Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/6/2007 8:07:41 PM EDT
i have inexpensive scopes by the boat load. and guess what thay work. i know you dont want to hear about how i put a $35 dollar simmons on my $1000 ar, i have 2 leopys on some of my big game rifles and yes they are brighter and generally are better. but i just cant afford to put high end scopes on all my rifles i found that cheap scopes do work. bsa sucks but they work, if you dont know better they are awsome. tasco, simmons, bushnell and even my gibbson all work just fine...i say buy the cheap guy, shot as much as you can, and then when you can afford the high dollar scope go get it, but dont forget the pratice you got with the "cheapy"
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 8:17:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By coyote762:
i have inexpensive scopes by the boat load. and guess what thay work. i know you dont want to hear about how i put a $35 dollar simmons on my $1000 ar, i have 2 leopys on some of my big game rifles and yes they are brighter and generally are better. but i just cant afford to put high end scopes on all my rifles i found that cheap scopes do work. bsa sucks but they work, if you dont know better they are awsome. tasco, simmons, bushnell and even my gibbson all work just fine...i say buy the cheap guy, shot as much as you can, and then when you can afford the high dollar scope go get it, but dont forget the pratice you got with the "cheapy"


I agree 100000%

I cannot afford the high end scopes, just not enough money to go around
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 8:34:42 PM EDT
All of the cheap scopes you have bought, you could have bought a real scope.

If cheap scopes work for you, great. I'm glad I can afford nice glass because there is a BIG difference. When I was poor, I though tasco varmint scopes were the shitz


Oh, cheap scopes suck
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 8:42:30 PM EDT
I know a lot of great shooters with cheap rifles, but I can tell the wannabes by the cheap optic.
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 8:45:55 PM EDT
i have also seen a lot of turd brain wannabees with high end scopes too!
but some awesome shooters with cheapo scopes.
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 8:49:32 PM EDT
One of the better shooters I know did invent the Cruncho-point!
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 9:13:37 PM EDT
A cheap scope will work fine, if all you ever do is carry your gun from the truck to the table at the range and back and you don't want or expect any more from it then that. It's all about what you want and want your expectations and needs are.

And cheap scopes always work....till they stop working...

If you goal is to have 20 guns and you want a scope on each one... then buy cheap scopes..

I have 2 good guns with two good scopes.. will never have to buy another scope in my lifetime... Now I can use that money I would have wasted on cheap crap to buy ammo...

Justify crap all you want.. but there are more cheap scopes that break across the board then good ones.
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 11:01:29 PM EDT
You get what you pay for. The difference of quality means a brighter image, a sharper image and a solid build quality. I've had a $50 scope and while it worked, it often needed re-zeroing and did not look real sharp.

I have a 23 year old Leupold Gold on my 30-06 Ruger Model 77 and I sighted it in and it has held that zero ever since, I have knocked it around, shipped it, checked it in baggage, even dropped it a few times and it is still dead on. I have yet to turn a screw on it in 23 years.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 12:13:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2007 12:14:10 AM EDT by ARSNIPER]
You buy cheap stuff, you buy it twice... or more. Only rich guys can afford to buy cheap scopes.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 12:43:17 AM EDT
I'm at a point in my life where I consider a Leupold Var-X II to be a barebones, cheap scope...
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 1:25:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By coyote762:
i have inexpensive scopes by the boat load. and guess what thay work. i know you dont want to hear about how i put a $35 dollar simmons on my $1000 ar, i have 2 leopys on some of my big game rifles and yes they are brighter and generally are better. but i just cant afford to put high end scopes on all my rifles i found that cheap scopes do work. bsa sucks but they work, if you dont know better they are awsome. tasco, simmons, bushnell and even my gibbson all work just fine...i say buy the cheap guy, shot as much as you can, and then when you can afford the high dollar scope go get it, but dont forget the pratice you got with the "cheapy"


There a lot of arrogant equipment snobs here.

Buy a Tasco and some clod with a $100 Bushnell will start with the put downs.

Buy a Nikon Buckmaster and the Leupold snobs will come out of the woodwork and shit on the thread almost as bad as the Dillon and Glock snobs.

Buy a Monarch Gold and Leupold/Schmidt & Bender uber high end snobs come out of the woodwork.

I have cheap scopes for some guns and more expensive scopes for other guns. I use what I can afford and what works for me. Unlike some of the gear snobs here. I don't have a money printing machine. I work for a living.

Buy what you like. Buy what works for you. Don't let the gear snobs get you down.

ARFCOM can be a pretty tough place. If you don't develop thick skin. You may want to find someplace else to play.

This is my opinion. Your opinion may vary.

ZM


Link Posted: 4/7/2007 1:35:18 AM EDT
Might as well just do it once and get it right.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 1:41:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2007 1:42:02 AM EDT by rcr29]
work and bsa do not belong in the same sentence together. There are inexpensive scopes like simmons which have always performed well for me, and then there are cheap pieces of shit, like bsa scopes. Mine would not hold zero on a fucking .22. Oh and great customer service to boot. They only wanted me to eat shipping to them and back. Hey why don't i just bend over and get fucked, because that's exactly what happened when I bought a "cheap" scope.


ETA:CHEAP SCOPES NOT ONLY SUCK, THEY SWALLOW
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 2:13:43 AM EDT
On my AR I run a Burris Full Field II in of all things, a Model 1 Sales one piece mount with rings. For that past few weeks I had been taking the scope off and remounting it, several times. Yesterday I went to the range, and it just about returned to zero. Elevation was spot on and windage was to the left 3 clicks.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 2:21:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I know a lot of great shooters with cheap rifles, but I can tell the wannabes by the cheap optic.


Wow, what a statement. Wannabe rich maybe, sure. I was raised shooting, I AM a great shooter in my humble opinion, but I have never been able to afford a really nice optic. What would I 'wannabe' if I do not have a nice optic? I really do not understand.

I guess if you are talking about an AR loaded up with Tapco, Airsoft stuff, and an Acog or aimpoint clone, all super tacti-style, then yes I can see your point, if that is in fact what you mean.

Please do not diss my tasco that I bag deer with every year!
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 3:10:11 AM EDT
I've got a nice tasco that does duty on my AR. I can hit what I aim at and I'm happy with it.


Scope came with my son's 10/22 and didn't pay a dime for it.


oh well I'm a poser and proud of it I guess.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 4:08:14 AM EDT
I can't believe some of this. We've got some serious violations of the "Man Laws' going on here. Like "Never tell another man how to spend his money." And "Never badmouth another mans gear." If a guy asks for an opinion, that's 1 thing. To outright say his scope sucks or he's a poser is another. I buy what I like, can afford, and can justify for its intended purpose. I'd like to have a $1500 ACOG on my AR, but can't justify it for a gun that I hope will never see anything other than paper targets. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy a Zeiss for my deer rifle. I did. To each his own.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 4:42:52 AM EDT

"Never tell another man how to spend his money." And "Never badmouth another mans gear." If a guy asks for an opinion, that's 1 thing. To outright say his scope sucks or he's a poser is another.


That might be "The Man's Law" but in ARFCOM, it is feed on thosw who can make do with what little we got. I have a funny suspicion that a good number of those that knock down others becasue they aren't using an ACOG, put all this stuff on their AR for the cool guy factor and the right to brag. Thing is they could be on a range next to a guy with a rifle that has A1 sight, make fun of him and then be out shot by him.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:14:44 AM EDT
The OP had to know the flames were coming when he posted this. I have a Tasco and two Burris scopes. What category does that put me in? I'm confused. I know I'm not a tightwad, wannabe, or poser. What are the other choices?
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:22:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2007 5:26:46 AM EDT by DvlDog]
Im not a cheap scope guy. that being said I notice that more often than not the full on "nothing but the best" gear queer is usually a range queen. thousands of dollars in the latest, popular on the internet tactical gear and loves to play dress up to go to the range. maybe if they are "hardcore" they shoot some 3-gun and take a class.

know what i see here in the sandbox?

tacpoints, carry handle scopes, CAA stock saddles and flashlight holders and first samco handguards. AAFES doesnt sell LaRue, leupold, and aimpoint. they sell cheap stuff that doesnt require an armorer to install. nowadays most guys are getting RAS equipped M4s and A4s more so than my last tour but i still see a lot of gear that would get you shunned on arfcom being used to kill bad guys.

Now dont get me wrong. I believe in buying the best i can possibly afford. i shop on quality and value not on price but im betting that 90% of the "its fine if youre just going to the range" crowd isnt taking their shit to war either because if they were they would see how much leapers and tapco crap is really being used by guys who actually fight.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:33:40 AM EDT
CHeap and inexpensive are not the same

Cheap means poor quality

Innexpensive means lower price

I shot a Simmons on my FAL. Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang/SNAP. That was the end of my cheap scope days

Now I've got I got 2 inexpensive scopes.

Super Sniper 10X - one rear and one side parralax. I consider them to be inexpensive.

Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:40:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rob96:

"Never tell another man how to spend his money." And "Never badmouth another mans gear." If a guy asks for an opinion, that's 1 thing. To outright say his scope sucks or he's a poser is another.


That might be "The Man's Law" but in ARFCOM, it is feed on thosw who can make do with what little we got. I have a funny suspicion that a good number of those that knock down others becasue they aren't using an ACOG, put all this stuff on their AR for the cool guy factor and the right to brag. Thing is they could be on a range next to a guy with a rifle that has A1 sight, make fun of him and then be out shot by him.


HEY! I like my A1 sights.....lol. SP1 is my favorite rifle. I like the way the upper looks without the A2 style sight.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:56:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2007 6:00:21 AM EDT by sav_carguy]
I have a Barska scope on my AR ............... and I like it

BTW - No it doesn't get tossed around at all (don't want to tempt fate) , and yes it only sees trigger time at the range. I promise if I could afford a super high quality scope I would have one , but I can't , so that's that.

ETA - Besides , if I had an unbreakable optic , what would be the point of having backup irons?
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 5:59:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I know a lot of great shooters with cheap rifles, but I can tell the wannabes by the cheap optic.
You will find that there are more "good shooters with cheap scopes", than "good shooters with expensive scopes".

Sorry, you just will. Something about money not making you a better shot. Something even about better equipment not making you a better shot. Really.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 6:04:34 AM EDT

You will find that there are more "good shooters with cheap scopes", than "good shooters with expensive scopes".


That has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard ................stupid .

Nobody I shoot with has anything less than a Lupey on their rifles ......................Come shoot Paraie dogs at 900 with us , we'll see .


CHEAP SCOPES SUCK
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 6:18:48 AM EDT
height=8
Originally Posted By KIDGLOCK:
height=8
You will find that there are more "good shooters with cheap scopes", than "good shooters with expensive scopes".


That has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard ................stupid .

Nobody I shoot with has anything less than a Lupey on their rifles ......................Come shoot Paraie dogs at 900 with us , we'll see .


CHEAP SCOPES SUCK


I can't help but think of an old saying: "Beware the man who has only one rifle, for he likely knows how to use it." I don't think the man with only 1 rifle has a $3000 custom bolt action with a $2000 Swarovski. Probably more like a $300 Marlin lever gun with a $20 Tasco. Never judge a man or his abilities by his equipment.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 6:48:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ivchris:

Originally Posted By Rob96:

"Never tell another man how to spend his money." And "Never badmouth another mans gear." If a guy asks for an opinion, that's 1 thing. To outright say his scope sucks or he's a poser is another.


That might be "The Man's Law" but in ARFCOM, it is feed on thosw who can make do with what little we got. I have a funny suspicion that a good number of those that knock down others becasue they aren't using an ACOG, put all this stuff on their AR for the cool guy factor and the right to brag. Thing is they could be on a range next to a guy with a rifle that has A1 sight, make fun of him and then be out shot by him.



And you probably shoot very well with them.



HEY! I like my A1 sights.....lol. SP1 is my favorite rifle. I like the way the upper looks without the A2 style sight.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 6:52:54 AM EDT
life's too short to care what the gear queers think about your optics. :)

you know, in general, arfcom has alot of strongly opinionated assholes. fortunately, i agree with most of them, most of the time.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 7:14:33 AM EDT
Get both.

I have a cheap VX-II 1-4 in a LaRue mount along with a moderate priced Mark 4 M1 3.5-10. I alternate between them.

Link Posted: 4/7/2007 7:39:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2007 7:41:12 AM EDT by TexasGunman]
I have a illuminated Tasco 3-9x50, appear to have a clear and bright optic, even works well in dark heavy brush areas, also other low light situations.

Dont really care what others think, I've looked through high dollar optics, not much if any difference than this Tasco.

I can afford more ammo, also more ARs, Im a happy camper.


TG
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:05:02 AM EDT
Thankfully, I know why I use what I use and realize it doesn't matter what anyone else uses.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:05:55 AM EDT
I have some cheap scopes, they are in a box under the bench...where they belong.

Optics are not magic, you get what you pay for, no more and no less.

I had a Simmons 44Mag on my 10/22 and the retical collapsed, lol. POS.
I had a Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40 on a Mini-14, sold the gun but the scope is actually ok, it's in the box through. I won't go through the rest.

As a professional cinematographer for 30 years I look through optical glass every day and I have little patience for shitty glass. I don't preach or offer advice unless someone asks for my advice.

Example; a few weeks ago at the range the fellow next to me was shooting a Savage in 300 Remington Ultra Mag. His muzzle brake was killing me. I noticed he had some sort of NcStar scope on it. His groups were....well..all over the place. He asks if I wanted to shoot it, I declined and he starts pointing out all the customization he had done, muzzle brake, jewelled bolt and so on. Then he tells me his is having trouble with the scope, I didn't say a word, but had he spent the money he dumped on the jewelled bolt and brake on a better scope, he'd have better groups. I guess he was more concerned "how his rifle looked" than "how it shot." To each his own.

I have a few Leupold V XIII's which I believe are pretty good, the 6.5-20x40 is on the 10/22 for example. The FAL wears a Nikon Monarch 2-7x32, the V-Match has a Nikon Monarch 3.3-10x44 Mil Dot, same for the M1A. My Remington M700 VSSF .308 has the Nikon Tactical 2.5-10x44 and my Bushy Varminter has a Zeiss 6.5-20x50. These are very good scopes, but not so outlandish as to be snob glass, but do not forget the mounting, I have thrown into the "box" the shitty mounts as well.

Good Luck, but what you want and shoot what you buy,
Bill
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:16:49 AM EDT
Nothing wrong with spending money on a decent optic, thats for damn sure.
As far as low priced scopes, maybe quality control isnt all that great.

Cause, most seem to do well, while others crap out, roll of the dice I guess.

Not much recoil on a AR, but for say .308 on up, best spend the money.

I've seen mixed post on tasco scope, but I'd swear how clear my new one is.

So far, no regrets.

TG
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 9:11:37 AM EDT
This reminds me of the "Tac-Point vs Aimpoint" arguement. I have inexpensive optics, but after bucking the wisdom, am saving up for the more expensive ones. You do get what you pay for. Mil-spec quality means it is battle tested and proven. Look at what the military uses and ape it.

Use often dictates what is purchased. Plinking requires less robust and rugged design than that used in more professional venues.

Hunters tell of game lost because of optic failure at the wrong time. Hunting dangerous game means you take no un-necessary chances.

You get what you pay for.

buckmeister
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 9:19:42 AM EDT
Im usely one who uses military grade items, rugged and reliable.
But, for target shooting and varmints, I use what works.

If, a shtf ever happens, their be plenty high dollar scopes and rifles laying around.


TG

Link Posted: 4/7/2007 9:24:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KIDGLOCK:

You will find that there are more "good shooters with cheap scopes", than "good shooters with expensive scopes".


That has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard ................stupid .
Nobody I shoot with has anything less than a Lupey on their rifles ......................Come shoot Paraie dogs at 900 with us , we'll see .
And you're the exact type of gear-snob this thread is trying to educate.

MOST shooters do not have $600 into their gun AND scope. MANY good shooters are among them.

The reason I said that you will find more good shooters with cheap equipment is there are more shooters with cheap equipment than there are guys with expensive stuff.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 9:51:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KIDGLOCK:

You will find that there are more "good shooters with cheap scopes", than "good shooters with expensive scopes".


That has got to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard ................stupid .

Nobody I shoot with has anything less than a Lupey on their rifles ......................Come shoot Paraie dogs at 900 with us , we'll see .


CHEAP SCOPES SUCK


Thank you very much for putting me and my choice of gear down. Why do you care so much about the eqipment other people use? Some of us don't have the money to buy expensive stuff. I buy middle of the road items, because I can't afford to drop my entire paycheck on a scope, or on a rifle.

I bet you are the type of person who sees people at the range with less than top of the line gear and makes fun of them with your buddies, right?

I am that person on the range. I am happy with what I shoot, and how well I shoot. There is always room for improvement, but practice makes the shooter, not gear. I have a great time whenever I go shooting. Don't bring me down with your eliteist bullshit.

Your comment might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:01:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911Custom:

The reason I said that you will find more good shooters with cheap equipment is there are more shooters with cheap equipment than there are guys with expensive stuff.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.


Yes, many shooters cannot afford expensive optics. But the good stuff costs more than less-reliable samples. Many $30 scopes will fail at the most inopportune time, be that when a follow-up shot is necessary or after a hard thump. I don't baby my guns... I don't abuse them either. I prefer something a tad more reliable, and fortunately, can afford that. But reliability is rarely a luxury. You'll kick yourself when the crosshair's are suddenly missing and that trophy buck disappears over the hill or into the brush... or the prarie dogs all come out of their holes!

buckmeister
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:09:59 AM EDT
I have a cheap Simmons shotgun scope that works so well, I've kept it, instead of the 4 guns it's been on. I liked it so well I bought another; unfortunately, the second one wasn't worth a shit. Eh...cheap scopes, like anything, can be a "hit-or-miss" proposition. Lately, the cheapest I'll go is Nikon, and I have had one of those that ended up getting shit-canned for a lack of quality, too. But what the hell...use what ya want, and don't sweat what other people think about your choice of equipment.

This is supposed to be a firearms forum, not a fucking fashion show.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:11:48 AM EDT
Many of us did not start out with expensive top quality optics. The less expensive stuff served us well. I am very happy with good glass and don't regret one penny spent.

People come here for advice and it is dispensed without quality control.

Cheap and inexpensive are mutually exclusive. Cheap, poor quality optics make for a failed hunt, or diminished fun factor at the range. A long planned hunt or that coveted hour at the range once a month should have quality glass involved, regardless of expense.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:16:49 AM EDT
Cheap scopes do suck...and in other news, water is wet!


Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:25:54 AM EDT
900 yards? My my. I guess you would need better than average glass if you are hitting what you are aiming at. I don't shoot that far, and I would suppose most of the people reading this don't. Your opinion is only that. You can express it like an adult, or be a dick. Just my opinion.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:47:32 AM EDT
I have everything from a $30 BSA 2X20 on my buckmaster to a $750 Leupold VXL on my Weatherby accumark. The BSA works fine, but mind you, it's on a .22. I wouldn't dream of putting that scope on a .44 mag. I also wouldn't put a $40 Simmons on my .7mm WBY mag. Caliber has a lot to do with the quality of scope you plan on using. Also a gun that will get used and possibly abused in the field should have better quality optics on it than some plinker that gets babied at the range. It all depends on how much money you have to spend, and the amount of abuse (due to large calibers or field use), and what suits your need. As long as the scope functions properly and you are happy with it, who cares if it's a Tasco or a Leupold. I have a place for budget optics and high dollar glass on my guns. Mostly, I have cheaper to midrange scopes on my guns because that's what suits me, my guns, and my budget the best. I really like my $90 BSA Sweet 17 that I have on my CZ 453 .17HMR and the reviews on that scope are great. Being able to adjust the scope for yardage is great, and it keeps me on the bullseye (or head) as long as I know the distance I'm shooting at. In most cases, I'd rather take that $750 for a scope and put it towards another gun (Or 3 home-built AKs).

In general, 50% of the cost of the gun is way too much to spend on a scope. 25% will probably put an appropriate scope on most guns, in most cases, although I realize the need for better optics when shooting at very long distances, etc.

I agree that you get what you pay for, but I think that a lot of people pay for more than they need, just as a status symbol.

As long as you like the optics on your guns, who gives a sh*t about anybody else.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 10:47:33 AM EDT
I have always tried to believe in the Quality over quantity rule.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 11:33:42 AM EDT

I agree that you get what you pay for, but I think that a lot of people pay for more than they need, just as a status symbol.


Very well spoken, I've had high powered scopes on such rifles before now, complete over kill, cause I listen to ones here and else where.

Kinda like back when I first join this board, ended up with so much after market accessories, my AR ended up weighing a ton, the kewl tactical factor and photo op's.

I want a fighting rifle to be as light & kiss as possible.

This is why I'd went with 3-9x50, farthest I have to shoot is 150 yards, usely with in a 100 yards.

With the tasco, my groups usely stay with in once inch, bench rest shooting.


Dont feel the need for a $1000 dollar scope, my shooting skills arent that bad.


TG



Link Posted: 4/7/2007 12:12:24 PM EDT
Buy what you can afford, but buy the right tool for the job.

Just imagine if you were a Police Sniper and you had a hostage situation and you had a cheap ass scope and you took the shot and killed the hostage instead of the bad guy because the scope you had crapped out on you? How would you feel? Obviously any scope can crap out on you, but I wouldn't want to take that chance.

Now, if you are hunting or paper shooting and your cheap scope craps out on you, just pack your gear up and call it a day.

That is why they have different scopes for different jobs.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 3:09:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By xanadu:
CHeap and inexpensive are not the same

Cheap means poor quality

Innexpensive means lower price

I shot a Simmons on my FAL. Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang/SNAP. That was the end of my cheap scope days

Now I've got I got 2 inexpensive scopes.

Super Sniper 10X - one rear and one side parralax. I consider them to be inexpensive.



Good call...My Burris Fullfield II was inexpensive, but its defintely not cheaply made.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 4:50:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 6:54:13 PM EDT
LOL I'd have no problem about putting a cheap scope on a 22LR. Oh wait...in fact my 22 came with a cheap scope on it, and yano what it's clear as day. I just wish it had a higher magnification, so I'm replacing it with another cheap scope (probably a baraska or tasco or whatever I like at Dicks thats around $50).

on an AR, I'd consider upping to a slightly more expensive scope, but then again I only target shoot and I have no qualms about tossing away a piece of junk optic and putting my carry handle back onto the rifle if it were to crap out, I'd just keep shooting.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:37:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:50:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
I think I may be AR15.com's 1st officially named optics snob.


Soo.... are you cheap, or just inexpensive??
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top