Aimpoint thermal drift worse than Holosun and EOTech

>>33702046
that's interesting and all but not how the factory tests thermal drift so as the guy said, it's just his finding not fact.

also, aluminium expands and contracts quite a bit to temp. change so it could just be an issue with the mount.

>takes off red dot and mount
>puts in dry ice
>puts back on rifle

gee I wonder why there is POI shift...

File: invincible.jpg (82KB, 670x412px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 670x412px

>>33702046
>falling for the micro meme
>not buying PRO that can survive even a housefire

not an excuse, just stating this but the KAC micro isnt a good mount. one of the few things kac makes that is pretty shitty.
>>33702875
>compm4 > all

>falling for the optics meme
just use iron sights, pleb
>but muh fast target acquisition
don't worry, that paper target isn't going anywhere.

>>33702934
this nigger right here gets it. fuck your tacticool mall ninja crutches.

and thats what they are, is crutches.

>>33702958
Beat up home invaders with your fists, don't rely on bullet firing crutches.

Cause that's what they are: crutches

>>33702934
Gee golly gosh I sure do love me some midnight aiming with iron sights!

>>33702875
>>33702904
too heavy and too dogshit

>>33702875
Doesn't cowitness with my irons.

>>33702934
>>33702958
Or you could just do both.

>>33703090
>t. poorfag holosun owner

what optic do I put on 10.5inch sbr

>>33703172
aimpoint t2

>>33702934
>>33702958

Spotted the fudds.

File: 1461162495042.jpg (122KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 554x439px

>>33702046
>remove sight
>cover it in ice
>including engaging surfaces of the mount
>put it back
>thermal drift

>>33703021
if you need an eotech to hit a home invader you're doing it wrong, plebian

>>33703206
and by fudd you mean people that actually own and use firearms

File: 1257809939894.jpg (35KB, 500x738px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x738px

>>33703037
You can do that thing that guy did in Band of Brothers with the lighter and his front post

>>33703420
I don't need an eoshit, just my aimpoint.

File: 1476814046693.png (11KB, 307x462px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 307x462px

>>33702046

This was actually documented before in various forums with better executed tests.

Nobody gave it any attention, but when the shit blew up about EoTechs everybody suddenly wanted a refund?

I don't get it

>>33703700
and again you miss the point.

stop eating paint chips

>>33703420
>if you need 30 rounds to hit a home invader you're doing it wrong, plebian

>>33703810
>This was actually documented before in various forums with better executed tests.

Where?

File: MRO_thermal_drift.png (210KB, 697x977px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 697x977px

Looks like the Trijicon MRO is fucking KING, BABY!

>Remove optic from rifle and put it back on
>Zero has shifted
Whoooaaaaaahhhh

>>33703950
Too bad it looks like shit.

File: B759CC75-F1F9-4FD7-929C-1ECC8E7FC706_zps2deyty1c.jpg (219KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1024x768px

>>33704012
And isn't true 1x. And has fisheye. And has more tint than a fucking ricenigger PA dot.

>>33703058

>heavy
Fag

>dogshit
Literally the most reliable red dot on the market.
Please.

>I took my optic off my rifle
>And the mount
>I deep-freezed said optic
>And the mount
>Now after remounting the optic, the POI has shifted
I'm usually not one to promote the removal of 2A rights for people who aren't convicted felons, but this level of abject retardation is really making me want to reconsider my stance.

>>33703896
prove me wrong then. if the tool at hand is for home defense, in a bunch of presumably 9x13 rooms, what is a fucking OPTIC going to gain you?

File: 1453810987705.gif (4MB, 426x232px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 426x232px

>>33704242
or maybe im wrong about the premise of discussion. sorry. im bouncing around between threads and am drunk and overtired.

picture unrelated to post content

>>33704229
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN METAL CONTRACTS AND HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE CONTACT SURFACES OF MY MOUNT?????

>>33704242
>going to gain you
Well hopefully a better grasp of English and are you saying you don't aim when shooting in close quarters? Of course, just hipfire, it works in movies!

Do you own guns?

>>33704242
We're talking about non-magnifying optics here. A red dot is better than iron sights in every way except price. A red dot is going to be faster and easier to get on target, you will see the dot even if you're in very low light and it makes it easier to shoot with both eyes open.

>>33702852
>>33703273
>>33703983
>>33704229

read the comments bros

>"Golly gee, what a great test!!!"

>>33704037
fuck I hate that tinted shit

my comp M2 doesn't have it
one of my holosuns does
one of my holosuns doesn't

>>33704382
I think it's for bright daylight, but I can't quite understand why.

>>33704433
>>33704382

It keeps the dot from washing out under specific lighting conditions.

>>33704433
It's cheap glass is what it is.

>>33704368
There is a reason the comment section of youtube is literally the most retarded part of the entire internet

>>33704360
is a red dot considered an optic?

i like the red dot, and agree with your position regarding aiming vis a vis iron sights

>>33704627
>is a reddot an optic
Kill yourself, you underage fuckwit.

File: MRO_Patrol.jpg (17KB, 640x216px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x216px

>>33704012
unpopular opinion but the MRO is quite better looking for some reason with caps on both the objective lens and the ocular lens.

Unfortunately the ocular lens cap is unobtainium outside of flushing your money down the toilet for the MRO patrol

>>33704229
Now i'm starting to wonder what'd happen if you dry ice'd irons or a scope

>>33704892
>MRO patrol
the entire point of MRO's popularity was a red dot from a reputable maker that sat at the $400-500 range.

The patrol just shot the price up to T-1/2 prices while only making some things bit better off of the regular MRO.

File: 1469830976539.jpg (30KB, 281x248px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 281x248px

>Removes the sight ad puts it back again
>GEE POI HAS SHIFTED

it must be fucking hard being this stupid

He uses a control group for the removal of the optic, are you all retarded?

>>33703090
>Doesn't cowitness with my irons.
Aimpoint PROs have the most diverse selection of sight mounts out there due to the longstanding popularity of their form factor. You just aren't trying.

>>33706471
The problem is that thermal drift only matters if the optic stays mounted to the weapon. Say, if the gun goes from a warm room indoors to the freezing cold outdoors, or the gun is sitting in a hot trunk all day while having been zeroed in a room temperature environment.

In these scenarios, the whole gun + mounted optic are exposed to the temperature shift, so the mounting surface on the gun encounters the same thermal expansion as the mount and scope. The scope is inherently going to re-mount in a slightly different location, versus keeping it in one spot throughout control and experimental groups. That extra variable throws off the validity of the experimental design.

By having the weapon stay the same temperature in both control and experimental groups, it negates the real world scenario the thermal drift test is trying to replicate. What this is really testing is return to zero, which is a wholly different concept altogether more dependent on the mount design.

And this is why the experiment wouldn't pass peer review.

File: drift.png (492KB, 1467x369px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1467x369px

>>33703950
Actually, now EOTech is king.

>>33706538
>And this is why the experiment wouldn't pass peer review.

Cool, let's site all the other aimpoint thermal drift datapoints..... oh yeah there are none public.

>>33703810
Where? Show us.

>>33703420
>He doesn't have 50 yard distances inside of his house
Can a poorfag like you even afford optics?

File: 1462732261313.jpg (20KB, 450x449px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x449px

>>33702875
>WOW an aimpoint is as durable as a Gameboy

Nintendo brand ZapperPoint™ when?

>>33702934

irons don't work at night, or even in low light.

>>33706538
>By having the weapon stay the same temperature in both control and experimental groups, it negates the real world scenario the thermal drift test is trying to replicate.

No that will influence chamber and subsequently powder temps which will change POI. That should be treated as an independent variable from the optic's temperature and should not reflect on the optics POI shift.

>>33706538
He has a control measure for re-mounting. Having the entire gun a different temperature will change the round's trajectory independent of any optical zero shift. Your idea for reducing variables is actually worse.

>>33706538
>>33706538
He has a control measure for re-mounting. Having the entire gun a different temperature will change the round's trajectory independent of any optical zero shift. Your idea for reducing variables is actually worse.

File: 1390172490493.jpg (217KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 717x960px

>>33706762
>>33706765
Wtf I double posted? Not sure how.

>>33706538
Ty for the correction senpai

>>33706471
That totally negates the fact he fucking froze the contact points of the mount? Wow.

>>33703901
It doesn't exist, he's literally pulling shit out of his ass.

File: 1479533230327.jpg (96KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 430x430px

>>33702046
Shit, I just got back from a pure dry ice enviroment deployment and was wondering why my POI shifted slightly!

>>33706677
>EOTech will begin to drift at 122F, average sunny day in Iraq temps
>MRO will begin to drift, lets say conservatively, 140F...far above average sunny day in Iraq

>>33707331
And let's not forget that it isn't ambient temperature. It's direct heat.

On a sunny day, the aluminum housings can get much hotter than air temperature.

File: 1406050375467.jpg (61KB, 498x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 498x360px

>>33707331
>making shit up: the post

You have no idea if the MRO's thermal drift is linear or not or what the slope/curve looks like.

>>33707281
>testing at -40C/F
>mount contact points are somehow magically not frozen if it isn't removed

>>33704627
Is an horse a athlete?

>>33707325
it shifted more because your ammo was so cold

>>33706425
qd mounts retain zero no matter how often they are removed

File: 1469018701635.jpg (22KB, 503x302px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 503x302px

>>33707447
Wanna know how I know you're a retard?

>only things to back up anything said in this thread are company statements and a single vid that even the uploader says is not scientific and could be a poor representation of the issue
You all need to kill yourselves.

>>33707447
But that's wrong you fucking retard, otherwise every manufacturer would opt for dogshit UTG-grade QD mechanisms to minimize costs.

File: 7265eb1db2ceb2aec83755d93d83a8d0.jpg (145KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x600px

>>33707460
.....

File: WP_20170318_017[1].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>33707483
I mean look at it from the perspective of the people like OP; the Aimpoint is king for a variety of reasons and they likely opted for one of the following as their choice of optic;
>MRO, with its wonky glass issues and immature aftermarket. And it looks like a cartoon periscope.
>Eotech, with...Jesus, even you don't acknowledge the thermal drift issues that landed L3 into a federal lawsuit AND the delamination, you still have a red dot sight that is heavy, bulky, and has shit battery life.
>PA/Holosun RDs that, while great bargain dots, cannot compare outside of mounting options and battery life.
They argue from a position of weakness, so they will latch on to anything to use against an Aimpoint, even if it's just a single vid.

Also it's guaranteed replies. Can't forget that yo.

>>33707495
>>33707460
my bad.
*quality qd mounts

File: 1491062538161.jpg (346KB, 1104x1104px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1104x1104px

>>33707645
oh look it's MSD in another optics thread
>hurr reticle fade, bad battery life, muh lawsuit
>proceeds to shill optics by design a priori WILL reticle fade (tritium), have 25% the battery life of EOTechs (any battery 1-4x), and not to mention the lawsuit would have happened for any red dot on the market
>Holosun/PA RD's don't use the same mounts as T1's.

File: 1470586109312.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>33707447
What is metal expansion and contraction caused by extreme temperature.

>>33707842
i said no matter how often they are removed, not what temp they are at

File: WP_20161213_003[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>33707803
>Holosun/PA RD's don't use the same mounts as T1's.
Look everyone, the poorfag anon is so butthurt he can't even read! How sad!

>>33707931
I mean look at it from the perspective of the people like MSD; They argue from a position of projection, so they will latch on to anything to use against a reasoned criticism of Aimpoints, even if it's just a single insignificant point.

>inb4 post ar15

>>33707803
>hurr reticle fade, bad battery life, muh lawsuit
But all of these things are part of the Eotech...

>>33707875
Shame you had to haul off with your "important" opinion in a thread specifically about putting scopes and mounts in extreme temperatures separate from the rifle and seeing POI shifts.

Only to be expected from a tripfag I suppose.

>>33707982
My argument wasn't that EOTechs do not have this issue. My argument is that these are common issues with popular and highly acclaimed sights.

>>33708058
Yeah and those popular and highly acclaimed sighs are Eotechs. What's your point with the bit about tritium fading for that matter? At no point did he mention anything outside of red dots.

>>33708080
He's this buttfuck retarded Eotech shill who swears I shilled battery variable-powered optics because I thought an Eotech + magnifier was retarded like any sane human being would. Somehow in his FAS-induced mind, these things correlate. it's as funny as it is sad. Actually the sad factor makes it more funny.

File: MSD.png (116KB, 1610x706px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1610x706px

>>33708135
The archive was down for maintenance at the time :^)

>>33708080
Tritium optic fades
>A-OK. Nothing wrong with choosing a tritium based illumination of your reticle.

EOTech reticle fades
>UNACCEPTABLE. A SMALL CHANCE OF A RETICLE FADING AFTER YEARS IS TOO MUCH OF A PERFORMANCE SACRIFICE

Combine these two things and you have cognitive dissonance.

>>33702046
>YouTube fags have so little intellect they don't understand how to conduct scientific tests

What a waste of my time

>>33708168
>context is budget variable power glass and which brand to get
>recommend ~$250 Vortex variable power optics
>anon is so buttflustered basic context can't even begin to enter his poor, stunted thought process
Once again please seek help.

>>33708187
No one has mentioned reticle fading just battery life...

>>33708218
Random here, you stated you didn't shill for variable powered optics, when you clearly did over many months.

>>33708218
>RD magnifiers suck dick, not just in performance cost ration but overall performance.

What did he mean by this?

File: schizoid.png (30KB, 1714x235px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1714x235px

>>33708232
He has actual brain issues.

>>33708232
Tritium, a radioactive isotope will lose its luminescence with its age due to the isotope shedding its mass over time. This cannot be rectified with any kind of engineering. It is an a priori consequence of choosing tritium ilumination.

>>33708243
>you stated you didn't shill for variable powered optics
Are you sure you're not that other anon? You seem to have the same issues with reading.

>>33708249
Literally none of that is wrong, though.

wtf I love EOTech now!

>>33708267
But what is the fucking point of bringing that up here when no one is talking about it? This is a thread about red dots not tritium whatever optics.

>>33708270
You would have a point of specific context if it was only one or two posts in a small timeframe.

It was over many months.

>>33708288
The point is that all of the arguments a typical aimpoint poster makes are disingenuous and contradictory in an overall context of optics outside of just red dots alone. Battery life as an argument is a legitimate tactic until RD+Magnifiers are brought up. Reticle fade is a legitimate argument until tritium illuminated variables are brought up. It's literally the definition of cognitive dissonance. You can see the stress of it in the silly ad homs being wildly thrown around.

>>33702046
still cant compete with barska

File: MSD2.png (50KB, 724x184px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 724x184px

>>33708314
More than that.

File: msd3.png (16KB, 621x182px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 621x182px

>>33708314
Literally all of his arguments are incorrect, too.

>>33708274
>You suggested variable-power optics with shitty battery life over Eotech + magnifier setups, I just know it!
>It's over a month later, but I'm still so fucking butthurt that I'm going to bring it up in another thread because I'm still so fucking rustled over people saying a heavy, bulky optic with battery life that's shit compared to an Aimpoint is a heavy, bulky optic with battery life that's shit compared to an Aimpoint and post proof that he DID suggest variable-power optics with shit battery life. It'd be pretty obvious to someone who didn't have brain issues that those recommendations had nothing to do with them being pushed over an Eotech + magnifier, but holy shit I am so goddamned butthurt it doesn't even matter!
Context, anon. Context.

Fuck you, nerds. Should I get an Trijicon MRO or an Aimpoint PRO? I'm so confused now with all this shitposting.

File: Capture.png (14KB, 1347x87px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1347x87px

>>33708342
You are correct, you and I both remember a thread from a month ago.

>It'd be pretty obvious to someone who didn't have brain issues that those recommendations had nothing to do with them being pushed over an Eotech + magnifier,

But that's wrong.

>>33708323
Nigger you are doing some serious mental gymnastics to try and say an Eotech doesn't have subpar batttery life compared to other red dots. I mean holy shit I'm actually impressed.

The amount of dedication and asspain on display here is exactly why I trip. :^
>>33708340
>RDs + magnifer isn't bulky and doesn't add weight
Seek help. Also are you fucking phone-posting? Are you that upset?
>>33708361
>But that's wrong.
Nah, you're just a fag. A solid variable-power optic (read; Accupoint) trumps a RD + magnifier.

Are you gonna flail and spazz out for me some more?

I'm not sure who is more autistic

The tripfag goatfucker or the eotech anon who is one step away from making a voodoo doll out of sheer tard rage

Stop derailing the thread you fucks

>>33708323
>The point is that all of the arguments a typical aimpoint poster makes are disingenuous and contradictory in an overall context of optics outside of just red dots alone
This thread is about fucking red dots you unbelievable corporate whore.

>>33708372
That's not my argument either.

Here is what an aimpoint poster actually believes.

>EOTech has poor battery life (600 hours for most models) and this is a significant factor in choosing an optic
>Variable optics are overall better than EOTech+magnifier (~150 hour battery life)

To an aimpoint poster 600 hours is unacceptable for an optic, but then he unironically suggests optics with on average 25% the battery life. Do you see the contradiction here?

I've proven this to you already. A 1-4x will barely weigh more.

>Vortex PST 1-4x24 or Aimpoint Accupower 16.2 ounces (same weight) + ADM AD Recon mount 8.4 ounces = 24.6oz (1.5 lbs)
>EOTECH EXPS3 + G33 = 22.2 oz (EXPS3 is 11.0 oz G33 is 11.2 oz)

>Nah, you're just a fag.
The argument was whether you were actually recommending variables over an RD+Mag in a performance criteria alone (you were).

>A solid variable-power optic (read; Accupoint) trumps a RD + magnifier.
Prove it. They have less field of view, more weight, guaranteed reticle fade or worse battery life, are larger, not modular, offer no true 1x, not compatible with NVG.

>This thread is about fucking red dots you unbelievable corporate whore.
While tangential, the point I'm trying to make is that his conclusions are disingenuous, contradictory, and therefore not worthy of consideration in original context of discussing thermal drift.

File: it'snotanaddiction.png (34KB, 373x485px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 373x485px

>>33708439
>I'm not sure who is more autistic
>The tripfag goatfucker or
No, it's me. <3

>>33703554
That was to add soot, which would just make it harder to pickup at night.

Really, shooting in very low light with irons is near impossible.

>>33702046
Newfag reporting in
Whats thermal drift?

>>33708025
what?

>>33708484
>That's not my argument either.
Yes. Yes it is. That is exactly your argument. The criticisms against Eotech don't matter IF you apply them to optics in general and not just red dots. That is EXACTLY what you do here with
>To an aimpoint poster 600 hours is unacceptable for an optic, but then he unironically suggests optics with on average 25% the battery life. Do you see the contradiction here?
You are trying to deflect the issues an Eotech has in comparison to an Aimpoint by broadening the context to optics that don't even matter in this context.
>Here is what an aimpoint poster actually believes.
Don't do this, all it does is automatically make others think you have irrational bland loyalties and are hardly objective. What is objective is that, compared to an Aimpoint, an Eotech will be larger. It will be heavier. It will have inferior battery life. You saying that an Eotech has better battery life than some shitty chinese scope does nothing to change this and you're insulting the intelligence of everyone in this thread thinking we can't see through the mental hoops your're going through trying to push your convoluted viewpoint.

You are honestly one of the most disingenuous posters I've seen here all year and you dragging your retarded little hissfit with one of the worst trips on here is annoying and distracting.

>>33708500
While most of the time that's true, there are tritium night sights available that make it easier.

>>33708511
The correct way to ask to be spoonfed is "I need a quick rundown."

>optic has operating temp range of approx -40 to 120/160F
>at ambient temperature of 73 rifle is zeroed
>optic is subjected to temperatures at the limits of operating temp range
>optic then returns to ambient 73 degrees
>point of impact shifts from the original zero due to thermal expansion/contraction within the sight's aiming apparatus not returning to the exact state it was in before the change in temperatures
>these values are generally a 1-4 MOA depending on the brand and date of production

>>33708539
Brand loyalties I mean, not bland.

>>33708511
it's when your sight loses it's zero when the temperature drastically changes

File: layeredcancer.png (2MB, 1024x1816px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x1816px

>>33708484
>To an aimpoint poster 600 hours is unacceptable for an optic, but then he unironically suggests optics with on average 25% the battery life. Do you see the contradiction here?
This is why I love you, you're such a sleazy little fuck that constantly shifts narratives and context to suit your awful arguments as to why Eokeks aren't shat on by an Aimpoint micro in practically every way.
>The argument was whether you were actually recommending variables over an RD+Mag in a performance criteria alone (you were).
Nah, you're trying to prove that I suggested battery-powered Vortex variables over Eotech + mag setups ("recommended the other 1-4x lower battery life options over the EOTech+Mag configuration") when you haven't done anything of the sort, you just take posts suggested Vortex variables for a budget variable or variables trumping RD+magnifier setups in terms of performance. Because they do.
>Prove it.
They're a RD+magnifier setup, they're automatically shit in comparison and you're the only one who hasn't gotten the memo. Shit, even Sharks who ran the setup for a while chimed in as to why and you shat yourself in yet another autistic rage over how he possibly couldn't have hated it.

I think you're just a fag dude. A mentally troubled fag. How sad. This is your last (you), you fag. Don't ever come into my general, with your faggy A1 attempt. Fag.

>>33708539
>Yes. Yes it is. That is exactly your argument. The criticisms against Eotech don't matter IF you apply them to optics in general and not just red dots. That is EXACTLY what you do here with
EOTechs have the worst battery life among reputable red dots, I agree.

My argument didn't hinge upon that fact either. The argument was that you cannot simultaneously say variable optics are categorically better than RD+magnifiers when they have 150 hours of run time while criticizing a 600 hour battery life optic. Either 150 is the minimum requirement of battery life for an optic or 600 is still not enough, which would invalidate the recommendation of a 150 hour battery life optic.

You can be 100% logically consistent to say that 600 hours is unacceptable for a rifle optic as an aimpoint ownder. Aimpoints as an optic alone aren't quite a baseless meme as they are good optics. However many supporters of aimpoints simultaneously hold the idea that RD+Magnifiers are not as good as variables, generally citing all the same arguments MSD did (I wonder where he got his opinions from). This calls into question the validity of many of the "600 hours is not enough" claims. While, I'm sure there are quite a number of aimpoint supporters that do not make arguments for 150 battery hour optics, there is large camp of people like MSD that do.

As a follow-up to this, MSD recently learned about the Trijicon Accupoint through his extensive and esoteric experience of it being presented in John Wick 2. He posits that such an optic is immune to battery life claims since it does not take a battery. But here, again, his criticisms of EOTech are once again inconsistent since Tritium does fade over time as part of it being a radioactive isotope further explained here >>33708267

>shitty chinese scope
No. The vortex optics MSD recommended (before he knew about the accupoint) have 150 hours of battery life.

>>33708660
>The argument was that you cannot simultaneously say variable optics are categorically better than RD+magnifiers when
I have a news flash for you: no one here give a flying shit about your feud war with a tripfag who plasters undertaleshit over his guns. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your wall of autism because it's a good chance you still won't say anything that's on topic to the thread and you still twist and weave by constantly including shit that does not fucking matter into your arguments. Get a fucking grip or shove off to a thread that is actually relevant to your ravings.

what the fuck happened to this thread?

>>33708541
Thanks,all info is good info

>>33708633
>They're a RD+magnifier setup, they're automatically shit
Really? In any other objectively measurable aspect other than EOTech's magnifier capping out at 3.25x the magnifier is better.
>weight
>field of view
>1x
>battery life/reticle fade

>>33708704
>Get a fucking grip or shove off to a thread that is actually relevant to your ravings
This thread is about blowing out aimpoint fags, though. Until someone does some more testing there isn't much to talk about other than butthurt and shilling/counter-shilling.

I'm also only one of two people in this thread who have posted actual thermal drift results.

>>33708728
You're welcome. Enjoy your stay. /k/ usually isn't this autistic, but when brand loyalties and tripfag circle jerk logic are on the line everything is at stake :^)

File: hrerkIlJxuMz6.gif (486KB, 330x243px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 330x243px

>>33708727
>gay furfag trip VS. extremely bootyflustered eotech employee

File: 1376724230123.png (126KB, 319x456px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 319x456px

>>33708778
The ironic thing is that I work around a few L3 employees (and have considered employment there) and I can get their employee discounts. So there is a tiny grain of truth in that.

>>33708771
You are literally every bit as autistic and disruptive as he is but you're too much of a smug twat to realize it.

>>33708805
>is an actual incentivized company shill
no surprises

>>33708808
What's funny is that I'm able to simultaneously make the most disruptive posts meanwhile contribute the most to the conversation of thermal drift. The entire premise of this thread was bait-tier disruption, hence the use of "BTFO."

>>33708845
I'll actually just simply post my honest motivation (not that you give a shit) for making these kind of arguments to get it out of the way. I think aimpoints are great and variables are great. I just think the arguments against EOTechs are inconsistent mostly just because of brand memes and a lack of critical thinking in general with regards to gun culture consensus. I don't have a problem with aimpoints, variables, eotechs, etc. I have a problem with the arguments presented around them.

Before the SOCOM lawsuit I took the "variables are better in every way" statement to be true at face value. Once I used some I noticed that it wasn't immediately obvious to me. It mainly propagated from the /arg/ circles around here and I noticed it again. I decided to see what the actual difference was.

Weight was the most commonly stated thing that variables were better at, which is only true if you are not factoring a mount or two piece scope rings. In the case of two piece scope ring it precludes the use of an in-line BUIS, and at the time a requirement for BUIS was incontestable. Of course offset BUIS are available but then you ruin the argument of bulkiness/clunkiness. With most of those same critics choosing to have the cooler (and better) one-piece mounts like those from Geisele, ADM, bobro, LaRue, etc.

The battery life issue became apparent to me then, too. With people recommending 150 battery hour optics only to then criticize them was inconsistent with the belief that a 600 hour battery life was unacceptable. It seemed to me the argument that a variable being "categorically better" was just a meme.

Don't believe me? Go pretend to be a noob in an /arg/ and ask about RD+mag. Go and objectively verify what they say.

>>33709177
cont.

I just want to have a more honest discussions on /k/ and less of fuddlore-esque claims that rely on not having a standard of critical thinking applied to them. That's one small aspect of what separates this board from arfcom and wherever fudds hang out on the internet.

>>33709177
>>33709224
are you still fucking talking?

File: 1426566409030.jpg (79KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x480px

>>33709256
I'm still getting replies, so yes I'm discussing things.

>>33709298
okay. no one cares.

File: 1387617398107.jpg (151KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1280x720px

>>33709307
I already mentioned that I knew that in >>33709177

>(not that you give a shit)

>>33702934
Lol enough being shot by a home intruder at night.

>>33709322
okay. what do either of us win?

>>33709344
You win the dubious honor of having conversed with an actual sperglord that you should have just learned to ignore like everyone else?

>>33709344
I get easy (You)'s and win an argument on the internet. There's even a small chance lurkers get a more holistic picture on the efficacy of red dots+magnifiers as well as variables/red dots (and their associated thermal drifts).

You're free to tell me your motivations.

>>33709353
This gentleman is correct.

>>33709375
okay. bye.

File: cry kpop.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33709409
Au revoir. You will be missed.

Why does a variable even need a battery?

>>33703836
Your point is retarded though. Iron sights are objectively shittier to use than optics.

>>33710109
Illumination for dark backgrounds/night time. Some act as a pseudo red dot in the 1.1x mode. Kinda like the ACOG's chevron.

File: 6d7b20fd04665b86de77fedc5c948c14.jpg (3KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 236x236px

>>33706737

I'm not saying you're wrong, but fiber/tritium combos are at least attempting to address that point.

>>33703172

SIG Romeo7.

No doubt about it.

File: IMG_5096.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Glad to know my Aimpoint doesn't work outside. Into the trash it goes.

>>33709177
>>>/blog/

This thread has actually made me want to not get an eotech if the mindgames I've seen on display in here are what I have to do to convince myself it isn't inferior to an aimpoint

>>33702934
>>33702958
If only optics were some how detachable in a quick fashion...

File: p_006111181_1.jpg (13KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x400px

>>33703037

Is anyone taking these fucking Youtube tests seriously? They are the most retarded shit you could possibly do.

To conduct a proper test you would have to:

>conduct pre-freezing shot grouping
>leave the optic on the weapon
>expose the optic, while mounted to the weapon, and a "reasonable" amount of surface area of the mount on the rifle as well, without exposing the entire rifle to said extreme temperatures
>remove from dry ice, conduct post test grouping

This would be the easiest way, because of all the ways in which metal expands and contracts in the mounting hardware, it's also possible similar expanding and contracting on the rifle itself would mitigate or negate the issue. If both the mount and the rifle expanded equally, you'd see almost no real shift overall because of the mounting hardware, but taking it off and freezing only the mount ALONE would cause significant issues.

You also can't freeze the rifle and ammo either because that alone fucks up shot grouping.

If you wanted the maximum science test, you could do it without a rifle entirely, using simply the Aimpoint locked into a steady position, zeroed on a target, and freezing it in place, and seeing what happens. You could also use a second aimpoint or a laser to demonstrate this all throughout

Basically all these YT science cucks are fucking retarded, and I keep seeing them conduct these exact same tests wasting everyones fucking time, but the inbreds on arfcom eat it up anyways because it feeds their narrative

File: 1468234290970.jpg (76KB, 540x702px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 540x702px

>>33713244

>similar expanding and contracting on the rifle itself would mitigate or negate the issue

Or multiply it.

I think the only proper way to conduct such a test is with an optical bench test, remove the rifle from the equation.

Physically measure the reticle shift after subjecting to different temperature variations and extrapolate that to POI shift.

This is probably how the manufacturers themselves test their optics, I seriously doubt any youtuber has access to that kind of equipment.

>>33712325
>spend $700 on a fancy optic
>just to remove it and not use it

>>33702934
>>33702958
>>33714073
When will poorfags learn

>>33708267
What if I told you that you can have tritium replaced with new tritium?

>>33714060
Sure maybe, I'd like to see. But I sort of feel the metals would probably expand in a similar way, since they are both aluminum (although probably different grades) so maybe I feel like it might mitigate it since the surfaces would both be expanding at a similar rate, but sure, I agree it could also make the issue worse.

We don't want to rule out any possibility, sure, because science, but my point is as a BARE MINIMUM YOUTUBE SCIENTIST you should be able to explain your testing methodology and how you removed variables. If you are testing how cold impacts the sight because the components expand / contract in ways that ruin it, when asked "Well how are you sure the mount expanding / contracting isn't fucking with the POI shift either?" you should have an answer, which they wouldn't. They also aren't asking themselves the question.

At the end of the day I feel they are retarded as fuck.

>>33708360
Just get a Bushnell TRS-25 and save half a grand :^)

>>33707447
are you retarded?

>>33707663
you're retarded
>>33707875
oh it's you
that explains it

>>33703950
For when you absolutely HAVE to bang and clear that walk in freezer then escort the POW rape victim goat hadji had tied up in there out into the desert sun, accept no substitutes!

File: 2880px-SkiDubai7176.jpg (743KB, 2880x1915px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 2880x1915px

>>33714376
>Walk in freezers
What is this, babby's first mission?

How do you expect to operate in the world's only artificial ski slope inna desert?

>>33702934
>>33702958
Is this some new meme?

>>33714436
I could get Inuit...

Then step out when it's time to Shiite.

To Sunni ?