Aside from the weights any other negatives for this scope, it

lmao what is that, a 20mm objective?

>>35121240
24 senpai

>>35121219
>Aside from the weights any other negatives for this scope, it seems like it hits all the right spots for a decent price

I like that form on medium cal but a 30mm tube and something that is 1.5 to 7ish. They are way more useful than a plain red dot.

>>35121219
Only downside is the weight, imo. Glass is great I like the 1x better than my t2.
I also got a switch throw lever for it for fast transitions from 1 to 6x

I wish they made it with the strike eagle reticle tee bee ayche familia

>>35121445
this is def on my list of 1x6 scopes to get along with the tr25 and the kahles k16i,

>>35121219
What's the story on these scopes? I see all the cool kids are using them these days. How are they different from regular variable rifle scopes that is all fat at the front.

>>35122505
word on the street is alot of tier 1 units are using them

File: Xu7oPcb.jpg (51KB, 720x432px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x432px

>>35122565
Tons of pictures with delta using them.

>>35122565
Should I get one? I like the way they look. I kind of want to put one on an AR with an 18" barrel.

>>35122565
If I get a scope that looks like that, will people at the range think I'm tier 1?

>>35121219
I have one.

It is really good. I don't feel like it's a true two eyes open scope because I get a little bit of a disagreement between my two eyes, but still, with a slightly squinted left eye it's very good for firing at very near targets.

It is quite heavy.

File: nutn.jpg (16KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x400px

>25.2 ounces without a mount

>>35123967
Take off all the stupid BS you have on your rifle then chucklefuck. You probably have 10lbs of "essential" attachments to carry out your daily LARP fantasy drills at the 10 yard indoor range.

>>35121219
It's getting old. I'm surprised nothing has replaced it.

>>35121219
>razor
>decent price

>>35125146
compared to other optics in its class, plus used ones usually got for much cheaper

File: 61YqQqxP07L._SL1500_.jpg (49KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1500x1000px

>>35121219
Is it better than the TR24?

>>35127104
good question

>>35127104
Based on the glass, performance, etc, yes, substantially. But it's a big weight difference, so... you have to decide if it works for you

>>35121219
Reticle could use some love, but its not bad. Next step up is almost twice the price.

>>35127104
Having both, the answer is going to depend on what your going to do with the rifle. If you're going with something extremely light weight the TR24 is an *excellent* choice and if I was lugging a rifle around all day I'd go for the Trijicon. The weight is where the Trijicon wins, and it wins be a mile.

>>35122505
the view quality is a little bit worse with the smaller lenses, but you're not taking photographs for Vogue so it doesn't really matter as much as the weight savings do

>>35127104
>only 4x
disappointing

>>35121219
Acog is best.

Running one of these currently. I am not red dot fast with it yet, but that is probably a matter of training rather than the scope itself. Vortex warranty is amazing (if you ever need it) and the glass is clear. Would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a variable scope.

This is better imo http://www.opticsplanet.com/primary-arms-primary-arms-platinum-series-1-8x24mm-riflescope-with-advanced-mil.html

I'm loving my strike eagle, when I focus on the reticle, the scope disappears and I have full field of vision, it's so great.

>>35123209
top yes

>>35124140
This.

If you have a light that is more than like 4oz, a match barrel, a handguard that isn't at least as light as A2 plastic etc you don't really have license to complain about weight.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>sfp
>not getting the triji 1-8

faggot

File: Maten 308.jpg (531KB, 3214x1568px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 3214x1568px

>>35132942
>Not getting the US Optics SR-8C with FFP reticle and SFP red dot

No sir, YOU are the sucker of cocks

>>35130736
>disappointing

What are you shooting where you need more than 4x? Small IPSC target at 500 yards?

>>35134054

Not that that's any kind of wrong of course, challenging yourself is great, I'm just curious why you'd be disappointed.