
Originally Posted by
Gutshot John
The current low power variables are essentially the same as they were 10 years ago. There are more flavors of them but they essentially perform the same function. The technological advances have occurred but are mostly in the form of nice features, but any shooter worth his salt and who has spent some time learning the basic features and methods of using a scope, are still using those basic features and methods. It's not the scope that makes the difference, it's still the shooter behind the gun. I know it's hard to understand, I know it is hard questioning those dearly held assumptions, but ultimately you've got to make the effort.
Except that it's not evidence. It's a nice video of you showing a gamer setup, coming to conclusions you were predisposed to come to based on the purchases you've made. Evidence not only requires you to prove your concepts multiple times, in multiple ways but once you've sufficiently gathered that evidence, you try to disprove it to be sure to eliminate the human element. This is the essence of critical thought. If you like the scope for your purposes, that's just fine. They make nice scopes and I use them. Extrapolating that by saying it's an RDS killer (i.e. a qualitatively better scope), the standard of proof goes much higher.
You've shown nothing about what makes a new scope better than an old scope let alone what a new scope does better than an RDS. Honestly you're where I was 4 years ago. I tried to believe it, I've gone out of my way to think like you did. I started with variable powered optics and started my training with them and spent years trying to make them as versatile and functional as an RDS. In the end they weren't. The RDS genuinely rules the roost inside of 100 yards and with a bit of skill and practice is functional well beyond that range. Hell I've shot RDS's out to 600 (without magnifiers) and while it's not easy, it can be done.
Gear doesn't make up for lack of skill. You go on and on about the short-dot and how "cost doesn't mean anything when your life is on the line" and yet you don't even use one? That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Instead you use the TR-24 which imo the worst low-powered variable there is. I've owned two accu-points, used them extensively, and sold them both once I realized I was handicapped compared to those using RDS. They're not even in the same league as the short-dot never mind the same ballpark.
While the short-dot is a nice optic, for the cost of a TR-24 a Vortex PST is a superior scope with superior features and better glass quality and is at least as rugged, never mind a better reticle and vastly superior turrets. The TR-21/24 are hunting optics, not tactical. In that role, it does well enough but it's not a panacea. Essentially it's a red-dot with the magnifier built in, but it's neither as rugged as an Aimpoint nor as functional. The reticle is absolute garbage. It buys you neither speed nor accuracy (it's still not faster than a red-dot in virtually all of the non-traditional shooting positions which is a requirement in a combat optic and it's as fast or faster standing up and static, it's forgiving in terms of eye position which he TR-24 isn't and despite all that the TR-24 is not as accurate as a scope with decent, trackable turrets and a functional reticle). You can't dial in any dope, use holds, range a target or do any of the other things a magnified optic should be able to do (and have been doing for 10-20 plus years) and yet you claim it's a game changer? It's absolutely goofball.
I like and use low-powered variables. They do some things very well on a carbine and are ideal on an SPR setup. They are not, however, an RDS killer. You're doing those that don't know any better a disservice by making them believe that they can compensate for their lack of knowledge with a variable powered optic. It's a bad joke and it's transparently so. This is why it's called the errornet.
Bookmarks