1-10x vs 1-6

[Valhalla]

All good points. And that's the beauty of AR platform... everyone can build something they like.

I don't disagree with the idea of keeping everything "independent" on a combat rifle. After all we already have a mount capable of doing so (our Rukh). However, some users likes to tinker/reconfigure their rifles frequently (plinking one day, 3-gun the next), and having piggybacked RDS, especially on a QD mount that RTZ, is a big time-saver. It's really about giving your customers OPTIONS, because no single setup is perfect for "every situation".

Case in point, I have a "pussy-chaser" where I had it configured as light as possible, for that once-in-a-lifetime chance some chic wants to hit the range with me. (Haven't happened yet, still dreaming...) That gun is never gonna be dropped... plus it has a pencil barrel, and simply will not survive the zombie apocalypse. So I traded ruggedness to lower it's weight. On the other hand, my LMT has the trusted Elcan on it, and they are probably never going to be separated... because if the world ends tomorrow and I can only bring one gun with me, I am bugging out with that gun! lol

VT

[Life's a Hillary]

It's not the magnification, but the clarity of the image that matters.

Clarity is one of the last things on my list of importance when looking for a scope. First and foremost it’s an aiming device, if it can’t maintain zero, track properly, return to zero, and do all of the above when being bumped and dropped and carried then it doesn’t matter how clear the class is.

[vicious_cb]

Clarity is one of the last things on my list of importance when looking for a scope. First and foremost it’s an aiming device, if it can’t maintain zero, track properly, return to zero, and do all of the above when being bumped and dropped and carried then it doesn’t matter how clear the class is.

If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.

[Life's a Hillary]

If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.

Everything is useless if your aiming device cannot be trusted to aim at what you are thinking of. Too many people focus on, "what does the glass look like?" when they don't ever bother to ask things like how does it track, hold zero, rtz, hold up to drops and impacts, etc.

I mostly shoot for hunting purposes so I understand the importance of resolving what you are look at and is why I often tell new shooters to avoid cheap optics with high magnification like the Diamondback 6-24. Well, I would tell them to avoid that scope because it probably won't be reliable but it will be pretty useless at that high of a magnification.

[ST911]

The harsh reality is that the variables in assessing an optic are beyond the relevance and ability of many folks. They've never looked through a premium optic, much less taken one into the field through variable terrain, lighting conditions, and target looks. Nor shot one to a meaningful distance through a range of adjustments.

[Life's a Hillary]

The harsh reality is that the variables in assessing an optic are beyond the relevance and ability of many folks. They've never looked through a premium optic, much less taken one into the field through variable terrain, lighting conditions, and target looks. Nor shot one to a meaningful distance through a range of adjustments.

100%

Which is why I don't take much stock in someone telling me their scope is solid when they use it for hunting each deer season but for someone reason have to rezero it every year.

[SHIVAN]

If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.

I've had $400 Leupold 3-9x optics that were clear enough to make out whitetail at 250 yards in forest undergrowth, with a deciduous and conifer canopy, and near dusk conditions. The thing that stopped me from the shot, was I could not make out the un-lit reticle against the background. I could see their face, but didn't have an aiming point. Ugh.

Very little chance that someone is really going to have a major optical clarity issue from a Vortex Viper PST over a Razor HD. The better glass, and bigger tube might make it brighter and appear clearer, but it's unlikely at civilian engagement distances for hunting, or SD, that clarity will yield a discernible difference between the two optics. If I was making life and death shots, all the time, for serious LE or MIL usage, I would prefer the better glass -- but for rifle/carbine #25, I don't necessarily need to throw on a $2k+ optic to achieve my goals.

[jesuvuah]

So I have had the 1-8 accupower for a few days. I understand the complaints that people have had with this optic. It is not daylight bright. But I find the reticle very useful without illumination. The center crosshair is a little thick but useable. I actually like the boldness of the rest of the reticle, I wish they would not have made the center thicker, but I am sure that was for the illumination. Of course it's on the heavier side.

The glass seems plenty good in my opinion. I like the locking exposed turrets. It's not the perfect optic, but for the price I can't complain. If I would have been paying the full price they had been going for, I might have opted for the razor.

I find myself running it on 4x or 6x a lot, but it's nice to be able to crank it up to 8x.

The badger c1 mount is nice. I am still getting used to the 1.7 height but I think I like it. I wish they made an extended model as I like to run my scope a little further out.

Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk