But like you said, it’s not just 3 ounces. Other companies have successfully made seemingly durable 1-10/2-10s with parallax adjustment in the 22 Oz range. Add in increased mount weights due to 36mm and you’ve got about a half pound extra weight. Yes, soldiers carry heavy weapon systems when it’s what is required. But it’s disingenuous when people say half a pound doesn’t matter for a soldier. We have so many weapon improvement programs (conventional and USSOCOM) designed to reduce weapon system weight. I really think the requirements provided for this contract had an oversight.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Zco lpvo???
- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
Absolutely. Weight is weight. An increase in weight equals a decrease in physical performance by human carrying the weight. Always.
I wonder how long it will be before some knuckle-dragger gets on here and says "Just lift more, Brah!"
BTW: I listed my March 1-10 shorty at 19oz. It is actually 17.8oz. putting it right at 22oz for the scope and mount.
Well, if you expect to complete mammoth, you are probably going to have to do some training…
As per the weight, I get it…ounces equal pounds and all that but IF there is a performance degradation in question…is it something I can live with to save weight…
Last edited:
It's built on a 36mm tube with the same internals as the 4-20 to maintain the same quality and resolution that is the expectation of their optics more so over weight. It's the same reason it's a 2-10 instead of a 1-10. Any comparison to a large objective optic is apples to oranges, since it was designed to be lower profile and fit a different role.
And most of the top competitors for Mammoth run some of the heaviest optics out there, because of that reason.
The top competitors are professionals half my age. I have no fantasy of competing with them, nor being able to carry their equipment. I stay in my lane.
