/k/ - Weapons

Who's this Leopold guy?

The Leupold Rifleman series is a damn good bang for your buck. The VX stuff is good too, but I've never wrapped my mind around the nomenclature of the designations.

>>561807

Some French guy I assume. Auto correct seems to love him.

>>561808

The rifleman one(s?) were one I had an eye on. I know there has to be compromises somewhere, I'm trying to find out if it's in the glass, Gucci features nobody uses, or somewhere else

>>561814

Why don't you just use your sights?

>>561814

I think the big difference is the Rifleman scopes use standard reticles instead of the fancy ones on the VX series. Also they don't have the huge objective lenses and special light enhancing coating that lets you stay in the woods 15 minutes closer to the end of legal hunting hours.

I do know I've seen a standard Rifleman put through hell and it's still trucking along years after the fact.

> What's the sacrifice between their $200 and $1400 scopes?

Brand name, reputation, QC. I find that cheaper scopes have more factory flaws, more blurry images, less reliability over the long term…. not a huge difference in performance between those numbers.

For a one time per year use, a $200 scope is not bad, as long as you overestimate what you need. Example I bought a $30 scope with 3-9 magnification, but I made sure it had 60+mm aperture because I knew the objective lens would be of inferior quality and wouldn't collect light as efficiently as a more expensive scope. If I had bought a cheapo 3-9x scope with a 30mm aperture, it would be useless right out of the box, and I wouldn't get my moneys worth. Doing it my way, overestimating certain requirements, worked pretty well for a few hunting trips before moisture got in and it broke.

I would recommend that you don't go over $500 unless you plan to assassinate archduke ferdinand, or are a damned serious collector. The differences in performance are so slight that a guy that trains every weekend with a $200 scope is superior to a guy that trains every month with a $800 scope.

>>561816

>Implying hunting rifles have iron sights

I do anon. I got a pre64 with irons for a reason. But they're kinda bad, the flip up notch on the barrel is sub par.

>>561821

The VX series with 20mm objective is an option. That diamond coat has me curious. 15 minutes extra at dawn and dusk seem like pointless marketing sank but if it makes deep forest canopy slightly brightened it may be worth creeping up

>>561821

I trust in Leupold for rimfires, leverguns, and pistols since they make really nice compact and light scopes. Glass,reticles, and durability are mediocre.

$600 and under, SWFA scopes are the absolute best value

$600-1000 I would look at Vortex

$1000+ Nightforce

Once upon a time I would've recommended US Optics, but they've been shit in a last couple years.

>>561858

What about Primary Arms brand scopes?

>>561798

just say fuck it and buy the most expensive one

>>561935

Stick with their red dots and prism scopes. Nikkon, Vortex, and others can make good budget scopes without the cluttered to fuck reticle.

t. Primary Arms fanboy

>>561988

You mean their ACSS reticle? It's being praised left and right. Even Trijicon put it on their Acogs.

PA has great cost to quality ratio.

>>562028

Yeah the only acss that I like is the one they put in the 5x prism scope other than that the 3x reticle for example is pretty fucking cluttered. I mean sure I should just get a red dot and magnifier for simplicity but most of the markings (like the target leading marks at the left and right for targets moving at approximately 8 mph) are extremely specific I end up just using kentucky windage to nigger the bullet in place (although I do appreciate that they support even 5.45x39).

>>562028

Personally I think BDC reticles are silly because differences in ammo choice, barrel length, and sight over bore height makes them useless in my mind, at least for civilians. If you're military or police and everyone gets issued the same rifle and ammo, they'd make more sense.

I like how OP asked a question and just fucked off never to return. This kind of garbage is dictionary definition of questions that don't deserve their own thread.

>>562200 (dubbadubs!)

>>562200

False. Op is here and OPs IP is more ADHD that you are.

>>561798

Leupold was the shit 20-30 years ago. Nowadays, honestly, a comparable Vortex is just as good and half the price. Everybody's stepped up their game - Nikon, Burris, and Bushnell all make quality scopes that rival the equivalent Leupold.

None of this is to say that Leupolds are bad scopes, just that you can find something as good or better if you do some research.

Everybody and their brother makes a 3-9x40, which is about all you need for what you're describing (i.e., 300yd max).

https://gun.deals/product/bushnell-ar-rifle-scope-3-12x-40mm-1-tube-dia-black-dropzone-223-bdc-reticle-12999

>50 dollars after rebate if you got the Cabela's giftcards for 20% off that pop up on ebay every week

>includes mount

Nifty. Hope it's still going on when my giftcards come.

>>561837

>Brand name, reputation, QC

Depending on how cheep you go you also lose out on capped turrets (so it's trivial to accidentally your zero, the above deal is an example), clickiness of the turrets, weight (cheaper scopes can weigh a lot more), and reticule design (Primary Arms is the exception there).

Who does good fixed power scopes now? Looking for a 4x or 6x with a 1" tube and maximum of.32mm objective. Not looking for a thousand dollar scope, but it needs to survive a steady diet of old school hot 8mm mauser.

>>562907

Check out prism scopes. Outside of rimfire scopes there really aren't many traditional fixed power scopes left. ACOG and specter are the kings here, but outside of your price range. Vortex and Primary Arms have good ones and Cabela's in house brand (which I suspect is contracted to an established maker) and Burris apparently (but I've seen much less on the two of them) do as well.

>>562907

po-4x32. 200 or so dollars on Kalinka.

>>562907

https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-6x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope-105767.html

>>562915

>Outside of rimfire scopes there really aren't many traditional fixed power scopes left

Yeah, and it sucks. A prism scope isn't really an option for what I've got, but I appreciate the suggestion.

>>562916

Now that looks good. I think I've found a winner.

Thinking of a mil-dot bushnell trophy 3-9x 40mm objective to stick on top of my 45-70. Talk me out of it.

>>563048

Throw a red dot on it. It is an odd thing to throw tacticool shit onto a lever gun but damn its fuck to fuck around once in a while.

>>562964

I have one on my Arisaka and it hasn't lost zero.

>>563052

Fun as it would be I need something with the ability to have precise drop.

>>563054

>.45-70

>precise drop

Just scratch a line half an inch down on the scope. You're firing bricks here, not a mini cruise missile.

>>563180

glass quality, QA, warranties, illuminated reticles, zero stops, parallax adjustment, weight, length, objective size, tube diameter, lens coating, waterproof/fogproofness, drop durability

What eould be a decent, under $500 red dot that I can slap onto a carbine for home defense (and maybe SHTF) that won't be used past 150 yards? I suppose it doesn't have to be red dot, but ideally I'd like to be able to use it in low light/night time conditions.

>>563311

Aimpoint PRO would be the best value

Any primary arms red dot

Any holosun red dot

Vortex venom, burris fastfire 3, leupold deltapoint pro. You'll have to buy a mount seperately.