Optics Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Honestly /k/, what does a $2800 Elcan 1-6x do that a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x won't? What does the extra $2500 buy?
>>29396545
better glass i guess
>>29396558
first post best post
>>29396545
Optic clarity, consistency, and robustness
change really fucking fast from 1.5 to 6x (because there's nothing inbetween)
the bad thing is that the elcan is a fucked up design to begin with that doesn't have a good way to stay on target if bumped or impeded the wrong way
>>29396545
>what does the extra $2500 buy?
Slightly better glass, though overall I've been extremely unimpressed with the handful of Elcan optics I've looked through. It's also shorter.
>>29396570
>optic clarity
Elcans are worse than ACOGs which are worse than VCOGs which are worse than anything else in their price category or higher
>robustness
Elcans are notorious for losing zero due to shit getting caught in their external adjustments.
I've no doubt an Elcan has better glass than a Strike Eagle, but I know for a *fact* it has worse glass than a VCOG, which is significantly cheaper, and the VCOG has worse glass than a Leupold Mk6, which costs the same.
fun fact: the strike eagle can be had for less than $200 if you know someone who works at a sporting goods store and can access 3point5
you have to figure it costs even less than that to make
>>29396600
So what's your recommendation in that price range, assume a variable power with a true 1x option
So you are shitposting a bunch of spam threads OP?
>>29387714
Kill yourself.
>>29396545
Don't buy on name alone. Don't buy because of reputation or online reviews, or 'tradition' or shit like that.
Go look through the scope you're going to buy. Go look through similar scopes in your price range. Compare them side by side, and get a feel for their knobs, and how they look in different lighting conditions.
I guess it's good to make sure nobody's experienced catastrophic failure with the one you're settling on... but aside from that, many reviews are from hyped-up new owners who want to sing the praises of their $1000+ money sink. Their psychology is compromised by commitment.
Just look through as many as you can. Get a sense of the differences. I settled on a Vortex, despite *knowing* the Leupold had a little bit better glass. I liked the other features well enough that I thought it was a fair trade.
>>29396625
cause an optics thread is for ARs only? kys akfag
>>29396600
>Leopold
Well and that's the issue there, Leopold is purpose built for precision shooting, most of the Trijicon and Raytheon are building mostly with intermediate distance sight-dope in mind. If I was going for put-it-right-where-I-want-it precision I would go with the Leopold, for used with a battle or assault rifle I'd go with the Trijicon or Raytheon offering.
Elcan
Eye Relief
>2.75"
FOV
>16 Degrees
Weight
>1.54lbs
Length
>7.25"
Strike Eagle
Eye Relief
>3.5" (This is, however, correlated to scope length)
>FOV
116 ft at 100 yards on 1x, don't know what this is in degrees
Length
>10.5"
Weight
>17.6oz
For external differences assuming equal quality (Obviously, they aren't), really not a whole lot.
Most comes down to build quality, glass quality, and muh specialforces
I guess from a poorfag's point of view, if I am going to be paying $2000 on an optic over a lower end at $300:
-Glass clarity better be mind blowingly clearer
-Holds zero like a motherfucker
-Durable enough that I don't have to worry about it taking abuse
-All the dials and shit work will work after taking a lot of beatings
-Very high level of QC
>>29396647
>Holds zero like a motherfucker
-Durable enough that I don't have to worry about it taking abuse
-All the dials and shit work will work after taking a lot of beatings
ironically what the elcan doesn't do
>>29396592
you know how I can tell you have never used a Gen3?
>>29396631
No, because you posted 2 threads almost simultaneously with similar wording, both shitting on people who aren't as poor as you.
>kys
ditto.
>>29396704
>have a expensive ar and use a stack on
kek i dont call it a safe though
>>29396647
I'm American. I'm sitting in front of my comp uploading images to a fucking website drinking a 6pack. My rifles leave the safe twice a month to be placed on a shooting bench and be shot with care. What are you doing with your rifle that's so abusive?
>>29396695
kek
>>29396695
>ironically what the elcan doesn't do
really?
Is this an actual common thing or just rare? Because I concede that no matter how top of the line something is, there's bound to be a very few lemons that get through, but at $2000+, the tolerance for such problems should be near unicorn status.
>>29396719
im not even the OP. lmao poorfag kys
>>29396719
OP here. I didn't post that other one. But who cares, chill out nigger.
>>29396741
its an example on IF I were to spend that much cash on an equipment that I can get for much cheaper.
I mean, I know what I'll do with my stuff, I'm not exactly going to put my life on my equipment on a daily basis and I rarely put them through rough usage, so I'm not crying over not being able to afford the high end stuff.
But if I were to spend 10x on the good shit, it better blow me the fuck out of the water in near all aspects over the $300 choice. OR, if I actually need to have something that'll survive through hell because I'll be going through such hell.
>>29396800
it will give you a switchable (as opposed to variable) magnification which is fairly unique. it won't be 10x better than a strike eagle though. better, yes, just not 10x. probably not even 5x.
Ok.
My budget is $700
I am building a 6.5 creedmoor.
my local range maxes out at 600yrds
I also want to kill varmints on the family ranch, effectively unlimited range.
I can not decide between
bushnell elite tactical 2-12 ffp
SWFA 3-15ffp
SWFA 10X fHD fixed
if a variable i want ffp, and i want mil/mil
>>29396828
I guess it's that diminishing returns thing.
But yea, I'm happy with my 1-6x primary arms.
If I got the money and for some reason, I got balls deep into competition or there's going to be some social collapse and I might have to really use my equipment, then I'll drop the cash on something higher end.
>>29396916
if you've already got the PA 1-6 you don't even need the Vortex because they're basically the same thing (hardware and all) besides reticle and Vortex's warranty
>>29396893
I got a a TA01 for $780 last week, it didn't have the TA51 but I can get one of those off ebay for $36, it's only a 4x but unless you're trying to run a tack-driver it'll work.
>>29396934
I actually found that I might just go for the MRO red dot instead. Maybe put my 1-6 pa on my future dsa fal clone.
>>29396971
building a 6.5 creedmoor........................... yeah he is making a tac driver.
your idea is stupid
>>29396971
>TA51
for $36 where? behind the PX from some angry E1
>>29396986
I was leaning more towards the point that you can get significantly below MSRP if you're willing to look for bargains
>>29397027
I have no need for a 4x acog on a 600yrd bolt rifle.
I already have a ta31,on my 20" ar15
>>29397044
If you're going that way you shouldn't be looking at an Elcan either. Try a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x, $549 at Cabela's
>>29397000
ebay, used condition but meh, I'm looking for function not range-queen quality
>angry E1
most like angry E3/4s
I'm kind of surprised to see all this criticism of Elcan, is it a particular model or just the brand across the board. They're our standard sight and I've never once lost zero with it, or seem anyone else lose zero because of the Elcan itself. The shitty 1913 mounting for the L85 comes loose, so unless that is tight you can find yourself losing zero but that's nothing to do with the optic. Even the ARMS quick release have proved to be very robust, never seen one break or jam. I have fucked up and dropped my rifle from the back of a truck onto the sight and it's been fine, the shitty red dot broke but that's besides the point, and the zero held. That was a 6 foot drop onto tarmac. I've also had it clunking off windows and walls and generally dragged round and given hard use. Personally I think they're really solid.
Also consider I'm talking about British infantrymen, who generally know fuck all about proper gun handling and maintenance and I don't think you'll find people who abuse equipment worse than we do. I've still never seen a broken Elcan or seen one un-zero. The single fault I've seen in the windage adjustment drums seize due to improper cleaning and maint, but that's fixed by letting some oil seep into them.
>>29396611
Nah, those prices are at a loss. Based on what I've seen, dealer cost is around 220. 3point5 is 180 USD for it.
>>29396893
>Bushnell
>SWFA
Lolno
>>29396756
they fucking updated it with the elcan spectr after the SCAR17 was causing a zero shift after the bolt slamming. The ELCAN spectre HD? is the revised one which is not affected by this Other than that the Elcan work perfect on 5.56 rifles.
>>29397284
idk if that rifle belongs in gun porn or gun gore
>>29396893
Do not buy from Bushnell. Ever.
I've owned 4 of their products and every one has had a fuckin problem. They sent me a replacement for my TRS25 and BTR-1 1-4x, because the originals I bought were fucked.
Both replacements were nearly as worthless as the original.
I'll stick with my 120 dollar Bushnell scope. Sturdy, accurate, and looks good. I don't need to live some autistic 4chan operator fantasy.
Honestly, if you can't hit shit from a couple hundred yards out with a Bushnell then you have no business spending over $400 on a piece of glass
>>29396893
SWFA 10X HD is pretty decent for cost/ glass.
just my .02
>>29396545
Vortex Strike Eagle is a surprisingly nice scope, the Elcan really doesn't offer much beyond it besides a little bit more clarity.
>>29398295
I seem to just acquire Bushnell scopes and without fail they are always the most terrible pieces of shit. Actually what's fucking hilarious is this tiny ass Crossman airgun scope holds zero on a 10/22 better than some little Bushnell I swapped it for.
I still laugh about that.
So no, I'll pay over $400 dollars because I do actually want to hit something past 200m with a degree of consistency. Yeah, sure, older Bushnells had some quality but if I want a modern optic that's accurate beyond 800m I'll pick Leupold, Zeiss, Leica, Schmidt & Bender, Valdada, etc because I know they aren't going to cut corners.
