Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98

Thread: Accupower 1-8 Initial Impressions (Range Review Coming Soon)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    36
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ExplorinInTheWoods View Post
    It is heavier, I had my TR24 on my carbine before running 2 matches with the 1-8 and picking the gun up I notice it, but when I'm running around and gunning in a match I honestly don't notice a difference. The MK6 is lighter no doubt, my buddy did weigh his down with the LaRue mount and the throw lever but in my book the reticle and forgiving eyebox of the 1-8 accupower makeup for the weight difference. I want to like the MK6 but the busy reticle and the flicker bother me.

    These are all very awesome and valid points, and I can't wait to check out your video review.
    My question is now, is there a place for a 1-8x in 3-gun? I've just started shooting matches, and I used an MRO since it was all I had at the time, so I'm still learning how to shoot and move with non-issue gear.
    I love the razor and 1-6x seems like the perfect formula for shooting those matches that reach out to the unknown distance ranges with 350-500 yds, but for the weight is it worth having more magnification? I'm honestly just curious. It makes sense to me, but I guess it just comes down to what application you want for your particular shooting problem of weapon+scope+match or hunt, etc.
    I understand what you're saying about the Mk6, I think that application is more military/LE use and that is a crowded reticle for shooting on the move but I love that thing.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ExplorinInTheWoods View Post
    It is heavier, I had my TR24 on my carbine before running 2 matches with the 1-8 and picking the gun up I notice it, but when I'm running around and gunning in a match I honestly don't notice a difference. The MK6 is lighter no doubt, my buddy did weigh his down with the LaRue mount and the throw lever but in my book the reticle and forgiving eyebox of the 1-8 accupower makeup for the weight difference. I want to like the MK6 but the busy reticle and the flicker bother me.
    Do they bother you, or do they impede you?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    689
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunMiddie View Post
    These are all very awesome and valid points, and I can't wait to check out your video review.
    My question is now, is there a place for a 1-8x in 3-gun? I've just started shooting matches, and I used an MRO since it was all I had at the time, so I'm still learning how to shoot and move with non-issue gear.
    I love the razor and 1-6x seems like the perfect formula for shooting those matches that reach out to the unknown distance ranges with 350-500 yds, but for the weight is it worth having more magnification? I'm honestly just curious. It makes sense to me, but I guess it just comes down to what application you want for your particular shooting problem of weapon+scope+match or hunt, etc.
    I understand what you're saying about the Mk6, I think that application is more military/LE use and that is a crowded reticle for shooting on the move but I love that thing.
    I feel there is a place, it all depends on where you shoot, I shoot matches in SC and my farthest shot is under 200 probably 175, usually a 6 inch plate. So there not a huge need for it, can be done with a dot, can be done with a 1-4,1-6,1-8. Now when I shoot in NC the place I usually shoot we have an 8inch plate at 400 so that place the 1-8 helps, I was able to do it with my VCOG and can do it with my 1-8. my 1-4 I could but not as consistent because of my 4.2 MOA triangle obscures the plate so much. This match I'm going to shoot in TX they say they potentially have targets out to 500 so in my opinion there is a need. I also love the reticle on the 1-8. They have something similiar on the VCOG now but it's has a christmas tree-ish for wind holds.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    689
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    Do they bother you, or do they impede you?
    Driving the gun on 1x it flickers and bothers but on 6x it is easy for me to lose the reticle completely because the eyebox is not as forgiving. To me and my buddy we both feel that if you don't have perfect cheekweld you lose it, not just the illumination but you just get scope shadow. My buddy was thinking about making it his work gun optic but after playing with it he's not certain. He traded a monte carlo for it and my buddy came out on top scope value vs car value. I know what you mean with bother vs impede, for me bothersome is the noon sky induced dark green VCOG instead of the neon green that I have indoors, in the woods, or partial cloud cover. Impede is searching for my reticle or not having enough eye relief in awkward positions.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    My #1 issue here is durability. The MK6 is durable as hell, and PROVEN TO BE. The VCOG is proven to not be so durable, and when I called Trijicon, they told me stuff:

    -We have fired 1000 rounds on a SCAR17H
    -We have tested it to 10ft for 24 hours under water
    -The lens attachment system is different from the VCOG, there is no lens/tube contact, they are double O-ringed and "castle nutted" (best way I can describe it), but the VCOG uses a different "and in my opinion---tech" more robust system (not confidence inspiring to me, considering VCOG lens shift issues).
    -It is tested to 500g's on a machine, but did not break/could do more, that was just minimum spec, so that was what it was tested to. It passed.

    Another thing that bothered me---not impeded---but bothered the hell out of me, the CA with the Trijicon 1-8 is off the chart stoopid.
    Last edited by WS6; 06-22-17 at 23:52.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    689
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    My #1 issue here is durability. The MK6 is durable as hell, and PROVEN TO BE. The VCOG is proven to not be so durable, and when I called Trijicon, they told me stuff:

    -We have fired 1000 rounds on a SCAR17H
    -We have tested it to 10ft for 24 hours under water
    -The lens attachment system is different from the VCOG, there is no lens/tube contact, they are double O-ringed and "castle nutted" (best way I can describe it), but the VCOG uses a different "and in my opinion---tech" more robust system (not confidence inspiring to me, considering VCOG lens shift issues).
    -It is tested to 500g's on a machine, but did not break/could do more, that was just minimum spec, so that was what it was tested to. It passed.

    Another thing that bothered me---not impeded---but bothered the hell out of me, the CA with the Trijicon 1-8 is off the chart stoopid.
    Not sure what CA is, I'm not touting the 1-8 as a bomb proof optic. I think it can stand up to use and abuse in competition. I get it dude you don't like Trijicon and leupold is the kittie's titties in your book. Until the optic fails me I'll rep it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,460
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ExplorinInTheWoods View Post
    Not sure what CA is, I'm not touting the 1-8 as a bomb proof optic. I think it can stand up to use and abuse in competition. I get it dude you don't like Trijicon and leupold is the kittie's titties in your book. Until the optic fails me I'll rep it.
    CA is chromatic aberration. That's the purple fringe along the edges of all the cars in the above photos. Pretty much all optics suffer from it, but some worse than others.
    Will - Owner of Arisaka LLC - http://www.arisakadefense.com

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    689
    Feedback Score
    0
    word, I see some glare, not a purple fringe but I'll take your word for it.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    The MK6 durable? I've known a few of them to have issues. Squishy knobs, turrets not tracking, etc. I dunno if the samples I've seen would classify as "durable as hell". They are a decent optic, but not the end all be all and not confidence inspiring. The only one I've run that seems build like a tank is the Vortex.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    The MK6 durable? I've known a few of them to have issues. Squishy knobs, turrets not tracking, etc. I dunno if the samples I've seen would classify as "durable as hell". They are a decent optic, but not the end all be all and not confidence inspiring. The only one I've run that seems build like a tank is the Vortex.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    An entire unit trashed their Vortex's. Everything can have issues. Turrets are mushy as a result of design, and as I understand tracking was a 3-18 issue, not a 1-6 issue, but I could be wrong. yes, Leupold can and does have QC issues.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •