AK Sponsor
Posted: 3/28/2012 11:09:04 AM EDT
|
(Yes I know there is an optics forum but nobody goes there unless they have a specific reason)
So I'm looking for some options for my rifles and I was looking as Kalinka Optics and a couple caught my eye... http://kalinkaoptics.com/rifle-scopes/po-1-5-4-5x20-fed-zoom-weapon-rifle-scope-w-duplex-reticle.html This one would probably go on my 47 variant as a close to medium range optic. and... http://kalinkaoptics.com/rifle-scopes/pk-as-dual-black-dot-red-dot-tactical-combat-sight-weaver-version.html This one on my 74 variant. My question pertains to quality and ruggedness. I have no experience with russian optics and would like to inquire from those who do. I understand that the PK-AS probably isn't as good as say an Aimpoint but does it stand on it's own? Both of these would be run on a TWS topcover. Thanks... |
|
IMO PK-AS is superior to an Aimpoint but I like certain features that others may not. Part of the equation is intended use and in certain aspects I think the Aimpoint is superior, but for overall usefulness I'm sold on the PK-AS.
Pro's First off PK-AS is actually a collimator sight and not a red dot in the same context as an Aimpoint. It's a non magnified scope with an always on etched black dot, instead of an electronically generated red dot. By using a prismatic design like magnified optics it increases light transmission which gives PK-AS a very bright and clear picture. There is no tube effect at all with it. In fact with both eyes open the body is so thin it literally disappears in your FOV. It does not need batteries because of the always on black dot. While I have always been impressed with the multi century long battery life of the aimpoint, PK-AS does not need them at all, at least for daylight shooting. It does use CR357 watch batteries to illuminate the dot red for low light or when contrast is needed for the dot. By contrast I don't care for the larger dot of the Aimpoint, or most red dots actually. Generally speaking I prefer a chevron or triangle style reticule, IMO they are overall more useful in a wider range of circumstances (for me anyway). I like the smaller dot of the PK-AS because it's easier to make more precise shots at longer ranges. I'm a 5.45 guy and value 400-500m shooting with my SGL's, a large dot is still ok at most ranges but not against smaller targets, particularly as the range increases. PK-AS also has a large oval which is great for CQB as well. It has a thumbwheel that adjusts in MOA so if you know your bullet drop at range you can dial in your adjustment very quickly. I don't particularly care for this feature because I prefer to use hold overs instead but it's there and it does work as designed. The con's The dot can be hard to acquire depending on the background precisely because it is very small. Not a show stopper to me but it's worth mentioning. They are hard to zero, by design. As a military optic they were intended to be zeroed at the unit level and left alone in the field, therefore you and I have to accommodate what is probably the quirkiest zeroing procedure of all the combloc optics. Modern designs like Rakurs and Obzor are much easier by comparison. Depending on how important cheek weld is to you, you may not like the height over the receiver of the PK-AS weaver model. Some people can't handle the height of Russian optics, some people don't mind. IMO there is no difference in effectiveness because of the height but if you can't get used to it, you can't get used to it. Did I mention they are hard to zero? Aimpoint will probably be faster to acquire the dot, it is after all designed to be a CQB optic and obviously performs well. I like Aimpoints and have had my own, but for my purposes I don't care for red dots in general including Russian ones. Optics like Rakurs, Obzor, PSO-1, PK-AS or Kashtan for example have features that I have come to value more than just a fat dot in a tube. I'm not a SWAT type operator, my formal rifle training was infantry style in the US Army. My service experience was as a tank commander and I don't doubt that colors my view some. Because of my experience I prefer an optic that has the widest range of uses as opposed to one that is perfect in just one scenario. My experience has reinforced in me that you rarely have the luxury of picking the time and place of your engagement, and for most practical scenarios I would rather have something other than a dot in a tube. Z |
AK Sponsor