Meopta Meostar R1 1x-4x or Trijicon Accupoint?

[SuperSet]

Trijicon is sooo close to making the perfect 3-gun scope, IMHO. I'm not sure of their motivation for the German #4 reticule but having played with it at Shot Show, I thought it was disappointing as all get out. A few simple changes and they'd have it:

1. True 1x
2. Change the reticule to something like the TA01NSN series with illuminated dot.

or Meopta could just dramaticaly improve their battery life and QC issues, leaving Trijicon in the dust.

[mecam]

I got my Meopta from a reputable seller on Ebay for $650. He even does his own QC with a checklist he sends with your order to make sure eveything is GTG. I even called Meopta in NY to verify the SN# and it's legit. He usually have this model on listing once a month and he sells other Meopta models.



My BABY!!!!!





-

[Prowler]

Contact www.randrracingonline.com Last year they were selling the Meopta for $700.00 that's where I got mine. Great guys and great targets. A year or two ago I bought the Accupoint I sold to Prowler for $500.

You can always get one of the JP iron site setups for your hand guard I think they run about $120.00 and run your current scope.

I just bought the JP Performance SRTS (Short Range Tactical Sight) from another CG. They're about $120 or so. Just make sure you have a pic rail-type mount to mount it to your hand guards. I hade to order one from JP Performance and it was another $40.

[Prowler]

MECAM...what type of mount is that?

[mecam]

MECAM...what type of mount is that?

American Defense MFG. Larue's rival.

[FlyingPen]

Looks like an American Defense mount. Someone did a pretty extensive review on ARCOM. It didn't return to zero as well and left more scope marks than the LaRue.

[Prowler]

American Defense MFG. Larue's rival.

Did you buy it based on price, compared to the LaRue mount, or another reason? It looks like it's about $25 less, compared to the LaRue version SPRE.

[Prowler]

Looks like an American Defense mount. Someone did a pretty extensive review on ARCOM. It didn't return to zero as well and left more scope marks than the LaRue.

Thanks. Mine is a LaRue. If they were similar quality, I may have considered it in the future. No offense MECAM

[mecam]

Looks like an American Defense mount. Someone did a pretty extensive review on ARCOM. It didn't return to zero as well and left more scope marks than the LaRue.

Both the ADM and Larue returned to ZERO with no issues. As far as leaving markings, the ADM had sharper corners. My remedy to that was simple sanding with a 1000grit sand paper.

Here is the link to the review.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=219&t=157964

[mecam]

Did you buy it based on price, compared to the LaRue mount, or another reason? It looks like it's about $25 less, compared to the LaRue version SPRE.

Just to be different and I don't like how the Larue looks like.

[mecam]

Thanks. Mine is a LaRue. If they were similar quality, I may have considered it in the future. No offense MECAM

No offense taken. I don't own any shares of ADM. People will always say the best brand they own.

[FlyingPen]

I don't have either... from reading through the review though, just read the conclusions. Seems like a lot of negatives for a just a few bucks difference and the desire to be "different" but whatever floats your rifle

[maxicon]

ADM has a newer revision out that incorporates some design updates. Any new mount will have some early teething problems (yes, that includes LaRue). The only change I remember off hand is that the tension adjustment screw is now indexed, which takes out a bit of the flexibility.

The folks who are using ADM mounts are happy with them. Aside from the ongoing war between the haters and the koolaid drinkers, they seem like another great choice in the upper end mount realm.

People talk about mounts and return to zero a lot, but there's very little hard data to support most claims. It's a difficult thing to measure without throwing some serious resources at it.

[FlyingPen]

Yeah, Maxicon, I volunteer you to run the tests, I will help you shoot it.

100 yard indoor range, all mechanical rests, 20 rifles of the same caliber, make, and batch of barrels. test for return to zero in 100 removals and installations per rifle, 60 rounds fired per removal and reinstallation.

[maxicon]

Yeah, Maxicon, I volunteer you to run the tests, I will help you shoot it.

100 yard indoor range, all mechanical rests, 20 rifles of the same caliber, make, and batch of barrels. test for return to zero in 100 removals and installations per rifle, 60 rounds fired per removal and reinstallation.

You forgot the single-batch match ammo, scopes, software, chronographs, and torque wrenches. You can't measure RTZ better than your baseline ammo group size. You'd want multiple samples of each mount, as well - 10 would be reasonable. Plus, 10 round groups in sets of 3, and 10 removals and installations would be statistically pretty solid (though more is always better).

You wouldn't want to remount the scopes for each test, so you'd need dedicated scope/mount combos. If you had any shifting, you'd need to re-run the tests on that mount with a different scope and the original scope in a control rifle/mount to make sure it wasn't the scope shifting instead of the mount.

Alternately, a solid enough bench could give you decent confidence with purely optical checks. Firing ammo really only tests holding zero, not return to zero, and it would help deconvolve the data.

I'll run the tests - I'm good at this kind of thing. Gonna have to get some serious funding, though, both for the equipment and the time required at $150/hour. I'm thinking a grant from the NEA is a strong possibility, but it would take just the right wordsmithing...