PDA

View Full Version : Help choosing 1:4 optic


starsnuffer
10-17-2011, 10:31 AM
This would be going on a 16" MR556, likely to replace the eotech XPSw3x magnifier that will go on something else.

I'm looking at these three right now and can't decide (leaning towards the swfa due to weight), but any other suggestions would be welcomed. I'm picky when it comes to reticule. I want something good for CQB at 1x and not overly busy at 4x.

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-1-4x24-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P48362.aspx

http://www.valdada.com/product/6928a7e3-e3bc-48d0-9e8a-4ac78862cd81.aspx

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-1-4x24-riflescope-with-tmcq-moa-reticle

-W

IPSICK
10-17-2011, 10:35 AM
Although, I like my Burris Tac30 a lot the SWFA SS is really nice as well. The other really nice one is the Meopta Z-dot (red dot with bdc chevrons).

triggs75
10-17-2011, 11:01 AM
I have the SWFA SS 1-4x24 and it is really nice. I have the T one and with the thickness of the lines, it does take up a lot of FoV to me. I have a Hi-Lux Leatherwood 1-4x24 with the lines much thinner giving you a less obtrusive view. There are plus and minuses in regards to the thickness of the lines to me. The hi-lux can wash out, where the SWFA has not yet. The SWFA SS illumination is great as you can see it plain as day in the daylight.

Also, the reason I got the T-scope was this deal. http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-1-4x24-Tactical-Riflescope-KIT-P50222.aspx

It was too good for me to pass up.

http://www.opticstalk.com/uploads/298/KIT3.jpg

Arson
10-17-2011, 11:13 AM
Heres one I'm looking at Burris XTR 14

http://www.burrisoptics.com/xtrtactical1.html

wash
10-17-2011, 12:04 PM
That super sniper looks pretty cool but I'm not sure why it needs to be first focal plane.

If you are ranging with mil-dots, you are going to be zoomed to 4x and if you are shooting long enough distances to need hold overs, you are also going to be zoomed to 4x.

I guess mil-mil is nice but for functionality, a BDC marked elevation turret would probably be more helpful.

If they made it a second focal plane (cheaper) scope with a 5.56 BDC turret and sold that with the Bobro mount and caps but no zoom lever doohickey, for under $650.00 they would have a real winner in my book.

I've taken long shots with a low power variable and on the type of rifle you would mount one on, it might help you make a 7-800 yard shot but that's beyond the edge of a carbine's effective range. In my opinion an ideal low power variable scope for a carbine would have a bright illuminated reticle for both eyes open/CQB aiming, turrets that are not likely to get bumped out of adjustment and simple enough that you don't have to think a lot to make a long shot.

All the pieces are there but so far no one has put them all together at a price that I want to spend.

dieselpower
10-17-2011, 12:13 PM
Accupoint (http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/172819/trijicon-accupoint-tr24-rifle-scope-30mm-tube-1-4x-24mm-dual-illuminated-red-triangle-post-reticle-matte?cm_vc=S016) there are many models to choose from.

IPSICK
10-17-2011, 12:15 PM
That super sniper looks pretty cool but I'm not sure why it needs to be first focal plane.

If you are ranging with mil-dots, you are going to be zoomed to 4x and if you are shooting long enough distances to need hold overs, you are also going to be zoomed to 4x.

I guess mil-mil is nice but for functionality, a BDC marked elevation turret would probably be more helpful.

If they made it a second focal plane (cheaper) scope with a 5.56 BDC turret and sold that with the Bobro mount and caps but no zoom lever doohickey, for under $650.00 they would have a real winner in my book.

I've taken long shots with a low power variable and on the type of rifle you would mount one on, it might help you make a 7-800 yard shot but that's beyond the edge of a carbine's effective range. In my opinion an ideal low power variable scope for a carbine would have a bright illuminated reticle for both eyes open/CQB aiming, turrets that are not likely to get bumped out of adjustment and simple enough that you don't have to think a lot to make a long shot.

All the pieces are there but so far no one has put them all together at a price that I want to spend.

With some compromises, you've just described the Burris Tac30.

triggs75
10-17-2011, 12:34 PM
That super sniper looks pretty cool but I'm not sure why it needs to be first focal plane.

If they made it a second focal plane (cheaper) scope with a 5.56 BDC turret and sold that with the Bobro mount and caps but no zoom lever doohickey, for under $650.00 they would have a real winner in my book.



That zoom lever doohickey thing is actually pretty nice :D. Not that I need it or anyone would, but it does make it real fast to change zooms.

G38xOC
10-17-2011, 12:58 PM
http://www.bushnell.com/products/scopes/riflescopes/banner/711432/

i have this , and it serves me well =D no issues so far . you'll end up with $$$$$ in ur wallet

MrPlink
10-17-2011, 1:26 PM
I was actually debating a lot of optics mentioned here recently.
After a lot of uncertainty I said screw and purchased a Leatherwood CMR from SWFA.

Personally, Ive never been a big scope guy, so Im really just testing the waters here and decided to just test the waters with something cheap.

Not to mention that SWFA has a promo on the CMR w/ single piece mount for only 317 or so, so I figured it was a safe route. Plus Military Arms channel reviewed it and had nothing but good things to say.

The primary 2 I thought I had it boiled down to were the SS and Accupoint, but then I got stock in that line of thinking of "well, if spend this much, why not spend a little more and get this" and next thing I knew I was looking at nightforce and uso and....

starsnuffer
10-17-2011, 2:05 PM
I was actually debating a lot of optics mentioned here recently.
After a lot of uncertainty I said screw and purchased a Leatherwood CMR from SWFA.

Personally, Ive never been a big scope guy, so Im really just testing the waters here and decided to just test the waters with something cheap.

Not to mention that SWFA has a promo on the CMR w/ single piece mount for only 317 or so, so I figured it was a safe route. Plus Military Arms channel reviewed it and had nothing but good things to say.

The primary 2 I thought I had it boiled down to were the SS and Accupoint, but then I got stock in that line of thinking of "well, if spend this much, why not spend a little more and get this" and next thing I knew I was looking at nightforce and uso and....

I hear you. I almost did the same until I read this and heard about a few other people trading in their Nightforce for the SS:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2242104&page=1

-W

Grassninja
10-17-2011, 2:58 PM
That super sniper looks pretty cool but I'm not sure why it needs to be first focal plane.

If you are ranging with mil-dots, you are going to be zoomed to 4x and if you are shooting long enough distances to need hold overs, you are also going to be zoomed to 4x.

I guess mil-mil is nice but for functionality, a BDC marked elevation turret would probably be more helpful.

If they made it a second focal plane (cheaper) scope with a 5.56 BDC turret and sold that with the Bobro mount and caps but no zoom lever doohickey, for under $650.00 they would have a real winner in my book.

I've taken long shots with a low power variable and on the type of rifle you would mount one on, it might help you make a 7-800 yard shot but that's beyond the edge of a carbine's effective range. In my opinion an ideal low power variable scope for a carbine would have a bright illuminated reticle for both eyes open/CQB aiming, turrets that are not likely to get bumped out of adjustment and simple enough that you don't have to think a lot to make a long shot.

All the pieces are there but so far no one has put them all together at a price that I want to spend.

The entire purpose of it being first focal plane is because the reticle is really two in one. You're supposed to use the thick lines that form a general T or O shape (reticle dependant) at 1x and basically ignore the mil crosshair in the middle. You then use the finer mil dot reticle at 4x and ignore the T or O surrounding it. To me, it's an ingenious design and I don't know of a better reticle design for a low power variable.

I personally own the T reticle and find it pretty intuitive and easy to use. At 1x you'd use it much as you would any other CQB optic, with both eyes open and placing your target inside the T or O. At 4x you can still use it with both eyes open if desired, much like an ACOG. The glass clarity and reticle quality is quite good given the price range, and the illumination is arguably the best in class unless you want the S&B. There are some extensive reviews of the SWFA on the hide that show photo comparisons of reticles/illumination with several short dot scopes.

To be frank, the scope you described wanting in your post sounds exactly like a SWFA SS, in either reticle, with capped turrets. YMMV

Q
10-17-2011, 7:40 PM
I'd go with COMPM4, TA31RCO-M4CP, or the TA11SDO-CP.:D

kozumasbullitt
10-17-2011, 7:50 PM
I hear you. I almost did the same until I read this and heard about a few other people trading in their Nightforce for the SS:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2242104&page=1

-W

I wonder why people would downgrade from NF to SS?

Hyper
10-17-2011, 7:54 PM
Vortex

C_1
10-17-2011, 8:49 PM
S&B, US Optics, NightForce, Swarovski, Zeiss, and Trijicon, are some of the best. But a SWFA SS, Viper PST, or Burris MTAC, is good enough, I think.

Hoop
10-17-2011, 9:09 PM
I'd probably get the Super Sniper group buy. FFP isn't necessary but the reticules do work (thick so low power you have a T or donut, high power you have mil crosshairs). If you don't want to spend that $$$$$ get the PST it's great. Below that leatherwood or burris are your choices.

I wonder why people would downgrade from NF to SS?

It's not a downgrade.

TheHammerOfTruth
10-17-2011, 9:13 PM
The new MTAC is nice. I personally have the XTR14 and the Trijicon TR24G.
Of the 2 I like the Trijicon better. The glass on both is comparable but the illumination on the Burris is not bright enough IMHO. HPwever the BDC on the Burris is right on and works great. The triangle is great to 400 but after that its your skill. That being said, 400+ was not really the idea behind the 1-4 scope.

On a side note, I cant imagine anyone trading a NF for a SS.

winxp_man
10-17-2011, 9:19 PM
Optic topics should be posted in the Optic thread. Just saying because thats why that section was made for.

TheHammerOfTruth
10-17-2011, 9:22 PM
Im not going to judge anyones choice of optic, or anyones reason to purchase and optic, but to claim that the SS is equal to, or superior the NF is just plain false. From the ground up the NF is superior in quality.

It is a downgrade plain and simple.

Hey, I like SWFA, I even like the SS line of scopes, but lets not get over excited.

Hoop
10-17-2011, 9:35 PM
I've seen both and they are of equal optical quality. Build quality is also excellent. Choose whichever has the features and reticule YOU want and buy with confidence.

pacifico23
10-17-2011, 10:03 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/315758_GRSC_s_mid_range_scope__1_4x24_illuminated_ CQB.html

I saw this the other day. It looks very enticing. It's a very good thread too. See the trials and tribulations of one guy trying to make a dream come true. Took a couple years for the guy to finally make his 1x4 scope a final product. If I had to get one it may be this. I always like supporting the small shops especially if it's quality.

Cole125
10-17-2011, 10:11 PM
Although, I like my Burris Tac30 a lot the SWFA SS is really nice as well. The other really nice one is the Meopta Z-dot (red dot with bdc chevrons).

+100 The Burris Tac 30 is a great optic for the price. I have one on my Mini 14 and man its one nice scope.

I may get another for my next AR. Perfect scope for 3 gun too, and its used alot for that.

santacruzstefan
10-17-2011, 10:16 PM
GRSC has received good reviews, and has an interesting reticle design. Good price on the 1-4x, they have a new 1-6x thats about $1000, but its supposed to be exceptional.

http://www.grscinc.com/crs.html

Hoop
10-17-2011, 10:20 PM
GRSC 1k buck model only has a 2 year warrant :( I would never spend that kind of coin on something without a lifetime warranty. Also, ask yourself what targets you can hit with a 6x that you can't hit with a 4x. Not many to be honest.

santacruzstefan
10-17-2011, 10:30 PM
GRSC 1k buck model only has a 2 year warrant :( I would never spend that kind of coin on something without a lifetime warranty. Also, ask yourself what targets you can hit with a 6x that you can't hit with a 4x. Not many to be honest.

Well, the 1-4x is $375, so not too bad. Plus everything I've heard about them has been good, I'm willing to be the owner would work with you on warranty issues.

Josh3239
10-17-2011, 10:33 PM
I alot of people also like the Millet DMS scopes as well. Worth looking into...

esskay
10-17-2011, 10:35 PM
Im not going to judge anyones choice of optic, or anyones reason to purchase and optic, but to claim that the SS is equal to, or superior the NF is just plain false. From the ground up the NF is superior in quality.

It is a downgrade plain and simple.

Hey, I like SWFA, I even like the SS line of scopes, but lets not get over excited.

NF is great glass for sure... but if you are looking for a daylight visible illuminated reticle, NF unfortunately is not an option.

I haven't seen one of the new SWFAs in person so I don't know just how bright it really is.

MrPlink
10-17-2011, 11:07 PM
Im not going to judge anyones choice of optic, or anyones reason to purchase and optic, but to claim that the SS is equal to, or superior the NF is just plain false. From the ground up the NF is superior in quality.

It is a downgrade plain and simple.

Hey, I like SWFA, I even like the SS line of scopes, but lets not get over excited.

could you elaborate?

As stated earlier, Im a scope rookie so I really have little experience with these things.
I understand the general concepts of desirable attributes in a scopes, I just dont know the particulars of either of these models (or most scopes for that matter!)

goodlookin1
10-18-2011, 6:56 AM
could you elaborate?

As stated earlier, Im a scope rookie so I really have little experience with these things.
I understand the general concepts of desirable attributes in a scopes, I just dont know the particulars of either of these models (or most scopes for that matter!)

Translation: He is a NF fanboy. And that's fine.

Some people just dont want to hear that an $800 scope is just as good, clear, sturdy and effective as their $2000 NF ;)

As of right now, I have the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24 for my .308 AR. I really like the scope for what it is and what it's supposed to do, but I am really jonesing for higher magnification. I'm kind of wishing that I went with the 2.5-10x44 PST instead, but that was $100 more, and at the time I was going for more or a DMR setup that could also do CQB reasonably well. After some thought and time on the rifle, I decided a .308 AR is not suited extremely well for CQB and has no benefit compared to an AR-15. Eventually, I will have it turned into a midrange setup and have a midrange scope on top.

As for the 1-4x24 PST, the glass is nice and clear, very bright and pretty good resolution too. I find that the very outer edges are a tad blurry depending on how the diopter is adjusted. The diopter can also give you a slight "fish eye" effect if not dialed in for the correct distance. But this is something that happens to all scopes. You can do true 1x starting at about 10-15ft when diopter is adjusted out far enough, but if you quickly transition to a further distance, it will look skewed and will need further adjustment. All 1-4x scopes do this, and the PST is no exception. The brightness of the reticle is not daylight usable. I say "usable" and not "visible" because it is visible in the daylight, but not enough to give you any benefit or act like a red dot. The hand turret clicks are consistent, adjustable and extremely nice. Repeatability and travel is consistent as well.

Overall, it's a very nice scope, and for the $500 price tag, it's well worth the money. If you want slightly better, buy the SWFA SS 1-4x24 for $200 more....the reticle is apparently brighter and it also sports HD glass which will be a tad brighter but will give better resolution at longer ranges. I have not seen this scope in person, however, so I cannot make a judgment call on whether it is worth the increased $$$ or not.

Here is a link to my full review of the scope prior to the Range Report (which I never updated): http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=447754&highlight=vortex+1-4x24

docsmileyface
10-18-2011, 7:14 AM
http://www.nitevis.com/ELCAN_SpecterDR_DFOV14.htm

Built like a beast, ultra clear glass, and outstanding field of view.

kozumasbullitt
10-18-2011, 8:35 AM
Translation: He is a NF fanboy. And that's fine.

Some people just dont want to hear that an $800 scope is just as good, clear, sturdy and effective as their $2000 NF ;)

As of right now, I have the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24 for my .308 AR. I really like the scope for what it is and what it's supposed to do, but I am really jonesing for higher magnification. I'm kind of wishing that I went with the 2.5-10x44 PST instead, but that was $100 more, and at the time I was going for more or a DMR setup that could also do CQB reasonably well. After some thought and time on the rifle, I decided a .308 AR is not suited extremely well for CQB and has no benefit compared to an AR-15. Eventually, I will have it turned into a midrange setup and have a midrange scope on top.

As for the 1-4x24 PST, the glass is nice and clear, very bright and pretty good resolution too. I find that the very outer edges are a tad blurry depending on how the diopter is adjusted. The diopter can also give you a slight "fish eye" effect if not dialed in for the correct distance. But this is something that happens to all scopes. You can do true 1x starting at about 10-15ft when diopter is adjusted out far enough, but if you quickly transition to a further distance, it will look skewed and will need further adjustment. All 1-4x scopes do this, and the PST is no exception. The brightness of the reticle is not daylight usable. I say "usable" and not "visible" because it is visible in the daylight, but not enough to give you any benefit or act like a red dot. The hand turret clicks are consistent, adjustable and extremely nice. Repeatability and travel is consistent as well.

Overall, it's a very nice scope, and for the $500 price tag, it's well worth the money. If you want slightly better, buy the SWFA SS 1-4x24 for $200 more....the reticle is apparently brighter and it also sports HD glass which will be a tad brighter but will give better resolution at longer ranges. I have not seen this scope in person, however, so I cannot make a judgment call on whether it is worth the increased $$$ or not.

Here is a link to my full review of the scope prior to the Range Report (which I never updated): http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=447754&highlight=vortex+1-4x24

And some people do not want to believe the old saying "you get what you pay for". I can buy any scope on the market and I choose NF. If I wanted this scope I would have no problems selling my NF scopes and DOWNGRADING but that is not a reasonable option in my mind. I was once like a lot of people here and purchased the "budget" item thinking it was the same or better than the more expensive alternative, it is not. If the "budget" item suits all your needs then there is no reason to buy something more expensive.

wash
10-18-2011, 9:28 AM
It's my understanding that the Super Snipers, Night Force, Tasco Elite and higher end Weavers are all made in the same Japanese factory. They are all made to different specs and certainly can have different grades of glass, different coatings and certainly different mechanical designs.

I'm sure my Weaver Classic Extreme is not quite as good as a Night Force but there really is nothing other than cost stopping Weaver or any other company from making a scope just as nice as a Night Force.

There is just a limited market for scopes that cost $1,000+ and Night Force is the Japanese manufactured competitor in that market.

Any way, I would expect better glass in an $800 Super Sniper than a $300 (clearace priced) Weaver and the difference between a Night Force and my Weaver isn't tremendous so I expect the Super Sniper could be on par with a Night Force.

What a Super Sniper doesn't have is fancy zero stop turrets or the build quality that I would expect from Night Force. On the other hand it's probably a good price/performance tradeoff if the scope is mostly used as a set and forget carbine scope.

That's why I think they should ditch some features to make it cheaper and better fit the role that a low power variable serves.

goodlookin1
10-18-2011, 10:16 AM
And some people do not want to believe the old saying "you get what you pay for". I can buy any scope on the market and I choose NF. If I wanted this scope I would have no problems selling my NF scopes and DOWNGRADING but that is not a reasonable option in my mind. I was once like a lot of people here and purchased the "budget" item thinking it was the same or better than the more expensive alternative, it is not. If the "budget" item suits all your needs then there is no reason to buy something more expensive.

Heh, you certainly just proved one thing: You are, indeed, a NF fanboy. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, NF is great! Dont take this as a slap whatsoever. But also, dont let your bias blind you to the fact that there are other top notch products that are on par with NF that dont have the NF name and that may not be as expensive.

In this case, the "you get what you pay for" does NOT apply:

1) Part of that $2000 price tag includes paying for the name NightForce. Yes they are very high quality scopes. Does the price always justify the price? Absolutely not, especially for NF because they are wickedly high priced. It's like a Ferrari: Is the sum of all the parts in the car really worth $350k+? Or are you partially paying for the name, recognition and notoriety, along with the performance?

2) An $800 scope is an expensive scope compared to most other scopes on the market. Yes, there are more expensive scopes, but $800 is about $400 more than the average scope out there. Hardly what you call a "budget" scope, in any case.

3) "You get what you pay for" is typically subjective. What one man perceives as "worth the difference", the other man will see NO difference and ask, "where's the extra $1200 in this scope?". I say it's "typically subjective" because sometimes this saying is ALWAYS true, and that is the case of knock-offs or clones compared to the real deal. They're always garbage, and yes...I have also learned my lesson: Pay once, cry once. But this doesnt apply because the SS is a serious scope and is not trying to copy NF.

4) The phrase is typically used in a negative way, and you are suggesting that the $800 SS is drastically inferior to NF and will break apart as soon as you get it. Now, I know you dont mean that, but that's how it sounds when you use the "You get what you pay for" phrase between two high quality products such as these.

starsnuffer
10-18-2011, 10:38 AM
Im not going to judge anyones choice of optic, or anyones reason to purchase and optic, but to claim that the SS is equal to, or superior the NF is just plain false. From the ground up the NF is superior in quality.

It is a downgrade plain and simple.

Hey, I like SWFA, I even like the SS line of scopes, but lets not get over excited.

Reticule is a personal choice, the people who switched from the NF 1x4 to the SS did so because they preferred the reticule and associated lighting system over what the NF offers.

A 79 bronco is a downgrade over a ZR1 vette, but if you live down a beat up old dirt road, replacing the vette with the bronco serves better, no? Same thing.

-W

Quickdraw Mcgraw
10-18-2011, 11:54 AM
Lupy AR 1-4 anyone?? Everyone jocks leupold in the hunting game but mabye its not Tactical enough for an ar I dunno, curious if anyone has one and can compare it to the Burris Tac30 or the SS...

crazychinaman
10-18-2011, 12:05 PM
I am curious too.I am thinking about the SWFA SS or the Leupold VX-R Patrol 113769 or th burris. I would like to have something that is made here in the U.S.

LawStudent
10-18-2011, 12:26 PM
GRSC has received good reviews,
http://www.grscinc.com/crs.html

This one - I met Ed Verdugo in person for the purchase and he was very informative about his scope, his vision, and its good to support a local guy.

The scope and reticle have worked well for me, hope to be up in Burro Canyon soon to shoot with it again.

triggs75
10-18-2011, 12:39 PM
It all depends on what you like and what you plan on using it for. For me with these two options shown below, I would choose the SS for $800 over the S&B for $2,600. The rifle my SS is on is a 16" rifle. But that is just me.

Full thread here. It is 15 pages long though http://www.ar15.com (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/527840_Review_of_the_SWFA_SS_1_4X24_HD__Updated__P age_6_.html&page=1)

S&B 1.1X not illuminated

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9735/sb1141xnoillumination.jpg

SS HD 1X not illuminated

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7937/sshd1xnoillumination.jpg

Jpach
10-18-2011, 3:40 PM
Go with the SS. I have one on top of my LMT 308 and it kicks serious ***. Great for popping things up close, and banging things from a distance as well.

The glass quality is awesome. I shot a rabbit at night with it and I watched the blood squirt out in HD (pretty much).

I just wish the "donut of death" reticle was available in the group buy.

triggs75
10-18-2011, 4:01 PM
Go with the SS. I have one on top of my LMT 308 and it kicks serious ***. Great for popping things up close, and banging things from a distance as well.

The glass quality is awesome. I shot a rabbit at night with it and I watched the blood squirt out in HD (pretty much).

I just wish the "donut of death" reticle was available in the group buy.

Nice HD video :D and yeah I wish I had gotten the "donut of Death" as well but couldn't pass up the $280 discount.

Chad

kozumasbullitt
10-18-2011, 4:13 PM
Heh, you certainly just proved one thing: You are, indeed, a NF fanboy. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, NF is great! Dont take this as a slap whatsoever. But also, dont let your bias blind you to the fact that there are other top notch products that are on par with NF that dont have the NF name and that may not be as expensive.

In this case, the "you get what you pay for" does NOT apply:

1) Part of that $2000 price tag includes paying for the name NightForce. Yes they are very high quality scopes. Does the price always justify the price? Absolutely not, especially for NF because they are wickedly high priced. It's like a Ferrari: Is the sum of all the parts in the car really worth $350k+? Or are you partially paying for the name, recognition and notoriety, along with the performance?

2) An $800 scope is an expensive scope compared to most other scopes on the market. Yes, there are more expensive scopes, but $800 is about $400 more than the average scope out there. Hardly what you call a "budget" scope, in any case.

3) "You get what you pay for" is typically subjective. What one man perceives as "worth the difference", the other man will see NO difference and ask, "where's the extra $1200 in this scope?". I say it's "typically subjective" because sometimes this saying is ALWAYS true, and that is the case of knock-offs or clones compared to the real deal. They're always garbage, and yes...I have also learned my lesson: Pay once, cry once. But this doesnt apply because the SS is a serious scope and is not trying to copy NF.

4) The phrase is typically used in a negative way, and you are suggesting that the $800 SS is drastically inferior to NF and will break apart as soon as you get it. Now, I know you dont mean that, but that's how it sounds when you use the "You get what you pay for" phrase between two high quality products such as these.

1) I really want to know where you are getting the $2000 figure from, my 1-4 NF scopes run from $1200-$1350.

2) I agree that the SS scope is not a budget scope at $800.

3) The get what you pay for saying is always true in my experience, if it is not the case for you then more power to you.

4) I believe the SS is a great scope and will suit the needs of most people in the market for a 1-4 scope. What I was saying is that the NF scope is built to different standards and demands a higher price tag. The SS scope may last a lifetime but the NF will last a lifetime.

Jpach
10-18-2011, 4:29 PM
Nice HD video :D and yeah I wish I had gotten the "donut of Death" as well but couldn't pass up the $280 discount.

Chad

Haha yeah it honestly seemed STUPID to not buy it.

And that BOBRO mount is way better than Larue, not that Larue is bad, but its beefier, holds zero better and doesn't rape your picatinny rail.

MrPlink
10-18-2011, 4:38 PM
3) The get what you pay for saying is always true in my experience, if it is not the case for you then more power to you.



While I cant really say anything when it comes to nicer scopes,,,,

As a former professional salesman, I would have to disagree 100%, that assumes all products are honest products and are 100% free of hype and marketing spin, which simply is not true.

kozumasbullitt
10-18-2011, 4:45 PM
While I cant really say anything when it comes to nicer scopes,,,,

As a former professional salesman, I would have to disagree 100%, that assumes all products are honest products and are 100% free of hype and marketing spin, which simply is not true.

That may be 100% true and I may be a sucker for hype.

Arnelcheeze
10-18-2011, 5:36 PM
I alot of people also like the Millet DMS scopes as well. Worth looking into...I had a chance to look at the millet DMS, from the outside it looked like a great scope, the build felt good and high quality but that's where it ended. The Optics were horrible, there was a blurry haze that would not go away, in the value department i would put the Leupold Mark AR, and the Nikon M-223 on a higher level...

goodlookin1
10-19-2011, 6:23 AM
1) I really want to know where you are getting the $2000 figure from, my 1-4 NF scopes run from $1200-$1350.

2) I agree that the SS scope is not a budget scope at $800.

3) The get what you pay for saying is always true in my experience, if it is not the case for you then more power to you.

4) I believe the SS is a great scope and will suit the needs of most people in the market for a 1-4 scope. What I was saying is that the NF scope is built to different standards and demands a higher price tag. The SS scope may last a lifetime but the NF will last a lifetime.

1) Honestly I threw a number out there. You are correct that they are $1200-$1350. And to be more honest, after looking at the prices, they are more reasonably priced than I remember.

2) We both agree :)

3) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My experience has been, "it depends". In this case, though both scopes are very nice, I highly doubt the $1300 NF would give anyone a benefit over the SS HD 1-4x. But I can really only speak for myself. I would like to know what actual measurable benefit you have with the NF over the SS vs the perceived/assumed benefit due of the higher price. You mention it's built to higher standards and will last a lifetime....do you know the construction methods between the two intimately, or know that the SS is not built to the same specs? I'd take a gander that you are saying this on assumption.

4) I'm sure there are people out there that can attest to the fact that, depending on use, the NF did not last a lifetime....just as i'm sure there are some SS-HD scopes that didnt last a lifetime. Just about anything can last a lifetime if it's taken care of properly and treated nicely. Nothing is unbreakable. But I dont have any statistics to show you that either scope is more trustworthy than the other. So I think we'll both have to concede this point because we're both going off of assumption.

goodlookin1
10-19-2011, 6:24 AM
I had a chance to look at the millet DMS, from the outside it looked like a great scope, the build felt good and high quality but that's where it ended. The Optics were horrible, there was a blurry haze that would not go away, in the value department i would put the Leupold Mark AR, and the Nikon M-223 on a higher level...

Agreed. I think they were a hot item a while back as they were the only "cheap" illuminated option available, but now there are many other options that are very reasonably priced that give a lot better sight picture and performance.

AM9000
10-19-2011, 6:59 AM
Whatever you get, if your going to invest in an "optic" over just a reflex sight... Get something that will allow you to do calculated holds. Otherwise your distance shooting is little more than guess work at any range that's not your zero.

The other comment I will make, beyond getting what you pay for with the higher end names, you also get better resale value. Try reselling a Burris, Weaver or even lower end vortex... You will be disappointed.

kozumasbullitt
10-19-2011, 7:45 AM
1) Honestly I threw a number out there. You are correct that they are $1200-$1350. And to be more honest, after looking at the prices, they are more reasonably priced than I remember.

2) We both agree :)

3) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My experience has been, "it depends". In this case, though both scopes are very nice, I highly doubt the $1300 NF would give anyone a benefit over the SS HD 1-4x. But I can really only speak for myself. I would like to know what actual measurable benefit you have with the NF over the SS vs the perceived/assumed benefit due of the higher price. You mention it's built to higher standards and will last a lifetime....do you know the construction methods between the two intimately, or know that the SS is not built to the same specs? I'd take a gander that you are saying this on assumption.

4) I'm sure there are people out there that can attest to the fact that, depending on use, the NF did not last a lifetime....just as i'm sure there are some SS-HD scopes that didnt last a lifetime. Just about anything can last a lifetime if it's taken care of properly and treated nicely. Nothing is unbreakable. But I dont have any statistics to show you that either scope is more trustworthy than the other. So I think we'll both have to concede this point because we're both going off of assumption.

In my experience NF uses thicker tubes, uses high quality materials for the adjustment internals, offers zero stop and in combat scenarios have truly been indestructible. I am no longer in service but the guys that I still keep in contact with really like NF and I suppose that rubs off on me. I have owned, used and handled many scopes and there are very few I think equal or out shine NF.

X-NewYawker
10-19-2011, 8:28 AM
Boiled down, Taran Butler, Nationa tactical divison 3 gun champ, uses the Trijicon Accupont 30mm tube 1-4X to engage targets in competition from point blank to 400 yards. No batteries, no useless stadia lines. Get it and learn where your gun shoots. Nuff said.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p54/Fasanoland/P1000671.jpg

get the green reticle.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p54/Fasanoland/Rifles/Accupointreticle.jpg

starsnuffer
10-19-2011, 8:32 AM
Taran Butler endorses Trijicon, so it's not fair to say that's "the best", only that it is what he is given/paid to use.

It's like buying a ford after watching a commercial. Baa baa sheep.

-W

AM9000
10-19-2011, 9:27 AM
All of this aside... the NF 2.5-10x24 or x32 is a hell of an optic. I think if you do decide to spend that kind of money on a higher end optic, you should do yourself a favor and buy the extra magnification.

I had the NF 2.5-10x24 and loved it. I recently traded up to the US Optics 1.5-6x28 and i love the scope for its MIL/MIL simplicity and the JNG reticle but I do miss the extra magnification.

X-NewYawker
10-19-2011, 5:51 PM
Taran Butler endorses Trijicon, so it's not fair to say that's "the best", only that it is what he is given/paid to use.

It's like buying a ford after watching a commercial. Baa baa sheep.

-W

Hello? You mean that his performance with the scope is negated because he put their logo on his shirt? Like the NASCAR Guys? Bad comparison. People buy guns/cars because of their proven performance. BTW -- he used this scope first, then got endorsed by them. His is neither given scopes nor paid by them. When people ask for a recommendation, I try to suggest a scope or gun someone actually USES, not just sits in their safe.

MrPlink
10-19-2011, 7:23 PM
Boiled down, Taran Butler, Nationa tactical divison 3 gun champ, uses the Trijicon Accupont 30mm tube 1-4X to engage targets in competition from point blank to 400 yards.

And Taran would still outshoot most of us if he used the bottom of a coke bottle with toothpics taped to it for a reticle as an opitc

X-NewYawker
10-20-2011, 5:08 AM
zTrue. Because he has honed his natural ability by shooting these guns almost every day, at all distances, including point blank, etc., and knows where his gun shoots. Most of us swap optics, etc., looking for the "perfect" scope and never get totally dialed in.