How are cheap optics? I'm talking $50-$100 ACOG scopes,

No.
For mong-term use on anything bigger than .22lr you will have zero drift or outright breakage, guaranteed. They work great on your kid's airshit guns, tho.

>>34644381
If you have to ask this just don't own a firearm

you get what you pay for. I have run across optics that broke that rule but that's typically been the fault of stupid pawn brokers. With most /k/ related items rule of thumb is buy once cry once.

No, they are garbage. The only red dot worth a damn under 100 bucks is a TRS-25. For around 150-200 You can get a vortex or primary arms one that's pretty good and reliable. Avoid anything that's Chinese airshit, truglo, aliexpress or whatever

>>34644381
For $100, you CAN get a solid scope, but avoid tactical knock-offs. A few manufacturers offer sub-$100 red dots (Primary Arms, Bushnell) that will stand up to more recoil. But, you get what you pay for.

File: 5Kg7Y04.jpg (65KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 431x450px

>>34644413
>if you care about learning more about firearms and their parts, just don't own a firearm.
>Because you don't know everything there is to know about firearms in this very moment, just don't own a firearm

File: Screenshot_2017-07-24-09-45-29.png (138KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 540x960px

>>34644441
$67 can get you a rugged scope with a military heritage. Probably as cheap as I'd personally go, but I'm sure other anons have better deals.

>>34644413
Faggot detected

>>34644381
My experience so far :
Norconia scope 4x32 on a .22lr bolt action rifle : nice clear optic, 90mm eye relief
BSA scope 4x32 mildot reticle on a .22lr bolt action rifle : crisp reticle, very clear, eye relief about 100mm
AIM sports prismatic 3x36 with BDC on AR15 : nice reticle, quick acquisition, hold zero. Swapped to a Vortex Spitfire because I now have money.
You got what you pay for. Cheap red dot will die at some point if not used on a .22lr (or 17hmr, or airgun). On a pistol, they will be far more subject to acceleration and vibration than on a rifle, the electronic parts tend to break first.

>>34644381
Literally airsoft-tier. I wouldn't put anything less than $150 on something I plan to use to defend my life.

>>34644381
You get what you pay for is generally true with regards to optics. You can get by with $200-$300 red dots from folks like PA and Vortex. With regards to magnified optics, Vortex is about as cheap as I'm ever willing to go on a gun I don't care about that much. If I want to do legitimate long range work, or want a rugged "combat" optic, I'm going to invest up towards the $1000 mark, which is still considered "mid-range" as far as quality glass goes.

TL;DR
$50-$100 magnified optics are shit and any of the apologists pleading their case for them are just poorfags in denial.

technology is expanding and getting cheaper everyday. some cheapo optics seem to be fine, the best example being primary arms. their reddots and some rifle scopes seem to be very good values with desirable features and robust builds. plus lifetime warranties.

File: RV1_04.jpg (30KB, 555x370px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 555x370px

>>34644763
Thoughts on Korean military red dots? Better than PA or Vortex? Cost $230.

>>34644800
Know nothing about them, sorry man.

>>34644413
kys

>>34644476
$67 where

Anything under $100 is going to be crappy, unless you don't care about holding zero, or clarity, or durability and you just want it for simple stuff.

~$150 stuff is the cutoff for decent red dots

>>34644933
Sportsmans guide

File: 61CBFD5tV4L._SL1000_.jpg (94KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1000x1000px

>>34644381
Cheap optics will almost always lose zero on anything more potent that a .22lr.
Also, the eye relief on these cheap optics is often VERY short. Your eye almost has to touch the glass on cheap variable zoom optics to get a decent picture, at least the ones I've used.

My dad got me something very similar to pic related for my birthday. I could tell he thought it was super badass but I didn't have the heart to tell him he got me a shitty optic.

>>34645048
What makes that a shitty optic?

>>34645181
>Cheap optics will almost always lose zero on anything more potent that a .22lr.

So a shitty optic is fine on a .22lr. got it

>>34644381
>How are cheap optics?
I have/had a shit load of bad ones from gifts and such.

>>34645181
you dumb dumb faggot

>>34645048

I'd cherish the shit out of that optic. Slap it on a .22

>>34645219

He's not lying.

Those 30 to 50 dollar scopes break on shipping alone.

For a .22, an 100 dollar optic is perfectly fine since the recoil isn't gonna be tearing the scopes internals appart.

Also the clarity won't be that big a deal with the ranges you'd be shooting.

File: 3XP78A_2.jpg (4MB, 4636x2940px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4636x2940px

>>34644800
They're good, but not cheap at all.
Also, their english translators gave some of them awesome acronymns for names.

File: ncstarbage.jpg (17KB, 400x350px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x350px

I really wish this specific setup wasn't shit, I love the dumb space-gun aesthetic. No quality scopes look like this. Probably for good reason.

>>34644431
This.

>>34644381
For a .22 you can get away with inexpensive optics, unless you're using it in harsh conditions. They're not going to hold up as long, they don't hold zero well, and the parallax is almost always trash on cheap optics. Save up a little more and get a Vortex. Even their low end optics are good.

File: 006153.jpg (21KB, 770x373px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 770x373px

>>34647173
All chinkshit is usually based off something high quality that someone else makes...they cannot come up with anything on their own.

>>34644381
>ACOG
>$50-$100

c'mon

>>34644381
"buy nice or buy twice" really rings true with optics. there's always the chance you'll find a diamond in the rough from a cheap brand, but i'd just go with a reputable brand

File: sig.jpg (92KB, 1127x750px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1127x750px

>>34647173
i dont know how "quality" it is, but theyre asking around $1300 for this
>https://www.sigsauer.com/store/bravo4-4x30-mm.html

>>34644820
why did you even post this?

>>34647173
Honestly I've wanted to get one of those goofy SpaceBlaster optics and mount it on a .22 just so I can have a dumb rifle to plink at cans with.

>>34647997
I mean specifically the boxy not-mlok shroud around the optic. No serious manifacture has that kind of thing.

>>34648794
I think your only option in the world of higher end optics would be those DI Optical red dots, the EG1 is pretty much a SpaceBox of an optic.
I'm fully aware that most if not all of the low price optics are total crap or fit for .22's only, that's why I'll indulge myself by hanging them on .22's where their deficiencies aren't as noticeable.

File: 0755532_1.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>34647992
I've had a shitty red dot on my .22 for years. Holds it's zero fine, really like it too, although it is bigger than your standard red dot