Scope 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
Scope thread.
I bought a cheapo buckmaster II Nikon 3x9x40mm.
It's pretty good. I would recommend to anyone looking for a scope without breaking the bank.
Anyone explain to me how the reticles work.
Do they know that this the lens, it has a focus here and what not and if you look at the target , with a certain focus, it should look clear and you just shoot it ??
Can you range the target from a scope alone ??
can i get some suggestions for a good SPR scope for around 800-1300 dollars
Plan on building one here in the next few months, just need some opinions on optics.
>>29365778
kek'd
>>29366002
http://www.mil-dot.com/user-guide
My posp
>>29366488
http://www.eurooptic.com/C557-NF-Nightforce-SHV-4-14x50-F1-1-MIL--illuminated-Mil-R-r.aspx
http://www.eurooptic.com/nightforce-shv-4-16x56-25-moa-moar-non-illuminated-c520.aspx
Thinking about getting a vortex diamondback 3x 9, budget is 300$ and it's for a 308 bolt
>>29365778
>>29366569
What's the story behind this? The picture looks pretty fake (no scope shadow, the light source reflection), also, what scope is it? (windage turret on left side?)
>>29367615
Solid choice, if you're interested in a fixed 10x power for the same cost check out SWFA too.
I'm really torn between the SWFA 10x withe the milplex and the primary arms 4-14 with the r grid... I'm going to stop by primary arm's store next week and hope they have done good deals on returns or something...
>>29367615
I just invested in a Vortex Diamondback HP 4-12x40 and couldn't be happier.
>>29368073
>4-12x40
Just looked at it... it's a 3-12x42
Is this Nightforce ATACR any good for "scout-style" set-ups?
I'll want something with long-eye-relief right?
>>29368073
>invested
>vortex
You sure have a strange way of defining things anon
>>29368120
Please explain...
>>29368073
>1" tube
>moa non target turrets
>nebulous "bullet drop" reticle
In to the garbage...
>>29368066
i have the PA 4-14. great scope. real rugged. turrets could be better but it doesnt bother me since they return and are accurate. only downside i see with it is weight. but if that doesnt bother you, and realy its only a few ounces heavier than the swfa, go for the PA. the variable zoom is so much better with FFP
muh Vortex Crossfire II 1-4x24
>>29368221
Not him but "investing" refers to large purchases, usually with the expectation of a forthcoming return of profit over cost. Neither of which would apply to an inexpensive scope.
verb (used with object)
1.
to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
>>29368403
>nebulous bullet drop reticle
Not sure what's so hard to read in regards to the reticle. Again, please educate me. I can still return this thing if I find I should have spent my $300 elsewhere.
>moa non target turrets
I honestly don't care so much about the turret height. I honestly don't know why that would be a deal breaker. Should I have chosen a scope using rads instead? Please explain.
>1inch tube
30mm vs 1in is really a moot point. Internally they're not very different at all. The only difference would probably be quality of glass. For my purposes, a 1 inch tube is fine. But please, prove me wrong.
>>29368517
And everybody's definition of large is relative. I don't have to buy a $1500 optic for it to be an investment. The fact that I didn't buy some Crossfire scope from Wal-mart, to me, is a big difference considering that I've had GREAT success with even that level of scope.
>>29368547
Buying a modern production scope in general is never going to be an 'investment.' The technology advances quickly enough and improved models are released quickly enough that, while they don't seriously depreciate like cars, they will never appreciate in value.
>>29368526
As long as your reticle and turrets match, MIL vs MOA is just preference. MIL is generally preferred nowadays (the math is a bit simpler for calculated and not just ratioed out values), but the bigger problem is the BDC reticle.
If your intention is 'good enough' fast hunting holds at 100~500 yards or 3 gun, BDC works great. If you're after 2~3MOA targets at 700~1000 yards, the irregular subtensions are going to slow you way down compared to a good MIL or MOA christmas tree.
It's just a matter of what is most appropriate for your application.
>>29366002
theres a formula that says a 6 foot man at x yards will be y mils tall and you do your range and/or doping based on that. that is a military application of using mildots. hunters and civilian shooters use the mildots to know where to hold for wind.
and my understanding is that if you have to zoom in on a target, the further away it is, so if your scope is zeroed at 100 yards, and you have it on on the lowest magnification, and you want to hit a target at 200 yards away youd have to zoom in until its clear and then youd either have to hold slightly above it (because your scope is zeroed for 100 yards) or you can just fire away. but thats my understanding so if im wrong, id appreciate it if another anon would correct me.
also, whats /k/s opinion on tasco scopes? i have a walmart one mounted on my hipoint carbine because im poor. but i have it to punch holes in paper at the indoor range so i dont think its bad for that purpose
>>29368792
>tasco
Shit, utter shit.
Anyone >>29368108?
>>29369168
how are they shit
>>29368778
>investment
So I should have used the term purchase. Honestly, this shouldn't even be an arguing point. But /k/ never disappoints.
>MIL vs MOA
This is for shooting a 5.56 carbine at the range. I went with the first field focal and BDC to save some cash because for my purposes it's fine. I'm not sniping for my bros at long lengths, I'm just using this to see further than my eyes can and be good fun to a certain degree of accuracy. My ammo and barrel will have more to do with that than this glass.
Thank you for the explanations. I appreciate your time and perspective.
only gun scopes allowed in here?
>>29369530
Just my opinions again, a 3-12x is probably excessive for a 5.56 carbine, especially if it's your primary or only optic for that rifle. I like having a reliable >10x scope that I can throw on any rifle for printing groups and load development, but if it's the only scope you're buying for that rifle, it will limit your ability to shoot fast and close, whether for fun or competition. If you're just gonna put down groups from a bench or similar, then it should be just fine. FFP can compound the difficulty of making closer shots since the reticle is often not as well defined when the magnification is turned all the way down. Some exception to well designed horseshoes/circle dot, but I tend to prefer fine cross over those anyways. Either way, unless you're spending a shittonne more on a dual focal plane scope, I like reticles available to SFP scopes more on the low magnification scopes I tend to put on carbines. 4~8x is more than sufficient for what most carbines are capable of.
That said, I have an FFP 6-24x on a .223 bolt action and it does very well for what I need it for on there.
>>29369607
I recognize that range. Forever cucked by the CFO after one golden day of 800m shooting.
>>29366867
HA HA TIME FOR SLAVSHIT
>>29370769
What is that?
>>29370769
what?
>>29369254
They're built cheaply and don't hold zero, also they tend to be fragile as well.
>>29370769
>>29370812
I actually found it
http://blog.gruppa-l.com/rusopticalsystem/
>>29370769
In soviet russia, we put scope in scope so you can shoot while you shoot.
what's the longest you'd want to have for an AR carbine? Do you really need anything more than 10x?
>>29370954
>>29370769
>>29370769
>everytime
>>29370769
Am I fucking insane or does this actually cost over 1 mil rubles which is like 150 grand USD. Thats the only number ive found through google
So,
Got a second focal plane 1-4 scope that's meant for a 100yd zero at max zoom. I was wondering what POI shift I would get if I were to back the zoom down to 1 and shoot at a 25yd target.
>>29371444
download the stelok app, put in your variables, then receive dope charts...
>>29371539
Awesome, never knew about this. Thanks.
