Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/26/2005 5:12:31 PM EST
I am interested in hearing range reports and any other information regarding this newly discovered optic.

Please keep it technical so the thread will not not be locked, and you will be heard.
Link Posted: 2/26/2005 5:23:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2005 5:31:38 PM EST by PVFD304]
found this link a few days ago.

Scope Review
Link Posted: 2/27/2005 7:58:40 AM EST
I just ordered one a few days ago, but haven't received it yet. I'd like to hear from current owner's of this scope as well.

Link Posted: 2/28/2005 6:09:25 AM EST
I don't own one, but the question I keep asking is, how durable is it. The cost of an ACOG is not just about clear glass, but about durability. It won't break if you drop it, and it holds zero. I would be very interested in seeing results of a durability test.



Link Posted: 2/28/2005 7:32:07 AM EST
Well, lets be real here. These will never be equal to an ACOG. It just an inexpensive plinker scope. Not much different than a tasco you would pick up at Wal-Mart. Cool thing is you dont need to buy risers and rings.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 8:16:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/28/2005 8:21:31 AM EST by JRussell]
Check out the main AR15 page. At least two threads that I know of discussing this optic. For the money doesn't sound like you can go wrong. I mean seriously, this isn't an optic that you hold up next to an ACOG and say, "hmmmmm...which do I get?" You hold them both up and say, "Hell, for $40 I'm getting myself a T168 and I won't even have to put a dent in my savings for that ACOG I want." Ya know what I'm sayin'?

And the linked review seems to be a bit outdated. The scope comes with all three mounts now as a standard. Now, since I've been of such help, go buy yourself one and while your at it, have one shipped to me too!

ETA: General 9 pages worth of discussion
and
Range Report
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 8:27:32 AM EST
Yeah, come on. I read in another thread a bunch of people were lambasting this scope, wondering how it would hold up to being immersed in water at depth, and dropped from balconys. Let's get real. It's a $40 scope. Nobody ever said it was an ACOG or even close. It's not supposed to be. Other than a very slight similarity in profile, there's no reason anyone should even mention the two in the same sentence.
I bought one. If it does truely retain zero after repeated removal, I plan on keeping it for the 15%-20% of times when I need magnified shots. The rest of the time I don't even plan to keep it on the rifle, I'll keep it in a pouch hanging on my cartridge belt.
If it DOES retain zero, and even provides a slight amount of durability, and I get a year or two out of it, it will be a good value to me. If not....pbbsht...$40 down the drain. No big deal.

Mine has been very good so far. It is clear, bright, and accurate. However, I have only put about 220 rounds under it so far. I am planing on shooting it some more today.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 8:31:52 AM EST
Nice looking setup there Zamo.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 8:52:06 AM EST
Thanks. I have a Matech BUIS on order for it, and some Norrell's Moly-Resin. As soon as that arrives, I am going to try and do the handguard in O.D. green to match the plastic. I also have some grey-green which I am debating doing the rest of the rifle in. I haven't decided yet.
Someday I'd like to get a TA31f for it, but with demand so high that nobody ever has stock, and a wife and two kids who always seem to gleen all my cash from me, this scope will hopefully suffice for a while.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 9:31:19 AM EST
I don't own one of these scopes so I can't comment on their quality, but when guys like Mongo001 who have thousands of dollars invested in optics buy a T168 for curiosity and evaluation purposes they can't be all bad.

There are a few people here whose reviews and recommendations I accept as platinum-clad gospel, primarily because I respect their input and experience. Mongo is one of those people, as are Troy, Forest, BSBG, USMC03, Kisara, Lumpy, Boomer, QCMGR, and a few others.

I am greatly looking forward to seeing what Mongo thinks of this little rig
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 9:58:05 AM EST
Here's a start:

If you are a occasional shooter, say under 200 rounds per year or something close, the knock offs will be OK for you. TANGOCHASER is using a T168 in Iraq right now, so that says something for its potential.

You give up alot of the "little things" that make the real, and usually more expensive scopes, better.



As an example, here's a pic of the fit between the T168 and the supplied flattop mount. The scope is clearly canted to the left (the pic is taken from the front of the scope). A scope reticle is supposed to be level, and I'm betting this one is off a hair. Does it matter? I don't know.




Another example. The flattop mount comes with only one round crossbolt that engages a receiver slot. My ACOG NSN mount has both round crossbolts engaging receiver slots. Does this matter? I don't know.




I'm not too crazy about the lit reticle either. It appears that its illuminating source throws alot of light into the tube while lighting up the reticle. I find that very distracting. On both my Leupold illuminated reticle and my IOR illuminated reticle, the illumination is isolated to the reticle only, with no tube light up at all. On top of that, the reticle is not illuminated evenly. I don't know if the pic shows all of this or not, but it is very clear in person. BTW, you can clearly see the illum. source in the upper left hand corner.



I got this one to abuse, to see how far it can go. It should be worth the $50 in entertainment, if it lasts long enough.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 11:36:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Here's a start:

If you are a occasional shooter, say under 200 rounds per year or something close, the knock offs will be OK for you. TANGOCHASER is using a T168 in Iraq right now, so that says something for its potential.

You give up alot of the "little things" that make the real, and usually more expensive scopes, better.



As an example, here's a pic of the fit between the T168 and the supplied flattop mount. The scope is clearly canted to the left (the pic is taken from the front of the scope). A scope reticle is supposed to be level, and I'm betting this one is off a hair. Does it matter? I don't know.

img208.exs.cx/img208/7333/dsc015073an.jpg

I got this one to abuse, to see how far it can go. It should be worth the $50 in entertainment, if it lasts long enough.



I'll be interested to hear how your test go. And it looks like in the first picture that it sits crooked because bracket is loose, mount it on your rifle and see if it sits leaning over?
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 11:43:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/28/2005 11:43:49 AM EST by mongo001]

Originally Posted By 6of1:

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Here's a start:

If you are a occasional shooter, say under 200 rounds per year or something close, the knock offs will be OK for you. TANGOCHASER is using a T168 in Iraq right now, so that says something for its potential.

You give up alot of the "little things" that make the real, and usually more expensive scopes, better.



As an example, here's a pic of the fit between the T168 and the supplied flattop mount. The scope is clearly canted to the left (the pic is taken from the front of the scope). A scope reticle is supposed to be level, and I'm betting this one is off a hair. Does it matter? I don't know.

img208.exs.cx/img208/7333/dsc015073an.jpg</a>

I got this one to abuse, to see how far it can go. It should be worth the $50 in entertainment, if it lasts long enough.



I'll be interested to hear how your test go. And it looks like in the first picture that it sits crooked because bracket is loose, mount it on your rifle and see if it sits leaning over?



The bracket isn't loose, it's tight and Loctited. That is just poor machining causing a poor fit and a canted scope. It's crooked on a rifle also, because it's crooked in the mount.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 11:57:43 AM EST
I've had a T-168 for about 3-4 months. My observations when I was using it were:

The scope sits canted in the supplied base when tightened.

The crosshairs are a little thick for my taste.

The glass is decent for the price.

Good eye relief.

Had to re-adjust zero on one occasion. It was 2.5" off for whatever reason.

If it wasn't for the "canted" issue, I would give it a "thumbs up" for a plinker/range optic. But the "cant" issue bugs the piss out of me and I have since taken the thing off and replaced it with irons.
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 12:34:44 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 2:34:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
I don't own one of these scopes so I can't comment on their quality, but when guys like Mongo001 who have thousands of dollars invested in optics buy a T168 for curiosity and evaluation purposes they can't be all bad.

There are a few people here whose reviews and recommendations I accept as platinum-clad gospel, primarily because I respect their input and experience. Mongo is one of those people, as are Troy, Forest, BSBG, USMC03, Kisara, Lumpy, Boomer, QCMGR, and a few others.

I am greatly looking forward to seeing what Mongo thinks of this little rig





+1

I did not mean to imply from my post that I have written the thing off. I just wanted to see how it holds up. I also think the 1st generation vx 3rd generation comments in the earlier thread were worthwhile, especially if it points out that they are upgrading the thing.

I have one of the Leapers Colt 4x20 clones. It always worked for me. Its not mounted at the moment, but was a great plinking scope, which is why I still have it.



Zam0: Very nice blaster... which handguards?



Link Posted: 2/28/2005 3:11:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 3:56:36 PM EST
There have been other people who had problems with cants as well. Most were fixed by simply tightening down the mount. The ones that were seem to have been taken care of by Clearview (replaced).
Link Posted: 2/28/2005 9:00:38 PM EST
Lancelot,
That is the Yankee Hill Mfg. Lightweight handguard. I have this one, and once CAR length unit on my AR pistol. I am impressed by alot of the YHM stuff. Some of it is more practical and functional than the "cool" stuff...ie: less bells and whistles, but that often also means less crap to go wrong. I think they do a good job, and generally offer a very good price point.

This one is about to be Norrell O.D. Greened this weekend...
Link Posted: 3/1/2005 3:20:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zamo:
Lancelot,
That is the Yankee Hill Mfg. Lightweight handguard. I have this one, and once CAR length unit on my AR pistol. I am impressed by alot of the YHM stuff. Some of it is more practical and functional than the "cool" stuff...ie: less bells and whistles, but that often also means less crap to go wrong. I think they do a good job, and generally offer a very good price point.

This one is about to be Norrell O.D. Greened this weekend...





Thanks I have the two piece model in the safe waiting on a 20" barrel to build an A4gery.
Link Posted: 3/1/2005 3:31:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:


The bracket isn't loose, it's tight and Loctited. That is just poor machining causing a poor fit and a canted scope. It's crooked on a rifle also, because it's crooked in the mount.




What is the center-to-center distance on the two screws in the bottom?


C4



I'll get that tonight.
Link Posted: 3/1/2005 5:24:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

What is the center-to-center distance on the two screws in the bottom?

I just got mine today. I did not measure the distance yer but I did mount it in a Arms 19 that I had laying around and it fits great. I used all 3 hole in the scope since it lined up on the Arms 19.
Overall like everone else has said its worth the money.
Link Posted: 3/1/2005 5:39:51 PM EST
Center to center distance on the 2 holes that hold the scope on the mount is 1.25".
Link Posted: 3/1/2005 6:21:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zamo:
Yeah, come on. I read in another thread a bunch of people were lambasting this scope, wondering how it would hold up to being immersed in water at depth, and dropped from balconys. Let's get real. It's a $40 scope. Nobody ever said it was an ACOG or even close. It's not supposed to be. Other than a very slight similarity in profile, there's no reason anyone should even mention the two in the same sentence.
I bought one. If it does truely retain zero after repeated removal, I plan on keeping it for the 15%-20% of times when I need magnified shots. The rest of the time I don't even plan to keep it on the rifle, I'll keep it in a pouch hanging on my cartridge belt.
If it DOES retain zero, and even provides a slight amount of durability, and I get a year or two out of it, it will be a good value to me. If not....pbbsht...$40 down the drain. No big deal.

Mine has been very good so far. It is clear, bright, and accurate. However, I have only put about 220 rounds under it so far. I am planing on shooting it some more today.
home.comcast.net/~csehmel/Firearms/ar15a4t168.jpg



That is a great looking rifle Zamo! Would you mind giving us all the details, like the barrel, flip up front sight, and flash hider?

I was planning on building a 16 incher for a predator hunting rifle, but yours has changed my mind.

Link Posted: 3/2/2005 3:37:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/2/2005 3:44:08 AM EST by Yojimbo]

Originally Posted By claybusting:
Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

What is the center-to-center distance on the two screws in the bottom?

I just got mine today. I did not measure the distance yer but I did mount it in a Arms 19 that I had laying around and it fits great. I used all 3 hole in the scope since it lined up on the Arms 19.
Overall like everone else has said its worth the money.



Very interesting. Though I'm not sure if the T168 is really worth the extra cost of an ACOG mount if you didn't already have one laying around.

BTW, could you post some pics of your T168 on the ARMS 19 mount?
Link Posted: 3/2/2005 6:51:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By claybusting:
Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

What is the center-to-center distance on the two screws in the bottom?

I just got mine today. I did not measure the distance yer but I did mount it in a Arms 19 that I had laying around and it fits great. I used all 3 hole in the scope since it lined up on the Arms 19.
Overall like everone else has said its worth the money.



Very interesting. Though I'm not sure if the T168 is really worth the extra cost of an ACOG mount if you didn't already have one laying around.

BTW, could you post some pics of your T168 on the ARMS 19 mount?



Wish I had ARMS 19 mounts laying around .
Link Posted: 3/2/2005 7:17:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By claybusting:
I just got mine today. I did not measure the distance yer but I did mount it in a Arms 19 that I had laying around and it fits great. I used all 3 hole in the scope since it lined up on the Arms 19.
Overall like everone else has said its worth the money.



There is something fundamentally wrong with an optics setup that has a mount that cost 3X the cost of the optic.
Link Posted: 3/2/2005 10:41:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By claybusting:
Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

What is the center-to-center distance on the two screws in the bottom?

I just got mine today. I did not measure the distance yer but I did mount it in a Arms 19 that I had laying around and it fits great. I used all 3 hole in the scope since it lined up on the Arms 19.
Overall like everone else has said its worth the money.



Very interesting. Though I'm not sure if the T168 is really worth the extra cost of an ACOG mount if you didn't already have one laying around.

BTW, could you post some pics of your T168 on the ARMS 19 mount?



I had an xtra one and thought I would try it. Heres some pics. Mongo I know its pretty stupid have a mount thats worth more then the scope But what the hell its just laying in the safe.

Link Posted: 3/2/2005 2:15:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By claybusting:

I had an xtra one and thought I would try it. Heres some pics. Mongo I know its pretty stupid have a mount thats worth more then the scope But what the hell its just laying in the safe.
www.freepichosting.com/Thumbs/421552495/28/600/450.jpg
www.freepichosting.com/Thumbs/421552495/29/600/450.jpg?SSImageQuality=Full



Thanks for th pics! I also notice the Arms 19 only has one cross bar at the rear.
Link Posted: 3/2/2005 3:14:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/4/2005 9:04:54 AM EST by mongo001]

Originally Posted By claybusting:
Mongo I know its pretty stupid have a mount thats worth more then the scope But what the hell its just laying in the safe.



Ya, I know. It was a statment made in jest. It is somewhat odd, though.
Link Posted: 3/4/2005 9:01:59 AM EST
I just got back from Iraq yesterday and was using a T168 for the last 4-5 months. Very durable and rugged. I abused mine daily and have worn the finish off in a lot of areas. Never lost it's zero and I used it to take out over 15 wild dogs with it. I had a temporary problem with the illumination knob coming loose but it is easily tighted. I bought it thinking if it turns out to suck, I'm only out $70 buck. Got mine from Tapco as Clearview refused to ship to an APO address. Used it out on the perimeter of the base everyday to keep an eye on the locals and spot potential car bombers. It turned out to be the absolute best money I spent during the entire year in Iraq. I whole heartedly endorse this scope as a great buy for the money and it comes with a lifetime warranty from Leapers.
Link Posted: 3/4/2005 11:18:31 AM EST
Tangochaser,
Thank you for your service in Iraq, God Bless you. Your word on the T-168, and any of your other
experiences is good by me. Once again, THANK YOU.

firedog55
Link Posted: 3/4/2005 12:36:37 PM EST
so ARMS #19 will work with the T168 ?
Link Posted: 3/4/2005 2:37:38 PM EST
Welcome home and a humble thank you.
Link Posted: 3/5/2005 6:41:37 AM EST
If this T168 is mounted on a flattop upper, will it give a clear picture if a standard A2 front sight is used or is it obstructed? Also, will a regular ARMS #40 fit under it?
Link Posted: 3/5/2005 7:34:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/5/2005 11:30:38 AM EST
Welcome home and thank you for your service, I hope Leapers gives you a cut for all of the scopes you have helped them sell. Your review did more to promote the optic than any advertising could ever hope to.
Link Posted: 3/5/2005 3:22:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Agrippa:
If this T168 is mounted on a flattop upper, will it give a clear picture if a standard A2 front sight is used or is it obstructed? Also, will a regular ARMS #40 fit under it?



You cannot see the front sight through the scope.

Can't confirm about the BUIS having the ability to fit under it, however.
Link Posted: 3/6/2005 1:31:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/7/2005 7:51:24 AM EST
Welcome back Tango! Thanks for your service, as always.

One of htese is definately in my future. If it can survive in the sandbox, it can sure as hell sit on top of my wannabe rifle.
Link Posted: 3/15/2005 2:33:32 PM EST
I recently ordered one and I put it on my Ruger 10/22T and it is definitely worth the money. I have not noticed any canting as a few others have. The light does kind of bleed into the tube at the highest setting but if you turn it down just a little it's no problem. I haven't had much range time but I've got it more or less sighted in and had no problem popping small balloons at 100 yds. and even 200 yds. given a couple of mulligans.

Also, it fits on my pellet gun!

I have yet to put it on my AR and doubt if I will as I have a nice new lighted reticle scope on it already.

for $40 you can't beat it.......
Top Top