motion. We’re also working on other updates that should enhance performance in several areas, including another point he raised in his video. If our production was faster, we’d already have a new unit to send his way—but things move slowly.
There’s a cost to bringing unique, dual-use optics to market. It's part of our strategy, and naturally, there will be bumps in the road.
P.S. — Enjoy the present, Burt. ;)
I’ve been buried in paperwork for over a week now—finally nearing the end of it. Couldn't be happier.
I appreciate all the attention on /k/. It reminds me of a quote:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Good to know where we stand on the totem pole. Honestly, I’d be more concerned if we were being ignored, especially after that paperwork...
