Optics thread

Fakog. $60 on Ebay.

>>34668991
How is it?

>>34669029
It's actually not bad. The glass is obviously inferior to the real deal and you don't get the tritium inserts, but the fibre optic actually works and it holds zero. I would use it for a plinker any day.

No money for glass, I keep buying more guns.

File: muh rds.png (1MB, 1120x896px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1120x896px

Literally the Hi-Point of optics. I have yet to shoot with it or the Mini 30 it's attached to.

File: MKII.jpg (133KB, 734x578px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 734x578px

I have a Hawke red dot on my MKII I got for $45 after tax it's pretty cool

File: WP_20170523_005[2].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>What kind of glass do you have on your rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty
TA31F + RM06.
>How much did it cost
Counting LaRue mount, like $1500
>what do you use it for
HD and shooting shit
>how do you like it?
I like it.

>>34669108
Just get a PA or Holosun

I unironically like my EOTech 512. I only wish the auto shutoff was able to be disabled.

File: 1498920473740.jpg (18KB, 351x468px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 351x468px

>>34668971
I can hit a penny at 1k with just irons. On an obrez.

File: 1468537341875.gif (80KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x480px

>>34668971
>rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty

>>34669108
I have 2 Bushnell TR-25s. Value/price can't be beat. Thought about getting the Primary Arms version,but with Bushnell sale it was just too cheap.

I do have a Primary Arms 1-6x scope as well, forget the model.

I don't do much precision shooting so don't care to spend much on the optic. Primary Arms 1-6x was $270

File: 20170726_220614.jpg (4MB, 2019x3314px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2019x3314px

>>34668971
Muh MRO

My AR came with an Aimpoint Comp M3 on an ARMS mount. I like it well enough, and the 2 MOA dot is nice. As far as use, it was my duty rifle, I bought it when the company retired it. Now it's for plinking, and it does that very well. Don't think I've turned it off in the time I've owned it.

>>34668971
Vortex strikfire II on muh AR it was like 200 and change. I use it to blast steel and paper. I like it. I wish it was lighter though. Thing weighs like 7 ounces or something.

>>34670488

What gun is that m8

Vortex Spitfire 1x on my AR. It's a first build so I didn't feel like going hog wild on glass until I buy or build a rifle that I feel is worth it. Plus it seems more than decent enough for general range shooting/home defense. The fact that it's an etched-glass optic pretty much eliminates the need for BUIS as well.

Aside from that I have a BSA Sweet 22 on my Marlin Model 60, which works as well as a general .22 scope could IMO, but I'm not an optics-educated individual in the least.

File: 20170308_223045.jpg (4MB, 2260x1802px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2260x1802px

>>34670556
AUG

>>34669108
On a Mini 30 sensei , your in for a learning moment

File: download (1).jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 275x183px

3 letters PRO

File: muh AR.jpg (44KB, 960x588px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x588px

>>34668971
I have this Mepro M21. The mount and optic work pretty well together, it cowitness well and you don't need a chin weld to use it. Was easy to zero in. A little dim, but thats what you get with self powered optics.

Primary Arms 5x prismatic scope. I love it, definitely the nicest 'cheap' scope I've ever had. I consider it my poor man's ACOG.

>>34672932
Very neat gun anon

File: IMG_20170616_152147.jpg (377KB, 939x785px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 939x785px

>EOKek 512
>Vortex Spitfire 3x
>Vortex Venom RDS

Just got a sig romeo 5 on my ar. Really digging it.

>>34672932
How's the weather in 1998?

>>34673383
Pretty good homie, I'll be back going to buy an SKS for 60 bucks.

>>34668991
>>34669091
Got a link?

File: 20170608_152444.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Aimpoint PRO all day

File: endthepain.jpg (17KB, 673x450px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 673x450px

>>34673392
too far

Ta-11f for my ar. $1360. I love it best optic in my opinion. Never liked the eotech optics

I got a Mk.42 Mod 0 scope pulled off of a SMAW and mounted on an ACOG base on my AR. Because I'm a fucking retard.

What's a good entry level variable optic? Are they worth it over red dots if you aren't shooting long distance?

>>34673486
we all miss it anon

>>34673364
>Romeo

It may very well be a good optic,but I just can't personally install an optic on my rifle with that gay emo name.

>>34674512
It's a Holosun

>>34668971
I went ahead and got a stock carry handle for my AR, though I contemplate nigger-rigging an AUG's stock optics to it.

>>34668971
Irons.

I unironically refuse to pay what those morons choose to charge for optics. With even moderate skill, I can accomplish what I need. If I really needed a 200-yard optic (I don't, in my environment) I would buy something from Walmart and be just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I love the beauty of some of the optics I've looked through. And I'm far from a poorfag, I have over $30k in firearms at a wholesale, just-a-bit more-than-pawnshop level value. And here's the thing: I own a $5k Armasight thermal scope for my AR, because it's fucking worth it to me and can't be beat. I recognize that cutting edge costs money. But no fucking way am I paying $1000 for a glass optic that should be priced at $200, and you dipshits who do are the reason why that's the MSRP. You want it to change, then buy ZERO of the really shit quality scopes and don't buy any other scope until it's at a reasonable price point. There are only two or three optics (not manufacturers, but specific products) that could justify their current price point, except you idiots keep buying. Trust me, if I could sell Hi-Points at $1200 each, I fucking would. They aren't bad guns, so I'd have no qualms on moral grounds; if you're idiot enough to pay that, all's cool. Likewise, there is not ONE optic that currently sells for the $900 to $1300 range that is worth it - nothing you can argue makes the expense worth the relative value. I dare you to even try to prove me wrong.

Now, get into the truly high end optics and you can spend a lot because they're either experimental or are of 99% quality....but there are a shit ton of "we're marginally better than the sub-$100 WalMart Bushnell rack model" optics that cover that $100 to $900 range. Not ONE of them is worth the cost for their relative benefit.

So, I have a $5k thermal on my AR, and love it. I have a $90 WalMart Bushnell on my .308 and .375, and a $40 WalMart Bushnell on each of my .22's. Love them too.

File: IMG_3066.jpg (528KB, 1143x857px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1143x857px

>What kind of glass do you have on your rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty, /k/?
1P76 Rakurs and 1P63 Obzor. Looking into a Trijicon MRO for a more modern western optic too for non-AK guns that don't have a side rail
>How much did it cost
Rakurs was $360 and Obzor was I think $425 if I remember correctly
>what do you use it for
Looking authentic and cool and for just shooting I guess
>how do you like it?
A lot, I like the Obzor better but both are really nice. No batteries required on either, both use tritium for low light situations. You've got to get used to a chin weld though, but once you do they're great

>>34669108
Actually a damn fine optic. Don't be embarrassed about what you paid for it. You could pay ten times as much for a 10-20% improvement.

You call it "the Hi-Point of optics." Sure, maybe. But remember, Hi-Point works, much as it drives Ruger and S&W fanboys completely batshit crazy, and for probably 40 bucks here you've got an optic reasonably comparable to something a fuckton more expensive. You're free to focus on the minor benefits you'd get from paying $300 more, but why? Are you that guy who wants to pay $20k for penis enlargement surgery because you're insecure about your 6" penis? Get over it and realize that what you're working with is just fine, and that you can chase that last tiny percent for all of your money and time and you'll never be twice as good.

Moral of the story: keep your inexpensive Bushnell optic and spend one box of ammo trying to fine tune the optic, your firearm, and your skill using it. You'll do better than the guy who buys a $600 optic and doesn't know how to zero it in.

>>34668971
Mostly leupold, though I have just fitted a Leica to one of my better rifles.
The Leica was £1400 ish and the last leupold I bought was £730.
Both worth it, even though ive not had time to shoot with either of them since fitting them a few weeks ago.

>>34674584
>an Aimpoint T2 is only marginally better than an NCSTAR piece of shit
I will give you $50 to never post again.

>>34673402
Just search "acog" on ebay. I just bought one off there last night for 50 buck free shipping

>>34674584
Worth is entirely subjective and if you're one of those mouthbreathers who unironically thinks ACOGs should be $200 NIB just off yourself and spare us

>>34674355
I think so. Vortex crossfire ii 1-4 seems okay.

>>34674584
Economies of scale dictate that buying kess will increase price, not decrease. The morons paying 5k are funding assembly line improvements that trickle down to the budget stuff

>>34674584
If you were wanting to put on a display of incredible ignorance regarding how markets work and the economic elements of production, I applaud you.

Why are these threads always crammed with budgetshit and people trying to convince others that they should never pay more than $80 for an optic

>>34674355
Depends on what you mean by entry level. Strike Eagle is good for $300~.

File: tmgjS8g.gif (574KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 500x281px

>>34674584
You could've told us that you're retarded in far fewer words champ

>>34674717
>>34674752
>>34674777

Ironic note for the record: Not one of the shitposters chose to respond to my challenge of naming an optic in the $100 to $900 range defending their relative value against a less expensive counterpart.

But hey, just like everything else in life, another market source (my guess is the Chinese) will figure out that it isn't that hard, and start making products of similar or identical quality at 20% of the price, and that benefits us all, except the ass-rapers that have been charging $1k for optics that should sell for $200. No doubt there will be a period where these (perhaps Chinese) knockoffs have QC issues, but they'll have completely fucked over the market share of the lazy American and European made brands that can't figure out how to run a business without massive amounts of market fat in the mix.

By the way, having been the owner of a number of optics, and had friends who own many more, don't think for a moment that my buddy's $1300 ACOG has fewer problems than my $150 knockoff. Choosing equally between the two, his is better. I'd add $50 or so for the additional crispness and maybe another $50 for low light brightness. But beyond that, his $1300 ACOG has had alignment issues galore and has had to be factory serviced twice. Randomly, without warning, shoots 2 feet high at 75 yards, or 9 inches left, never predictable. The third time, they just told him that he should try "reseating the prism" which entails smacking the butt of your rifle hard on the ground a couple of times until the ACOG shoots on target again, then re-zeroing if needed.

Fuck me, for $1300 I don't want that kind of problem. I haven't had any problems at all with my cheap ass clone, and the additional brightness and crispness of the $1300 version damn sure isn't THAT much of an improvement.

>>34675060
I thought like this until I actually used stuff.

I got to use a pair of Steiner binoculars on a recent hunt and holy fuck. Going back to my Nikon's felt like there was sand in my eyes.

Which is a better 1-4x: Vortex Crossfire II or Leupold VX-2?

>>34675060
>more baseless and anecdotal evidence as to why scale of production, contracts, QC etc. etc. don't matter, just the fact child laborers in Chinese sweatshops can produce inferior clones at a fraction of the price
I'm starting to think you're just poor.

>>34675060
>without massive amounts of market fat in the mix.
Is this what the 50 centers are calling child labor laws and actual quality control now...

>>34675160
No he totally has over 30k in guns and a 5k thermal. That's why he uses $150 Barska glass you see.

>>34670587
I just got a Spitfire 3x for my AR. It seems pretty nice but the eye relielf is so short I've realised that I have to to take the BUIS off to get it in a useable postion .

>>34675060
I've used these shitty ACOG clones you're dry humping and can tell you that you're fucking high if you think they are anywhere close to the performance or quality of an actual ACOG. You sound like the kind of kid who goes to the range with a Bushnell variable every month or so and, because it didn't lose zero from going from your car to the benchrest, declares it a rival to a Schmidt & Bender PMII/LP.

>>34674707
>saying things are worth it without even trying them
Youre one of tyose people who just like to show off your wealth arent you?

>Vortex strikefire 2
It's on an AR. I like it. Well made. Seems rugged enough for any practical purpose. Clear. Decent fov, Holds zero. paid $189 new
>burris fastfire 3
Use on pistols. Well made, rugged for what it is. Small fov. Holds zero. Paid $100 used
>Vortex crossfire 2 3x9
Perfect for a variety of application. Anything from .270 M77 to a savage 93 17hmr to a 10/22. Well built. rugged. Holds zero. paid $109 new. Great value
>truglo red dot open sight
Use it on 22lr rifles and pistols. Seems fragile. holds zero perfectly on 22lr. Great fov. $59 new
>fieldsport micro red dot
It has held zero thru about 500rds on a Mossberg 500 12g. Paid $20 new on amazon. For that price I am pleased with it

File: TA11H-308-2_2.jpg (11KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x500px

>>34668971
TA11H-308 ~$1300

The thing's magic. Feels like it's doing most of the work sometimes.

Only complaint is in full sun the reticule is way too bright, to the point that I've put tape over almost all of the fiber optic, and for anything past about 300m, I'll cover up the rest with my offhand.

>>34675112
This much is true, I'll admit. For a ton cheaper I can hit 75 or 80% of higher end optics, but man, using a really stellar optic is addictive.

>>34675741
I have the fieldsport on my browning buckmark. I love that little dangle. It's way too good for only costing $20. I'm going to get one for my 10/22 sometime soon.

>>34675160
>Still not naming a specific optic that doesn't have an equivalent knock off that's 1/3 the price.

I understand if this is hard for you, man. I know, ever since you were the kid in high school whose parents bought you the latest fad in shoes/jeans/shirts/etc., your identity has depended on being able to say "I own a _____, and therefore I'm cool and everyone else isn't!" I do feel for you, and want you to know that everyone at /k/ still loves you, some of us just might want to actually say fuck Nikon and Trijicon, we'll get something 80% as good, maybe 100% as good when you factor in poor QC, for half the price.

But it's ok. You're totally cooler than me, I couldn't afford the $300 Nike's when I was in high school, so I made do with vastly inferior foot coverings that were wholly inadequate and barely even supported my feet walking to the mailbox, much less allowed any athletic advantage. I may as well have been in a wheelchair for what limited usefulness I had back then. Thank God I eventually was able to afford Armani suits and Brunello Cucinelli shoes so that I could become a stockbroker.

File: mod 1.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>34668971
>LR
Steiner mx5i 5-25x and US optics 3-17x
>16''-18''
Vortex Razor HD II 1-6x and US optics 1-8x
>SBRs n shit
Aimpoint T2, Comp m4, Pro

Recently put a 1-6x on a SBR for shits n giggs

>>34675187
Don't give a fuck if some Chinese kid or political prisoner is doing the polishing and packaging. Or even if they're putting the glass in the tube; fact is that they're still doing a better job with less than Joe in Detroit who wants $37 an hour.

What I care about is that I don't want to pay $1000 for something that I can get a roughly equivalent product for a SHIT TON less without the pimped-out name brand, what don't you get about that? If my Chinese-tier or lower-end American tier knockoff has a problem, I could replace it three or four times before I get close to paying what an "elite" optics company thinks I should. Strange thing is, my "low end" stuff doesn't really fail. At worst, it just has shittier battery life and a more plasticky outer shell. The internals do just fine, at a massively lower price.

File: 1500485953270.png (886KB, 1023x571px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1023x571px

>>34674523
This. Sig vehemently denies it, but the well-informed consumer knows their lies. All the same features in a near-identical housing at the same price point? C'mon now.

So I'm looking to get a scope for my . 308 vz24. My budget is around $250 and the max distance I'm planning on shooting at is 600 yards. Any suggestions? Bit overwhelmed with reticle choice.

File: WP_20170611_002[1].jpg (1MB, 1528x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1528x1936px

>>34676093
Stop being poor you butthurt nigger.

>>34677021
...and still, not one post that can name a sub-$1k name brand scope that can't be matched pretty closely by something half the price. Guess there's only shit coffee, regular coffee, or Starbucks white mocha frappuccino soy latte designed especially for fags at six times the price of regular coffee.

File: WP_20161213_003[2].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>34677087
>Nrrrrrr, the $200 ricer clones are JUST AS GOOD goy :'^
Shut the fuck up you impoverished faggot, maybe if you had any experience with the real shit you'd see how you're retarded swearing that a $170 Holosun is just as good as a T-2 or that a $180 Barska is comporable to an actual TA31F. Fortunately for this thread, I'm here, having owned both sides, and can say you're just another butthurt povertyfag trying to rationalize his compromises made in the name of finances. Now post your guns, nigger.

>>34676093
>Still not naming a specific optic that doesn't have an equivalent knock off that's 1/3 the price.
No such things exist. Those cheaper prices always come at a price. Do you not understand basic economics? Do you think WalMart manages to price things lower than the competition with a wave of a wand? You can get cheaper knockoffs, but in the end that's all they really are; cheap knockoffs. A Bushnell is not a Schmidt & Bender. Why you are having trouble comprehending this is beyond me.

>>34676093
not wearing dior, and bespoke shoes made by an Italian hermit whose the only son of the only son of the only son of the greatest shoe shiner to ever shine the pope's shoes.

>I mean come on poor fags am i right?

>>34674584
Until you provide any sort of evidence that you own what you say you own you just come off as a complete liar

>>34677279
Is it owning $30k in guns or a $5k thermal sight that is unbelievable to you?

I've collected firearms since I was a teen, and never sold one, though I've horse traded a little when it came to upgrading. To be fair, nearly all of my ammo stash (which takes up my entire walk-in closet by this point) is the result of a big family and everyone knowing that it's easy to buy ammo for me for birthdays/Christmas/anniversary/whatever. I don't think $30k in guns is really all that over the top for a decent gun collection. Most people own a car that cost more than that new, right? So why is that so unbelievable to you?

The thermal sight I have is an Armasight Zeus 336. Went hog hunting with a friend who had one, and I was totally floored. I literally bought one that weekend. That's a far bit different than plain glass optics where I can do nearly everything I want with a $200 scope, and a $1k scope is moderately but not shockingly better. I just don't find the need to grab any of those $300-$1k optics that don't really do much to tickle my willies for the extra bucks. If you do, cool beans. Nothing stopping you, I just personally don't see a strong correlation between price and image quality in a lot of optics within that range. When my buddy's more expensive optic has a better image than mine, but I have to look back and forth a few times to define exactly how much better, it doesn't give me the wow factor that I got looking through a thermal, it gives me a much more moderate "if these were on the same shelf and close to the same price, I'd choose the one my buddy has" feeling.

>>34677134
>He unironically thinks a T2 is a great optic.

Wew lad.

>>34677431
Dude, I'm still not seeing any evidence of this.

File: 88280ffff3778403b452f07d2923e80c.jpg (286KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1600x1066px

>>34677441
They are great red dots. The industry standard actually.

>>34677431
>A $5k thermal
>Armasight Zeus 336
Holy shit I hope you're joking, you got fucked over hard

>>34668971
>Glass
Ive got a bead on the end of my Mav88
>How much did it cost
came on the end of the barrel
>what do you use it for
aiming
>how do you like it
Would be better if i had proper irons, but poorfags cant be choosers

>>34677431
you came in here flinging shit everywhere about how anyone who chooses aimpoint over walmart bullshit is an idiot, don't act like you weren't being a fucking asshole and asking for people to dump all over you and your worthless opinions

File: 1500791569559.jpg (32KB, 727x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 727x480px

>>34670415
>being this new

>>34670552
How do you like it? I have the Vortex 1 on my basic AR. I'm looking at a Vortex 3 for my current build.

>>34677493
>I'm better than you for buying a Bushnell TSR-25 instead of an Aimpoint PRO, look how I saved over $300!
>Now excuse me while I overpay $1000 for this thermal.
Pottery

File: image.jpg (3MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1936px

Aimpoint Carbine Optic for $300. The PROs little brother. I like it.

>>34670488
Here I was thinking I'm the only one with an AUG/MRO combo

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>34669125
>we shoot first now

File: mntstupid.png (43KB, 613x481px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x481px

>>34674584
>Likewise, there is not ONE optic that currently sells for the $900 to $1300 range that is worth it - nothing you can argue makes the expense worth the relative value. I dare you to even try to prove me wrong.

Dear god, why do you allow such heathens to bless thy board?

>>34676228
I can tell you for a fact, acog is stupid good and reliable. 3k rds without re-zero and no thrown rounds (by the scope). On and off the rifle for cleanings,guess what, never need to re-zero! My 27 months in the desert humping a 249 with an acog, being beat to shit. Re-zero once.

Let's see any knock off below 1k do that

>>34676847
Fuck it, get something with an ACSS reticle for shits n gigs.

File: Optics.png (829KB, 697x505px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 697x505px

>>34668971
Пpoклятый гoмoceкcyaлиcт

>>34677495
Everybody starts somewhere anon. Snag up a decent AR when you have the shekels while they're bargain bin prices.

>>34674512
lol. this.

>>34677843
I actually think it looks cool

>>34673287
Your ARs are oddly pleasing. The simplistic look is a good look for sure. Bonus points for having some stealth grey and making it look good.

>>34677134
>it's just mo betta
>trust me :^)

Mind using your words to explain your sentiments. Please try to refrain from irony, memes, sarcasm, or things listed in the product description everyone already knows.

My first AR is coming up and I'm undecided. I mostly want to use it in competition, and rules allow up to 4x magnification, but it's also the gun I'd want to use for HD/SHTF.
Best for competition: low-power scope
HD: eyeballing Aimpoint PRO
Budget compromise: Vortex Spitfire 3x

>>34668971
ACOG is a meme

File: target1.jpg (54KB, 600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x1067px

>>34669091
I picked one of these up too, and put it on my 10/22. The glass on mine was surprisingly good. I can also say, mine holds a zero, very well. Pic related. At about 60 yards.

>>34681783
Anon why do you think a $650 optic made in Sweden would be better than a sub$200 one made in China?

File: 1497564797923.jpg (44KB, 600x776px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x776px

>>34682264
Nice. I'm thinking of getting another one for my vz58 since I need a low power scope.

I've got:
Aimpoint Comp M2 on one rifle, $150
Bushnell SMRS 1-6.5x, $620
TA31F/RMR, Traded for it, I basically have $650 in the TA31 and $400 in the red dot.

They're all on ARs. The ACOG is on my "go to"/"pretend the S will ever HTF" gun, a 14.5" BCM. The Aimpoint is on my 10.5." rifle, the SMRS is going on a 20" I built recently.
My other rifles have irons, as they're all milsurps. I do have an L1A1 kit build that will get a Trilux soon, but NVGs are my next big investment.

>>34674889
Because most gun owners are more miserly than a broke Jew, and too egotistical to admit that's why they buy low quality guns and accessories.

>>34675060
Please provide your experience with manufacturing so we can understand why you think you're educated enough on the topic to tell us "how much things ought to cost."

I suspect that won't occur.

>>34668971
My army rifle has an aimpoint comp 3 but I am nogunz other than that.

>>34681783
Do you also ask why box wine is inferior compared to a 70 year old French vintage? The answer is fucking obvious, the Aimpoint will have better QC, sturdier construction, better glass, and a sharper dot. Even Primary Arms says their product isn't as nice, but they aren't ashamed of that because they never deluded themselves into thinking it ever would be.

File: 1460687994788.jpg (48KB, 420x309px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 420x309px

>>34677541
>being this new

>>34682439
Would you think a 20 dollar bottle of fireclean made in the USA is better than a 10 cent tub of canola oil made in china?

>>34684498
>the Aimpoint will have better QC, sturdier construction
Sounds reasonable. I would expect that while understanding it is difficult to demonstrate easily and succintly. A few anecdotes of experience would be better than nothing, though.
>better glass, and a sharper dot.
This should be easy to prove and even easier so for a guy who owns both. Instead I just see two optics on top of a table and drunken vitriolic rant about brand names and ad homs more than an actual discussion about optics.

File: ThunderRanch.jpg (453KB, 2094x805px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 2094x805px

>>34669137
Its a good choice. I like mine a lot. I use my for HD and at the range, I throw a 3x mag on it and shoot out to 400 yards.

>>34684855
That may be because even beginning to compare the two and saying they're equal is a vapid, ignorant thing to claim. The reply was rude and childish, but not exactly undeserved. A Nagant revolver is not a Manuhrin MR73. Tulammo is not match grade. A Primary Arms is not an Aimpoint.

>>34684336
Purchase justification is a hell of a drug. It's effects are usually compounded if the user is on a budget. I won't fault someone buying a cheap optic for range use, and certainly not quality budget options like Primary Arms and Holosun. But as soon as you start raving how they're just as good as the high dollar options, you've officially entered the territory of delusion. Enjoy your optics for what they are, but please don't expect to come off as rational when you ignore the reasons why they're cheaper to begin with.

File: 20040305.P2.jpg (39KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x400px

I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-12z56 on my durr rifle. Great scope, but I almost wish I had ponied up the extra cash for the Victory V8. Oh well.
Ï'm also in the market for a new scope, as I've got a new gun coming my way.
It's a Marlin 1895 SBL, and I'm planning to keep it as a fun/brush gun, so I'm looking for something a bit handier for using up close.
The Aimpoint Micro H-2 was my first choice, but my mate suggested the Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24 to me, citing it as being what the speed-shooting folks in the IPSC affiliate use here.
If it keeps the same standard as my Swarovski binoculars, it's really not a hard sell, apart from the extra weight over the Aimpoint. Price is also a bit stiffer, but nothing I won't be able to justify after a few weeks of crying. The option of changing magnification on the fly (might just get their throw lever to make it even flyer) also looks real handy.
Not gonna lie though; in due time I'll get both and stick the Aimpoint on the side of the scope and have an even heavier gun while the gadget-obsessed tacticool freak in me squeals with joy. Any other suggestions, or suggestions as to which one I should begin with?

>>34676157
nice setup anon. What u got under the suppressor? FH or MB?

Who makes a good qd mount for a strike eagle?

>>34677493
Check again, bud. Depending on the specific model variant 336, $5k is about right on for the mid-range, depends on what he's got. There are 8 current production models of the 336. The cheaper 336 variants, with lower refresh rate, lower magnification, and smaller objective lens size, can be had for about $3800, but the pricier ones go up to $7700. A good deal might knock a few hundred off of each. You can find refurb units at deep discount sometimes, but even then the higher end ones are going to run over $6k.

>>34668971
Burris XTR 1-4 on a pepr mount.Got it used off a friend for 550 canadian syrup sheckels. It's an okay setup but a bit heavy. Might spring for a lighter mount, but I kinda want to save up for something better.

>>34677204
I think the point is that if you name an excellent $900 optic, there is probably a $300 optic that is reasonably equivalent in most if not all respects in achieving an acceptably similar outcome. I don't think it's about identical performance; he admitted as much when he said that his buddy's optic may have a better overall image, but it's a matter of diminishing returns on value as to how MUCH better.

I personally want the best optics I can afford, and generally that means on my hunting rifle something in the $400-$500 range. Even then, there's huge variation in quality among the available offerings. There's a shit ton of difference between the really horribly low end, almost toy-level sub-$100 optics and the mid range decent ones, but the differences are increasingly less significant (and less worth the expense to many users) once you're dealing with higher price models as opposed to something mid-range. I've seen two models of the same brand (the base model and "next step up" model) side by side with differences so slight I probably wouldn't pay any more at all, while the price difference was $350.

To be fair with this analogy, I get that my hand-me-down Winchester .243, $400 scope, and mid-range ammo isn't going to compete with some $3000 bull barrel sniper special with $2500 optics and match grade mojo rounds. But for deer hunting at sub-200 yard ranges, I'm going to be able to do just fine and reliably hit the kill zone so long as I have done proper scope zero and maintain a bit of practice. With the far more expensive setup, I might be able to take turkey head shots at well over 200 yards, but all that extra ability is superfluous for my purposes, damn sure not worth paying nearly ten times the price, and I will still come home with a clean kill on a deer or boar just about as often as Jack Reacher and his loadout. Things change if I'm hunting mountain goats from across the canyon, for sure.

>>34686523
SFMB. Fuck paying $400 for a 4 prong.

>>34687527
Yeah good point. Maybe with a 3k optic i could make some kind of record breaking 2km sniper shots but i would never try to in the first place. At the 100 yards range i frequent, even iron sights are fine.

File: 3214325326.jpg (80KB, 622x439px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 622x439px

holosun reflect thingy
reticle is a lot cleaner than an eotech and the motion activation is pretty nice

>>34687706
Do you happen to know if those are compatible with magnifiers?

File: CAM00386.jpg (430KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 960x1280px

>>34668971

TA31 ACOG

I think I paid around $600 for it.

I love it. I'm really partial to fixed 4X optics on intermediate caliber carbines, and this is just a great fixed 4X. Leupold HAMR is great too, haven't tried the ELCAN.

>>34672932
Are you in the IDF?

>>34687752
technically all optics are. You're basically just zooming in on the optic in front

File: 1480435337979.jpg (57KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 660x330px

>>34687835
Elcan is the only optic I actually dislike. External adjustments just seem stupid and seem like they add a potential failure point. They're also pretty damned heavy and pretty expensive. They've helped body stackers drop plenty of dudes though so maybe I'm just crazy

>>34687752

i've seen pictures of it used with a magnifier but im not sure of the effectiveness.

>>34687894
True enough.

>>34687908
I'll have to dig deeper into it then.

>>34668971
I have a viper 1-4

pretty nice, but the tacticool knobs are pointless and the reicle is a little too fine to make out easily, for me at least.

>>34674584
Ok

i just bought a 10/22
plan to shoot at a 100yd range
what kind of optic should I use? First time even thinking about buying one, have always use iron sights in the past
budget is < 500

>>34688537
It most likely is a second focal plane scope which means that the reticle is most effective/meant to be used at its highest magnification.

>>34688702
SWFA

>>34687527
> don't think it's about identical performance
Ummmm...
>>34676093
>Still not naming a specific optic that doesn't have an equivalent knock off that's 1/3 the price.
>an equivalent

>>34689632
>.22lr
It's a great value optic but come on

Moving beyond scopes, what about scope rings?
I just got an AR10, going to be a durr rifle, how much am I gonna have to sink on the rings for a scope in addition to the scope itself?

>>34673287
all gabbage

the Eokek is okay

File: 20170424_192759.jpg (2MB, 2880x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2880x2160px

Elcan Specter OS

>>34690378
why not

File: 1493713695640.jpg (255KB, 1024x745px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1024x745px

>>34691262
Who the fuck needs 10x on a .22?
Who the fuck needs a mil-dot on a 22?
Do you have a spotter telling you how to adjust your scope for wind?
On a fucking 22?


Come the fuck on.

>>34669125
Why would someone put an optic on luger???

how do you guys store your guns with scopes so the scopes dont get messed up? I use gun socks on my guns but i have to re zero it every time

>>34691354
>use gun socks on my guns but i have to re zero it every time
nigger what the fuck

File: 061.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>34668971
>What kind of glass do you have on your rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty?
PK-A Venezuela
>How much did it cost?
$450ish I think
>What do you use it for and how do you like it?
I love it, great battery life, you can probably drive over it with a tank and it will still work.

>>34675060
>works on my machine: gun addition
First off, one person you know having a bad time with a product doesn't mean every one of them is shit. My buddy swears up and down by Glock, yet when I fired one it had multiple malfunctions and was highly innacurate. Does that mean Glock is a shit brand with objectively trash pistols that couldn't hit a barn while inside a barn? No. A buddy of mine bought a brand new Toyota Camry and he had to take it back to shop multiple times for issues. Is Camry on large a shit car that can't even make it across a small town? No. Sometimes you just get dealt a shit hand, suck it up.

Second, Trijicon ACOG's are $1300 because they know people will pay that much for them, and they get their money from military contracts anyway so it doesn't hurt their profits one bit to charge an obviously high amount.

Third, "mine works" is not a fucking argument since I can easily counter with my buddies Bushnell was the most inaccurate piece of shit and wouldn't stay on the rails. Meanwhile my Vortex 3x I got for 300$ has been running just fine with no issues. What are you going to do now, gaylord?

>>34685341
>That may be because even beginning to compare the two and saying they're equal is a vapid, ignorant thing to claim.
I'm not even that guy who was saying they're equal. I'm just a guy that owns a holosun. I've used compm4s for years but not H/T model aimpoints to any great extent. I don't make any claims about inquality or equality, since I don't have a standing to do so.

>The reply was rude and childish, but not exactly undeserved.
A borderline shitpost is still a shitty post however much warranted it is. It's almost as bad as the asinine "I agree," or a grandpa-tier gun meme like " well our .45 has won us x number of wars - just my 2 cents" responses.

Why not reply, "I own both. The x optic has more cloudy glass, the dot isn't as crisp, and the mounting system isn't as sturdy." Instead we get
>Shut the fuck up you impoverished faggot, maybe if you had any experience with the real shit
Maybe he could enlighten someone who "doesn't have the real shit." If his intention is to change the mind(s) of people that these budget red dots are worse he's not really proving anything. If his intention is to just come here and insult anonymous people, he's doing a better job of that.

> Tulammo is not match grade.
Correct. I can easily prove this using my own groups or an article someone else made to prove this point.

>A Primary Arms is not an Aimpoint.
You see the thing is you two keep just repeating x is better than y. You haven't even brought why. How do you expect someone like me or the other guy to believe you? Price isn't everything as demonstrated by things like fireclean overcharging and being "critically acclaimed" by the industry shilling with no real performance metrics.

>>34677474
those are t1s, and I'd call the t1 the industry standard. not that many people have moved to the t2 yet because significantly pricier for marginal gains.

>>34674749
Dude there's a billion different listings. Can you please tell me who the seller was

>>34691456
boy if you really need proof your chinkshit isn't as good you juat need to fucking off yourself right now.

holy fuck i hate poorfags who try to convince themselves they own hot shit, you're just like those faggots who rice out a civic and say they have a sports car.

File: bb6d7063ce82938a86c76371e51addc2--royalty-free-image-young-man.jpg (13KB, 396x286px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 396x286px

>This thread

>>34689737
Ah, I see your problem. You can't wrap your brain around the semantics. Identical and equivalent don't mean the same thing. Identical means exactly that. Equivalent takes into account the user's intended purpose and the likely outcome. A baseball bat and a lead pipe are far from identical, but for stopping a back alley beatdown, they are equivalent. The fact that you spent $200 for your Louisville Slugger and can also hit baseballs with much greater efficiency than a $5 hardware store purchase is irrelevant.

>>34691402
>"Mine works" is not an argument
>Proceeds with evidence that his Vortek works to show that it is better than his buddy's Bushnell that had multiple problems.
>Beams with pride at his own QED "wut, nigga?" argument

Kek

>>34692240
I think it's one dude who is thoroughly convinced quality optics are only priced as much as they are because of brand name and nothing more. Probably just baiting at this point, but it has destroyed the thread either way

File: Glass.jpg (211KB, 1279x788px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1279x788px

Aside from some cheapo red dot stuff for .22LRs, my noteworthy glass is just a Steiner Military M5Xi 5-25x56 with MSR reticle and an oldskool Aimpoint CompM3.

No complaints for either. Would buy again. (though a PRO would be fine to replace the CompM3 nowadays)

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

Holy fucking Christ

No a PA slash Holosun isn't on par with an Aimpoint dot. An Aimpoint has night vision capabilities, has more brightness settings, has a noticeable blue tint, objectively has more QC put into it, and in my experience has a sharper dot that doesn't bloom as much with a magnifier. Picrelated is not something you could get with a $180 red dot, there will be a lot more everywhere because the glass isn't as good because that's just one more corner they cut to bring their product down to sub $200 levels. These are the facts. Get the fuck over it and stop being so autistic you children. It's utterly asinine this has to even be pointed out, but apparently we have actually come to that point. The phrase "you get what you pay for" is absolutely true with optics, and some retarded reference to someone figuring out they can market slightly modified canola oil as something more with a price hike doesn't change that.

Jesus Christ.

>>34692354
>you get what you pay for" is absolutely true with optics
unless you buy an Elcan

>>34692385
We don't mention Elcan.

In all seriousness that is a good example of something being far too costly than it should be, but I was primarily focused on "pay cheap, get cheap".

>>34692205
>trust me it's good stuff
You sure convinced me with those hot opinions.
>i hate poorfags who try to convince themselves they own hot shit
Strawman much? I never have implied that it is equal, better, or lesser than the aimpoint. The only one who is defending anything based solely on brand and cost is you. If it's so easily better it should be just as easily demonstrable.
>you juat need to fucking off yourself right now.

>runs out of arguments and evidence
>switches to ad homs
i cry everytiem

>>34692354
>An Aimpoint has night vision capabilities,
So does the PA optic.
>has more brightness settings
Ok that's a good point.
>has a noticeable blue tint
Both have a blue tint, the PA is just moreso. Again people that defend 20mm objective lens red dots will also claim that field of view is irrelevant since you shoot with both eyes open. This seems like an insignificant issue for the kind of use an RDS is designed for.
>objectively has more QC put into it
I believe that. FWIW the PA optics have great warranty service and will get you a working one without hassle.
>and in my experience has a sharper dot that doesn't bloom as much with a magnifier.
My PA seems crisp enough with the chevron and BDC under a magnifier. Both are much worse compared to an EOTech. This is almost a moot point anyways since aimpoint apologists are nearly universally opposed to magnifiers+RDS and insist on LPVOs instead.

So far you pay $400 more dollars for slightly less blue tint, more brightness, and a slightly crisper dot, and some QC.

>The phrase "you get what you pay for" is absolutely true with optics
see>>34692385

>>34692289
Maybe. But I see the point that when I have a $400 optic that is awesome, and some gearfag with a penchant for fashion wants to name drop a $1200 optic with pretty similar capability that might be marginally better in a side by side comparison, and then act like I'm hunting with a piece of PVC pipe with a dollar store lens duct taped on it, ours annoying. If he's willing to pay the $800 difference, fine, but the small added benefit is a point of massively diminishing returns.

And, let's be honest. That guy brandfagging may our may not own the high level optic, but he it's even massively Moyer likely that he wouldn't need the difference for what he's doing with it, and in fact few people would. It becomes a matter of those people who think dumping a lot of money makes them a respected authority on some topic, or worse grafts then a special skill or advantage.

Just my perspective, but then I was a PGA Teaching Pro and it got laughable seeing the guys who had so little skill but dropped several grand on equipment and then sat around debating the merits of some tech improvement that was never going to make a difference in their game until they were MUCH better golfers overall. There are some great golfers who love to knock these guys down a notch by offering to play 9 holes with a cheap 7 iron against the smug brat's whole bag of goodies. Equipment choices can make a lot of difference in the fine tuning, but few people ever get to the point where midrange equipment doesn't meet 99% off their needs just fine.

File: working-Aimpoint-Fire-web-670x412.jpg (82KB, 670x412px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 670x412px

>>34692459
>So far you pay $400 more dollars for slightly less blue tint, more brightness, and a slightly crisper dot, and some QC.
and bomb proof reliability

>>34677021
>Eotech

Jej

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

20KB, 450x449px

>>34692478
Wow, your aimpoint went through a slightly less rigorous destruction process than a child's toy and survived!

>>34692459
>So far you pay $400 more dollars for slightly less blue tint, more brightness, and a slightly crisper dot, and some QC.
>this optic has measurable improvements over mine, but I don't think those are important so fuck you
What is your major malfunction, anon

>>34692488
Why doesn't the US military just use Holosuns then?

>>34692491
He's poor and has to justify his purchase

>>34692494
They don't have the capability to supply and fill large govt contracts.

>>34692459
Wait a fucking minute, are you that one Eotech shill?

>>34692501
They're made in China, anon. They can shit them out faster than Aimpoint can.

>>34692507
EOTech's thermal drift issues have been fixed, and it really wasn't even that bad to begin with.

>>34684498
The answer to that apparently isn't obvious to you because you're fucking retarded

>>34692507
It's him
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/33702046/#33706538

>>34692491
>minor technical differences that do not pertain much at all to usage
>getting upset over people thinking they are similar quality
It would seem like the differences are more esoteric than actually impactful. I would imagine that's why some people can come to the conclusion that they are similar in performance.

>>34692494
Why doesn't the army use T1s then?

>>34692501
That's patently untrue. China could do it easily.

>>34692507
Are you one of the aimpoint shills?

>>34692520
Oh fucking hell, I'm not even touching that inane contrarian's shit

>>34692520
What am I looking at here?

>>34692521
>Why doesn't the army use T1s then?
Probably because they use T2s.....

File: ballistic_cqreticle_dia.jpg (23KB, 423x252px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 423x252px

>>34668971
Burris 3x

>>34692534
>us army
>t2s

heh

>>34692521
>this dot has better glass, better brightness, a better reticle, better QC, but they perform the same
Why not just get nothing but $80 dots then, idiot?

>>34692555
Both have, shitty, blue tinted glass, the PA is just worse. The PA is bright enough for bright deserts and the PA has a fuzzier reticle but it's better for magnifying because of BDC while having other features like the 65 MOA ring, so it comes down to what features you want your reticle to have at that point. If there was an $80 red dot that did the same as the PA holosun I would have bought that instead.

I consider the PA optic to be like the morakniv of the RDS world. Sure there are marginally better and more expensive knives out there, but you can't argue against buying a fixed general purpose knife the morakniv. I would say the same about the PA.

>>34692476
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder with people degrading your preference for budget optics. Fine, that's understandable.

But at the very least you're being just as malignant by propping up the original argument that any brand quality optic wasn't worth and that anyone who pays that premium is an "idiot" >>34674584

This is what people are arguing against. If you personally don't think the improvement a more expensive optic offers are worth it, fine, that's your issue. Pointing out what those advantages are is not brandwhoring, and anyone who is willing to get the better stuff isn't guaranteed to be some unskilled moron who is trying to compensate low ability.

>>34692586
>Both have, shitty, blue tinted glass, the PA is just worse
>mistaking intended contrast enhancement for subpar glass
wewlad

>>34677134
>>34685341
>>34692205
>>34692555
Not an argument.

>>34692586
> the PA has a fuzzier reticle but it's better for magnifying because of BDC while having other features like the 65 MOA ring
You're getting Holosun confused with PA.
>the PA holosun
PrimaryArms and Holosun are too different brands with different products under their name.
>Sure there are marginally better and more expensive knives out there, but you can't argue against buying a fixed general purpose knife the morakniv. I would say the same about the PA.
But no one is saying people shouldn't buy a PA. The whole argument is whether people should even bother with more expensive options.

>>34692459
>So does the PA optic.
You're right, my mistake.
>Both have a blue tint, the PA is just moreso.
The tint on the T2 is essentially nonexistent, and if the PA has more tint then that's something it has that the T2 doesn't.
>I believe that.
You should.
>My PA seems crisp enough
I'm glad you think so, but that still doesn't dispel my point that it's not AS crisp.
>So far you pay $400 more dollars for slightly less blue tint, more brightness, and a slightly crisper dot, and some QC.
I'm sorry you don't think those things warrant paying more, but plenty people do. Different needs, different wants, whatever floats your boat etc etc etc etc. All I've pointed out are elements that the Aimpoint offering excels at compared to the budget options. Whether you think those are worth the extra cost is irrelevant.
>see>>34692385
See >>34692403, and just because Elcans cost more than they should does not dispel the fact that if you pay more for an optic, the vast majority of the time you're going to get more out of it in regards to features, build quality and performance. Exceptions to the rule, by definition, do not dispel the rule.

File: 1499651669024.jpg (730KB, 3489x2343px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 3489x2343px

>>34673287
That little bugger on the bottom is cute

>>34692664
remove this photo rn

File: holosun.png (125KB, 1228x399px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1228x399px

>>34692627
>no no! You see when x does it - it's a defect, but when y does it, it's a feature!
Literally every collimated sight is blue tinted to varying degrees from chinkshit and slavshit to swedeshit and amerishit. Extra blue will contrast even better according to your logic.

>>34692640
Same manufacturer. Pic related

>The whole argument is whether people should even bother with more expensive options.
The argument is if the PA is effectively equal to the aimpoint.

>>34692656
>The tint on the T2 is essentially nonexistent
I might have to look into that, since I'm more familiar with the T1 and haven't used a T2 yet.

>All I've pointed out are elements that the Aimpoint offering excels at
I'd call that a stretch to use excel, but it does outperform for sure in those categories.
>Exceptions to the rule
You did literally use the word absolutely. That's just semantics, though. I agree with you in this case.

You are very reasonable. I'm going to assume you're the owner of a T1/T2. I think you made a very informed purchase for the right reasons and I hope you enjoy using it.

File: MRO.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

I have a MRO on my Colt M4gery, I also built a budget 80% build that I need to get an optic for.

>>34692695
>Literally every collimated sight is blue tinted to varying degrees
>implying I implied that and that I wasn't implying the tint is intentional across the board
try and see the implications here; you're a fucking idiot

>>34692707
>the level of blue contrast directly correlates to a lack of build quality
That's what you're implying.

>>34692695
> I'm going to assume you're the owner of a T1/T2
I've owned an H1, a PA, and currently own a T2.
> I think you made a very informed purchase for the right reasons and I hope you enjoy using it.
Thank you.
>The argument is if the PA is effectively equal to the aimpoint.
And it isn't.

Equal
adjective
as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with):

>>34692715
oh look you are a fucking idiot and are implying my post wasn't laughing at your misconceived notion that the tint is a result of shitty glass and not an intentional design feature to enhance contrast. fucking idiot.

I actually just picked up a Primary Arms 3x Prism Scope. I'm having a problem with it though, it seems the reticle is canted when its mounted on my rifle, but when its just sitting on the table, it looks perfectly straight. Any ideas?

>>34692695
>Same manufacturer
Having the same OEM overseas does not teh same company make. Especially if they offer different products.
>The argument is if the PA is effectively equal to the aimpoint.
Well that should be a pretty short argument, because it's easily proven there are things that differentiate performance between the two. Either way, see the post from the poster that started all of this early on where the anon insists that literally none of the more expensive optic options are worth their pricepoint and that people are "idiots" for not boycotting them and then demanding people tell him what pricey optic has an equivalent that's "1/3 the price". This is what has spurred the hostile replies and the debate in general. No one has ever said in this thread, that I can see anyways, that no one should ever buy a PA or even that PAs were bad in general.

>>34672932
I have been trying to figure out what the hell this optics is called for months. Thank you! I wish to join you in running in the 90's.

>>34692762
>teh
Brb I'm just going to go throw myself over a bridge.

>>34692736
mount gun in vise, place bubble level on top rail, level the rifle. Place a piece of string with weight on end about 10 ft away. Look at string through scope, if string is lined up with BDC then the scope is level, if not then contact PA.

>>34692769
While I'm already correcting my dumbfuck typos
>and then demanding people tell him what pricey optic has an equivalent that's "1/3 the price"
should read
>and then demanding people tell him what pricey optic doesn't have an equivalent that's "1/3 the price"

>>34692783
Thanks, I'll give that a try

>>34692684
>HUD is an optic

>>34692720
effectively
adverb
1) adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result
2) in effect : virtually

>>34692729
>both x and y optics have reduced light transmission compared to other offerings
>No, you see when y brand is reducing the light transmission to your eye it's exclusively because it's so good while when x has a marginally worse but similar effect it's simultaneously because it's poor quality.

Care to demonstrate how you know this, enlightened one?

>>34692762
>because it's easily proven there are things that differentiate performance between the two.
You know that's what I would think until aimpoint shills just say they're better without any articles, links, etc on a consistent basis.

>Either way, see the post from the poster that started all of this early on where the anon insists that literally none of the more expensive optic options are worth their pricepoint and that people are "idiots" for not boycotting them
I get where the defensive vitriol is coming from because that guy's statements are untenable. You guys could still post some articles or other resources that demonstrate the aimpoint's superiority. I love reading technical details and tests done on these sort of things.

File: Untitled.png (223KB, 1269x597px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1269x597px

>>34692695
On the same page for their MDADS, PA has the manufacturer listed as themselves when it's well known they're manufactured by the same company in China. Holosun doesn't make their dots.

whats the difference between:


https://www.amazon.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope/dp/B00GR79BPA/ref=pd_sbs_200_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00GR79BPA&pd_rd_r=GATJ1V8AM4TQDCCZAFBV&pd_rd_w=Ql1XK&pd_rd_wg=QBh68&psc=1&refRID=GATJ1V8AM4TQDCCZAFBV


and


https://www.amazon.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope/dp/B00ZGM7C80/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_200_tr_t_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1MTPQJR90MXHV0TXVMTE

>>34692813
>1) adequate to accomplish a purpose
That's incredibly subjective. As I've said, what works for you doesn't work for others.

This has degraded to semantics regardless and really doesn't pertain to the original argument anyways.

>>34692825
One has mil dot reticle with MOA turrets and the other has mil quad reticle with mil turrets. Also different style of parallax adjustment.

Get the one with mil turrets and learn how to use milliradian measurements.

https://gundigest.com/explained-mil-miliradian-and-minute-of-angle

>>34692813
>You know that's what I would think until aimpoint shills just say they're better without any articles, links, etc on a consistent basis.
That's a bit petty on your part and kind of ties in with what I said earlier about you having a chip on your shoulder. Disagreeing with someone out of spite doesn't really accomplish anything, unless you're just looking for an online fight.
>I get where the defensive vitriol is coming from because that guy's statements are untenable
Which is exactly why they were responded to in kind. This is 4chan, not a forum with a twenty year pedigree that has a rigid code of conduct enforced by a diligent mod staff. If someone acts like a buffoon, complete with calling anyone who doesn't agree with him "idiots". Do you really think that kind of post, making claims like an actual ACOG being worth only a hundred more than a $200 Chinese clone, is going to illicit a response containing spreadsheets of objective data?

>>34692488
Good idea. Guns should be made of nentindium.

>>34692818
Oh, I didn't know there was an actual PA branded dot. Now your argument makes sense. I just thought the other anon was referring to the ACSS partnered holosun RDS that I had in my screen capture.

>>34692829
It's only subjective because an RDS doesn't have a binary metric to measure against if it's good enough for most of its specific uses. That's why I believe these PA/holosun sights can be effectively equal to the T1/T2 in regards to the performance expectations of an RDS. It's also why I don't shit all over someone like you who, buying the more expensive RDS, can actually inform me something I don't know like the T2 having better optical clarity and state objectively true reasons why you would buy it over something like the PA/holosun.

>>34692829
see this>>34692846 please buy a scope that has matching reticle measurements with turrent adjustments. Don't buy a mil reticle scope with MOA adjustments and vice versa. Mil is probably a better idea to begin with if you're starting from scratch and want to take it seriously.

>>34692857
That wasn't me, I'm a different person.

>This is 4chan, not a forum... is going to illicit a response containing spreadsheets of objective data?
/g/ and /v/ both post hardware infographs full of test data to support their claims. That's not out of place on 4chan. It is seemingly out of place on /k/, however, to validate statements. The audience to their posts is not limited to that specifc poster either, so there's no reason to consistently not post that info either if it's quite readily and easily available.

>>34692813
>You guys could still post some articles or other resources that demonstrate the aimpoint's superiority.
Here's what you're kinda not getting. On the range, the differences can be glossed over. The Aimpoint will still have an edge in glass, optic, brightness, controls, more rugged finish, and an undeniably better QC process put into it. And these things can be made apparent to even a guy who does nothing but plink at a 50 yard gong with his rifle. Some think those differences are worth paying an extra $400, some don't. Different strokes for different folks.

What the Primary Arms doesn't have going for it are years upon years of in the field use that attest to an astounding ruggedness, build quality, and overall dependability. Once you step away from the mindset of merely punching paper at the range, this issue comes into focus. For someone who actually goes out into the shit or expects to defend his life, this is a huge factor. For someone who is building a rifle meant to see them through the collapse of civilization, and this is probably the only thing that really applies to /k/, that is also a big deal-breaker. The Aimpoint has pedigree. The Primary Arms does not. You can call that paying for a brand name, but it's really paying for a guarantee of performance and quality in even the most adverse of conditions, and that can be a very real purchase factor for some people.

>>34692916
>That's why I believe these PA/holosun sights can be effectively equal to the T1/T2 in regards to the performance expectations of an RDS
That depends on what the performance expectations for a red dot are. Again, yours may differentiate from others. I preferred the glass clarity and dot crispness of my T2 over my PA, along with better controls for adjusting brightness. I might be able to perform around the same with my old PA, but the advantages the T2 offers to me over it are very stark and clear, and I'm willing to pay more for those than settle for not having them while having the same grouping performance. My expectations and wants with it were not met, particularly since I had an H1 before the PA.

>>34692932
I really only consider pedigree as what options to investigate first or to default to if conditions are equal. There are documented torture tests done on both optics that demonstrate both can withstand a lot of punishment.

This is also coming from a guy who, for an anecdote, broke his aimpoint on a combat deployment from a nothing spectacular event. I'm inclined to think the PA/holosun is less rugged but there isn't really a lot of info out there about it, though most of it is exceedingly quite positive.

File: image013.jpg (26KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 495x495px

>>34692916
>Oh, I didn't know there was an actual PA branded dot

>>34693006
That may be how it works for you but for others the stellar reputation Aimpoint has earned over a decade of issued use is worth a lot by itself, to say nothing of the other perks an Aimpoint will offer over a Primary Arms. That's going to be worth far more than a few youtube videos showing torture tests, many of which aren't exactly concurrent with real world usage. There's also the issue of longevity. Aimpoint optics have proven they will last an absurdly long time before needing maintenance. Primary Arms does not have that, they are relatively new. Again, this ties in to the guarantee a brand has earned.

There's also the issue of lemons. How many lemons do we get from the manufacturer who makes the PA and Holosun red dots? It's certainly not hard to find reports of those clunking out, and those have been seen much less infrequent usage and hardship than an Aimpoint. This isn't to say Aimpoints are infallible. After all, you said you had an experience showcasing just that. But those are quite rare, and who knows how long it had been used out in a hellish deployment area.

The Primary Arms and Holosun dots are great value, and I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise in this thread. Pedigree is a very big thing to many however, and until Primary Arms or Holosun manages to land a military contract that pits them against extreme environments in wars that go on for nearly a decade and a half, that's going to be a huge statement of quality speaking for Aimpoint that they will never have.

File: 1-123.jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x600px

Anybody ever tried an ATIBAL MROC? It's a 3x prism scope with Chevron BDC. Obviously supposed to be some kind of budget ACOG. The reviews have been pretty great and ATIBAL in general has been impressing lately. Their 1-8 scope and the warranty they offer is supposedly the reason PA now has lifetime warranties.

>>34693050
I can totally understand that sentiment seeing as how I have other optics that I will use if I need to go in harms way. It's different that just saying, "It's an aimpoint, of course it's better and you're a fool to think it's even close!"

>>34691315
is not luger

>>34692278
>missing the point, this badly
You're not that bright, are you?

File: ALX_7584.jpg (3MB, 2896x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2896x1944px

Is the COMP M4 really worth all that dosh? I'm seriously considering it for my M4A1 block I

>>34693295
>Is the COMP M4 really worth all that dosh?
No, try to find a used GI one on ebay for less than $400.

>>34693295
If you're going to get a compm4 get the m4s model. The battery compartment and knobs are more safely placed towards the bottom of the optic.

>>34693226
But it says Luger on the weapon left

>>34693348
Ruger. The original was sort of modeled after the Luger tho.

>>34693362
Oh shit, I'm dumb, how the could I fuck up like that
Thanks, I'm green in this stuff

>>34691516
Nigger they all come from the same factory in china. Choose the cheapest one and shove it up your ass like a real man.

>>34693180
Well, then I guess you need to lower your expectations of this board, because not many people are going to want to go into detail why a $700 Swedish product would be better than a $179.99 Chinese one, especially if those posts are made in reply to others that are as asinine and untenable, as you put it, as seen in this thread. Personally, I think those elements are readily apparent, and they've been laid out in this thread repeatedly.

File: 16363-MONARCH-3-4-16x42-SF-Matte-BDC-FFP.png (364KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 700x595px

>>34675060
I'll bite. My Nikon Monarch 3 4-16 power FFP scope was worth the money and is objectively better than a Walmart special.

how hard is it to install a scope? I've never done it before.

>>34693579
What kind of scope?

>>34693530
All I really want are just factual statements with a little reasoning and evidential support. Any level of quality will do. I even got a few good replies and learned a thing or two myself. I'm satisfied.

>>34693579
>Get scope mount(s).
>Buy arisaka leveling device.
>Follow instructions.
>???
>profit

>>34693586
don't have one yet. Want to get one for my 243

>>34693587
>All I really want are just factual statements with a little reasoning and evidential support.
nigger you are on 4chan.

>>34693587
I really hope I wasn't putting all that time into my posts for the benefit of someone implementing Cunningham's Law.

File: 01b34b677d32427ac5c9211d4e7872f14ee3815b15.jpg (677KB, 2049x1537px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 2049x1537px

Vortex Viper PST 4-14

File: ZDF1.jpg (1MB, 1191x882px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1191x882px

>>34693625
Aimpoint T1

File: M1400001.jpg (466KB, 998x1331px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 998x1331px

>>34693632
Vortex Razor 1-4x, now I want the Razor II 1-6x :(

>>34693640
Just get a Viper 1-6x. It's basically the same glass, just assembled overseas.

File: syruprifu.jpg (898KB, 1537x2049px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 1537x2049px

>>34693640
EOTech 552

>>34693656
gross

>>34693655
good point, what about the Strike eagle 1-8X? main differences?

>>34693599
Try this, go to the AK general and ask which AK 105 style gas block should you buy for your upcoming 12.5" barrel AK-74 build: Russian or Bulgarian. See what quality of answers you receive (hint: it will be exactly what you need to know likely with reference pictures included.) This is on the same exact board as the people I am discussing optics with. This place is what you make of it.

>>34693614
Not sure who you were, but I'm not trolling anyone. I'm gauging what optics people buy and why they buy them.

>>34693664
Strike Eagle is Chinese shit. Viper is Japanese glass assembled in the Philippines.

File: toohard.jpg (99KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x640px

>this thread's still up
Oh boy!
>>34676093
Butthurt.
>>34681783
When anon stop being a fucking cumdumpster and saying stupid shit like
> there is not ONE optic that currently sells for the $900 to $1300 range that is worth it - nothing you can argue makes the expense worth the relative value. I dare you to even try to prove me wrong.
I'll put more care and compassion into my replies, until then I will be as much of a cunt as I damn well please. Meanwhile slob on my knob you Eotech-humping fag.
>I know it's you bb, and I still love you nohomo <3

File: 1353032025541.gif (2MB, 329x319px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 329x319px

>>34693694
cheers famalam

>>34693747
>Meanwhile slob on my knob you Eotech-humping fag.
But I'm praising the holosun?

File: anationalbestseller.jpg (111KB, 768x903px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 768x903px

>>34693778
Don't try and hide from my love, senpaitachi.

>>34693102
Their blems sell for like 280 you should probably wait for another sale.

>>34693787
wtf

>>34669029

I got a cheap fakog (100$ at the time, probably overpaid by 20-30$ at the time) but i put it on a 12ga remington 870, no poblems yet in performance (except the fiber optic thing wiggled loose, so i had to put some glue to hold the plastic down)

File: 1492521857854.png (173KB, 2688x2688px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 2688x2688px

>>34693747
>When anon stop being a fucking cumdumpster and saying stupid shit like

>calling others butthurt
>indignifies others because they said something you didn't like

File: summonthegote.jpg (308KB, 900x1205px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 900x1205px

>>34693901
>if you insult others you're butthurt
Look at this fucking pussy ass fag, I bet he's part of some debate team.

File: stefan-molyneux.png (327KB, 1048x594px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1048x594px

>>34693971
Not an argument.

File: WP_20170710_024[2].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>34693846
Welcome to the gotelife you normie fuck.

File: angrybleating.png (146KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x800px

>>34693985
Oh man dude I am fucking LIVID right now you've gone and done it you fucking queer.

Burris xtr 1-4 on my stag 3g and just picked up a rmr 6.5moa for my glock

Fake Trijicon shit from China. 70-120 depending on model. Knock off dimondhead sights from China. Decent briska scope that is probably from China

>>34670676
>He fell for the mini 30's are inaccurate meme
Give me some more Fuddlore, Elmer!
>>34674675
That's reassuring. I didn't want to slap an airshit tier piece of glass on my $700 rifle and call it a day.

File: preacher-jesse-cassidy-arseface.jpg (185KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 900x506px

>>34693971
>>34693993
>>34694002
God fucking dammit, fur-tripfags ARE cancer, I would rather choose /pol/ or /v/ fags to hang around instead of this scum.

Are there any decent optics with purple reticules?

>>34697112

So leave?

>>34700169
>oh you don't like this one extremely specific aspect of something?
>well you can git out

File: 1447.jpg (182KB, 1920x900px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1920x900px

>>34697112
Get over yourself.

>>34693993
>>>/an/

Why do shitty red dots have 3000 hours of battery life while some have 50000 hours? Just what makes them so much more efficient when they both have the same operating principle (LED reflecting off a lens)?

File: IMAG0159.jpg (3MB, 5376x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5376x3024px

Put an aimpoint PRO on the ar now

>>34673460
Aimpoint PRO: for people who can't afford real Aimpoint products.

>>34693538
If you can't afford something nicer from Zeiss, your little Monarch will be a bit better than the lowest end shit tier, at least. I just wouldn't mount it on any rifle I planned to actually use, except maybe for recreational plinking.

recently upgraded from a Tasco 3-9 to a strike eagle.