Agree that NRL22 is fine backed off to 8x when .25 targets at 25m
IIRC the .mil and LEO guys req'd ~10M parallax (S&B and NF). Others copied that at a later date. Not worth explaining more here.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
If the manufacturer was listening, what realistic thing would you change about your favorite optic?
- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
IIRC the .mil and LEO guys req'd ~10M parallax (S&B and NF). Others copied that at a later date. Not worth explaining more here.
The Vortex AMG 6-24x50 was 100% made and sourced in the USA (including glass), that was part of their big marketing campaign about the whole AMG project. They had to change their terminology a bit when their USA reticle etcher had some issues and so they outsourced the reticle lens to Germany IIRC. I would hope that the next iteration of AMG long range scopes is similar with most products being sourced in the USA, but not sure if that is too cost prohibitive these days and made even harder by many millennials demanding starting wages higher than what I made after 20 years on the job.
i honestly don't care much about where/who makes the AMG. but if they can do a 4-16/4-20 and/or 5-25 with that lighter 26-32ish oz weight and equally good glass and mechanics to the gen 3 i'm all for it
Take a look at the FML-TR1H offered in the 3-24x52, it is basically the FML-TR1 with a circle of death similar to what Bushnell used to offer with their G2H reticle in the LRHS series of scopes. If enough people ask for this reticle in the 4.5-28 March may consider it.
Dear U.S. Optics — An MPR reticle with a Christmas tree added to it would be amazing. Sincerely, Stan
ZC Hunter
Zero Compromise Optic ist ein österreichisches Unternehmen im Bereich Fernoptik für kompromisslose optische und mechanische Systeme
They are coming out with stuff like that. Integrated rangefinder , TracIR, AB etc. In a scope mount. Not just with a Raptar and clip on
Here:
X4-FCS | Maztech Industries
www.maztechindustries.com
Last edited:
That’s not a nx8 2.5-20 with the compromises reduced to zero / a miniature zco 420.ZC Hunter
Zero Compromise Optic ist ein österreichisches Unternehmen im Bereich Fernoptik für kompromisslose optische und mechanische Systemewww.zcompoptic.com
Smh
nor does it have decent reticle options
but something like a 2.5-17.5 or 3-21 with the MPCT1 and other options i'm all for
Only available to Europe. If they did bring it to the states the 36mm tube would greatly hinder sales here, neither the hunter crowd nor the tactical community need 36mm scopes. 30oz a bit too much for an MPVO. The tiny little capped elevation turret not doing it for me either. I have little doubt this scope will knock it out of the park optically, but just like what I mentioned - it has to be the "right" MPVO scope and I just think there are too many compromises in this zero compromise scope
I’m not sure why a 36mm tube is a hold back for anyone willing to pay for a ZCO. It seems they can afford new rings or they couldn’t afford the scope to start with and are already making bad decisions.
Some won't care, many more will. It's just another area of non-conformity that we have to deal with. 36mm is going to add weight and cost to the design, this is unnecessary for the intended market. The major benefit of 36mm is increased travel which is a non-issue for an MPVO, the other benefits are negligible and would be gladly traded in for the benefits that come with smaller tubes. But maybe I'm wrong and a US version of the 36mm tube 1.7-12x50 ZCO will be the best selling MPVO of all time
but it is not the scope I am looking for.
Only two things, get rid of the stupid ring mounting system and let me see the elevation turret
position in the scope image.
position in the scope image.
Back on topic in the sense we're discussing this in the context of the FX 4.5-28x52 as a personal favorite. To a certain extent, this is just me wanting MORE.
It might make me the very odd man out, but perhaps my favorite thing about the FML-TR1 is the amount of space in the center. That little "starburst" center is my jam - I get .2/.4/.6 mrad holds without a reticle that looks like I'm monitoring seismic activity for a clean view of the target. The FML-TR1 "tree" does a wonderful job of being entirely ignored. When it's as easy to see through/past the tree as it is in the FML-TR1, there's no reason not to have it.
The FML-TR1H looks good to me in general. I'm not sure how I feel about the donut, given that the crosshairs themselves seem pretty substantial and may obviate the need for it. My only gripe there is that it's not an option in the 4.5-28x52. I could also argue that the FML-1 updated for .2 mrad hashes would be pretty damn useable in a crossover capacity... but may not provide enough capability to be a marketable "crossover" design.
I have to beg off answering on the PDK/LDK because I don't have experience to speak to. When I compared them to the FML-TR1 and FML-3 it didn't seem like the crosshair design was substantially different in appearance at low magnification. Or rather, not substantially different enough to warrant selection on that basis. I think there is a lot to like in both designs. The first paragraph does a good job of explaining my bias towards the FML-TR1.
Would be interesting to know what facility they got the glass from. Ive been involved with the optical glass industry for over 30 years, and our company has a close working relationship with most of the major glass manufactures, except for the Japanese companies. If the reticle issue pushed it to Germany, I'm guessing maybe Schott glass (they have a large facility in Duryea PA, but had a massive fire that destroyed most of the facility, so a lot of what they produced was sent to other facilities and after rebuilding have a mostly different product line).
As I said, it really comes down to where the particular product is being made. If it was Schott glass, there's a good probability that material is no longer made in the US. Oh, and the big push the last few years was reformulating all the glass in Europe to eliminate lead, so many products are not what they were 10 years ago
Nope you're correct, Pat and George posted that the first pre-release scopes they were using were 20 ounces. Got mine and it was 25 and WTF?????
Please update your younger generation terminology. The youngest millennial are 27 this year and were born in 1996. According to Pew millennials were born from 1981 to 1996. Or in other words ask where someone was on 9/11. If the answer ranges from kindergarten to not quite legal to buy alcohol, they are a millennial. I was a freshman.
I believe you are mostly talking about zoomers these days. Now some of the younger millennials are retards. They were the tide podders. Different from us older millennials. We used floppies, VHS tapes, cassettes, paper maps, and the like. I was 2 years out of high-school when the first iPhone was released.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,702
- 20,402
Three pages and we already have boomers bitching about millenials. This thread has everything lol.
The fact that you even had to bring this up tells me I'm getting old
I lump all whiney young people who think they are owed something or a victim of something into the "millennial" bandwagon, I suppose it's my catchall phrase for young and entitled regardless of what actual era they grew up in.
You mistyped “completely removing MOA from use in scopes, especially otherwise good hunting scopes ruined by this utterly Inferior system of measure.”
As @Glassaholic identified earlier, I really wish Blaser would offer their 2.8-20x50 with a Christmas tree reticle. It’s 27oz with a rail, so under that without. That’s excellent considering it’s 34mm tube and excellent glass.
You're the same age as me... I was out of school 2 years as well. I remember when the internet didn't exist, and nobody had a cell phone until they were old enough to drive. Some of us older millennials grew up around Gen-X so we think, act, and function like they do. The younger millennials and Zoomers can be a whole different breed of people. I don't even claim or like to be associated with them because everyone thinks of the younger millennials when you hear the word.
Last edited:
Agree 100%. I think Zeiss, Swaro, etc... is doing themselves and their customers (and potential customers) a complete disservice by not offering their amazing lightweight hunting scopes in a MIL/MIL configuration, as well as their MOA/MOA that they've always made.
My brother in law was born in 1995 I believe so barely a millennial.
His work mate ls refer to him as an 80 year old man as he never goes out drinking, doesn't chase girls, never leaves the house and drives in old peoples cars.
There are people in their 40s and 50s who are every bit a useless as some of the new generation who don't have the excuse if youth.
Ultimately labels like millennial and boomer are totally meaningless as the individual differences vary so greatly.
I have x2 ZCOs I would gladly pay to swap in 10mil turrets.
But for now, this white turret tape is helping my eyes find the 0.1 marks: https://idts-dryfire.com/product/ballistic-tape/
It was mostly not Schott. There is plenty of glass made in the US. The reticles were not made by Schott either. There are specialized companies who do that. There are a few around.
ILya
Bitch, I went to college for underwater basket weaving I deserve $150K starting with 20 days PTO plus holidays - I know what I got!
Thought we were talking about undergrad. WGSX obviously my minor.
Taking China out of the equation would prove salubrious in the particular and broader pictures. Agreed.
for me, my one feature I love is not as common as it should be: Push/Pull locking turrets. There's a few different ways to do it, but I would like it if every single one was like that.
Pie in the sky: Detents for magnification at a sensible interval. This mostly applies to LPVOs and 'MPVOs' and not the higher power glass, but it would be quite nice to be able to lock into a known magnification, especially on lighter SFP optics where you could make better use of the reticle by calculating dope tables for a given magnification.
Pie in the sky: Detents for magnification at a sensible interval. This mostly applies to LPVOs and 'MPVOs' and not the higher power glass, but it would be quite nice to be able to lock into a known magnification, especially on lighter SFP optics where you could make better use of the reticle by calculating dope tables for a given magnification.
Yeah, I'm not keen on push-pull locking turrets. You can't tell by looking at them and it's quite a big movement and can occur by happenstance. I'm a big fan of the shuriken locks on the March. You can tell by looking at them and it's really a conscious decision to lock/unlock, simple to actuate, yet almost impossible to do it by mistake. But I'm an even bigger fan of choices and let people choose what they want or prefer.
Honestly any form of locking turret that isn’t a horrible fine-threaded cap and can be operated simply is a win.
@ Schmidt & Bender
- Your new 3-18x42mm looks awesome, but now let's try it again in a focal plane and reticle people actually give a fuck about and will use. Call the FinnAccuracy folks for help on this.
- Until you can give me Aimpoint-level battery life, would you please stop with the ultra-thin, skeletonized reticles on FFP LPVO's. Ignoring some duplex posts is easier than finding your thin shit when my battery dies.
- While your "CC" mode on the LPVO's is a neat idea, I'd happily give that up for the sake of simplicity and cost savings on the already insultingly high prices. We can do just fine with a damn-near true 1x and an offset red dot. Having had this feature break and leaving me stuck on 7y parallax and essentialy leaving me stuck with a heavy, $5k Aimpoint, I now hold my breath on the rare occasions I go into CC mode. As much as I want to be doing all the shit "CQB-1000y", y'all have some stuff you could easily cut back on.
@S&B and other high-end mfgs
- Finally, can we knock it off with the idiotic erector ratios and pushing ridiculous top ends. How about we take just a second to push tech on some really kick-ass, light and efficient optics in reasonable erector ratio/tube sizes...ya know...for people to actually shoot.
- Your new 3-18x42mm looks awesome, but now let's try it again in a focal plane and reticle people actually give a fuck about and will use. Call the FinnAccuracy folks for help on this.
- Until you can give me Aimpoint-level battery life, would you please stop with the ultra-thin, skeletonized reticles on FFP LPVO's. Ignoring some duplex posts is easier than finding your thin shit when my battery dies.
- While your "CC" mode on the LPVO's is a neat idea, I'd happily give that up for the sake of simplicity and cost savings on the already insultingly high prices. We can do just fine with a damn-near true 1x and an offset red dot. Having had this feature break and leaving me stuck on 7y parallax and essentialy leaving me stuck with a heavy, $5k Aimpoint, I now hold my breath on the rare occasions I go into CC mode. As much as I want to be doing all the shit "CQB-1000y", y'all have some stuff you could easily cut back on.
@S&B and other high-end mfgs
- Finally, can we knock it off with the idiotic erector ratios and pushing ridiculous top ends. How about we take just a second to push tech on some really kick-ass, light and efficient optics in reasonable erector ratio/tube sizes...ya know...for people to actually shoot.
Oh, I hope not. I would hate to give up my March Majesta (8-80X56). I've been having too much fun at 80X on the 1000 yard F-class target.
