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.
You're missing the point, but you're also the one that was quick to dismiss anyone coming at you with the argument that perhaps you need to work on your fitness then if the few ounces is that big of an issue, or come to terms with your age and abilities in regards to product requirements and tasks.
1) You have no idea of my level of fitness. Any idea you have on my fitness is an assumption made on your part without any actual viable information to do so. Did you miss the part where I do Run N Gun comps?
I completed a 2 day pistol training class yesterday. The last thing we did was a run and shoot drill. My run time was second fastest, 2 seconds off of a 20-something athletic dude in good shape. He is literally half my age, less than half in fact. My overall score was the top in the class, with the highest shooting score, so I must not be that bad in the conditioning department....
2) I have already stated, in quite a clear manner, that I accept the limitations that come with my age, and therefore my product requirements may be affected by this. But thanks for agreeing with exactly what I already stated. Your approval means a lot to me.
3) Weight is weight. Period. If you have a race car, and you take weight off of it, the car will perform better. If you add horsepower to the car while keeping the same weight, it will perform better. If you add horsepower and take off weight it will perform best of all.
If you have a soldier, and you take weight off his loadout, he will perform better. If you have a soldier and you get him in better shape while carrying the same loadout, he will perform better. If you have a soldier, get him in better shape and take weight off his loadout, he will perform best of all.
This really is simple physics. I don't understand why people struggle with it.
4) It is not about the 3oz on the mount, or the 4oz on the scope. It is about ALL of it. If you need to take 5lbs out of your loadout, there are not likely any single 5lb objects you can remove. It must come ounces at a time, maybe grams at a time, from everywhere in your system. And maybe that 3-4oz of optics will help you perform the shooting part better. Maybe that is an acceptable tradeoff, maybe it isn't. Maybe there is a different, lighter option to consider where there is not as much tradeoff of weight/performance. These choices are individual and complex, so it is a good thing there are so many experts on the internet to help us clueless folk figure it out. Where would we be otherwise?
BTW: I see people in Mammoth carry aluminum-case 9mm ammo because it weighs a few grams less per round. They get it. Weight is weight. It adds up.
Dude, you literally just went into your age and how you're not trying to be competitive and stay in your lane, only to then go into this diatribe where you imply you're more than physically capable of being competitive because you do run and gun comps and some random pistol class, that frankly is nothing even remotely close to competition on a scale like Mammoth. And you can cut the crap with the character remarks ranging from the knuckle-dragger to the experts on the interent comment to try and shut-down dissenting opinions.
I didn't imply anything. A couple of minutes of running is very different from rucking 50lbs across 30 miles. This should be obvious to anyone, so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated. One is a highly aerobic event, one is a highly anaerobic event. Completely different types of conditioning.
What you should have gotten from my pistol class comments is that there is a wide range of physical abilities at 60 years old. Way too many at my age can't even run. If you were actually trying to understand anything, which you clearly are not, you would have realized from my pistol class comments that maybe my physical capabilities lie somewhere more towards the other end of the spectrum for people my age. I know this would require an unbiased, unemotional examination of the information, a skill some people are simply not capable of achieving.
But instead you seem Hell-bent on proving that I don't realize or understand something. And in your efforts to man-splain to me why I don't understand, you keep making the point I already put forth. I didn't ask for your advice, you chose to interject it. I get to decide how much I value your input, not you. And I get to decide how I want to respond to it, not you. If you were not prepared for a response back, then maybe you should have not gotten involved.
When given a set of new information, one can see that information as data points to better understand the situation, or one can see the information as a way to apply cognitive bias and continue to see what the already see, or want to see. It is really up to the individual.
This is an open internet forum. I can't shut down anything. And neither can you. I can, however, choose how much value to give to any response based on any personally-formulated good, bad or indifferent metric. It is simultaneously both the fortunate and unfortunate reality of social media.
The knuckle-dragger comment seems to be especially prickly for you. Maybe that is because you fell right into exactly what I said someone would do. It doesn't take a prophet to see someone will make the comment, all you have to do is observe these type of threads for about 20 years. Even people that know better can't seem to help themselves.
In case you have not figured it out, I don't place much value on anything you have had to say so far. And you want to know why? Because you did not seek out any information about me or my situation before trying to tell me what I don't know and why I am wrong. Actual experts, people worth listening to, they try to collect as much data and information about the individual, the targets and goals, and the limitations relevant to the situation before handing out advice. Only then can they, with any level of confidence, give out useful information or advice.
You did none of that. You had no idea about me, my capabilities, experience, equipment or knowledge before telling me why I don't understand things. You made assumptions. Then, when presented with information that would imply your assumptions may be wrong, did you readjust your perceptions? No. Instead, when presented with actual data, you ignored that and continued down the same path of thinking. Advice passed out based on ego, emotion, and confirmation bias, and not based on neutral examination of the data, has no value to me.
Last edited:
That's a novel, and frankly after the first paragraph where you obviously like to hear yourself talk and want to sound authoritative, I tuned out the rest of what is likely more inferences and other regurgitations. Good luck with all of that, lol...
The F
FOV seems off. The FOV at 1X is 61’ at 100m? The Vortex 1-10 is 116’ @ 100 yards.The HTR reticle looks exactly like this one shown here.
Zero Compromise Optics ZC210 LPVO MIL 2-10x30 - Solids Solution Designs
The Zero Compromise Optic ZC420 combines excellent optical performance with unmatched mechanical precision.www.solidsolutiondesigns.com
Ahh, looks like it’s time for me to do some remedial reading comprehension work.
