[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cats / kang / madchan / oneshota / sonyeon / strek / tingles / uncleb ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

42bd97 No.518394

built my first AR-15 and now am wondering what kind of 1-6, or 1-4 scope I should get.

Kikes like James Yeager say Vortex, Nikon, and basically anything under $800 is garbage. How true is this?

5c87cc No.518400

>>518394

>QTDDTOT

Buy a Bushnell red dot unless you live on the plains or desolate mountains.

>Wide 25mm lens, weighs less than the scope's mount.


42bd97 No.518401

>>518400

>>518400

>Bushnell red dot

really? I'm cheap, but not that cheap. I'm thinking about 1-4 or 1-6, but more generally about AR optics

>QTDDTOT

this is a pretty wide issue, the magazine is filled with much shittier threads, and no one seriously responds to QTDDTOT anyway, it's a shitposting forum.


daa414 No.518402

How the hell can anything under 800 be garbage when all but the most expensive Aimpoints are under 800? Only glass worth more than that are super high end magnified scopes for precision rifles, nothing for use on ARs will go over 900 on the MSRB.


daa414 No.518403

>>518402

(I'm obviously excluding thermal/NVG and that expensive offset Leopuld scope)


c71d89 No.518404

>takes Buck Angel seriously

>actually stops to wonder if $800 is really the bottom line for optics

>claims QTDDTOT is for shitposting

You're an idiot, OP.


1e1124 No.518408

>>518401

>QTDDTOT is for shit posting

Maybe it's like that on 4/g/ay, but not here you fucking weak energy tool. Maybe you should go back.


42ab83 No.518421

I know a lot of people that use Vortex and love it. I have one of their monoculars and love the price/weight/quality of it.

Buck Angel is an idiot that didn't admit to his team he can't drive stick that well.


18ec9c No.518438

>>518394

Add to that Leupold, also trash. Had one fog on me just by sitting in my trunk.

I now only trust scopes coming out of certain reputable Japanese factories, like high end Bushnell and Trijicon… $800 for a scope is about the sweet spot.


18ec9c No.518442

File: 1636adc6812deb7⋯.jpg (354.66 KB, 2846x2089, 2846:2089, SSHD16X24D[1].jpg)

Actually, all my tactical scopes are over $1k, just snagged a few on sale.

Nobody can hold your hand through this… SWFA SS HD 1-6x24 is a good example of an excellent bargain scope.


23e7e2 No.518445

>>518394

I'm wondering about this as well.

AT3 Tactical sells a red dot for $84 with good reviews, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can rely on it. For $400-450 there is the Aimpoint PRO, which has a 3 year battery life so you don't need to shut it off- the dot is always on, that alone makes it badass imho. It's much more expensive though, I'm not quite sure what the best purchases for optics are nowadays.

>>518421

yeah the Vortex ones seem to be popular as well, many good reviews

whatever you get, you need to get the KILL FLASH so there's no glare on your optic that could give away your position


18ec9c No.518446

File: ba1850cac94a6e7⋯.jpg (19.04 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Bushnell-Elite-Tactical-1-….jpg)

My fav

What matters most is that it fits your build and looks cool.

Go cheap if you want, but you may regret it.


f629d3 No.518453

>you need to spend 3 no 8 no 60 gorillion times the cost of your gun for an okay optic

If anyone ever says this then they either bought some hueboon/budget polymer gun or are stuck in the 80s. Manufacturing changes has made pumping shit out way easier and because of that more companies have popped up creating more competition. Just take a look at some primary arms/vortex/aimpoint/holosun/bushnell, hell even sightmark nowadays and ignore EOShit shills.


18ec9c No.518456

File: e3f4d7e3fd34f69⋯.jpg (426.1 KB, 2200x1650, 4:3, 921516[1].jpg)

>>518453

Good glass lasts forever and is a joy to look through…

Primary Arms is pretty much chicom shit for beaners.

$700 for this Gen2 Vortex is good, especially since it has all the bells and whistles like lens coatings and argon purging.


42bd97 No.518467

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>518442

>$1,000

Nope.

I did a Palmetto build. It's nice for $550, Nickel Boron bcg, .223 Wylde, stainless, m-lok, fagpul shit everywhere, but the scope costing twice as much as the gun is ridiculous.


435d1b No.518478

Am I crazy for wanting a government profile A2 AR and not a carbine?


fb52af No.518532

>>518394

>I shoot at things that shoot back:

Price of the optics = Price of the rifle.

>I shoot for fun but I want good perfs:

Price of the scope = 1/2 price of the rifle.

>I shoot for fun:

Price of the scope = 10-15% of the price of the rifle.


d75913 No.518537

So I've heard astigmatism can fuck up red dot sights.

Is this still true if the astigmatism is corrected by contacts?


42bd97 No.518542

>>518532

went with this

https://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/rt-6-riflescopes-series/rt-6-riflescope-1-6x24mm

about 75-80% of rifle price. I guess that qualifies for SHTF.


0c758d No.518546

>>518478

Wanting a full size rifle is a perfectly sane and normal thing. Right out the gate they are much more pleasant than carbines. If you use an adjustable gas port, a low mass bolt carrier group and an extra slick lubricant like go-juice, you get a really smooth gun.

Personally I fucking hate the A2 barrel profile. I'm not autistic about much, but that shit really rustles me.

>>518537

Both of those questions are a "maby".

First one is answered by looking through the one you want in person. Apparently it can vary quite a bit from person to person and device to device.

Second one will have to be answered by an eye doctor. There are different types and severity of astigmatism. From what I hear though they can usually correct it.


731f5b No.518553

>>518478

A proper A2 rifle is the only attractive AR, aside from certain retro supershorty builds.

>>518546

Yeah it's heavy and maybe sub-optimal but it will never be as bad as an M4 profile.


ed3989 No.518565

File: 83f3f85402970b8⋯.jpg (207.5 KB, 2000x1000, 2:1, 1468964148745.jpg)

>>518394

>and basically anything under $800 is garbage


33121f No.518659

>>518394

Vortex has a few models between $300 and $500 that are solid for the price. They're commonly used in competitive settings like 3gun for entry level builds. There is a noticeable difference in the quality of a 300 scope and a $1000+ one, but diminishing returns kicks in hard at the low thousands. There's little appreciable difference between a $1500 scope and a $4000 dollar one. The sweet spot is right around $1500 for maximum quality, and with sales you can find things like the Vortex Razor 1-6 for under a thousand if you're patient.

The inexpensive scopes are perfectly usable though, especially if you're not going to be running through the woods with them, slamming them into all kinds of rocks and trees.

Make sure you find a reticle you like, some of them are absolutely retarded, and the shitty reticles show up even on scopes that cost thousands of dollars.

For about $300 I'd go with the Vortex Strike Eagle, and about #700 I'd buy a Vortex Viper. If you can swing the extra $300 I'd wait for a black friday sale and snag a Vortex Razor 1-6. I'm shilling Vortex because that's what I have left after selling off other brands, I didn't care for any of the other scopes around $1000.

Make sure you actually want to run a variable power optic to begin with though, you can use a red dot out to 250m without much trouble and the target acquisition is generally superior at close range. You can always upgrade later with a 3x or 6x magnifier if you really want to push out past 300 yards. You can pick up a Trijicon MRO for around $400 shipped during any major holiday sale. Aimpoint has comparable options at that price with the PRO being a little less expensive, but coming with a really shitty mount and twice the weight. The Aimpoint H1 series is a little over $400 during sales and is significantly less heavier than the PRO, while coming with a better mount.

Coming from someone who owns thousands of dollars in optics, I have gravitated towards using the Trijicon MRO most of the time. I don't live in a place where you can ever reasonable expect to take a shot over 300m, and my eyesight is good enough to make the red dot work up to about that distance without magnification. You'd be just as satisfied with an Aimpoint offering, I just like the larger field of view on the MRO, though there is a downside of slight distortion in the image. I haven't really bothered with any of the cheaper red dots, as to me spending an extra $200 or so dollars is worth the increased battery life and durability. If you exclusively shoot at a range, you'd probably be fine with one of the primary arms microdots.


7323d5 No.518673

>>518442

I second the SWFA recommendation - their 1-4x24 is a killer optic for the money at around $400.


bf3609 No.518737

So has he admitted his entire life is a lie and all his past career attempts ended in failure. His "tactical" information is meant for white yuppies and weekend warriors who pretend they know how to fight in modern warfare.

I don't need a $1,000 scope. Just look at hunting scopes and not tactical shit meant for idiots who bash their optics on the ground constantly.


42bd97 No.518741

File: 68b104ce67ac7f9⋯.jpeg (62.53 KB, 880x660, 4:3, image.jpeg)

File: 331aceb90918a2e⋯.gif (34.78 KB, 1155x1155, 1:1, image.gif)

>>518659

>reticle

That's why I did the Burris over the strike eagle. Not saying strike eagle is shit, I just preferred the rt6 reticle.

Strike eagle is the .gif


cf0970 No.518837

File: c49de98250fbe0d⋯.png (44.36 KB, 800x520, 20:13, ghdjshsh.png)

File: 5cb01e540d5339f⋯.jpg (66.77 KB, 1024x904, 128:113, Leupold-VX6_1-6x24_IR-1024….jpg)

Slightly off-topic question but what is the reasoning behind the latest trend of AR optics with tiny objective lenses and "full size" eyepieces?

These scopes are trading low light performance and general exit pupil size for something but I can't figure out what that is. The smaller lense saves weight but I can't see that being more than a few grams at most. Does this design significantly reduce overall length? I'm honestly confused because this style of scope is supposedly the "go-to" if you want 1-6x optics for an AR except the sight picture is uselessly small at 5 and 6x zoom.


c0ab94 No.518842

>>518737

>Not bashing your equipment on the ground like an angry ape before battle

Get primal, nerd!


a8d356 No.519308

>>518837

Physics would be the answer I think. Is the glass at the front an back bulging out of the glass (to the ends or inside to the center)?

Or it was like that discussion on halfchan /g/ where they were talking about how phone screen were being made larger and then smaller to try and sell more products.

Could just be kikery




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / cats / kang / madchan / oneshota / sonyeon / strek / tingles / uncleb ]