Optics
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
Leupold -- Are they worth it or is it over hyped fudd shit?
Also general optics thread, what's the best value brand in optics right now?
>>30048323
I've heard good shit about Vortex, I run a bushnell red dot on my AR, which was kind of a pointless buy
is it a problem if I bought a walmart-tier optic to throw on my SKS to plink shit at 50 yards? Will it not be accurate or something?
>>30048323
>best value brand
Vortex for nearly everything. Primary Arms is also good if you're looking specifically for red dots but pretty much all types of Vortex optics are great for the money
>plus best warranty
having compared a 3-9 cheapo to a 3-9 zeiss, there is a difference.
both will zoom in, but one will do so with more detail and ambient light. is it worth the $400 vs $50? that depends upon you and your circumstances. for most, go with what you can afford easily. if you compete or use it for work (leo), you will absolutely see a difference.
>>30048445
plinking at 50 yards is the only thing you would ever want a walmart tier optic for, but here are some problems with cheap optics
>blurry
>dark picture
>doesn't hold zero
>the clicks don't change the point of impact in the advertised manner (they move .2 moa instead of .25 moa)
>>30048553
>zeiss
>$400
you live on a strange planet
>>30048445
if youre using a rifle at less than 100 yards, literally anything will work as long as it holds zero and you can see though it. if you ask me, anyone spending more than $100 on a scope to shoot less than a couple hundred yards is a fool.
>>30048445
it may not hold zero and will be far more fragile than higher end optics, sometimes being broken simply by the recoil of the gun (which is why air rifle scopes are only marketed as such)
Hell, even some name brand optics have this problem. I have owned 3 or 4 Bushnells and they have all had significant problems.
2 lost their seal and were rendered useless by internal fog
a TRS-25 broke under recoil (lost zero multiple times and flickered off and on from shot to shot when I mounted it on the gas tube of a 7.62x39 AK variant
A trophy red dot had the same problems as the trs-25 but due to the recoil of a 10-22
Avoid all red dots or magnified optics you intend to put on a centerfire priced under $100 and avoid all Bushnell products priced under $500 if you intend to use them on a firearm.
Reposting image. Disclaimer is that I've only used the Vortex once so far and I'm still learning. I will say that for <1/10th the price, the primary arms 4-14x44 FFP mil/mil is awesome. The PA 1-6x is also pretty damn cool.
I liked the vortex strike fire red dot, not too much of a fan of microdots.
Anybody here with a D-EVO?
>>30048608
> t. A proud Tokyo Marui owner
Is it possible to modify those old M16A1 carryhandle scopes to a picatinny mount?
>>30048648
>I liked the vortex strike fire red dot
Second on this. I have a Strikefire II and it's dope for the cost.
>>30048647
Could have also been heat that killed your gas tube mounted TRS-25. Those mounts can get pretty toasty.
>>30048648
Oh, and I actually am planning to use the 1-6x for hunting; it's amazingly light,though it is very sensitive to eye positioning; the parallax is very noticeable.
>>30048579
they have some chink made lines but ur right, even they're like 500+ now that i think about it
>>30048694
>t. a broke fool
>>30048704
Yeah, it was like $130 with the mount or something crazy. My buddy got it and I tried it out a bit ago.
>>30048323
Leupolds have worked fine for me in the years I've spent hunting.
Admittedly, I use only their mid-high tier hunting scopes and hunting is a fudd activity, but they hold zero, they adjust as advertized, they don't get broken by minor impact, they don't lose the seal and let out the nitrogen in their tubes.
I have only had one fail a single time and that was a VX-2 which totally lost its zero (~40 MOA shift) after hitting a tree pretty hard as I dragged it into the stand.
The scope which failed was replaced by Leupold (good warranty) but the failure cost me a nice buck.
They're not Bushnell tier shit, but they're also not aimpoint tier bombproof.
Field scopes are generally good for field use, 8/10
>>30048458
Yeah vortex has a sick 3 gun scope that goes from true 1x to 4x. 3 gun isn't my thing but if it was I would have that scope
>>30048716
Nowadays the 3-9 terra is going for as low as $300, but yeah, mine was $400 about two years ago...
>>30048708
Regardless, that's not a problem one should experience from an optic of that type, even in the value price range.
Bushnell has always been shit for me, so I can't say I was surprised when it died.
>>30048726
speaking of aimpoints, I wonder how expensive the 6x magnifier is going to be, that would be a sick set up to have that
>>30048323
Nikon is the answer
>>30048783
Yeah, it kind of makes me sad that I bought my 3x just before they announced the 6x...
I'm certainly going to buy a 6x, let's hope they have eye relief such that I wouldn't have to alter my cheekweld and could switch between the 3x and 6x seamlessly (because I chose a twistmount rather than a side folding setup).
I would estimate a $700 or $800 MSRP but that's just a shot in the dark.
>>30048826
Nikon is good, but I would put them on a level with Leupold's mid tier optics and inferior to their top tier optics except for in glass clarity and lens coating which I observe to be equal.
Had anyone tried Sight Mark? Are they any good? I'm just looking for a cheap optic until I get something better later on.
