AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/2/2014 1:46:00 PM EDT
| I looking for a nice 1-4 variable power scope for 3 gun and target shooting . I will be shooting primary 100 yards or less and up to a maximum of 200 yards. I am looking at the Burris pepr mount and Burris scope mtac or leopold mark ar 1.5 to 4 or is there something else out there I should look at? What mount would you guys recommend ? |
+1 That a heck of a deal, and sale me the fast dot if you dont want it  |
|
Quoted:
Vortex makes a 1-4 in the pst line. Has lit reticle as well as zero stops. All the features and quality of much pricier scopes. Their customer service is also incredible. I think Vortex would have done better to leave out zero stops on such a low power scope and pass the savings on to a lower sticker price. |
| The Burris TAC30's glass is as good as the Vortex Viper's for about $200 less... they both have Philippine glass. Also, I think the Burris' reticle is a lot better for the type of shooting a I do with a 1-4x scope. The Burris has true daytime illumination, while the Vortex doesn't. I have a TAC30 and love it. It has held up very well, even with plenty of rough field use on the cross country run 'n gun competitions I do. |
|
Quoted:
Is the XTR as bright as the TAC30? The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. |
|
Quoted:
The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is the XTR as bright as the TAC30? The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. Much appreciated |
|
Quoted:
The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is the XTR as bright as the TAC30? The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. I don't think I've ever turned the illumination on during a match with my TAC30. Great scope for 3gun. |
|
I don't use my illumination much either. Illumination isn't typically very useful in a match setting, where the targets are usually pretty well defined, well lit, and in contrasting colors to the reticle. The illumination earns its keep for field use in low light and when the target is shaded... situations where a black reticle might not stand out very well. So true daylight visibility isn't a huge deal, though it is nice.
The TAC30 and MTAC have Philippine glass, while the XTR has Japanese glass. This is most of the reason for the increased cost. I've never looked through an XTR, so I can't speak to it's clarity. I have looked through Vortex Viper PST's though, and they aren't any clearer than the $270 TAC30. I might be willing to shell out the extra for an XTR if it had a better reticle. It looks like an ACOG style reticle, but it isn't nearly as useful. The markings on the vertical crosshair are not set up for ranging and BDC like an ACOG is... they are in uniform increments. Just a little better reticle design would make it a great scope and I would probably spring for one. I have to say, that combo deal for it and the FFII is the best I've seen on them. I'm not a fan of piggybacked optics like that, especially on a scope that has a 1x setting, but you could sell the FFII as being brand new and get probably $150-175 for it. |
|
Quoted:
The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is the XTR as bright as the TAC30? The glass is identical to me. I set both up side by side when I had two of each, examining targets 500yds away and buildings over 3000yds away, and I could see no discernable difference. The illumination of the TAC30 is brighter than the XTR. However, I do not consider either of them "daylight" bright as both can wash out on sun washed targets. I have found, from using this option in 3 years of 3gun matches, that I never turn the illumination on. I find that I am just as fast using the big reticle fast up close, and at distance the illumination is a distraction. I have an MTAC on rifle right in front of me and an XTR on another. I can look through the MTAC and it has much more pronounced "fisheye" ( not so much that it is a bad scope, along the lines of a Vortex pst 1-4) at 1x than the XTR, the XTR being practically "fisheye" free. The XTR seems a bit brighter in low light, . In daylight the MTAC's colors seem brighter. The Mtac seems closer to true 1x than the XTR within 5-12 yards. The MTAC illumination is really bright. I have not had it out in full blown daylight because of overcast condition... I can see the illumination while aiming in on a lite lamp. I am not discounting your feedback on your scopes, there may be some difference in glass from year to year. I know that my XTR is a gen2 and the MTAC is a recent manufacture I have had for about a week. As afar as ranging with an XTR goes, it is very easy to do a quick ranging out to 300 yards using the base line of 8" od (on the horseshoe) on 4x @ 100 yards (perfect with a human melon). The XTR is BDC though and it is a great BDC with the 55 and 64, 77 grain ammo I shoot. The Gen 2 XTR has a tapering verticle etching that gets thinner as the range gets greater. |
|
I have TAC30's - which were the model prior to the MTAC. I had an MTAC later to see if it was an "upgrade" and determined for me it wasn't, and sold it. It is possible the MTAC's had some differences in the lenses. I don't detect the fisheye at all in my TAC30, but scopes get highly subjective to the user, especially in similar ranges with similar glass/qualities.
My primary reason for switching to the TAC from the XTR was reticle speed. I am just way faster with the TAC30 reticle in 3gun, especially at 1x. Also - on the XTR, I was not able to see the 200yd dot with my eyes. No matter what I did with the focus adjustments, I could never see that tiny little dot. Again - subjective. If I was buying it for general purpose use, I'd probably like the XTR reticle better because it is smaller and isn't so busy. Selling one XTR paid for two TAC30's.  That deal on the XTR and FF combo is a good deal, IF you like that reticle. The new XTR is coming to replace it, so they are blowing out whatever is left.
|
|
Quoted:
I have TAC30's - which were the model prior to the MTAC. I had an MTAC later to see if it was an "upgrade" and determined for me it wasn't, and sold it. It is possible the MTAC's had some differences in the lenses. I don't detect the fisheye at all in my TAC30, but scopes get highly subjective to the user, especially in similar ranges with similar glass/qualities. My primary reason for switching to the TAC from the XTR was reticle speed. I am just way faster with the TAC30 reticle in 3gun, especially at 1x. Also - on the XTR, I was not able to see the 200yd dot with my eyes. No matter what I did with the focus adjustments, I could never see that tiny little dot. Again - subjective. If I was buying it for general purpose use, I'd probably like the XTR reticle better because it is smaller and isn't so busy. Selling one XTR paid for two TAC30's. That deal on the XTR and FF combo is a good deal, IF you like that reticle. The new XTR is coming to replace it, so they are blowing out whatever is left.Yep, scope vision interpretation varies greatly person to person. I see the dots on the XTR very well... hence I like the scope. I agree that the MTAC (TAC30) reticule is best for quick acquisition though and it sits on my HD/camp/GP rifle . I used a buddy's AR332 burris optic with the same reticule as the MTAC and TAC30 , I really liked the concept. Long story short an AimPoint PRO got replaced by the MTAC 1-4. I would really like to get into the 3gun competition as soon as I find a bit of time coinciding with contests happening near San Antonio , Texas or Austin. I am sure the MTAC would shine there. |
|
Quoted:
FFP on a 1-4? Highly doubtful the reticle would be much use at 1x. Quoted:
Quoted:
SWFA FFP. FFP on a 1-4? Highly doubtful the reticle would be much use at 1x. Actually they are very usable at 1x because of the reticle design. They are the exception to the rule. |
|
Quoted:
Actually they are very usable at 1x because of the reticle design. They are the exception to the rule. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SWFA FFP. FFP on a 1-4? Highly doubtful the reticle would be much use at 1x. Actually they are very usable at 1x because of the reticle design. They are the exception to the rule. The SWFA 1-4 FFP is a great scope. I like the circle crosshair concept, but my eyes are just not good enough to pic up the crosshairs very quickly at 1x unilluminated. |
|
Quoted:
The SWFA 1-4 FFP is a great scope. I like the circle crosshair concept, but my eyes are just not good enough to pic up the crosshairs very quickly at 1x unilluminated. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SWFA FFP. FFP on a 1-4? Highly doubtful the reticle would be much use at 1x. Actually they are very usable at 1x because of the reticle design. They are the exception to the rule. The SWFA 1-4 FFP is a great scope. I like the circle crosshair concept, but my eyes are just not good enough to pic up the crosshairs very quickly at 1x unilluminated. Indeed. Nor are mine. Leupold FireDot SPR reticle is much better. |
AR Sponsor