AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/10/2006 5:53:11 PM EDT
they look good, are inexpensive (cheap), but does anyone have experience with the variables? Am thinking about one on a varminter.
|
|
I have the rubber armored 3x9-40 on my DPMS twenty four special and it shoots great. Not fuzzy at all and works very nice. Then I bought a 6x24-50 with adjustable objective for my .308, and it gets fuzzy when I crank it all the way up to 24 power. Both are very particular about your eye relief as well. If you don't put your eye in exactly the right spot, you won't be able to see anything. Really have to get disciplined to set your same exact cheek weld every time. Hope this helps. |
Everything you have stated is just the oppisite for me... I have the 3-12x44 mini AO and its a great scope other than the clicks not being positive. I can see my target nice and clear (bright), no problems with eye relief, and i take my scope on/off my gun everytime i go to the range and it always holds a zero. Ill shoot 150-200rds at the range and still holds zero. |
Do you have much experience with optics? When I first started shooting with glass, I too had leapers/NCStar scopes. I thought they were great til I realized what I was missing. Now I'll never go back! |
They are JUNK! If you want proof, send me 20 bucks, and I will send you a 4X Leapers Colt clone that mounts to the AR carry handle. |
|
I guess its my day to stick up leapers. I have several of them, most picked up on auctions both new and used. The low end and older ones like the carry handle 4x20 and 3-9x28 are not as good as the newer 5th generation or Accushot ones, glass isn't as clear, adjustments are sloppy. I do have one of the plain old 3-9x40 rubber armored ones that is OK, glass not as good as others of theirs it holds zero well and I keep it around as a spare. The Accushot ones have very good glass by comparison, I have a T168 that has been great for the money with several hundred rounds under it and still holding up. I have the T28 that seems to be decent though I am not in love the T reticle. The only other variable I have of theirs is a compact 3-9x40 mildot, the glass is clear and no distortion that a lot of cheap scopes have zoomed in, but I havn't used it enough to say it holds up yet. Once you get up into the varminting type scopes, they have some pretty stiff competition with a lot of other imports that are usually less money. Quite a few of the cheap scopes all come from the same place ad are different only in lable. |
|
People who use cheap optics often don't know what they're missing in glass quality. They don't realize how much clearer and sharper a good scope can be, and how much more effective it can make them. I am a reformed cheap optics user, when it comes to magnifying optics. |
| Yes I wish I could buy Ziess optics and Wilson combat or Les Bear 1911s and the best of everything....but if im gonna ever ,EVER get my new Mustang gGT Convertable or late model Corvette (2nd teenagerhood) I have to make comprimise's just like everyone else.If I start buying 900 doller scopes for my 800 doller AR Ill loose every inch of credibility Ive built up and have managed to get my wife to accept my 2nd child/ i mean teenagerhood! |
I would suggest looking into Simmons scopes, such as their ProDiamond offerings. A lot more scope for little money. |
+1 Simmons.....not much more money, but a lot more scope. There is a difference between inexpensive and cheap. Leapers are cheap. Try Simmons ProDiamond Master Series sold by SWFA. I tell people, if at all possible, to by from those who support this site. |
Beware of what you find online... Mueller sells what appear to be the same cheap Chinese made scopes as sold under brand names like Leepers, BEC, Nikko Stirling and NcStar at much higher prices, and they have been known to use questionable marketing tactics like company employees trolling forums posting gushing "reviews". I don't think honest companies that sell a quality product need to do things like that. |
|
I don't sell Leapers or BSA scopes nor do I work for them. But the BSA scopes I used on my Vepr have handled the recoil w/o any problems. The one BSA 8-32x I had on the Vepr (500rd of 7.62x39) is now on my 24" AR-15 and prints ~3" 5-10 shot groups at 100 yd using Wolf. The $25 BSA 4x32 I bought at Walmart has handled about 1000rd of 7.62x39 without any problems. I had a Tasco 3-9x that lasted about 10 rd of 7.62x39 before it started to rattle and lost zero. The Leapers T168 worked fairly well on my 16" M4 (more recoil/kick than the 24" AR15). Again, if you were deploying to Iraq or needed it for a duty weapon, definitely get the high end stuff (Aimpoint, ACOG, EOTech). |
Think whatever you want, but I was looking at Mueller's web page just now, and several of their scopes look virtually identical to either Nikko Sterling or NcStar scopes (down to the molding of the controls) that have almost the exact same specs. Those brands sell for $50 to $100 less for similar models. Call me a skeptic, but I find the stories that a tiny company in MI has the resources to build their own state of the art optics plant in China a little fishy. I do find it very believable that they could make a deal with a plant that is already building scopes for other brands to import them. Those same companies build "store brand" scopes for numerous catalog/internet vendors. All that said, I wish you no ill, and hope you are completely happy with your Mueller and that it provides you with good service. |
Condensed from an old thread. I got a Leapers T168 handle mounted 6x scope and it's worked well for me through just uner 1,700 rds. My AR was strictly a range / light hunting weapon so I don't need (read can't afford) a really high end optic. I've found it to be solid and clear. Worth the $50 it cost me. I started shooting out past 300yds at my range and I realized that my eyes needed more magnification so I got my second Leapers scope that I'm equally as pleased with as the 1st. It is a 10" long, 3x12x44 AO scope that I really like. Again, this is a range/plinking scope but with a stable rest and no wind, I'm able to hit a 2½" x 3" plate at 300yds! That AO feature really makes a difference, as does the 3+" eye relief, and I need all of the 12x just to see a target that small! It isn't in a league with the higher end scopes (and it doesn't cost as much either), but so far with 600 rds through my AR, it like the T168, is clear, crisp, bright, and solid. And, I use it's turret knobs to adjust for windage and elevation (as well as the mil-dot reticle) and they go back to zero just fine. So far, so good.  Update - Well today at the range I thought that I'd have to eat my words on my scope. While shifting from 100 to 300 to 500 to 200 yd ranges, I thought that I'd lost the scope. All of a sudden the elevation was off the paper! As I sat and thought for a minute, I looked over the scope for damage or loose mounts. Then I noticed that my elevation turret knob was too high and it dawned on me that I'd turned it to zero the wrong way! It was set 100 clicks (25") high for the 200 yd target I was shooting at. Well, I rotated the turret knob back down a full circle and then decided to test how well the zero came back in. To my delight, it is back on zero to the limit of my shooting ability to verify. So, getting either brave or stupid, I tried the same thing with the windage knobs turning both left and right a full circle, shooting a few, and then turning them back to zero. Again, it is back on zero to the limit of my shooting ability to verify. Now with over 2,500 rds and more than a full rotation of the elevation and a full circle both left and right with the windage turret knobs, it still came back to zero. Am I happy? You bet. I realize that it still isn't the quality of the high end scopes. It surely isn't as durable as an ACOG either. But I use it as is a range scope and at 12x out at 300 yds (after my experiments above) I could still hit that 2½" by 3" metal target fully supported off the bench when I did my part. That's good enough for an old guy. (In fact, I'm still amazed at the accuracy of this thing!) |
|
I'd say for a cheap scope, the T168 is probably the best thing going (based on what I've read from the experience of others). I've used inexpensive scopes from Bushnell/Simmons/Tasco/Weaver in the past, but they just don't compare to higher priced Leupys and Trijicons and other high end optics. In my opinion, it's best to save for the best quality. It's always worth it. I'll never understand topping a weapon that cost roughly $1k or more, at least, with a cheapo scope from Sportsman's Guide or Tapco or where ever. I doubt the military would be fielding Leupys and Trijicons if the Chicom scopes that cost 1/10 of those were just as good. |
The military needs durable optics and has a bigger budget. Plus, with their "group buys" they get decent volume discounts. I'd gladly use a $20-$30 optic on a $2000 weapon. There's no law that states you have to spend just as much or more on optics for a weapon system. |
I thought that too at first until I used some higher-quality optics. Now there's no going back. It's just too much nicer. I say if you want to use cheap optics, make sure you always use cheap optics, so you don't know what you're missing 
|
Exactly, I wasn't saying that you should spend as much, more, or even half as much cash on your sighting systems as you do on your weapon, but that you get what you pay for. I too have used cheap optics, but after using good ones, there's no going back because there is no comparison. My comments about not understanding the use of cheap optics on an expensive rifle were about doing justice to the rifle, not that I think it's a requirement or status symbol. Putting a cheap scope on a high end rifle is like having a Ferrari and putting 12" steel wheels with hub caps on it, and 87 octane in the tank. Doesn't do the car justice...performance wise. Tiger Woods can probably play golf with a set of clubs from WalMart better than any of us using clubs from the best manufacturers, but I bet those clubs wouldn't let him perform at the top of his game either. |
|
Your points are well taken and in a perfect world I'd buy the best of everything too. However, here on Earth, I can't afford the best of everything and I can't always find exactly what I'm interested in. Case in point. I wanted a short (under 12" long), 3x12x40ish scope preferably with both an AO and mil-dot reticle. I have a 3x9 on a 10/22, a 4x on another .22, and a 6x (Leapers) on my AR. I liked the size of the Leapers but my eyes demanded a higher power than 9x to shoot at 300+ yds. I didn't have a gazillion dollars but I was willing to spend $200 - $300 for the setup if I found exactly what I was looking for. Guess what? Leapers is the only scope I could find that fit my requirements! Not the only one below my price range, the only one. It just happened to cost $140 total with rings and shipping. Like I said above, so far, so good. And yes, the optics aren't up to the premium scope's standards for clarity, etc., but you know what? I tried an ACOG and my optics are about as good as theirs. No way near as durable, but comparing visual qualities, I don't see much difference. Does that mean that the ACOG isn't worth the extra cost? Hell no! I've seen a couple of guys drop their ACOG topped ARs off the shooting bench and they just picked them up, dusted them off, and started shooting again. I'm sure that mine would be so much junk if I dropped my AR on the scope. On the other hand, I also saw a beautiful Nightforce 5.5 x 22 x 50? rig on a 50 BMG bolt gun at our range. That scope was designed for that .50 cal and it cost $1,800 with rings! Absolutely beautiful scope, rings, mount, and optics. The thing was a work of art! One small problem though. The owner was sighting his brand new scope in for the 1st time and asked me to help. As I spotted for him, his 1st two shots were 1" apart 2 " right, 1" high at 200 yds. He adjusted to correct the strike point and his 3rd shot was 4" to the right. He figured he muffed the shot so he tried again and his 4th shot was 6" right and 3" low. He concentrated on relaxing and his 5 shot and 6th shots were no where to be found. I asked him to shoot at the dirt berm so that we could get an idea where the rounds were striking and they were low 2ft and right 4ft! Evidently, the reticle let go after 4 rounds and his scope was useless. Yep, manufacturing defect. Yep, warranty will take care of it. Yep, his next one will likely work just fine. My point is this: My $140 Leapers setup (designed for the AR) kept shooting with zero problems for 300 rounds while his $1,800 Nightforce (designed for his .50) crapped out after 4 rounds. His scope cost 13 times what mine did. Who had the better scope at the range on that particular day? |
Well, I happen to not think ACOGs are all they are cracked up to be, but that's neither here nor there. If you look through a leapers high-mag variable and then through, say, an IOR or Leupold variable, there is a significant difference in clarity, and most particularly in sensitivity to eye relief, especially at higher magnifications. In your case you were comparing fairly dissimilar optics. |
|
I am a leapers user, if not neccesarily a disciple. I have a few of them on different rilfes and I have a couple more expensive quality brand names scopes like Burris. Without question glass is better on the Burris I have, in bright sun the Leapers are pretty decent, in cloudy or angled sun they are not near as good, but still useable. Leapers like any other scope has different grades of scopes and some are better than others with none being as good or better than the Trijicon, Leupold etc. But for the money they are OK, with the occasional exception. The bottom line is they are not "as good as that high dollar scope", but they are an option to have some features that only come on much more expensive ones. Personally I would love to spend $800+ on a IOR, Leupold or Burris tactical but I can't do that at this point or in the foreseable short term future. If I could piece one together like I did the AR and end up with it costing roughly half of what retail would, I would do it in a heartbeat.  In the mean time I will use my inferior cheap scopes working out which ones are worth the money and which ones aren't.
|
You can find Tasco and BSA scopes of mine in the woods surrounding the range I belong to. I'm as tight as paint and even I don't bother with cheap junk like that anymore. Look I'm no scope snob, I've owned BSAs, low end Bushnells, low end Simmons scopes, Tascos and Hakkos. They don't hold zero, they don't keep water out and they just plain suck. The Bushnell 3200 elite scopes seem to be a good value. I had one for awhile and for under $ 200 they're a good scope. But a $ 50 chinese scope I wouldn't bother with, they break too often. edit for the price of all my shitty scopes I could have bought a NICE Leupold. One good scope is better than a crap scope on every rifle. Mueller does seem to have a better than average chinese scope, but I'd just spend the money for a Bushnell 3200. |
I understand what you're saying and agree about the IOR or Leupold variables. What I expected was that the ACOG fixed magnification scope should have been much clearer and sharper than the variable Leapers. To my eyes, there wasn't much difference. And, another thing. Who else makes a 10" long, 3x12x44mm AO, mil-dot scope? I need the magnification because of my old eyes. I just won't put on a 12 - 15" long, full sized scope on a 16" AR. Aesthetically speaking, the shorter scope is better proportioned to the size of the weapon. |
The increased length is a necessary side-effect of the quality, I believe. If it's not, then I'm definitely with you there, someone needs to make one. |
|
Steve, Please don't think I'm kickin' ya for the heck of it, cuz I'm not... I ordered a T168 for an occasional knock-around scope for an A2 that I have based on your reviews. I hope it works out OK; if it doesn't I'm not gonna be too heartbroken. Anyway... you asked 'who else makes short scopes in such-n-such magnficition, etc. etc.?'... Here ya go  Burris ShortMag 4.5-14x |
|
I say get what you can afford, What you are comforatble spending. $100~500~1000. If you spend $50~75 for a scope that functions well at the range and if the SHTF, awesome. if you can spend $500~1000 for a scope that functions when your life is on the line on a daily basis (ACOG etc) even better. I'd make the investment. But Life happens and one has to make due. Stay Safe |
| i have a 6x32 AO mil dot. Quality not so good. In shooting for groups on a bench, i can throw 10 rds into a dime size hole at 50 yds with my .22lr upper. If i come out of position and go back into position my group will be 2" away. Thinking it was my rifle i put the iron's on and could hold .75" to an inch all day @50yds. I got the scope to test diffrent lots of ammo, now i saving for a real scope. |
|
Speaking of T168, I haven't read much on these lately though a year or so ago they were all the rage. Forgive me if I missed all the related threads within the last year, but I was playing in the sandbox at my uncle's and missed them. Since the search doesn't go back that far and without re-hashing it all, What was the final consensus on these things. Last I remember it was still being debated if they were GTG or a POS. Seems like one vendor had seconds and someone else's were O.k. So, what's the verdict ? I have a 20" dedicated more or less to informal target work and plinking and can't see putting an ACOG or IOR on it, but don't want to throw money at a POS either. Wpns Man |
The glass is clear, but not "bright", if you know what I mean. It is nothing to write home about, but it is not THAT bad. The illuminated reticule is poor. The on/off knob is TOO easy to accidentally bump on, draining your batteries, unless you tighten the two screws on the knob. The W&E clicks are there, but are easy to skip, if you are not careful. The "issue" last year was that Clearview was dumping the 1st Generation T-168's. Some of these had issues. Canted reticules, canted bases, sight channel underneath the scope body not drilled all the way through, occasional scope fogging. They did offer to replace them if you were not satisfied, though. Since the ones sold on their website today are supposed to be the new "3rd Generation" scopes (what happened to the 2nd Generation??), I do not know if the issues still exist. Remember, this is a $50 - $60 scope. If you use this standard, then the T-168 is not a bad deal. Please be aware of what you are getting. IMHO, I STILL think that if you are looking for a "value" in optics, look at Simmons. CDNN has a few of the old, pre Master series Pro-Diamond scopes on sale. These do not have an illuminated reticule, though. Consider these if you are looking for "value" on your knock-about, range upper. Simmons 1.5-5x32 ProDiamond Black Matte Scope - $59.99 Simmons 2x32 ProDiamond Black Matte Scope - $39.99 |
|
RedFalconBill, Thanks for the short version. Since this is basically for a plinking gun, I think $50 is a reasonable gamble. If it doesn't work out, I'll put it on a .22LR. Though in this price range the compact Barska's seem to offer a lot also. One piece tubes, nitrogen filled, 30mm, variable 3X9, illuminated, etc. Just haven't heard any + or - on them. They could be the best value/bargins yet based on Euro-trash economies or total POS's, time will tell. Plus I am debating whether to go ahead and buy a mid $$ range, high quality optic like a IOR M2 regardless. Though I'm not really keen on the "busy" CQB reticle, but the MP-9 Nato reticle is a possibility. I have/had Aimpoints, Tri-powers, etc. I just can't see dropping the $$ for an ACOG for this particular rifle. Wpns Man |
|
I like the one I have. For a cheap chinese scope its not bad, decent glass at least and has held upfor me but there are plenty that haven't so I've read. I saw they are $45 now at cheaper than dirt. You can send it back to Leapers and get it replaced if it craps out but the shipping is your nickle. Lots of options for scopes these days. I was thinking about trying the new Pentax Gameseeker series 1.75x5. They have a ballistic reticle, and the glass is really good from the ones I looked at, for about a 100 bucks shpped from a few places online. pentax at SWFA picture Barska has earned itself a bad reputation, I have a varminter that is OK if you only want to use about 1/2 the zoom power because of distortion and glare at high power above 14x. But I recently got one of their tactical scopes (not SWAT) and its seems to be pretty decent so far, though it was over $120 which gives it lot of competetion. |
|
Nobody ever listens when I say this, BUT Burris Fullfield II scopes have REALLY impressed me with their brightness and clarity! They're not $50 scopes, but you can get them for between $150 and $300 depending on what features you're looking for. I've owned lots of crap optics, but I've also owned an ACOG and a SuperSniper, so I've seen some decent quality glass. The three Burris scopes I have owned were just as clear and at least 95% as bright as the SuperSniper. I have owned a Mueller 4-16x, and it was NOT as clear OR as bright as the Burris. I'm telling you, take that $100 you were going to spend on a crap name, and purchase a Burris instead for $50 or $75 more and see if they make a difference. But do yourself a favor regardless. Don't spend $100 on ANY 16x or higher scope and expect anything more than CRAP. Every time you see someone having good luck with cheap optics, it's a 4x or 6x scope. You just can't build a telescope on a magnifying glass budget. |
I can't wait until my Burris Fullfield II 1.75-5x 20mm with German 3P#4 reticle gets in. |
|
I have a Burris Fullfield, I agree they do have great glass and I really like mine though I wish I had the ballistic plex reticle. Unfortunatley its not just 75 bucks more for one in the 12x range, its almost 3 times the cost. I agree and understand you can't get great optics for low budget price, but that's what budget some of us are limited too so we muddle through. The Pentax I looked through was as good or better as the Burris in regard to glass, whether the rest of the scope is worth a dang I couldn't say. |
|
Onepoint, That Pentax looks like a nice scope for the money. At first glance the ranging reticle looks simple and effective. It would be nice if they listed the width in inches the horizontal stadia represent for ranging and what bullet weight/velocity the drops are calculated for. It would be even better if they could add an illuminated dot in the center of the reticle to use for BAC. But, then I'm sure it wouldn't cost $100 either. If they could do it and keep it under $200 it would be a winner. Wpns Man |
AR Sponsor