User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/14/2014 8:03:17 PM EDT
[#1]
For hunting deer in the woods and a occasional fall I say there gtg.
Check out Burris as well which is around the same price.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 6:40:20 AM EDT
[#2]
I'd pass on a Kaspa.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:04:07 AM EDT
[#3]
what about this guy?simmions
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:11:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryI'd pass on that as well. I am telling you Burris Fullfield II is the best bang for the buck. Look them up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:26:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd pass on that as well. I am telling you Burris Fullfield II is the best bang for the buck. Look them up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am telling you Burris Fullfield II is the best bang for the buck. Look them up. still i little out of my price range. im looking for something that goes up to atleast 14x magnifications and those are 300 for that mag |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:28:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
still i little out of my price range. im looking for something that goes up to atleast 14x magnifications and those are 300 for that mag Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am telling you Burris Fullfield II is the best bang for the buck. Look them up. still i little out of my price range. im looking for something that goes up to atleast 14x magnifications and those are 300 for that mag nm, read it wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 8:09:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Well, what caliber is it going on? I didn't see that mentioned
OP, the cheapest I would go is the Primary Arms 4-16x44 scope. It's $160 so a little out of your price range, but it's fantastic for the price. link |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:24:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, what caliber is it going on? I didn't see that mentioned OP, the cheapest I would go is the Primary Arms 4-16x44 scope. It's $160 so a little out of your price range, but it's fantastic for the price. link |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:58:48 AM EDT
[#9]
my price range is sub 200. and its going on my ar15 .223. Im looking for about 200yrds maybe a little further. I currently have a 3-9 magnification and its just now doing it for me at 100yrds, let alone at 200+
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 10:16:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 on the PA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, what caliber is it going on? I didn't see that mentioned OP, the cheapest I would go is the Primary Arms 4-16x44 scope. It's $160 so a little out of your price range, but it's fantastic for the price. link does anyone know if the mils dot is on the front end or rear end? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 10:42:04 AM EDT
[#11]
Anyone have experience with "Sight mark" scopes? My local dunhams has them and it's just in my price range
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:31:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone have experience with "Sight mark" scopes? My local dunhams has them and it's just in my price range Oh, Lord. Not Sight Mark. Not Weaver Kaspa. Not Simmons. Not mil dot reticles at $200. Ff you can't shoot a 3-9x now beyond a mere 100 yards, the problem is your equipment choices. It all begins with the glass. Guys are shooting 600+ yards with decent 3-9x40mm, scopes, and they do not need to be high end. But the kind of junk you are considering and apparently using in your 3-9x is THE problem, not magnification. If you can only spend $200 on a scope (I've been there), put the money into the best glass you can afford and avoid high magnification, which only makes your problem worse. For $200, maybe $20 more, you can probably get a 2-7x33mm VX-1. It is a basic duplex reticle. No bells and whistles. Nothing fancy, but it is orders of magnitude superior to what you are looking at. The glass is where the money went in that price bracket. You will have a clear image. You will have sharp focus. You will have detail resolution. It will provide good light transmission in low light. These are the things you need to be looking for. Heck with the proper zero, your bullet will not rise or fall more than 3" from where you aim out to about 275 yards, so you do not need target or milrad turrets or BDC reticles. Focus on the basics when buying budget optics and stay away from the attractive tacticool junk. Leupold 2-7x33 Review |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:55:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, Lord. Not Sight Mark. Not Weaver Kaspa. Not Simmons. Not mil dot reticles at $200. Ff you can't shoot a 3-9x now beyond a mere 100 yards, the problem is your equipment choices. It all begins with the glass. Guys are shooting 600+ yards with decent 3-9x40mm, scopes, and they do not need to be high end. But the kind of junk you are considering and apparently using in your 3-9x is THE problem, not magnification. If you can only spend $200 on a scope (I've been there), put the money into the best glass you can afford and avoid high magnification, which only makes your problem worse. For $200, maybe $20 more, you can probably get a 2-7x33mm VX-1. It is a basic duplex reticle. No bells and whistles. Nothing fancy, but it is orders of magnitude superior to what you are looking at. The glass is where the money went in that price bracket. You will have a clear image. You will have sharp focus. You will have detail resolution. It will provide good light transmission in low light. These are the things you need to be looking for. Heck with the proper zero, your bullet will not rise or fall more than 3" from where you aim out to about 275 yards, so you do not need target or milrad turrets or BDC reticles. Focus on the basics when buying budget optics and stay away from the attractive tacticool junk. Leupold 2-7x33 Review Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone have experience with "Sight mark" scopes? My local dunhams has them and it's just in my price range Oh, Lord. Not Sight Mark. Not Weaver Kaspa. Not Simmons. Not mil dot reticles at $200. Ff you can't shoot a 3-9x now beyond a mere 100 yards, the problem is your equipment choices. It all begins with the glass. Guys are shooting 600+ yards with decent 3-9x40mm, scopes, and they do not need to be high end. But the kind of junk you are considering and apparently using in your 3-9x is THE problem, not magnification. If you can only spend $200 on a scope (I've been there), put the money into the best glass you can afford and avoid high magnification, which only makes your problem worse. For $200, maybe $20 more, you can probably get a 2-7x33mm VX-1. It is a basic duplex reticle. No bells and whistles. Nothing fancy, but it is orders of magnitude superior to what you are looking at. The glass is where the money went in that price bracket. You will have a clear image. You will have sharp focus. You will have detail resolution. It will provide good light transmission in low light. These are the things you need to be looking for. Heck with the proper zero, your bullet will not rise or fall more than 3" from where you aim out to about 275 yards, so you do not need target or milrad turrets or BDC reticles. Focus on the basics when buying budget optics and stay away from the attractive tacticool junk. Leupold 2-7x33 Review thanks for the input, personally i dont want all the "bells and whistles" but most of the cheap ones with good magnification all seem to have them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 3:21:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Yep. What he said. I'm currently trying to get a friend of a friend to ditch the POS Centerpoint he's got, and get a decent scope. He just doesn't seem to get that a scope should hold zero for more than 10 freakin' rds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 3:30:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Ok so leopard vx1 or rifleman or it dosnt matter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 3:46:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
does anyone know if the mils dot is on the front end or rear end? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, what caliber is it going on? I didn't see that mentioned OP, the cheapest I would go is the Primary Arms 4-16x44 scope. It's $160 so a little out of your price range, but it's fantastic for the price. link does anyone know if the mils dot is on the front end or rear end? I don't know what you mean. The Mil Dots are in the second focal plane. The reticle looks the same at all magnifications - and the mil dots are accurate at 16x. It will be VERY hard to find a decent quality scope with FFP reticle in your price range. Only one I can think of worth buying would also be from Primary Arms. They havea 4-14x44 FFP model for $230. ETA : I will add that the PA scope is excellent for the price. Glass is great quality and very clear compared to similar priced scopes. 30mm tube combined with decent glass means good light transmission and clarity. Plus it has the magnification you are looking for. Side focus is also a nice plus. I had one on a 30-06 bolt gun and it held up VERY well and never lost zero. Locking resettable turrets are also awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 4:00:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Okay so heres where im at. I currently has a bushnell 3-9 and at 100 yards I couldn't see shit. So I figured I just needed higher magnification. But if it's more clear glass I need, im will to get a lesser magnification.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 4:02:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay so heres where im at. I currently has a bushnell 3-9 and at 100 yards I couldn't see shit. So I figured I just needed higher magnification. But if it's more clear glass I need, im will to get a lesser magnification. Which Bushnell? All of the Bushnell scopes I've had (AR Optics line) have been pretty damn clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 4:13:27 PM EDT
[#19]
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 5:07:45 PM EDT
[#20]
try to find a Nikon prostaff 2x7 or 3x9 on sale .. good stuff
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 5:14:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 6:18:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
try to find a Nikon prostaff 2x7 or 3x9 on sale .. good stuff Agreed. Nikon Prostaff 3x9x40 BDC can be had on sale for $30-$150 range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:39:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so leopard vx1 or rifleman or it dosnt matter? Leupold. Pronounced "loop old." Get the VX-1, not the Rifleman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:10:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? too small |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:11:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Leupold. Pronounced "loop old." Get the VX-1, not the Rifleman. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok so leopard vx1 or rifleman or it dosnt matter? Leupold. Pronounced "loop old." Get the VX-1, not the Rifleman. Sorry. I'm on my phone and auto correct got the best of me |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:13:19 PM EDT
[#26]
What about Redfield revolution? I read a review that said they were as good as leupold but alot cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 9:18:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too small Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 1:23:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I highly suggest you save you money then and get a good scope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small Either this or the PA 4-16x. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 3:41:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Primary Arms is the best bang for the buck in my opinion.
Dave N |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 4:36:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too small Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 6:33:44 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? HA my grouping was horrible. I was trying to sight in the gun and i couldnt because i couldnt see the target. the target was about 2 foot by 2 foot. and the red circle was no where near 9" like you described |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 9:11:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 9:12:44 AM EDT
[#33]
What about a nikon buckmaster 4.5-14x40? I found a guy selling a used one for 200. He says it's 2 years old
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 9:13:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HA my grouping was horrible. I was trying to sight in the gun and i couldnt because i couldnt see the target. the target was about 2 foot by 2 foot. and the red circle was no where near 9" like you described Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? HA my grouping was horrible. I was trying to sight in the gun and i couldnt because i couldnt see the target. the target was about 2 foot by 2 foot. and the red circle was no where near 9" like you described This is kind of confusing to me as well. At 100 yds even a lower quality scope in 3-9 should have enough magnification to see the target. I use quite a few "Cheaper" scopes on my guns, its just what I can afford and as a casual shooter I can't justify the expense of high dollar glass. I have had, and still have some Bushnell's, weavers, vortex (Crossfire) amongst others. The usual issues with cheaper glass is brightness and clarity, not magnification, you also could potentially have issues with the scope not holding zero or the turrets not adjusting properly, although I haven't had this issue on mine. It seems to me like you have a broken optic. I would look at a Vortex Crossfire, I think you can get one in3-9 under $200 and try that see what the difference is, if you don't like it, you can probably sell it quick in the EE at not much of a loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 9:31:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about Redfield revolution? I read a review that said they were as good as leupold but alot cheaper. They are. No difference in glass quality between VX1 and Revolution. The Leupold has a slightly nicer finish. Both are quality scopes. As long as you aren't planning on "dialing" shots. The adjustments on both scopes are adequate, and meant to be set and left alone. In my opinion the Redfields "accurange" reticle is superior. The Leupolds are slightly finer and very simple if that's your preference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 9:58:31 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. I am 64 years old and wear bifocals. And, yes, many cheap scopes have such poor internal adjustment quality control that as you move the power ring, the reticle actually moves off center. With them, you are only sighted in at one power setting. But lets not get too far away from your problem. If you are not even seeing the point you are aiming to hit at 9x at 100 yards, there is a serious problem with that scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:16:46 AM EDT
[#37]
i agree, which is why im trying to find another scope!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:28:25 AM EDT
[#38]
Do you think you could see the location of the center dot on this scope well enough to hit the center of the bottom edge of the window in this photo? This is taken from inside my home, so there is a pane of glass between the scope and the target, and of course, there is also the lenses in the camera too. So, it's not as clear as looking through your eye and only the scope. But, can you? Do you think you could make that shot? The "target" is a window on my unoccupied barn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:40:12 AM EDT
[#39]
In the $150 range, there are handfull that are all good values. None are amazing, but feature and "yeah it holds zero" wise they are good.
The weaver, burris, lower end leupold, bushnell elite/AR, Redfield revolution, some of the primary arms... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:52:41 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think you could see the location of the center dot on this scope well enough to hit the center of the bottom edge of the window in this photo? This is taken from inside my home, so there is a pane of glass between the scope and the target, and of course, there is also the lenses in the camera too. So, it's not as clear as looking through your eye and only the scope. But, can you? Do you think you could make that shot? http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/r772/gbloss/IMG_20140322_110238_zpsb82d0850.jpg Thats alot better then what i was looking at |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 1:17:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats alot better then what i was looking at Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you think you could see the location of the center dot on this scope well enough to hit the center of the bottom edge of the window in this photo? This is taken from inside my home, so there is a pane of glass between the scope and the target, and of course, there is also the lenses in the camera too. So, it's not as clear as looking through your eye and only the scope. But, can you? Do you think you could make that shot? http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/r772/gbloss/IMG_20140322_110238_zpsb82d0850.jpg Thats alot better then what i was looking at You should know that is at 200 yards and only 3x magnification. Yes, only 3x in a 3-9x40 scope. Magnification is NOT your problem. You need better glass, not 14x. I'll try to show you 9x tomorrow on the same "target." but it is besides the point, really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 3:41:44 PM EDT
[#42]
I paid $200 shipped for a Nikon Prostaff 5 2.5-10x40mm from Amazon and had it in 2 days. I been using it at 100yds at night shooting coons and pigs with the 300BO.i am using artificial light though, but I have tried it on every power setting and it hasn't given me any issues with sight picture quality.
MS556, what scope is on your rig pictured? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 5:06:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should know that is at 200 yards and only 3x magnification. Yes, only 3x in a 3-9x40 scope. Magnification is NOT your problem. You need better glass, not 14x. I'll try to show you 9x tomorrow on the same "target." but it is besides the point, really. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you think you could see the location of the center dot on this scope well enough to hit the center of the bottom edge of the window in this photo? This is taken from inside my home, so there is a pane of glass between the scope and the target, and of course, there is also the lenses in the camera too. So, it's not as clear as looking through your eye and only the scope. But, can you? Do you think you could make that shot? http://i1366.photobucket.com/albums/r772/gbloss/IMG_20140322_110238_zpsb82d0850.jpg Thats alot better then what i was looking at You should know that is at 200 yards and only 3x magnification. Yes, only 3x in a 3-9x40 scope. Magnification is NOT your problem. You need better glass, not 14x. I'll try to show you 9x tomorrow on the same "target." but it is besides the point, really. It is possible that the adjustment knob is broken. There was resistance but I turned that sucker up to 9 and it didn't look like that. At all |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 5:07:20 PM EDT
[#44]
I have several primary arms 4-14 FFP mil-mil They are great scopes for the money. They are great training optics and great budget optics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 6:50:19 PM EDT
[#45]
What about a used nikon buckmaster 4.5-14x40?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 6:52:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a used nikon buckmaster 4.5-14x40? If you can find one in your price range they're decent scopes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:46:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is kind of confusing to me as well. At 100 yds even a lower quality scope in 3-9 should have enough magnification to see the target. Just because you can see it (or maybe not see it, in this case) doesn't mean your rounds will go where you think they will. We're talking about some seriously cheap scopes here. An optic under $200 is most likely a waste of money unless you pick up something used and get a screaming deal on it. This is goes especially for anything with variable power. If you think you're going to buy a variable for $200 and have it actually work for any amount of time, then you're just being unreasonable. The key to getting the most for your money is to stick to simple scopes. If I wanted to spend as absolutely as little as possible on a scope, I'd get a fixed power Super Sniper - it's the only thing anywhere near that price point that I'd touch. You can expect one of those to be usable, have repeatable adjustments, and be fairly stout. I would not feel limited with one at any reasonable distance with an AR, and I would expect it to work pretty much for the life of the rifle at a minimum. Example, though in 6x : http://www.samplelist.com/SWFA-SS-6x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-DEMO-A-P72943.aspx SWFA's Sample List is a great place to save money on demo models. Whatever you get, you may be able to find a decent deal on a used mount or rings on the Equipment Exchange as well. Buying a scope and then using random junk rings is just wasting ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2014 3:10:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you can see it (or maybe not see it, in this case) doesn't mean your rounds will go where you think they will. We're talking about some seriously cheap scopes here. An optic under $200 is most likely a waste of money unless you pick up something used and get a screaming deal on it. This is goes especially for anything with variable power. If you think you're going to buy a variable for $200 and have it actually work for any amount of time, then you're just being unreasonable. The key to getting the most for your money is to stick to simple scopes. If I wanted to spend as absolutely as little as possible on a scope, I'd get a fixed power Super Sniper - it's the only thing anywhere near that price point that I'd touch. You can expect one of those to be usable, have repeatable adjustments, and be fairly stout. I would not feel limited with one at any reasonable distance with an AR, and I would expect it to work pretty much for the life of the rifle at a minimum. Example, though in 6x : http://www.samplelist.com/SWFA-SS-6x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-DEMO-A-P72943.aspx SWFA's Sample List is a great place to save money on demo models. Whatever you get, you may be able to find a decent deal on a used mount or rings on the Equipment Exchange as well. Buying a scope and then using random junk rings is just wasting ammo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is kind of confusing to me as well. At 100 yds even a lower quality scope in 3-9 should have enough magnification to see the target. Just because you can see it (or maybe not see it, in this case) doesn't mean your rounds will go where you think they will. We're talking about some seriously cheap scopes here. An optic under $200 is most likely a waste of money unless you pick up something used and get a screaming deal on it. This is goes especially for anything with variable power. If you think you're going to buy a variable for $200 and have it actually work for any amount of time, then you're just being unreasonable. The key to getting the most for your money is to stick to simple scopes. If I wanted to spend as absolutely as little as possible on a scope, I'd get a fixed power Super Sniper - it's the only thing anywhere near that price point that I'd touch. You can expect one of those to be usable, have repeatable adjustments, and be fairly stout. I would not feel limited with one at any reasonable distance with an AR, and I would expect it to work pretty much for the life of the rifle at a minimum. Example, though in 6x : http://www.samplelist.com/SWFA-SS-6x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-DEMO-A-P72943.aspx SWFA's Sample List is a great place to save money on demo models. Whatever you get, you may be able to find a decent deal on a used mount or rings on the Equipment Exchange as well. Buying a scope and then using random junk rings is just wasting ammo. His comment is that he cannot even see the target on 9x, not that he can see it but is not hitting it. And as far as budget scopes go, I have to disagree with you my bolt 308 has a $170 Vortex Crossfire, I have shot over 1000 rounds with no issues and tight groups out to 500 yds. I also have a budget Bushnell on my 50 cal muzzloader with a couple hundred rounds and no issues. There is no doubt that, like any thing else, you get what you pay for (to a certain extent) but to say every scope under $200 is worthless is a very inaccurate generalization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2014 3:48:58 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No idea.my father gave it to me. He said it was 50$ Well then it's probably a bottom of the line scope, but it depends on your eyes as to whether the clarity will help. Is the issue that you can't see the target because its blurry or too small? Too small What size groups are you shooting now at 100 yards with the $50 3-9x? What size targets are you shooting at? Ants? I'm having trouble getting my arms around the image being too small at 9x at 100 yards. A one inch sized circle (pretty small) blows up to 9" in the scope. My guess is that at 9x the image lacks detail and is dim from that scope. Also, scopes like that tend to change point of impact when you change magnification. I am shooting one MOA groups at 100 yards from a 16" carbine barrel with a 3-9x40mm scope, and I am just an average shooter. I'm wondering if there may be other issues with your scope and rifle. Can you post a photo? What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2014 4:08:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
POI shift absolutely occurs with magnification change. Unless the reticle is optically centered in the scope, and adjustments to zero are made with an external mount. Google "poi shift." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What exactly do you mean by they change POI? If you mean parallax, sure, but simply changing magnification doesn't move the reticle. Also - you may have great eye sight. Some people don't and thus need more magnification to get good groups. Nothing I have EVER seen supports your statement on modern optics. I took your advice and googled it, here's what I came up with link Notice it's more about shooter position and parallax. The scope should NOT change POI when you change magnification. If you don't want to go read through it all - the best explanation is Typically, magnification changes result in Exit Pupil size and Eye Relief alterations, which can in turn force the shooter to subtly alter their eye alignment/cheekweld in order to obtain a clear image. Any time the cheekweld alters (and is perhaps complicated by a parallax compensation discrepancy) so can POI. If the Objective lens is refocused, this will also often result in altered parallax compensation since many modern scope designs (perhaps incorrectly) couple the objective focus and parallax adjustment, which are in fact two different, though somewhat related, adjustments. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
