Rifle Scopes Image rendition over sighting?

S

Swamper

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 3, 2007
265
0
#1
Why is this forum titled "optics" instead of "sighting systems"?


I post this up for consideration because I continually see confusion here about scopesights and the great call by so many for scopesights to exceed Zeiss/Leitz/Nikon in terms of optics quality image rendition, but miss the whole point of shooting which is sight alignment and trigger press. That is a long sentence, but it is IT in a nutshell. Optics or precisely "image rendition", has NOTHING to do with firing a precise shot. Not in any shooting venue beyond benchrest or other rest supported competitive game.

Is there anything more to executing the precision shot that sight alignment and trigger press?

I had this topic on my mind after responding to Cobb 50 who posted a topic about David Tubb using micrometer sights.

Actually, rangefinders, spotting scopes, binoculars, (which are rarely discussed in this forum in terms of volume of posts), are the only "optics" a longrange shooting enthusiast might deal with. A scope is properly defined as a telescopic sight which is an aiming instrument or a sighting system.


The real question here is, aside from forum title, why the preoccupation with image rendition over sighting? Get that? Here is a different way of looking at it: Why is image quality the most critical aspect of a scopesight for longrange shooting? Why is a 4lb 32x maximum magnification scope with "better" image quality more desirable than one weighing 1/3 or half as much, all other aspects being equal?

Is a scopesight actually even superior to national match quality irons?

I am amazed by the devolution of precision shooting. Instead of evolving into the most practical, precise, and flexible shooting systems; the tactical, F-class, and longrange weapon systems have grown into 17 - 20lb boat anchor systems that are so specialized as to be impractical. Rather like the US Navy having dropped the ship-watching spies on South Sea Islands during WW-II with telescopes and shortwave radio.

Our rifles with 6lb barrels and 4lb scopesight w/mount system may do a wonderful job at 1000yds from a concrete bench or tripod-fixed firing position, but try making a snap-shot at a target of opportunity at 200yds...


I vote with my money, and my money is on lighter and more compact optics plus rifles that are more general purpose yet still precision shooting instruments. A lightweight scopesight which approaches the quality very closely of those heavier in ounces and much heavier in price-tag is what I have come to prefer. I need to be able to see my target adequately for it to be a target obviously, but I don't need to be able to thread-count the twill or poplin weave in the clothes it is wearing. I am concerned with sight alignment and trigger press, ultimately, not studying the target.

I think the day of the static, lying in wait, firing from a constructed hide sort of sniper is long gone. If a sniper needs a Polaris 6x6 pulling a trailer to haul in all his gear or have it slung from a helicopter his/her needs for gear are too specialized. (I am being facetious but remember a thread on sleeping bags. What sniper carries a sleeping bag?)

There is much to be said for the reliability, simplicity, precision, and ruggedness of iron sight. I have 2 AR-10(T) barreled A2 uppers which are as capable of delivering fire at distance as any scoped bolt rifle. Can't say I can see a 50 cent piece size bullseye at 1000yds with one though, but then again I am not threading needles at that range either.

So, what about sighting systems?
 
#2
Re: Forum Title Question???

Are you serious
confused.gif
 
#4
Re: Forum Title Question???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Michael N</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Are you serious
confused.gif
</div></div>


The real question here is, aside from forum title, why the preoccupation with image rendition over sighting? As asked above.

Does image rendition of superb clarity matter?
Does it matter enough to validate $2000 more expense and a weight differential of great significance?

A scopesight can add or detract from the speed of target acquisition. Not critical or even a factor when firing from a fixed position, but do you really expect a static role if you are not a duty slotted sniper?

Do you need "the best" scopesight to judge mirage, or will you still require a spotting scope? Is the spotting scope the more critical "optic"? In my judgment it is, as it identifies your distant target and confirms all details before taking the shot. If you are spotting with your scopesight, you are handicapping yourself and initiating greater movement than if using a spotting scope.

I own a couple sets of Zeiss binoculars. Good ones. Also own Fujinon M22 8x50 military binos. The contrast tuning of the Zeiss is notable, distinguishable. Many confuse this with "optical perfection", but in reality it is more a psychological reaction to the sharper, contrastier and dynamic rendition of the image. While it looks "better", is it really? In a scopesight, whose purpose is to place a shot on target, does image rendition to "perfection" even matter?

Take a reknowned shot like Tubb. Aside from the pleasure of excellence, does he derive any more capability from The BEST Optic? Probably not. His capability derives from his ability not his gear. A sight, properly adjusted, is going to deliver at distance only when the shooter does his/her part. Really true at any distance, but what delivers the hit is not the ability of the sight to render a dime-sized aiming spot at 1000yds in vivid perfection, but for the shooter to discern his/her aiming point sufficient to take the shot.

Weight, compact dimension, and reticle performance are all more critical when considered on a field rifle, as opposed to optical perfection.

My perspective is if optical clarity/perfection and "the best glass" is your goal, you have missed the lesson.


 
#6
Re: Forum Title Question???

I`ll throw in my 0.02...
Apart from the forum title issue, being totally up to the BMFIC in here, I partially agree.
Gear:
Since the world got smaller and comms got better, equipment "hysteria" and overkill has become fairly common.
Most ppl, myself included, wants the best of the best and often go way overboard and get stuff that exceed a persons capabilities by far. Labelling anything "Mil-Spec" is a sure way of reaching a faithful horde of customers that would buy anything if there was the slightest chance some operator somewhere once had used such an item.
If I want it though, and can afford it, I dont think I should need to justify it to anyone, no matter current personal level as long as one is aware of ones limitations and act accordingly.
Sighting:
Totally depending on situation, all sighting devices have their use...
For punching holes in paper I actually like a scope that will let me see the holes if I want to.
For "practical" longrange, a scope that lets me identify the target and its surroundings combining a proper image with a proper field of view does the job. That it can take a real beating in a pinch is a requirement.So is repeatability, regarding both turrets and detatchable mounts.
For up close and personal, fairly rapid/hectic firing (200 yds or less), good iron sights can be hard to beat, providing excellent field of view and relatively good accuracy.
The standard H&K G3 "drum style" 4-position rear sight is imho one of the better I`ve shot...
Like Swamper, I think that "any sighting apparatus" that will let one aquire a sight picture clear enough to identify where on the target the bullet is going, attached to a rifle with accuracy that exceeds ones capabilities, is sufficient.
When it comes to scopes, I`ll pay for reliability and repeatability, and for glass to a certain level.
Like with anything else, the small gain in performance that can be squeezed from handing off top dollar will im nost cases not really be worth it compared to something one or two steps down the ladder... But then again, if one can afford it...

Just my opinion though...

John - out


 
#7
Re: Forum Title Question???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does image rendition of superb clarity matter?</div></div>

Yes


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it matter enough to validate $2000 more expense and a weight differential of great significance?</div></div>

Yes

You can not discount the eye strain associated with your mind trying to make the image perfect, a good optical rendition allows your eye to remain relaxed.

After a day of shooting (or even a few rounds) this can and will take a toll on your accuracy.

Aside from that if you are shooting at a breathing object (be it human or animal) you NEED to know EXACTLY where the boundaries of the target are. Fuzzy lines and out of focus or dark (blending in with the background) are conditions that will cause you to miss or clip you target. If targeting a human, that could really screw up your mission. If shooting at an animal that is just cruel.

The OPTICS on top of your rifle are more important than the rifle itself for accurate shooting, period. Can someone shoot well with a set of irons? sure. Can most people shoot better with a quality optic? Yup.

There is nothing wrong with wanting and using the best equipmant feasable (i.e. available and affordable). It will not instantly make you better in itself, but it will make a good shooter better. That goes for telescopic as well as iron sights.


 
#8
Re: Forum Title Question???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John lima_mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Popcorn, anyone? Beer? ...
wink.gif



</div></div>

Sure!
 
#11
Re: Forum Title Question???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is this forum titled "optics" instead of "sighting systems"?


I post this up for consideration because I continually see confusion here about scopesights and the great call by so many for scopesights to exceed Zeiss/Leitz/Nikon in terms of optics quality image rendition, but miss the whole point of shooting which is sight alignment and trigger press. That is a long sentence, but it is IT in a nutshell. Optics or precisely "image rendition", has NOTHING to do with firing a precise shot. Not in any shooting venue beyond benchrest or other rest supported competitive game.

Is there anything more to executing the precision shot that sight alignment and trigger press?

I had this topic on my mind after responding to Cobb 50 who posted a topic about David Tubb using micrometer sights.

Actually, rangefinders, spotting scopes, binoculars, (which are rarely discussed in this forum in terms of volume of posts), are the only "optics" a longrange shooting enthusiast might deal with. A scope is properly defined as a telescopic sight which is an aiming instrument or a sighting system.


The real question here is, aside from forum title, why the preoccupation with image rendition over sighting? Get that? Here is a different way of looking at it: Why is image quality the most critical aspect of a scopesight for longrange shooting? Why is a 4lb 32x maximum magnification scope with "better" image quality more desirable than one weighing 1/3 or half as much, all other aspects being equal?

Is a scopesight actually even superior to national match quality irons?

I am amazed by the devolution of precision shooting. Instead of evolving into the most practical, precise, and flexible shooting systems; the tactical, F-class, and longrange weapon systems have grown into 17 - 20lb boat anchor systems that are so specialized as to be impractical. Rather like the US Navy having dropped the ship-watching spies on South Sea Islands during WW-II with telescopes and shortwave radio.

Our rifles with 6lb barrels and 4lb scopesight w/mount system may do a wonderful job at 1000yds from a concrete bench or tripod-fixed firing position, but try making a snap-shot at a target of opportunity at 200yds...


I vote with my money, and my money is on lighter and more compact optics plus rifles that are more general purpose yet still precision shooting instruments. A lightweight scopesight which approaches the quality very closely of those heavier in ounces and much heavier in price-tag is what I have come to prefer. I need to be able to see my target adequately for it to be a target obviously, but I don't need to be able to thread-count the twill or poplin weave in the clothes it is wearing. I am concerned with sight alignment and trigger press, ultimately, not studying the target.

I think the day of the static, lying in wait, firing from a constructed hide sort of sniper is long gone. If a sniper needs a Polaris 6x6 pulling a trailer to haul in all his gear or have it slung from a helicopter his/her needs for gear are too specialized. (I am being facetious but remember a thread on sleeping bags. What sniper carries a sleeping bag?)

There is much to be said for the reliability, simplicity, precision, and ruggedness of iron sight. I have 2 AR-10(T) barreled A2 uppers which are as capable of delivering fire at distance as any scoped bolt rifle. Can't say I can see a 50 cent piece size bullseye at 1000yds with one though, but then again I am not threading needles at that range either.

So, what about sighting systems? </div></div>

tired.gif


My momma dun told me, cook sumpthin fer dinner............
 
#12
Re: Forum Title Question???

You want to post about iron sights, go right ahead.

I'm not going to venture into the precision (scoped, or so you don't get confuses-image renditioning) rifle match discussion with you again.

Instead of pontificating from your elevated lectern on what you feel I and other should be shooting and how, why don't you try a local precision rifle match? Shoot it with Gehmann sights for all I care, or a 6X Swaro hunting scopesight....

If you do not like the subject matter of this forum and think non-secret squirrel types have no business discussing precision practical marksmanship then why are you here?

Debating/arguing semantics on the internet is a huge waste of everyone's time. NationalMatch.com has a great forum if you want to discuss micrometer sighting system on matches where folks shoot billboards at distance.......
 
#14
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

Not a very sober response from the sobrbiker. What have I ever done to anyone here, besides sometimes hold a differing perspective.

Notice that I did not say "opinion". What I discuss are matters I have experience with. After having owned an IOR 2-12x and NXS 8-32x which both were Boat Anchors in the weight department, I sold them. There is a balance to things, or such I have found in my investigations. At least, things that work well are usually well-balanced.

If you want to bitch about how my comments about image rendition are inane, do you understand the balance?

A riflescope is first and foremost a sight. It is not a rangefinder, not a spotting scope. A riflescope has no reason to compete with Fluoride or ED supertelephoto photography lenses, yet that is precisely the aim/focus (choose your own pun) of many of the crowd here.

If you look at a rifle as a precision longrange accuracy tool to be fired from a fixed position or off a bipod from prone supported firing position, maybe you can justify the weight of the primo scope, maybe the cost, and maybe since you are parking your eye in front of the ocular in some extended session situation, maybe you demand "the best" image rendition.

But, do you understand? Image rendition is not the "sight picture". Sight picture in a riflescope is the reticle only. Just as sight picture on iron sights rifle or handgun is determined by the alignment and centering of front and rear sight elements. As long as you have a relatively clear view of your target and the reticle, you have all you "need" to fire the shot. Everything else is window dressing.

Got that 20lb rifle? Maybe you are running a McMillan A5 stock with weight added for balance, a magnum action w/7-10rd magazine, a #9 or heavier Palma contour barrel, Badger HD rings and mount, AI bipod w/metal feet? We are at 15-16lb without even considering your scope. Figure in another 2-3lbs there, because for sure you got The Best... Now try running with that dog, and a 45lb backpack plus other gear, like camelback, handgun, and other accoutrement... Maybe if you are SEAL or recently mustered out hardguy you can hack it.

Yet, aside from being a superb tool which can make long distance shots in a specialized venue which is so rare as to be computable in low .000 probability wise; what do you have?

My perspective is that the heavier, the more ungainly the weapon. If you are playing competition games, then you buy what you need to compete, if you think winning matters in the gamer environment.

I have gone into the competitive venue and seen that many shooters there are as adept at rule maneuvering as they are at shooting. Games are not about good shooting solely.

As one who subscribes to A Nation Of Riflemen as national motto, I am concerned that too many are drinking the bolt-action is the only way KoolAid, and you need the best scope money can buy KoolAid as ordered by most who post routinely here. Such is their choice, but there are other ways; tools more versatile, just as accurate/precise but more adaptable to varying situations.

The term optic is not synonymous with sighting systems or firearms. Some sights are integrated optically, some aren't. The scopesight is a great tool for eliminating front/rear iron sight alignment potential errors, enabling speed, and helping to identify targets and conditions. I am all for scopesights, but not entirely. And for sure, I have no "need" for the best image rendition. I am not looking to take digital pix through my scopesight. Would like to digiscope with my spotting scope someday, but haven't yet.

I maintain that anyone who is a good shot with a firearm can use a scopesight to their advantage, and as long as that scopesight isn't just junk, they will get the job done. I perceive that most American Shooters are consumer oriented like most other citizens and The USO/S*B/Zeiss/Hensoldt/NXS are more marketing vehicles than necessary advances. If these scopes were lightweight and optimized to best perform for their weight and to be compact, they would be "better" in my book. I don't need their idea of "better" if it requires a longer, heavier product.
 
#15
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The USO/S*B/Zeiss/Hensoldt/NXS are more marketing vehicles than necessary advances. If these scopes were lightweight and optimized to best perform for their weight and to be compact, they would be "better" in my book. I don't need their idea of "better" if it requires a longer, heavier product. </div></div>

The Hensoldt scopes are typically the shortest and lightest in their respective categories. the 3-12x56 is 12 3/4" and the 4-16x56 is less than 1/2" longer. Both weigh less than 2lbs. Some optical technologies offer more benefits than image rendition, as is the case with fluorite.

Apochromatic and superachromat optical designs aid target identification and reduce eye strain. This is important to professional shooters and serious competitors alike.

High-end riflescopes may not be your thing and that's ok, but, unless you’re a professional of some sort, precision riflery is enjoyable as a hobby and having good equipment makes it that much better.

This is really the case whether your hobby is golf or cars or whatever. Hobbies, by definition, are not based on needs. If you plan on using your rig for hunting as well, then that lends itself to another line of discussion.

Just my thoughts.
 
#16
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

1. When you have to discern "targets" from "non-combatants" then image resolution is the difference between taking a shot or not.

2. The clearer the optics, the longer you can stay on the gun with less fatigue.

I will admit that I don't know crap about F-Class or any other organized competition. I do know that better optics makes a Sniper's job easier in the field.

How many "snap shots" are you taking at torso sized targets with match iron sights?
 
#17
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

You haven't "done anything" to anyone here.

Most shooters here are experienced enough to know that the gear isn't what makes the shot, its the shooter. There is no replacement for fundamental marksmanship skills, be it on the field of combat, across the course of competition, in the role of law enforcement, or the humane taking of game animals.

My choice of shooting sports are practical precision competition, and highpower and smallbore silhouette. I do not compete in F class, but I have cinched up my shooting coat and tossed a few pills downrange in NRA Highpower Service Rifle.

Way more important to me than flourite or apochromatic lenses is the repliability and repeatablity of the sighting mechanism of my telescopic sighting system. Without that, there is no applying one's skills as a rifleman. Once that base is covered then one moves on to clarity of the magnified sight picture.

I do not hump 45lbs of gear. I do not work on a two way range. I shoot practical precision rifle competitions that have competitors making shots that requires knowledge of their rifle and ballistics, under time constraints, from a variety of positions, and many times positive target identification of moa sized targets is necessary.

I'm not a gamer, I just enjoy practical shooting. There are many like me on this site. My rifles are purpose built and my silhouette guns are way different than my precision boltgun (speaking of silhouette, why don't you PM G David Tubb and ask him why he preferred a scope to match sights while he was a top level silhouette shooter?).

I can appreciate your opinion on match sights versus optical sighting devices, but I don't think it applies to the majority of serious shooters here on this forum.

I understand speed of target acquisition, from your previous thread about lower powered optics, but as I pointed out then, target ID is a large part of the shooting most serious shooters do here (be they hunters, hunters of gunmen, competitors or peace officers), and it just cannot be done without the aid of clear magnification, and it just doesn't work sometimes to lean over into your spotting scope and then take the shot with irons.......
 
#18
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

Well, since this guy sort of called me out I will respond... now that I am home.

I sort of like "sighting systems" however 8 years ago when this site started it was more about optics than sighting systems. But sighting systems is a good term.

now you as an poster, you're wordy and pretentious and probably has lend to people butting heads with what you're proposing coming on and acting as a know it all... although.

I wish some of the so called know it alls who are trying to answer questions from here on another site would read what you wrote:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But, do you understand? Image rendition is not the "sight picture". Sight picture in a riflescope is the reticle only. Just as sight picture on iron sights rifle or handgun is determined by the alignment and centering of front and rear sight elements. As long as you have a relatively clear view of your target and the reticle, you have all you "need" to fire the shot. Everything else is window dressing.</div></div>

Its described as aiming and even in the manuals when they talk about telescopic sights they break it down to a single line under "aiming' so I agree with nearly all you wrote, but think you have a terrible internet personality which hurts your message.
 
#19
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

Probably am "internet personality challenged", admittedly. Then again, why do so many consider anyone with another perspective to be trolling them?

Clear magnification is pretty much a given necessity. Nobody wants coke-bottle quality image rendition, even on a 6 multiplier scope that only cost $1300 or maybe $1000.

Practical shooting competition is gaming. Shooting for score is gaming.

I understand something about lens systems, at least in the photographic realm. Aspheircal and other super coated rare-earth glass compounds can produce a lens that is superior to another in terms of testing and color rendition.

A scopesight would/could be superior to iron sights, even if it lacked "glass"/optics entirely. How? Because the reticle and windage elevation dials enable a single aiming plane without any potential for alignment error. So, at least at distances which the eye can verify a target, or a spotting scope can be consulted, there is really no need for magnification to place rounds on target.

We are talking about shooting, not looking; at least I am.
I don't see much application for a precision shooter who lays in wait. That is old-fashioned thinking and wastes a highly trained asset. Wastes the asset (the sniper) because, aside from deliberate assassination of a pre-selected target, what military can afford to field shooters who move so slowly and take few targets before moving again? In trench warfare, maybe, but if we are talking a ghillie-suited team that cost $250k to train & equip and their weapons are heavy and very mission specific, the lack of flexibility is detrimental.

Back to scopes.
How much "better" is better worth?
Can the lowly Leupold Mark 4 or even VX-III differentiate between the 6'3" 220 pound target and his stringbean or midget accomplice? Sure it can! Can the Leupold read the imprint on the buttons the target is wearing? Maybe not. Can the $3500 glass? Likely not either. Can the VX-III discern the mirage bend or see the boil? Probably.

Lenses are not the critical element in any discipline, except maybe astro-observation, or some form of scientific testing of chemical compounds. Even still, the best telescope is likely adjusted to compensate for atmospheric interference.

As long as I can discern subject A from B, or discern the aiming point sufficiently to take the shot, what difference does image rendition make?

I realize that many have sacrificed to invest their money in scopesights which are pure joy to look through, but does seeing the button makers imprint on a shirt button as opposed to only being able to count how many ballpoint pins a guy has in his shirt pocket at 1000yds make the superior lens system actually superior in application? It doesn't.

The extra weight for lens elements that resolve with perfection is significant, not to mention the extra thousands in cost. Also, are the costs what they are because of marketing considerations ie production & sales?

Lots of match shooters and scope competitors admit that they hold-off for windage especially, rather than dialing each change in conditions. With a TMR or other hashmark reticle, do they even need turret movements aside from zeroing the rifle? Probably not. Ballistic mil-dot with trajectory spacing for particular cartridge/bullet would suffice.

Basically, my argument is the focus is too much on the optic attributes or perception and not enough on the sighting element.

If you consider a scopesight as a sight first and foremost, you want the lightest and most reliable device for ascertaining reticle movements you can find. The image has to be good, workable; but doesn't have to be exceptional.
 
#21
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you consider a scopesight as a sight first and foremost, you want the lightest and most reliable device for ascertaining reticle movements you can find. The image has to be good, workable; but doesn't have to be exceptional.

</div></div>

Ahh, now we get down to the base of it all. YOU want a light, then reliable optic. Just because that is how YOU place the importance, does not mean that is how everyone else places the importance.


I like magnification, I like for my target to be as big as possible. I don't just want to see a 12" target, I want to see the 1/2" center of that target. It takes a good quality optic to produce a good "workable" image at high mag. I personally place reliability over anything else, it has to be accurate. If this requires it to be heavy, so be it. That does not have to equate to expencive, but it often does. Quality design, components and construction do not come cheap.

I am not real sure that that is your primary complaint though. I think the recuring theme in your post is that you are pissed that the shooting market is willing to put up with heavy.

You know, there are companies that make a fine optic that is smaller, lighter and has less magnification. Hey it will get you on target and not be as heavy.

I understand what you are saying to try to make your point, and do agree with some of it. I just don't think I personally agree with your point.
 
#22
Re: Image rendition over sighting?

Swamper, you have no clue to which you speak when talking tactical scopes... so you were better off quitting while you were almost ahead.

You're not paying for just the "glass" and yes glass quality is important because targets are not always full value, they are hidden, obstructed, etc. You're mostly paying for durability, turret designs, and reticles in the front focal plane. Glass is almost 3rd in consideration.

Today it has very little to do with 1 shot 1 kill, but much more dynamic in nature... you don't leave food on the table taking only 1 shot, you want to eat it all when possible.

You have to worry about resolution through nightvision, you have to worry about reticles for fast follow up shots, multiple targets at multiple distances which to see the reticle you want higher powers.

Granted in terms of the modern warfare a 4X has killed more, but it's not 1918 anymore we have different needs, and most want at least 12X... 10X is so yesterday.

Image rendition as you put is very important, try living your life looking through the scope and tell me how you feel in the morning, the better the optics the less fatigue, among other things. I want to see in shadows, I want to resolve "yellow" which most low shit does poorly, I want to take my shots at dawn or dusk, it's not a Sunday afternoon at the range, which you called gaming but then is what supports your debate. Its for those days when things are wrong, not for the days its right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Milirad
EOTech Holographic Sight Parallax Induced POA Error Compared to Reflex Red Dot Sights
Replies
70
Views
3K
Milirad
Milirad
gr8fuldoug
Optics Tangent Theta
Replies
0
Views
265
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Tangent Theta
Replies
1
Views
275
striped1
S
Lowlight
ZEISS Offers Spring Savings
Replies
4
Views
1K
CSTactical
CSTactical
R
Firearms Personal Gun/Optics/Parts Liquidation (Part 3)
Replies
8
Views
2K
RedBreast21
R
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts