View Full Version : Primary Arms MD-06 ultimate torture test UPDATE
ArmedShepherd
04-29-14, 16:04
Check this out! Very detailed and informative test ongoing right now.
Link (http://www.tacticalsandwich.com/?p=78)
so far so good. I have a couple of these, and they are a great cheap alternative to my t-1. Gets the job done.
ArmedShepherd
04-29-14, 16:11
I have a T-1 too and would never test it like the PA is getting.....too expensive.
I have a T-1 too and would never test it like the PA is getting.....too expensive.
No need to run a test on a t-1, Vickers already did it for us lol
It will be interesting following the testing
SilverBullet432
04-29-14, 17:46
Very interesting. While certainly no Aimpoint, These seem like a decent alternative for the money. I might pick one up for my AK.
Irons to 1k on a 2moa plate?? A pistol??? I quit reading there! GH
Have a couple of these, one for 2-3 years. The one I've had the longest has survived comps and classes in rain/shine winter-summer. By no way am I saying there on T1 level, but for my particular civy needs the price is on point. Do plan to get T1 soon tho, now that I've gotten a pay raise at my job:cool:.
ArmedShepherd
04-29-14, 20:04
Irons to 1k on a 2moa plate?? A pistol??? I quit reading there! GH
He said with an M1A....Palma shooters do this regularly.
He said with an M1A....Palma shooters do this regularly.
2 moa plate at 1K yards would be 20 inches too.
SilverBullet432
04-30-14, 09:59
2 moa plate at 1K yards would be 20 inches too.
Im rather interested in this dot, but I can't stop reading LAV's quote in your sig line........
I read that thread, and yes, sightmark is a POS my cousin's friend spent 100+ rounds trying to sight one it at 25 yards.... Didn't happen.
Im rather interested in this dot, but I can't stop reading LAV's quote in your sig line........
I read that thread, and yes, sightmark is a POS my cousin's friend spent 100+ rounds trying to sight one it at 25 yards.... Didn't happen.
One of these Primary Arms micros is on my 15-22, and has performed well for me. Do I trust it as much as the H-1 that is on my BCM? No, but luckily looking around you can find a used M2 or PRO for a great price.
One of these Primary Arms micros is on my 15-22, and has performed well for me. Do I trust it as much as the H-1 that is on my BCM? No, but luckily looking around you can find a used M2 or PRO for a great price.
That's pretty much the long and short of it for me- do I trust it on a go-to long gun? Not quite-I'll stick with aimpoints and such.
But for a .22... sure. And I'd trust the PA way the hell more than some other cheapass walmart sight.
SilverBullet432
04-30-14, 21:58
One of these Primary Arms micros is on my 15-22, and has performed well for me. Do I trust it as much as the H-1 that is on my BCM? No, but luckily looking around you can find a used M2 or PRO for a great price.
I have an EOTech 512, wanting to cut down on bulk and weight.
skywalkrNCSU
05-02-14, 18:53
This could make a nice 45 degree offset sight if you have some magnified glass on top. I can't justify spending the money on a t1 for that purpose especially considering I am not in a profession that puts me in the line of fire, just an ordinary civi.
ArmedShepherd
05-05-14, 09:35
Check out the updated test results on this optic. PA MD-06 got rocked and kept going.
ArmedShepherd
05-05-14, 10:47
Primary Arms MD-06 Ultimate Torture Test (http://www.tacticalsandwich.com/?p=78)
Primary Arms MD-06 Ultimate Torture Test (http://www.tacticalsandwich.com/?p=78)
Do you work for PA? Literally all of your posts on m4carbine are in this one thread.
ArmedShepherd
05-05-14, 10:58
Do you work for PA? Literally all of your posts on m4carbine are in this one thread.
I am a friend of the owner of Tactical Sandwich, which has no ties to any manufacturer.
I have 2 T-1's, 2 R-1's (silver H-1) and 2 MD-06's. The T-1's are mounted on my go-to AR's. The R-1's are on my stainless 10/22's.
One of the MD-06's is mounted via ultimak on my AK and the other is on a Mossy 930SX. I haven't had a minutes trouble out of the MD-06 RDs despite the heat and recoil they get subjected to when I'm out blasting at the range. The next time Primary Arms has a sale I'll by another one. Great value for the money.
ArmedShepherd
05-05-14, 14:32
I have 2 T-1's, 2 R-1's (silver H-1) and 2 MD-06's. The T-1's are mounted on my go-to AR's. The R-1's are on my stainless 10/22's.
One of the MD-06's is mounted via ultimak on my AK and the other is on a Mossy 930SX. I haven't had a minutes trouble out of the MD-06 RDs despite the heat and recoil they get subjected to when I'm out blasting at the range. The next time Primary Arms has a sale I'll by another one. Great value for the money.
I used to have a T1 but I didn't like that much money sitting on a gun that was going to get abused-contradictory I know. I feel better with middle-of-the-road optics on my guns.
I used to have a T1 but I didn't like that much money sitting on a gun that was going to get abused-contradictory I know. I feel better with middle-of-the-road optics on my guns.
It's relative to disposable income.... but I'm right there with you. I feel like I'd have to be too vigilant in taking care of the gun.
I run a Comp C3 that gets banged up enough. I might grab one of these Primary Arms to run on my more recreational blasters.
I put in an order for my new M4A1 SopMod build rifle....we will see how she runs...this torture test above is pretty amazing I might say for $150 buck bundle....
turnburglar
05-21-14, 22:03
I'm sorry, but this test is pretty silly.
Leaving it submerged: validates BASIC water proofing of the optic. And for the price point. Cool.
Freezer: ehhh sure whatever
3 rounds of Beowulf? Not nearly enough to be impressed. Throw it on a shotty or m1a for a couple HUNDRED rounds and then check for zero. That would impress me for a budget optic.
Playing baseball with it? Not sure how I feel good or bad about that test.
Then he goes to 6 feet of water. Stupid test. You don't even hit 1 bar of pressure until 33 feet. So atleast get that deep.
Shooting it with bird shot. Seems like he took a useable optic suitable for future testing and made it unserviceable for no good reason. Like at all.
And then with the comments: "I'll never buy an aimpoint even for a duty rifle after these tests!"
What duty? Studying for finals? Finger banging Mrs hep C? Silly college kids with their delusions for a closet sitter.
Short of lighting the thing on fire and blowing it up, I would say that test was good enough for my needs.
ArmedShepherd
05-22-14, 08:00
I'm sorry, but this test is pretty silly.
Leaving it submerged: validates BASIC water proofing of the optic. And for the price point. Cool.
Freezer: ehhh sure whatever
3 rounds of Beowulf? Not nearly enough to be impressed. Throw it on a shotty or m1a for a couple HUNDRED rounds and then check for zero. That would impress me for a budget optic.
Playing baseball with it? Not sure how I feel good or bad about that test.
Then he goes to 6 feet of water. Stupid test. You don't even hit 1 bar of pressure until 33 feet. So atleast get that deep.
Shooting it with bird shot. Seems like he took a useable optic suitable for future testing and made it unserviceable for no good reason. Like at all.
And then with the comments: "I'll never buy an aimpoint even for a duty rifle after these tests!"
What duty? Studying for finals? Finger banging Mrs hep C? Silly college kids with their delusions for a closet sitter.
There's a saying that goes like this: "sometimes it's better to do things yourself". So, if you're not satisfied, go test it to your standards.
The optic still worked after the birdshot, according to the test, so what's your point? He tested it past where it would be expected to fail. The failed logic of "took a useable optic for future testing and made it unserviceable for future testing". What future testing? If you're aiming to prove a product then you need to beat the living crap out of it. If you have access to better testing conditions than this guy then go document the test and we'll wait for your results.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm sorry, but this test is pretty silly.
Leaving it submerged: validates BASIC water proofing of the optic. And for the price point. Cool.
Freezer: ehhh sure whatever
3 rounds of Beowulf? Not nearly enough to be impressed. Throw it on a shotty or m1a for a couple HUNDRED rounds and then check for zero. That would impress me for a budget optic.
Playing baseball with it? Not sure how I feel good or bad about that test.
Then he goes to 6 feet of water. Stupid test. You don't even hit 1 bar of pressure until 33 feet. So atleast get that deep.
Shooting it with bird shot. Seems like he took a useable optic suitable for future testing and made it unserviceable for no good reason. Like at all.
And then with the comments: "I'll never buy an aimpoint even for a duty rifle after these tests!"
What duty? Studying for finals? Finger banging Mrs hep C? Silly college kids with their delusions for a closet sitter.
Hey sir...if you can test it better than DO IT. I know of several people that has taken these sights through carbine classes and they stood up to the abuse.
However...I want to bet that you are a super-uber commando dude yourself.
Just FYI..this same test was done by someone else on an Aimpoint H-1...so he might have tried to replicate it
I'm getting to a point where I'm believing the rumor that your paying for the patent when you buy an Aimpoint. I think durability can be matched by other brands, they just need to correct the red emitter issue on some of them. I guess as a civvy, not letting perfection get in the way of good enough is making more sense to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Overall I think this is a pretty good test. Could it be tested farther and more thoroughly? Yeah, any test can always be more thorough. I believe that tests like these prove that for your average Joe, these sights will get the job done and get it done nicely.
I can understand why someone whose life may depend on the optic not wanting to use it, but those people aren't who this optic is made for.
Turdburglar, if you feel the testing was inadequate, perform one yourself.
It's cute in a baby's-first-steps kind of way, but that's not even approaching what's required for viable optic testing. You guys that are applauding this as somehow proving anything other than anybody can freeze crap and blast it with a shotgun....fine, there's worse hobbies to have, but please stop kidding yourselves.
There's bound to be angst when some dude has the gall to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes....that guy almost always gets lit up. The question isn't whether or not any given citizen can do a BETTER course of testing; that's a complete non sequitur. Of COURSE not, he or she quite simply can't, on the basis of a complete lack of proper resources.
OP, next time, you will copy the body of the article to the post, and not leave just a link, forcing traffic to another site instead of giving our membership the option of doing so. That's a no-go, one that should have been noticed before now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.