What do you think of the See All Open Sight? >▲ >▲▲

>>29818920
really cool, but not $100 worth of cool

>>29818920

Its been ten fucking years

TEN FUCKIGN YEARS AND PEOPLE STILL CANT TRIFORCE

Is it supposed to be an iron sight or an optic?
Is it powered?
If the anon above is right on the $100 part, it sounds like a pretty good deal for an offset over a red dot or irons

File: 1449632882212.png (85KB, 710x480px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 710x480px

▲
▲▲

>>29819072
its been so long that i've forgot hahah, not OP faggot btw

>>29819175
Closer to an iron sight than a red dot and not powered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqv7Ojt9yjs

>>29819059

It is 20mm approved though. Just ask our resident hallwayguy.

alt 255 you trolls.

>>29819236
That is how you post a link. OP should take note.

>>29818920
I want a few.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqv7Ojt9yjs

fug

File: 1446255033480.png (35KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x700px

>>29818920
It's actually one triangle. The green base is circular so they look more like pizzas instead of a triforce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD26TzO8IvY

>not exclusively fail triposting even though you know how, just to harvest whinging

>>29819312

Withstands 20mm and flipping over with the cannon on top of it.

Works well enough for me, after seeing that a few times.

File: Illuminati-Logo.png (172KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x800px

▲

▲
▲▲

▲
▼▼

How does that sight not fill with combat dirt?

File: 1436078413057.png (116KB, 816x587px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 816x587px

▲
▲ ▲

>>29819539
By not being a tard.

/\
/\/\

did i do it

>>29819569
>tfw on phone
><><><

File: 1456255583693.jpg (116KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 409x393px

▲
▲ ▲
▼ ▼
▼

>>29819539
▲
▲ ▲

>>29818920
Can you see any of the background through the green?

>>29819665
The triangle part and crosshair are see through

>>29818920
▲
▲▲

>>29819678
Well other than the reflex advantage over irons? They hold no advantage other than cheapness and no battery over say an rmr?

File: 1439857770442.gif (336KB, 292x169px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 292x169px

To all anons itt, as cool as the see eye is, just get a red dot.

I almost bought that for $100 when I first got into guns, they're pretty meh

File: seeall-product-2.jpg (300KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1000x1000px

>>29819665
>>29819678
No you can't. It's blocked at the front.

>>29819059
pretty much this.
20mm cannons notwithstanding, if i have $100 to spend on a budget sight, ill probably go with a primary arms red dot

>>29818920
▲
▲
▲

am i cool yet

File: 4chan.gif (219KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 300x100px

▲
▲▲

▲
▲▲

>>29820032
>>29819950
>>29819739
>>29819660
>>29819552
>>29819480
>>29819190
Moot broke it.

>>29820173
Darn. My text input stars of david failed!

File: 1356669451457.gif (2MB, 308x233px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 308x233px

>>29820050
MOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

File: seeall2[1].png (856KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 960x640px

>>29819879
Yes you can
See >>29819236
@3m26s

>>29819795
Probably faster to pick up than an RMR and you dont need to get the slide milled for it since it will fit into the dovetail.
It might sound silly, but a lot of people have trouble finding the red dot quickly when they draw with an RMR. You can train for it by aligning your regular pistol sights first to acquire the red dot

▲
▲ ▲

▲
▲ ▲

▲
▲ ▲
did I do it?

▲
▲▲

I want at least one for a specific use firearm.

>>29820821
That's from distortion. You cannot see directly through the sight, you see "through" it like an OEG (without the person-to-person thing) or sights that don't clear a supressor.
>>29821314
A sight better than mbus that isn't fuckheavy?

>>29821241
▲
▲ ▲

>>29821241
_▲
▲ ▲

▲
▲▲

∆
∆∆

stand back niggers

>>29821331
I have a somewhat tacticool 22 for critter killing that I think that sight would just be the cat's pajamas for.

>>29821440
Keep in mind they are VERY low profile, AR's need a riser, or a shooter willing to put maxillary to charging handle.

>>29821488
For something like that, I wonder how it would be if you mounted it to where the front sight goes on an AR. I think that would actually work pretty good for my usage.

>>29820821
out of curiosity is eye relief a factor with these?

>>29821546
It'd be faster, but less precise. The farther it is from your eye, the larger the reticle appears. Closer makes it smaller.

>>29821557
Not in the traditional sense. You can have it next to your eyeball (small triangle makes for better precision, less guessing as to the exact apex), or 3 feet from you. But the farther away it is, the larger it is (bigger triangle is easier to pick up)

>>29819539
By being a toy for range kiddies and armchair operators.

Let's be real here. None of you are even man enough to drop your gun on the ground and step on it.

>>29821624
Bucky plz

>>29818920
Quite useful on my shotgun/shotguns Low-profile makes it useful with a standard comb-height shotgun stock.

That's about it.

>>29819059
$100 is literally nothing.
Just how poor are you?

>>29821788
>Just how poor are you?

Properly able to manage money without splurging out on stupid gimmicky shit. Unlike stupid poor people such as yourself.

▲
▲ ▲

>>29819869
See-Alls work with astigmatism, red dots turn into stars

>>29818920
If they made it smaller, like literally replace standard height rear sights with the lens, I would be all over it.

As it stands, there isn't really much advantage going with the see all vs a red dot.

File: german-garcia-littletech.jpg (80KB, 720x981px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x981px

>>29822219
except its smaller, lighter, doesnt use batteries and at like 120 they can be tritium lit and run for ages.

>>▲
>▲▲

Implying

>>29822370

>>29820821
Do you own one?

I'm actually considering it because it seems pretty interesting

>▲
>▲▲
Derp?

>>29822219
Could they reduce the height in a future version? That's the biggest downside to me.

>>29819072
That's because the mods disabled most of the invisible characters. This is the last working build I have and it probably doesn't work anymore.

▲
▲ ▲

>>29818920
/)▲
▲▲

>>29818920

I've been thinking of getting one to try out because I can't use a red dot. astigmatism makes the dot look like a big smear no matter the power or MOA (Fuck me, amirite).

Seems like a decent sight though for $100.

>>29822499
it looked pretty short in this vid>>29819236

>>29818920
I can't use red dots due to my fucky eyes. Will this have the same issue?

>>29822595
I'm wondering that as well. It shouldn't because it's projecting an actual image rather than a laser dot.

File: alexis-rives-this-war2-final-3.jpg (1MB, 1920x3198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x3198px

>>29822550
>>29822595

I bought one for my gramps whos eyes are shot. He thinks it's fantastic and I feel like it's very easy to use and not at all inferior to a red dot. It is very different.

You can adjust the size of the triangle by moving the thing foreward or back, the lens will keep that shit in focus. So be sure to experiment.

Ask me questions I'll answer what I can. I have good eyes and I liked it enough to want one for the AR pistol I'm planning on.

I bought their night sight version.
I like it,
>rugged
>small
>its on par with a red dot
I honestly cant think of anythig bad to say about it. They say its for tragets up to 100 yards, but I zero'd it to 300yards and hit all day long with it. I have yet to see a tourture test on them but so far mine has held up to me treating it like I did my eotech.
Is it an AIMPOINT? No, but its not meant to be. Its kind of its own category. I would take one to Iraq if I were deploying again.

>>29820173

>not "born to shekill"

File: m4-130th.jpg (166KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x1200px

>>29822754
I dislike the trit mount, does that huge knob get caught on shit?

▲
▲▲▲

>>29822916
no. It doesnt stick out as far as it looks like in the pics. I have a riser rail that has bigger knobs that it sits on top of. The pics dont do justice to how small the sight really is.

To answer OPs question - it's poop sauce.

It's basically just a back up iron sight with none of the benefits of them - such as durability. If you get mud inside it you are unable to clean the sight. A RDS you can still both eyes open shoot even if the front of the optic is completely obscured.

I won't go into why it's a bad reason to use this as a primary sight but you'd be retarded to use it over a nice set of irons

>>29818920
>What do you think of the See All Open Sight?

I think the original non-tritium-powered version is an excellent non-magnified day-use-only SHTF/hunting optic. I don't know about using it for any real distance, though. The triangle isn't as sharp as I'd like.

It is *not* as fast as a red dot. I've compared it side-by-side with my Leupold Deltapoint, and the Deltapoint is *much* faster to get on target. Since both your eyes have full view of the target when using a red dot, I think it helps you to acquire and focus on the target. Also, I think it's better to have your reticle glow, instead of the reticle's background (as with the SeeAll).

The role I see the SeeAll excelling at is being a replacement for iron sights. Lot's of backup iron sights cost more, and don't offer the reflex advantage like the SeeAll does.

>>29823060
You are over thinking it and playing too much "what if" game.
>what if your red dots battery dies?
>what if you cant get a battery?
>what if your iron sights break?
see what I mean? The See All is a pretty good sight, as >>29823060 its not as fast as a red dot, but faster than irons (I like irons over both btw). Its kind of fills a niche that didnt need to be filled, but it is by no means "poop sauce."

>>29819327
>alt 255 you trolls.
It's been broken for years.

>>29818920

I think that if it's a new product we'll be seeing shill threads about it eight times a day until people start screaming them down.

OP, if you're shilling this, we've seen it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Doubtlessly, somebody here will buy one and tell us if they're shit or not. No further threads are required.

>>29823060
Oh it's you again, grasping at straws as usual

New fags

_▲
▲ ▲

▲
▲ ▲

>>29825636
Its not and we haven't. Maybe 5 short threads over a years. Its works the way it's supposed to and doesn't have any wild claims attached to it. Pretty accurate description on how /k/ can be though

>>29821894
This is the case for me. Every red dot I have looked thru is always blurry and looks like flower petals?

>>29818920
▲
▲▲

▲
▲▲

>>29821788
Guy you replied to here. My point is not that I don't have $100 to spend on it, but that its not $100 worth of novelty

▲
▲▲

File: competitive_edge.jpg (223KB, 476x640px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 476x640px

▲
▲▲

>>29818920
newfags still can't triforce

File: 1459478035479.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x720px

•

▲
▲▲

MFW I triforce perfectly first time.

. ▲
.▲ ▲

>>29822508
▲
▲ ▲

▲
▲ ▲

>>29824666
I get that, but really that niche doesn't exist. Do you need a Red Dot and the speed associated with it, or do you need bomb proof irons for that "what if everything fails"

You can grab a Vortex (MRDS or the SPARC) or a Burris Fast Fire if you need a cheap dot, and its only twice the SeeAll. We all know how much irons cost.

I personally don't think the niche exists, but I have different purposes. Aside from buying it to try it out (and being surprised it works in the first place) I can't see myself using it seriously.

That's just me. Your mileage may vary.

wat

▲
▲ ▲

alt 255 doesn't work anymore
_▲
▲▲

▲
▲ ▲

>>29828187
I have a lot of miles down range, plus some time in competition shooting, I also have a See All Sight.
For what it is, it is reasonably priced. It is incorrect to say that a red dot is faster. The See All is just as fast, but like a red dot, you mist train with it to be fast with it. I train irons (because in my comps I cant use red dots), so I shoot faster than most guys with red dots, I can (and do) make the same claim with distance shooting against low-med power scopes in terms of accuracy at ranges of 300-500 yards (or meters depending on venue). Would me training with red dots and scopes make me shoot faster and more accurately for the times and distances I am currently shooting? YES! (getting to my point soon, Ive been drinking since my last post). The See all is paralax free like red dots, can take a beating like red dots, can be shot both eyes open like red dots and doesnt need batteries. It isnt better than a read dot, but if you are looking for a zero maint reflex optic this is what you want. Zero it and put your rifle away, ten years, twenty years, thirty or a thousand years later, your SeeAll sight still works. Its a 'always ready' sight that you bever turn off or on. Thats why I have one.
>we all know how much irons cost
FUCKING NO! Irons can cost anywhere from $20-$400! and WHY IN THE EMPERORS NAME do people pay $100 plus for iron sights that dont even have a bullet drop compensator on them???
>Im not even a poorfag, I just like getting the most bang for my buck

>>29825681
More like 50 long threads over the course of three years. Some obvious shilling, some not.

>>29818920
∆
∆ ∆

>>29821440

That is what I bought mine for, 10/22 TD grab and go kinda rifle. I like the fact it doesn't require batteries. Mine is basically as accurate as irons, but quicker/easier to pick up.

▲▲
▲

i fianally did it

▲
▲ ▲

>>29831202

>I have shot out to 440 yards with them and can hit a 12" target 3/5 times.

Average, far from impressive.

>>29831202
Exaggerated the problem of seeing through one solid by comparing it to another.

Gotta love ignoring intended usages

>>29824695
No, it works. ▲
maybe try? ▲ ▲

>>29828817
Fair enough, if you like it, that's all that matters for you. I just brushed up on their 2016 models / their Tritium design and I will say they look really impressive and aesthetically they look much improved.

From my time with them, I will agree I do find it, yes, a tad faster than irons, but I find my red dot substantially faster. I kind of either need the speed, or need something without glass. If I'm adding that potential breakage point, I need to gain something from it.

My experience is only through limited use on a friends gun, shooting about a single magazine through it. So I'm not really an authority on the subject.

Maybe I'll just spend the hundred bucks and get one to fuck around with, or put it on top of a scope. I don't feel like spending the 200 bucks for their Tritium version. At that price, 10 out of 10 times, I'm buying a Vortex Sparc over the SeeAll. But to just have something to shove on top of a 80 dollar Bushnell that's on a .22? Yeah fuck it why not?

Thinking about getting one for a 10/22 because I hate the stock irons that much

Any other recommendations? Other iron sights are welcome too

>>29833047
Tech sights, or tech sights rear and one of the even thinner front ones.

▲
▲▲

>>29818920

good for pistols (especially glocks b/c you don't have to mill the slide)

also good on shotguns and .22s

if you want a rifle sight i'd go with a traditional optic or red dot

>>29832568
Before you mentioned primary arms red dots amd the Sparc How are they in quality compared to an aimpoint? I had an Eotech, but I got the refund and switched to milspec back up irons (mostly due to the competitions, but hey it works for me). I may pick them up, but I am also debating a PA low power scope too...

>>29833849
I personally go with the Vortex over the Primary Arms, but both have a good reputation in the community. Vortex warranty is just simply GOAT, they practically don't even ask any questions. Send it back, they send you a new one. Buddy had a Sparc 1 die, he sent it back and they sent him a Sparc 2.

Thing to note there is that it died, however. As far as the Sparc goes I'm also somewhat paranoid about the control housing, which is plastic / covered in a rubber. Potential breakage point if it gets smacked hard on the side. Also, the Vortex red dot does strobe to reduce brightness, so while you are transitioning from target to target you will notice it's refresh rate. It will not hinder you in any way, it's just something your eye will catch.

That is just being nitpicky. They make great range toys, they are good for hunting. I know officers with them on their duty weapons. They are still OEM'd in China and aren't perfect. It could die, but Vortex will take care of you.

Same with Primary Arms, you'll hear the occasional stories about how they will die (They are OEM'd by Holosun), but Marshall takes care of you. The Primary Arms 1-4 Scopes you see manufactured and available on eBay from a few different sellers. Is the QC the same? I don't know. Thing is, Marshall is US Based and wants to take care of US people. So if the scope goes tits up, he will take care of you. If the same rebranded scope from Ade Advance for 40 dollars less dies on you a few months later, you are going to be right fucked.

Overall I feel like the Vortex is better. Just my personal opinion.

Compared to an Aimpoint tho, if you were going to use it for SHTF, or a 100% life or death weapon you need to work forever - Get a Aimpoint ACO or a PRO. It'll be twice as much as the Sparc but, hey, it's the Aimpoint meme. Otherwise if you are putting holes in paper or pigs, they all will produce a red colored dot and put bullets where you place the dot.

▲
▲▲
Daily reminder that irons are for real men

>>29833934
Shut up, nigger.

>>29833849
Just to add:
I've personally never seen an Aimpoint die. A buddy had to sent a T1 Micro back because the threads were stripped on the base. Aimpoint just sent him a brand new optic.

For the Sparc, here is the article I link to everyone

http://www.recoilweb.com/vortex-sparc-ii-the-dot-that-would-not-die-67267.html

If you do go 1-4 scope, look at buying either the Bushnell with the Illuminated Reticle, or the Vortex. They will be about twice as much as the PA, but the Bushnell glass is frankly wicked.

http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Illuminated-Reticle-Riflescope-Turrets/dp/B00AU6EIIY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1462356011&sr=8-2&keywords=bushnell+1-4
>first focal plane
>illuminated reticle
>better than budget bushnell glass
>has the throw lever

It's not perfect or even high end, but for 200 bucks it's not bad at all. There is a Vortex for 250, and the same Bushnell scope but Second focal plane w/o illumination for 140 bucks.

Get some 30mm rings w/ 1913 on top, get a SeeAll or a Vortex/Primary Arms dot (or a Bushnell TRS25 for laughs), and you have a sweet set up.

>>29833959
No.

>>29833965
thanks. I think I will pick up the Bushnell and put a seeall at 45 degrees (lets be honest irons at 45 is retarded)

File: 1462372234034895556868.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>29821624
Pic related is my sks. Ive taken it into the everglades for three days without much more than a cursory cleaning. Ive dropped it about nine feet onto concrete. Ive used the butt to break a hunk of wood into smaller hunks of wood. Ive thrown it around time and time again. Never would i dream of sticking a $100 novelty optic on it.

>RIFLE IS FINE.

>>29821894
>red dots turn into stars
I get a bundle of grapes

The see all seems to fit the bill for backup irons. Stooper light, no batteries or extra dumb shit, simple to use and appears to be gut and rugged. So I'm gunna mount a 2-7 scope with the see all either piggy back or at 45°. Easy peesy.

Shooting from the very non-dominant eye with both eyes open with my see all is loads easier than with irons. And with astigmatism it's a clear reticule while red dots get messy.

>>29828817
>Its a 'always ready' sight that you bever turn off or on.
If it has tritium still in its lifespan.
Otherwise, you need light from above for it to work.
A see-all without tritium is far worse than ghost ring iron sights for shooting from under a dark ceiling at an illuminated target.

>>29834976
Dare you to try that with your 800 dollar AR

>>29818920
▲
▲▲

Here you go guys
▲
▲▲

ㄹ뫰 ▲
ㅏㅓ▲ ▲

>>29835423
>opinion without basis
>discarded.

>>29818920
I was considering this sight for my mosin build I'm working on.

File: realism.png (1MB, 852x854px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 852x854px

>>29818920
>You can now shitpost up to 100 yards

>>29837602
lol

>>29818920
The version that comes up in google shopping is a lot different.

∆∆∆
∆∆
∆

Is this the triforce thread?

>>29818920
haha fucking newfag

>;sudo:ext;triforce
>sudo;ext:triforcetriforce

Oldfag here, let me show you how it is done:
▲
▲ ▲

>>29837602
10/10

▲
▲▲

>>29836577
The basis is the fundamental concept of the see all sight, which I figured you'd have read about already if you cared to read opinions about it.
It works with a black reticule contrasting with a green fiber optic. Without tritium or any light from above, the green fiber optic has no light to reflect. Something not reflecting any light is black. Black and black do not contrast. With no light, it is unusable. With very little light, it's difficult to use.
This is not my video and I don't agree with all that's being said in it, but look at what's being shown at four minutes in. https://youtu.be/zYecC8YGlws?t=3m58s

Iron sights don't fundamentally need to contrast with themselves to be usable. If what's downrange is bright and the irons are dark, you get a nice contrast between the two, you can see the shape of the irons, and align them with where you intend to aim.

>>29835464
Cokeman has a video where he smashes his ar but fuck its probably like 4 years old. Some people made responses doing the same shit

>>29822508
>last working build