Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/3/2003 8:26:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2003 9:12:54 AM EDT by Duffy]
SMV, I dunno if my reply to your IM went through so here it is just in case
Everything I heard about US Optics is true: built like a tank, hand-made components, great optics. I have the cross hair reticle, 1-4x. It's very well made but heavy. The lit reticle has 11 brightness settings, which can be seen from muzzle's end, which means it'll be very visible if seen through NVG. There's no way to get a proper cheekweld without a riser. I got the #38, but the occular lens is so huge it doesn't clear the backup iron, so I bought #36 instead, it's perfect.
The standard front sight will be prominent at anything less than 3x, from 3-4x it's a little blur on the bottom.
The scope has to be seen to be appreciated, maybe they engineered it to withstand a nuclear blast or something :) Its size is approaching that of my Leupold VariX III 3-9x.
The objective lens is small but the occular lens is huge, all its lenses have 99.4% light transference. The cross hair reticle, true to its short range scope mission, is rather heavy, for quick acquisition. I hear there are couplers that make it 2-8x, but I haven't seen it.
Overall, I'm very impressed with it and glad I got it. Like you, I have enough ACOGs and wanted something different. You won't regret buying one. I got mine from a fellow memeber for about $1300, it's worth that to me, but not the $1700 retail. Feel free to ask me anything :)
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 1:07:03 PM EDT
i have an sn-4 monuted on my spr clone and love this scope. i got rid of the posi lock monut and switched to some med arms 22 rings to monut it. mine has the doe range finding reticle and the optics are really clear. the scope is heavy compared to a trijicon but in the prone i dont notice it. if i could post a picture i would so you could see the setup its great.maybe i can email it to you and you can post it. im hoping they come out with the 2x adapter they have it listed but last time i checked they were not out.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 1:27:12 PM EDT
mcad sure email it to me I'll post it [:)] The scope came with the mount so I wasn't about to spend $120 on #22 to replace the $250 mount, I have #22 on my Remy and I like the variety [:d]
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 6:33:10 PM EDT
I've heard alot of good thing about them, but I wanted to know if it's really true. Now I just gotta shop around and find a good deal. I'm just looking for something different and they look pretty good. I've heard that I should get one of their catalogs before buying, is this true? Thanks. Steve.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 10:35:35 AM EDT
hey duffy, when comparing the resolution of the SN4 and ACOGs side by side, which one was clearer? my friend bought an SN4 because he had heard that the optics were better (clearer and brighter), and that the resolution would kick ass over an ACOG (as claimed in the US Optics brochure package), and that it'd have a wider field of view too. when he got it, we were both surprised to find that my TA01NSN had very slightly better resolution (not a great difference, but just noticeably). we spent quite a while switching back and forth, and adjusting the eyepiece on the SN4, but i could make out sharper details with the ACOG. we had expected the SN4 to be noticeably clearer than the ACOG. we didn't agree if the ACOG was much clearer than the SN4, but he did agree that the SN4 did NOT have better resolution. another thing was that at 4x, the ACOG had a wider field of view. of course, at lower magnifications, the SN4 would have a wider FOV, but he was under the impression that the SN4 had a wider FOV than the ACOG at the same magnification. a week later, he also picked up a TA31, and that, too, was slightly clearer than his SN4, and was just as bright. just wondering if you had a similar experience. cheers! MM
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 2:52:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2003 5:22:13 PM EDT by Duffy]
MM, As well engineered as the SN4 is, I agree I can't perceive its superiority over the ACOG, but then I think the differences are so minute, naked eyes can't differentiate them very well. Visually I think my TA11 is a tiny bit brighter and clearer, I don't know if it has to do with the small objective lens or that it has so many lenses compared to the ACOG (now I'm just talking out of my ass). I agree with your assessment. The ACOG is simply very difficult to beat. While I'm not disappointed at the SN4, US Optics literature, as with most literature produced by the manufacturers, should be taken with a grain of salt. Short of using instruments to measure the brightness and clearity, the the SN4 doesn't appear to have the advantages USO claims. [img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid73/p20b21eb743b64009c044fb1b711063ab/fb7b2eef.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 8:00:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2003 8:03:44 PM EDT by mcad]
i had a ta01nsn before i got my sn4 and i felt the sn4 was clearer. which sn4 did you get the standard or the ultra hi resolution. mineis the ulta hi resolution and has the doe m1 reticle in it. the only difference is some ranging brackets and numbered lines on the reticle.i looked through a ta31 and felt the the dot didnt allow for precision work like the cross hairs would. the ta31 is good as a multi role scope to transition from cqb role to distance targets but it depends on the type of role the weapon is going to be used in.for me the sn4 was the best choice. talk with someone at us optics they are great people to deal with and will send you out a catalog. also just cause they list a price does not mean you cant get one for a better price. talk with them and i pretty sure they will hook you up.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 9:07:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2003 9:08:50 PM EDT by militarymoron]
duffy, mcad, thanks for the replies. try this test: make up a resolution test sheet, with a series of lines of random numbers and letters printed on a sheet of paper with a laser printer, each line in a smaller font than the other. basically like an eye chart. set it out and get two people to try to read the smallest font line that they can. it's a pretty good test of resolution. mcad, i'm not sure which SN4 my buddy got - the standard or ultra-high res one. retail was something like $1800, but he got a good deal on it. you're right about roles - and it's also personal preference. the SN4 has more features than the ACOGs, at a price (no pun intended) - heavier, bulkier, those HUGE windage and elevation adjustment caps etc. but like everything else, nothing's for free [:)] and it's up to the individual to determine whether those features are needed. thanks and cheers! MM
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 3:59:01 PM EDT
Thanks for the info guys. Great pics Duffy. Now you've got me confused. Everything I read says that the SN4 is better than the ACOG. better resolution, field of view, ect. Then I hear the ACOG is clearer. The ACOG's really are hard to beat. You just don't realize it until you compare it to something else. I'll give them a call and check out one of their catalogs. Thanks. Steve.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 6:11:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 6:12:14 PM EDT by militarymoron]
steve, that's exactly what my buddy and i thought, which is why he got the SN4. now, i'm not knocking SN4's at all - don't get me wrong. at a lower magnification, the SN4 DOES have a wider FOV, but that's not the impression that the literature gave us. we were thinking that at the same (4X) magnification, it had more. as for clarity, it was very close, but we had expected the SN4 to be noticeably clearer, which it was not. my buddy got it hoping it'd fill both roles as a medium-range scope at 4X and the CQB role at 1X. turns out we found the lighted reticle slightly busy for CQB use and that a simple one like an eotech or dot was more practical. he likes that it's overbuilt, but personally, i felt that the added features of variable magnification, and electrically lighted reticle was not enough to warrant the bulk and weight (just my own personal preferences). my recommendation is to compare an SN4 and ACOG yourself side by side, and don't trust anyone's experience (even mine), as everyone's eyes are different, and who knows - his might have been an anomaly. try it on an eye chart - it's an objective test. FWIW, i've got the TA01NSN/optima combo and have found it fills the close/medium range role nicely, even though the NSN reticle has some drawbacks of its own (but that's another story). :-) cheers! MM
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 7:11:35 PM EDT
I like the over build too, I liken it to a Rolex. Mine can go down to 4000ft, not that I ever will, but it's which that makes it capable of it that makes it immensely strong.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 8:01:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Duffy: I like the over build too, I liken it to a Rolex. Mine can go down to 4000ft, not that I ever will, but it's which that makes it capable of it that makes it immensely strong.
View Quote
dang duffy, all my money seems to end up in guns and gear, so all i got is my timex [:P] but i most definitely understand your point, and agree with it. it's nice to know that if the need or situation ever arises, your gear can hold up. cheers! MM
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 8:08:00 PM EDT
But MM you're famous, chicks dig that [:p]
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 4:50:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 3:41:11 PM EDT
The field of view at 4x is indeed greater on my TA-31 than my SN-4.also looking thru my window to the outside into a nice sunny day the SN-4 seems to be enough brighter to notice although the acog seems bright enough and i wouldnt of even given brightness a thought,but it is noticable if you compare.As far as CQB goes,i used it for two years in a run and gun and even though it can go to 1x its not as fast as the EOtech i was using before it,sad to say.The jury is still out for me atleast on the TA-31 untill i can use it, starting this weekend instead of my SN-4 for the rest of the year,in the heat of gameing.I thouht also the SN-4 would be best relegated to SPR duty.Last thing,on sniperhide theres a guy whose name i forgot but is to USO what New-ARguy is to acogs,and he said that the doublers,like for the SN-4 didnt work that well,save your money.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 6:13:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Duffy: But MM you're famous, chicks dig that [:p]
View Quote
as long as my wife digs it, that's all that matters to me [:D] cheers, MM
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 7:25:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2003 7:26:19 PM EDT by Duffy]
Paul I'm surprised to hear the SN4 beat the Leupold, I'd love to know how they test resolution by instruments. MM, herein lies the secret: don't get married and you get to buy all the "tool" and "precision instruments" you want [:)]
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:10:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 3:26:31 PM EDT
Paul, MSTN's reputation is in my opinion as good as that of Leupold's, you guys wouldn't sell or endorse something you don't believe in, whether you sell it or not [:)] I agree its mount is very low, even on an ARMS #36 riser its height is lower than an iron sight. My scope came with the mount already installed, but it'd suck to require mechanical tools to install. Not that I'll get other rings to replace it, but to have an option would be nice without undue stress on my part. My scope is mounted on a heavy barrel 20" rifle, probably the heaviest combo I could put together [BD]
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 11:49:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PaulE: I haven't compared any quantity of them, but I have compared my own SN-4 with my ACOGs, including a TA11B. The SN-4 wins on a USAF 1951 resolution chart test, but not by a wide margin. They both crush my LR M3 scopes, which I like a lot. The biggest difference comes in low light. Then the USO gathers more light (almost equal to Nightforce, but not quite). The TA11 and TA31 are behind the USO, better than the Leupolds. Paul MSTN
View Quote
Thanks for the info! Do you have the high resolution, or the ultra high resolution? Steve.
Top Top