Got My First Tac Ops..
- Thread starter jermeatimus
- Start date
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MNMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Harris bipod for sale. </div></div>
You won't last long.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MNMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Harris bipod for sale. </div></div>
You won't last long.
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MNMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Harris bipod for sale. </div></div>
You won't last long. </div></div>
Good eye!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MNMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Harris bipod for sale. </div></div>
You won't last long. </div></div>
Good eye!
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jermeatimus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone have any good places for bipods </div></div>
For what it's worth, I've been using a GG&G bipod and must admit I quite like it. It's much more configurable than the standard ones. For instance, each leg's length can be set wherever you want it: there are no clicks. Mind you, I've never heard a serious shooter bitch and moan about the quality of the Atlas or the Harris, so you can't go wrong there.
Yours,
David
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jermeatimus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone have any good places for bipods </div></div>
For what it's worth, I've been using a GG&G bipod and must admit I quite like it. It's much more configurable than the standard ones. For instance, each leg's length can be set wherever you want it: there are no clicks. Mind you, I've never heard a serious shooter bitch and moan about the quality of the Atlas or the Harris, so you can't go wrong there.
Yours,
David
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
Those hi-power scopes are nice but right now there are very good deals on U.S. Optics ST10 units on the hide and their products are well made and reliable. I have two of them. One for tactical and the other for my Swiss K31 for steel targets out to 500 meters.
Those hi-power scopes are nice but right now there are very good deals on U.S. Optics ST10 units on the hide and their products are well made and reliable. I have two of them. One for tactical and the other for my Swiss K31 for steel targets out to 500 meters.
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64
I see that you ordered an NXS 5.5-22X[50</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. Nice scope. Nightforce makes some great scopes and I think you'll like the NP-R1 reticle. The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards.
As you've already ordered your NXS it may be a moot point, but there's no definitive answer to your question of whether a PMII is <span style="font-style: italic">"is it really worth 1400 more is it THAT much better..."</span> than a Nightforce. I own three PMI 5-25X[56]s', and having shot with and/or owned Leupold, USO, Nightforce, Premier, Vortex, and Bushnell scopes I don't see myself replacing my PMIIs' with any of them.
Keith </div></div>
How about a reticle comparison dialed down to 5-6; which most would probably find better suited to closer ranges and thick brush? While the gen2xr has it's attributes; being dialed down isn't one of them. </div></div>
Still trolling the forums, eh <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span>? I never said that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> would better better-served by using a PMII with a Gen 2 XR, so what is your point? I said that <span style="font-style: italic">"...The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards."</span> My point was and is that across the magnification range of the SFP NXS 5.5-22X[50] the NP-R1's .062 MOA line thickness is even more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X.
For low magnification use in low light and/or heavy brush neither is ideal, although at any magnification below 13X I'd have to give the SFP NP-R1 a slight edge over the PMII's FFP Gen 2 XR. If my reticle subtension extrapolation is correct, the Gen 2 XR in PMIIs' is .025" (5X), and .030" (6X). That's very fine, and difficult to see in heavy brush. The SFP NP-R1 .062 MOA reticle thickness is more than twice as thick as the Gen 2 XR in the afore-mentioned scopes.
However, from a practical standpoint users of PMII 5-25X[56]s' rarely use the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">reticle itself</span></span> below 8X or so regardless of reticle. Sure, they may dial down the magnification to get a wider FOV, but most shooters rarely use the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">reticle itself</span></span> of any FFP PMII 5-25X[56] at 5X or 6X very often. If someone is using a FFP 5-25X magnification scope at 5-6X a lot they're using the wrong scope for the job.
The bottom line is that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> said that he'd be using the rifle for <span style="font-style: italic">"a bit of hunting and a lot of punching paper"</span> and that he <span style="font-style: italic">"can shoot reasonably out to 800 yards with no issues as far as room."</span> Since he'll be shooting paper most of the time I think that the Nightforce NXS 5.5-22X[56] with NP-R1 he's chosen will work pretty well for the types of shooting he specified. The fine reticle will be especially useful for fine aiming, especially at distance.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64
I see that you ordered an NXS 5.5-22X[50</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. Nice scope. Nightforce makes some great scopes and I think you'll like the NP-R1 reticle. The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards.
As you've already ordered your NXS it may be a moot point, but there's no definitive answer to your question of whether a PMII is <span style="font-style: italic">"is it really worth 1400 more is it THAT much better..."</span> than a Nightforce. I own three PMI 5-25X[56]s', and having shot with and/or owned Leupold, USO, Nightforce, Premier, Vortex, and Bushnell scopes I don't see myself replacing my PMIIs' with any of them.
Keith </div></div>
How about a reticle comparison dialed down to 5-6; which most would probably find better suited to closer ranges and thick brush? While the gen2xr has it's attributes; being dialed down isn't one of them. </div></div>
Still trolling the forums, eh <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span>? I never said that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> would better better-served by using a PMII with a Gen 2 XR, so what is your point? I said that <span style="font-style: italic">"...The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards."</span> My point was and is that across the magnification range of the SFP NXS 5.5-22X[50] the NP-R1's .062 MOA line thickness is even more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X.
For low magnification use in low light and/or heavy brush neither is ideal, although at any magnification below 13X I'd have to give the SFP NP-R1 a slight edge over the PMII's FFP Gen 2 XR. If my reticle subtension extrapolation is correct, the Gen 2 XR in PMIIs' is .025" (5X), and .030" (6X). That's very fine, and difficult to see in heavy brush. The SFP NP-R1 .062 MOA reticle thickness is more than twice as thick as the Gen 2 XR in the afore-mentioned scopes.
However, from a practical standpoint users of PMII 5-25X[56]s' rarely use the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">reticle itself</span></span> below 8X or so regardless of reticle. Sure, they may dial down the magnification to get a wider FOV, but most shooters rarely use the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">reticle itself</span></span> of any FFP PMII 5-25X[56] at 5X or 6X very often. If someone is using a FFP 5-25X magnification scope at 5-6X a lot they're using the wrong scope for the job.
The bottom line is that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> said that he'd be using the rifle for <span style="font-style: italic">"a bit of hunting and a lot of punching paper"</span> and that he <span style="font-style: italic">"can shoot reasonably out to 800 yards with no issues as far as room."</span> Since he'll be shooting paper most of the time I think that the Nightforce NXS 5.5-22X[56] with NP-R1 he's chosen will work pretty well for the types of shooting he specified. The fine reticle will be especially useful for fine aiming, especially at distance.
Keith
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards. </div></div>
Aries64,
You have such an eloquent way of showing that you have no idea of wtf you're talking about! Never said it eh; sport?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards. </div></div>
Aries64,
You have such an eloquent way of showing that you have no idea of wtf you're talking about! Never said it eh; sport?
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards. </div></div>
Aries64,
You have such an eloquent way of showing that you have no idea of wtf you're talking about! Never said it eh; sport? </div></div>
Actually, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span> - you've just shown (again) that you don't WTF you're talking about. You REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. Where did I say that the Gen 2 XR would be better than the NP-R1 for hunting and target shooting?
I also posted that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"For low magnification use in low light and/or heavy brush neither is ideal, although at any magnification below 13X I'd have to give the SFP NP-R1 a slight edge over the PMII's FFP Gen 2 XR. If my reticle subtension extrapolation is correct, the Gen 2 XR in PMIIs' is .025" (5X), and .030" (6X). That's very fine, and difficult to see in heavy brush. The SFP NP-R1 .062 MOA reticle thickness is more than twice as thick as the Gen 2 XR in the afore-mentioned scopes."</span></span>
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The NP-R1's reticle line thickness of .062 MOA should work well for shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot, but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100 yards. </div></div>
Aries64,
You have such an eloquent way of showing that you have no idea of wtf you're talking about! Never said it eh; sport? </div></div>
Actually, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span> - you've just shown (again) that you don't WTF you're talking about. You REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. Where did I say that the Gen 2 XR would be better than the NP-R1 for hunting and target shooting?
I also posted that <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"For low magnification use in low light and/or heavy brush neither is ideal, although at any magnification below 13X I'd have to give the SFP NP-R1 a slight edge over the PMII's FFP Gen 2 XR. If my reticle subtension extrapolation is correct, the Gen 2 XR in PMIIs' is .025" (5X), and .030" (6X). That's very fine, and difficult to see in heavy brush. The SFP NP-R1 .062 MOA reticle thickness is more than twice as thick as the Gen 2 XR in the afore-mentioned scopes."</span></span>
Keith
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
Keith,
If you don't think the S&B is better; why are you comparing the NF to it? What's up w/ your "tone"; your Internet "balls" seem to have grown? Perhaps you should stick to shooting......pictures that is! I guess all of this plays well in your agenda! This didn't have to get "personal"; but have it your way. The floor is yours champ!
Keith,
If you don't think the S&B is better; why are you comparing the NF to it? What's up w/ your "tone"; your Internet "balls" seem to have grown? Perhaps you should stick to shooting......pictures that is! I guess all of this plays well in your agenda! This didn't have to get "personal"; but have it your way. The floor is yours champ!
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keith,
If you don't think the S&B is better; why are you comparing the NF to it?</div></div>
Jesus, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span>. Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or do you just like to clutter and muddy threads with your BS? I replied to <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> and said that the fine (.062 MOA) line width of the NP-R1 reticle in his (SFP) NXS 5.5-22X[50] should work well for <span style="font-style: italic">"shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot"</span>, but that it <span style="font-style: italic">seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on."</span> My mention of a Gen 2 XR reticle in a FFP PMII was simply to illustrate how fine the NP-R1 reticle is (the Gen 2 XR having the finest subtension of any reticle ever put in a FFP PMII). Is that clear? Does that spell it out for you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What's up w/ your "tone"; your Internet "balls" seem to have grown? Perhaps you should stick to shooting......pictures that is!</div></div>
I didn't realize that you were so pre-occupied with my balls, but they're the same as they've always been. I always try to keep my <span style="font-style: italic">tone</span> level-headed and respectful at all times. My professional and personal life requires it because you never know where the next deal and paycheck might come from.
And, oh gee - you really got me with your remark about me shooting. As if you know how I shoot, which is pretty well when I can get to the range or an FT/R match. I've held my own against the barrel-burners at FT/R matches with a .308 and a 21.5" barrel (my Tac Ops X-Ray 51).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I guess all of this plays well in your agenda! This didn't have to get "personal"; but have it your way. The floor is yours champ! </div></div>
The only <span style="font-style: italic">"agenda"</span> I have here is learning what I can and helping others if I can when time permits. And from some of your previous posts here you should be used to getting called-out for your BS.
<span style="font-weight: bold">NOW. Back on topic...</span>
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keith,
If you don't think the S&B is better; why are you comparing the NF to it?</div></div>
Jesus, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Turk</span></span>. Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or do you just like to clutter and muddy threads with your BS? I replied to <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> and said that the fine (.062 MOA) line width of the NP-R1 reticle in his (SFP) NXS 5.5-22X[50] should work well for <span style="font-style: italic">"shooting the tiny groups Tac Ops rifles can shoot"</span>, but that it <span style="font-style: italic">seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on."</span> My mention of a Gen 2 XR reticle in a FFP PMII was simply to illustrate how fine the NP-R1 reticle is (the Gen 2 XR having the finest subtension of any reticle ever put in a FFP PMII). Is that clear? Does that spell it out for you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What's up w/ your "tone"; your Internet "balls" seem to have grown? Perhaps you should stick to shooting......pictures that is!</div></div>
I didn't realize that you were so pre-occupied with my balls, but they're the same as they've always been. I always try to keep my <span style="font-style: italic">tone</span> level-headed and respectful at all times. My professional and personal life requires it because you never know where the next deal and paycheck might come from.
And, oh gee - you really got me with your remark about me shooting. As if you know how I shoot, which is pretty well when I can get to the range or an FT/R match. I've held my own against the barrel-burners at FT/R matches with a .308 and a 21.5" barrel (my Tac Ops X-Ray 51).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I guess all of this plays well in your agenda! This didn't have to get "personal"; but have it your way. The floor is yours champ! </div></div>
The only <span style="font-style: italic">"agenda"</span> I have here is learning what I can and helping others if I can when time permits. And from some of your previous posts here you should be used to getting called-out for your BS.
<span style="font-weight: bold">NOW. Back on topic...</span>
Keith
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RCS1278</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back on topic....How about those pics with the scope?! </div></div>
Yeah. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> must have something else come up, and then he forgot to post them.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RCS1278</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back on topic....How about those pics with the scope?! </div></div>
Yeah. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">jermeatimus</span></span> must have something else come up, and then he forgot to post them.
Keith
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
Keith,
If your ego will permit you; pm me so you can continue pounding your chest! As far as getting called out; your agenda is quite clear to the members that see your posts. As far as muddying up stuff; half ass attempt on your part to cover up the fact that you are talking out of your better end! Like I stated this didn't have to get personal; but you have to come on here posting some specs of stuff you read on the Internet! While I must admit I enjoy the looks of a TacOps rifle as much as any one else; Not everyone pulls up to the range in a Maserati sporting a Rolex and a pristine rifle. Now about you "holding your own"; that's probably something you are accustomed to by now!
Keith,
If your ego will permit you; pm me so you can continue pounding your chest! As far as getting called out; your agenda is quite clear to the members that see your posts. As far as muddying up stuff; half ass attempt on your part to cover up the fact that you are talking out of your better end! Like I stated this didn't have to get personal; but you have to come on here posting some specs of stuff you read on the Internet! While I must admit I enjoy the looks of a TacOps rifle as much as any one else; Not everyone pulls up to the range in a Maserati sporting a Rolex and a pristine rifle. Now about you "holding your own"; that's probably something you are accustomed to by now!
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
I would like a Maserati and 300 wsm nosler brass as well as 30-06 lapua and 308 in lapua. All are equally obtainable these days... Pics after I walk my dog I fell asleep last night sorry
I would like a Maserati and 300 wsm nosler brass as well as 30-06 lapua and 308 in lapua. All are equally obtainable these days... Pics after I walk my dog I fell asleep last night sorry
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keith,
If your ego will permit you; pm me so you can continue pounding your chest! As far as getting called out; your agenda is quite clear to the members that see your posts. As far as muddying up stuff; half ass attempt on your part to cover up the fact that you are talking out of your better end! Like I stated this didn't have to get personal; but you have to come on here posting some specs of stuff you read on the Internet! While I must admit I enjoy the looks of a TacOps rifle as much as any one else; Not everyone pulls up to the range in a Maserati sporting a Rolex and a pristine rifle. Now about you "holding your own"; that's probably something you are accustomed to by now! </div></div>
Jesus, you just don't give up. Your posts about me aren't based in reality and you can't logically refute what I say so you deflect the discussion into a different direction. It's not my fault your cognitive functions are below par. Anyone whose read our replies to each other can see that. Whatever dude, you <span style="font-style: italic">"win"</span>, I'm finished wasting time replying to you.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keith,
If your ego will permit you; pm me so you can continue pounding your chest! As far as getting called out; your agenda is quite clear to the members that see your posts. As far as muddying up stuff; half ass attempt on your part to cover up the fact that you are talking out of your better end! Like I stated this didn't have to get personal; but you have to come on here posting some specs of stuff you read on the Internet! While I must admit I enjoy the looks of a TacOps rifle as much as any one else; Not everyone pulls up to the range in a Maserati sporting a Rolex and a pristine rifle. Now about you "holding your own"; that's probably something you are accustomed to by now! </div></div>
Jesus, you just don't give up. Your posts about me aren't based in reality and you can't logically refute what I say so you deflect the discussion into a different direction. It's not my fault your cognitive functions are below par. Anyone whose read our replies to each other can see that. Whatever dude, you <span style="font-style: italic">"win"</span>, I'm finished wasting time replying to you.
Keith
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100
</div></div>
Read what you wrote you arrogant.....! If you were trying to get across another point, perhaps your writing skills are below par!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but it seems a little fine for hunting in thick brush unless the illumination is turned-on (.062 MOA is more fine than the Gen 2 XR in a PMII at 15X, which is .075" at 100
</div></div>
Read what you wrote you arrogant.....! If you were trying to get across another point, perhaps your writing skills are below par!
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
Turk,
WTF??
This post was about a rifle and you come in here cluster-fucking it about a scope and reticle? What difference does it make, it's about the rifle. Mount irons on it and who gives a shit.
I'm reading about this rifle and all of a sudden you pop off and start arguing about a scope reticle?
Get back in your lane and settle it down.
Turk,
WTF??
This post was about a rifle and you come in here cluster-fucking it about a scope and reticle? What difference does it make, it's about the rifle. Mount irons on it and who gives a shit.
I'm reading about this rifle and all of a sudden you pop off and start arguing about a scope reticle?
Get back in your lane and settle it down.
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
This is without a doubt, the most bizarre thread I have ever read. OP talks about how gorgeous new gun, but does not post pics. A newbie comes out of the blue and tries to sell a bipod in the middle of the thread and then Turk quotes Keith from another thread and gets into an argument about reticles... even though the picture that finally shows up from OP (on page 2) is a gun without a scope.
And the most amazing part of the thread... it was sidetracked by this crap and not Tac Ops haters!
This is without a doubt, the most bizarre thread I have ever read. OP talks about how gorgeous new gun, but does not post pics. A newbie comes out of the blue and tries to sell a bipod in the middle of the thread and then Turk quotes Keith from another thread and gets into an argument about reticles... even though the picture that finally shows up from OP (on page 2) is a gun without a scope.
And the most amazing part of the thread... it was sidetracked by this crap and not Tac Ops haters!
Re: Got My First Tac Ops..
Haha im trying on the new pic the website wasnt loading it last night and im at work at the moment
Haha im trying on the new pic the website wasnt loading it last night and im at work at the moment
