yeah, I know.Originally Posted by Default.mp3
But the heart wants what the heart wants.
yeah, I know.
But the heart wants what the heart wants.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
March makes a 17oz 1-10, if you have the money for it...yeah, I know.
But the heart wants what the heart wants.
I have 2 Trijicon Accupower 1-4 with the red segmented circle and they are just about the perfect AR scope for me. I’m now looking at an SWFA 1-6 HD again to try a daylight bright FFP optic just to see but 22.6 oz is holding me back more than the price. It’s just insane to use pencil barrels and build the gun as light as you can then stick a pig of a scope on it.
But I do have a Kimber Montana with a 19 oz SWFA 3-9 so sometimes the weight penalty is doable if it brings something extra to the table.
The issue was not necessarily the week itself but rather the way a heavy optic on a light gun changes the balance and handling.
Yes and no. I’m not a 98 lb weakling and I’ve ran a marathon at 235 lbs but I walk a lot when hunting and try to keep everything as light as I can. That means I can add weight somewhere else for something that is needed. The Montana for instance. It weighs just over 5 lbs, adding the ammo and the 19 oz 3-9 brings that weight up to just over 7 lbs. but what it gives me in return is the ability to shoot out to 800 yards with precision by dialing elevation and holding wind. I’ve shot this light rig out to 1000 yards but without parallax adjustment, it’s not as consistent past 800.
Balance is still in the same, even when I had one on an AR, balance was good but handling sucked due to the 3x low end. The 223 just doesn’t do much past 600 yards and I can handle that with the lighter 1-4’s. What I’m wondering is will the brighter dot and FFP benefit me enough to suffer the weight.
After typing this out and reading it, I guess I’m saying the same thing as everyone else “why do they have to weigh so much?”
They don’t have to. My Mk.6 1-6 FFP is 17 Oz. Unfortunately very expensive and now discontinued.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
The SWFA 1-6 is showing its age. The reticle is less than stellar and the magnification adjustment is stiff (unless they addressed that issue). For 120 more I would get the Vortex Gen IIe and not look back. I don't mind the weight of the Razor line, they are durable.
That makes sense when you start to think about it. A 1-4x, 1-6x, 1-8x, 1-10x all probably have similar amounts of glass and aluminum in them assuming they are all 30mm tubes. The reason a 1-6 or a 1-4 is cheaper than a 1-8 or a 1-10 is it's probably easier to get higher levels of light transmission with glass that gives you a lower magnification range. It's why the Razor 1-10x is $2000, and the 1-6 Razor was like $1200 and the Steiner 1-4x is $650.
That said I am intrigued by the Trijicon Credo HX 1-6x.
The EOTech Vudu 1-6 FFP is my favorite scope for the money right now. 20oz. Daylight bright. Good at 1x, and usable reticle.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
are you using the mrad reticle?
Reply With Quote