Does anyone have an opinion on the eagle strike force optic? I'm considering buying it for my rifle that shoots .308
good budget optic
depending on what your needs are 6x might not be enough but for most purposes it'll do just fine
>>30341106
I'm just looking for an optic to shoot around 200 to 300 I want it for my scar 17
>>30341119
it'll be good for shooting steel plates
I have one on my AR and like it. Use it for 100-300 yard shooting mostly and it works great. Glass is pretty clear, illuminated optic is plenty bright. Plus their customer service and warranty cannot he beat.
There are better scopes out there, but for a 1-6x in that price range it's great.
Mine comes in today, so ill let you know, but from what I've seen and read they are fantastic for their price range and variable zoom is great
>>30341282
>6x only good for hitting steel plates at 200 yards
>i cant shoot for shit, the post
nigger, you should be able to hit steel at 300 with irons. 6x at 200 yards and you should be able to get at least 3 inch groups or better depending on the ammo.
>>30343558
I disagree, to some extent. I run a 1-4x on my .223, and I'm lucky to keep a 2" 5 round extreme spread. Swap to my .308 with a 10x, and it's just over 1" all day long. None of this is match ammo.
There are many better shots than me at the range, but I about as many worse too, so I figure that puts me at the median by redneck statistics.
Magnification matters for me. Enough so that I'm strongly considering shelling out the grand for a 1-6x for shooting hogs, and because I want my AR within a half inch of my bolt gun.
>>30341097
i have the votex PST 1-4
good scope. feels well made, accurate. battery lasts a lot longer than they quote
>>30343930
>admitting that your capabilities are far worse than the optic
>somehow thinking its the optic's fault anyways
it could just be your 308 is more accurate, or has a better trigger. sounds like a bolt gun anyways.
>>30344202
3.5lbs trigger on the AR vs 3lbs on the bolt rifle
> Admitting capabilities are worse than the optic
Yeah, I know, man. Thank God the magical fairies in that 10x come out to steady my aim. Or maybe being able to better see a large bullseye clearly on a 6" target at 100 yard let's me live within the wobble a little easier.
I can already feel that 1-6x calling, so when I put in on top, we'll see if it's just a matter of shitty eyesight.
>>30345185
>people claiming to get 1MOA groupings with irons at 100yds
>irons cover up 3-4 MOA at 100yrds
This is why I don't take most people seriously about their skill with irons.
>>30345185
so it is a bolt gun, yet you attribute all its accuracy to the optic
>>30345216
it can be done with enough skill
>ITT: people act like shooting is fucking brain surgery
in the marines you have to be able to hit a man size target at 500m with irons and a crap shrubmaster but you faggots claim to need 10x to shoot at 200 yards
>>30345216
As long as the shot group is an inch or under at 100 yards with irons it shoots 1 MOA you dip. I'm not saying I shoot 1 MOA with irons but lots of people do.
It's pretty phenomenal for the money.
I have a Viper PST 1-4 as well. My chief complaints are the thick reticle and lack of quick adjustment, but that's what you don't get at this price. I think if Vortex added those features to this optic, it would knock their Viper (not PST) line out of contention.
The zoom ring is very smooth, even when cold. At this price point, the glass is extremely clear with a little chromatic aberration. The included caps are actually pretty good, I had Vortex Defender caps but went back to the included ones because they're smaller and they work well enough. Illumination is very bright. Warranty is undeadable.
I would only caution you to see what you can find about the Strike Eagle on a SCAR. Wouldn't want to break the optic.
tl;dr I replaced a Viper PST 1-4 with it. The more expensive optic is on a shelf now.
>>30345309
Oops, not Defender, Quake caps.
>>30343930
>In the army
>Shoot expert everytime we goto the range
>No optics, just iron sights
>Pegging down those 300's like no ones business
>Using a shaky, wobbly ass 20yr old M16A2
>Some guy on /k says he disagrees and needs optics for that range
>>30345244
>huhr duhr it's not brain surgery!
Apparently it's too complicated for you to understand.
Hitting a 1 MOA target is not the same as getting a 1 MOA group.
>>30345270
Hard to get a solid group when your sights literally cover anything that would indicate you're aiming at the exact same spot.
>I just put the top left corner of my iron sight on the middle of the target!
That's great. So you can't zero your rifle, but at least you've determined the barrel isn't shit!
>>30345244
I'll bet dollars to donuts that most ARs will at least shoot a 1.5" 5 round group (at least) with a bench vise. Like I said, I'll see when I put a 6x on top.
But my experience has been the rifling is rarely the problem.
>>30345357
> Some guy on \k\ disagrees the HE needs magnification to shoot at that range
> Somehow feel that this challenges my worldview
Congrats on the expert rating, by the way. What size are the targets, and how small of a group at 300y do you have to put up for that?
>>30345360
>im gonna bring in the idea of a 1 MOA target out of nowhere because i dont have anything else to say
lmao get gud faggot
>>30345430
depends on the AR, lots of folks have budget PSA guns with FN barrels these days and those barrels are sub MOA with good ammo
>>30345454
>challenges my worldview
no its that >>30343930
is using fudd logic saying he needs more magnification to get good groups with his AR, a conclusion he reached because he shoots a 308 bolt gun better than a semi auto in 556
he's probably shooting fucking tula or m193 at best out of a 16" no less and thinks he needs more magnification to shoot better
>>30345495
30343930 here. 69gr SMK from Australia Outback. I get tighter groups at 100yards with their 55gr Bliztkings, but the groups open up at the 200yard range.
And my reasoning is the same as why bench rest shooters have ridiculously high power optics at like 36x. It makes posting tighter groups easier.
Well, that and my eyesight has gone to shit in the last few years.
I do want to know what qualifies as expert at 300yards, though? 3.5" 5 round group on a 18" target, for example? Because that would be damn fine shooting.
It'll WORK yes, but keep in mind that the Strike Eagle reticle is specifically designed with a .223 BDC.
>>30345454
Its not challenging my worldview, I just disagree with needing optics for that range. By all means I guess, but I feel like a competent shooter should be fine out to that range with irons.
The targets are man sized (upper torso), with 2-3 inch moa.
>>30345357
>I'm so fucking good at shooting guys, why are you so shit
>guys
>I fucking rock at shooting guys, listen.
>>30345216
Reminds me about people claiming that 25FPS is gonna be forever enough because human eye can't perceive anything faster and then dropping their jaws on the floor when it turns out that there's a difference in gaming performance between 50FPS and 60FPS.
It's not all about the target, it's also about the surroundings. Talked to an actual sniper a while ago, was cringing when he said "feel the target", now that I'm shooting I understand perfectly what he meant by that.
>>30345735
The majority of medium game taken in the US are taken inside of 200 yards (yes Alpine/plains hunters, I know) with a 6 inch (3moa @ 200y) lung shot.
So hear that, Ruger/Tikka/Savage? Stop putting rings and rails on your barrels. Anon has spoken. Shows over, boys. No capable hunter needs them.
>>30345735
I'm not claiming that you can't hit a 1" circle at 100 yards or a 2-4" circle at 200 yards with irons. I've heard of people shooting that well, and Camp Perry is a thing.
My point I was making is, I am not hitting a 2" circle with irons at 100 yards. Hell, a 6" target at 100 yards is barely visible to me, and especially not at dusk/dawn. No sense in giving myself a headache trying to use iron sights when I can afford perfectly adequate glass to fix my genetic failings.
>>30345216
> i don't know about Vernier acuity
>>30346127
>barrel rings
Do you know how scopes are mounted anon?
>>30346414
Yes, not the barrel. I should have said... actually, is it still considered the receiver on a bolt action? I don't know if that's only a semi-auto thing.
Can anyone tell me how the Strike Force optic is 1/3 the price of any other 1-6x optic?
I know Burris is supposedly made in the Philippines and it's nearly double the price, so I assume it's not just Chinese suicides that result in the lower price for the Vortex.
>>30347233
Low end turrets, low end reticle, low end anodizing (type II), glass is not on par with something costing twice or thrice as much.
