Rifle Scopes Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Something occurred to me as I was considering my test this morning. I have seen different opinions posted regarding the turret locks. Some people like them, some don't, some can take them or leave them. I fall into the first category. Problems resetting the zero aside, I like the fact that I can lock the turrets and not have to worry about them being inadvertently moved. This is especially beneficial if the rifle is being moved into a position over rough terrain, through heavy brush, etc.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

hrfunk, thank you for the great write up.

I've been on the fence of spending $900+ on a vortex pst for my first bolt action build. Welcoming our first child into the world recently has me looking for "other, more budget conscious/friendly altenatives", gotta love the war room.

I appreciate the thoroughness you're putting in.

... that is all
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Thank you. All I'm really doing is writing the sort of review I'd like to read. The testing I'm doing is similar to the vetting process I employ with any new piece of gear. This time around, I'm simply reporting my findings here. I hope the information is useful.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Sugar, after re-reading your post, I thought I should probably make two comments. First, I would encourage you not to make any purchasing decisions based on an incomplete evaluation. As I've said before, I may end up being the one telling people not to buy the TRS1. Secondly, I feel compelled to mention that the scope I'm testing is one sample of a product line, and performance could vary from one scope to the next.

This last point, incidentally, is where the high-end scopes leave others in the dust. Their QC and consistency simply cannot be replicated at budget prices. That doesn't mean the budget scope can't provide adequate performance. It simply means you have to test it for yourself, and the number of times a problem is encountered will likely be greater than one would hope to experience when using a more expensive optic. Even so, price point alone is not an iron clad guarantee of perfection. How often is a thread posted that has a title similar to this:

"Help, I'm having trouble with my (insert high end brand here)."

We are imperfect beings inhabiting an imperfect world. To expect perfection in anything we create is probably arrogant to the point of being delusional. Okay, I'll lay off the philosophy and try to stick to my testing.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hfunk,
Thank you for the detailed write up and I understand that you may be the one to tell us all do not buy the Millet.
I certainly don’t want to hijack this thread or detract in any way your review as it has been very well written and informative so far. Not to mention that you are most likely far more qualified than I am to make comment.
I did however purchase a new version Millet trs-1 about a month ago after I had a very inexpensive scope finally lose its internals on my .308 Remington 700. I knew what I was getting into with the original purchase and did not expect it to last forever. I was surprised that I got as much life out of it as I did.
At the time I purchased the Millet I was saving for an IOR 3-18x42 so I did not want to put a ton of money into a new scope for the rifle but I did need something to use in the interim. I have not beaten the Millet to death but I have put around 100 rounds down range with it so far, it has held zero and run the box test a couple of times. I have cranked on the turrets and have not had problem one that is not shooter related.
Well, today I received my IOR 3-18x42 with the modified MP-8 reticle and let me tell you I was excited. I expected to see a vast world of difference in optical quality as that particular scope though not the gold standard seems to be well respected around these parts. Was I disappointed, hardly. I can say with all honesty that just sitting and looking at stuff, houses, trees, damn squirrels, etc. for the past few hours and comparing it to the Millet……they both look pretty good optically and I cannot discern a huge difference between them, certainly not a $1000 dollars worth. Yes, there are differences the IOR seems to have a wider field of view for a given magnification however the Millet focuses down to 10 Yds and seems to be accurate while the IOR only focuses down to 40 Yds also seeming to be accurate. The IOR seems to do a great job masking the erector, much better than the Millet. Also, the IOR reticle is outstanding. This is my first and only FFP optic and I was not sure I would like it but with the floating dot in the center I think it will be just fine, maybe better than fine. The Millet reticle is pretty good as well and I seem to be able to pick it up nicely. It is as you pointed out in an earlier post, standard dimensions with the hash being a full mill from the dot and not a half mil as one might suppose. The Millett Reticle is also illuminated whereas the IOR is not. Not a big deal to me but it might be to some. The Millett seems to be a bit more finicky with regards to eye relief particularly at higher magnifications and eye relief seems to shorten some around 16X. The IOR is better in this regard but it still requires correct eye placement within the eye box. The turrets on the IOR are certainly a nicer design and I hold that as being a strong positive as well as the magnification range being quite a bit larger. For hunting I really like the 3X on the low end but 4x has not been too much of a disadvantage in the past. The Millet turrets are of a more standard fodder but they are locking, pretty tactile, and seem to be repeatable so far.
Overall I think that maybe we put too much stock in optical quality. I understand the philosophy that if you cannot see it you cannot hit it but where is the line drawn. For me I think holding zero and return to zero is most likely a more important aspect of a quality rifle scope than absolutely stunning glass. The Millet seems to do quite well in this regard and only time will tell as to how it will continue. I will expect at least the same or better repeatability with the IOR, hopefully I will not be disappointed. Optical quality of the Millet seems to be on par as far as being able to see clearly and identify a target. Actually it is not too far from the IOR in this regard. They both look pretty good.
I am glad that I made the purchase of the IOR and am in no way unhappy. I wanted to see what a considerably larger sum of money (at least for me) would buy. I am not disappointed in the least but I am not sure I will be dropping 4x the price of the Millet in the future for the quantitatively small gains.
I am sorry for the length of the post but hopefully someone will find value in it.
I look forward to your continued reviews of the Millett as I really want to know if you decide to field it for your work.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

completely understood.

it will probably be May before i even make a purchase
and i will have pros/cons a dozen scopes by then

sadly, at this moment, price is a heavy decider
..and i really want to shoot
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Wow! Nice write up yourself SPS308! I'm glad to know that many of the things I'm seeing with the TRS1 are common with other users too. The gentleman who designed the TRS1 used to post on this forum, but I haven't seen any comment from him for a couple of years (you can still find his old posts if you do a search on the TRS1). He indicated that in designing this scope, he used input from LE Snipers. It seemed to me that he was being genuine in that assertion, and I guess I've been a bit curious about his design ever since. So far, for the most part, I've been favorably impressed.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

I've seen a couple people mention that the eye relief on the TRS1 becomes more critical at the higher magnifications. from what I've seen in my test scope, I have to agree with that assessment. In all fairness, I think all variable power scopes demonstrate this tendency to one degree or another, and the TRS1 is no exception. It's not a fatal flaw, just something to be aware of. Proper eye relief/stock weld is important with any optical sighting system, and so long as this is kept in mind, the TRS1 works fine. It just may not be as forgiving as some other scopes when they are less than perfect. This, by the way, is what I think people might be seeing when they mention the "milky" view at higher magnifications. Slightly repositioning their eye might eliminate the problem.

HRF

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

I purchased a TRS1 knowing that it was a "decent" scope for my Savage 10fp. Like the OP, I knew that I was not buying top end glass but three kids says that "good" or "ok" will have to work. My 6 months with the TRS1 is as follows.

Mounted in Burris Extreme rings, Savage 10fp, .308.

1. Side by side with a NF, SWFA HD, and Leupold indicates that the glass is close but I would say not as crisp at higher magnifications. It works at max magnification but the clarity falls away, say by 10-15%, compared to the above. At lower magnifications 10x and under, there is almost no perceivable difference.

2. Box testing and zero reset have proven to be reliable and repeatable. However, I do find that I am usually a click low compared to my Bulletflight App (may be the app) according to testing.

3. Eye relief for me has been a problem. I find myself adjusting the eye from time to time to get the focus correct. This is at different ranges and positions. On the comparison NF, I found that regardless of position, angle, etc., the focus remained regardless. The TRS seems more sensitive and has less forgiveness.. A bit irritation, but no more than a 1/4 turn to fix.

4. Durability. I haven't drop tested it or blasted it, but it has been hunted with and beat around a bit. I am also very guilty of treating the glass badly, doing the t-shirt fog and clean for dirt and dust removal. Surprisingly, the glass coating has remained tough, with no scratches or blemishes. So far no zero change or other issues despite two hunting seasons and many harsh rides in the back of the mule.

Impressions so far are positive. It is NOT a top end brand and fortunately, doesn't claim to be. If you think you are getting top end quality with the TRS, you will be disappointed. If not, I think you will be surprised. I am not 100% sold either, like the OP. I may, too, come on here and say "run away" but so far, average is holding steady. Looking forward to more from OP.

LD
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

OK, time for a couple more images through the scope. The conditions here are overcast today, so I wanted to try a couple "through the scope" shots with less mirage. In the images below, you'll see the same tree as in the image from a couple days ago. The first is at 16X. (Unfortunately, you still have the same lousy photographer).

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/img0139vd.jpg/

In this one, you have the same image with the illuminated reticle at its hightest setting. (As I said previously, I don't use illumination in the daylight, but I thought some of you might want to see what it looks like). By the way, it is much brighter when actually looking through the scope than it appears in the photo.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/img0140r.jpg/

Next is a non-illuminated view at 10X

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/img0142ff.jpg/

And last, is a view at 4X

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/809/img0143es.jpg/

By the way, the reticle is not canted, it just looks that way because the rifle itself is slightly canted. It's extremely hard to keep everything lined up when taking these photos. Again, the actual view through the scope is much better than the photos appear.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hrfunk
You mentioned in the post above that you thought maybe some of the people who were complaining that the glass was "milky" at higher magnifications were actually experiencing the critical eye relief that we both sort of spoke of. I was thinking the same but forgot to mention it in my post.
I got a chance to get to the range today with both scopes and since I had swapped the Millet over to my .223 Howa i had to zero both scopes. I did this in pretty short order and proceeded to the hundred yard line. Both scopes the Millet and IOR performed better than I did by a long shot. I now have 110 rounds of .308 and an additional 40 of .223 under the Millett without issue.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Arrives with the ups man this afternoon. I may have time for initial thoughts tonight but i will be heading to the range tomorrow for some testing at shorter ranges. My club is a 200 yd range with some pepper poppers out at 300. I plan on a box test plus checking rtz after dialing in a long range shot. This all is assuming i don't receive a dud.

Savage 110 fcp hs precision 300 win mag review as well.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

SPS308, I think we're on to something with the critical eye relief and the "milky" image.

Well, the TRS is off to Sniper team training tomorrow, and I can't wait!

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hi All

Sorry I didn't get this posted yesterday. I didn't get home from training until after 5:30, and I guess I was pretty wiped out since I started falling asleep at 8:00 (I must be getting old!). Before I get into the review, I've gotta say thanks to brothers Bob, Roger and Howie for a GREAT training day!

Now, back to the TRS 1. Before I arrived at our training site (which is roughly 10 miles from my house), I simply tossed my rifle with the TRS1 in the back of my jeep. No case, no special protection, in fact, I threw a fullyloaded tactical vest on top of it and took off. Those of you who own jeeps already know the ride is, shall we say, "lively". So the rifle bounced along in the back with all the tactical gear bouncing on top of it. The last mile or so to the range is a driveway along a railroad track that is far from a smooth ride (about half way back, we found out the driveway was blocked by a repair crew so we had to turn around, park at an alternate site, and hump our gear in!) Both the rifle and the TRS1 survived the trip with no ill effects. No canted reticle, no debirs flaking off and cluttering up the view through the scope.

The name of the game yesterday was positional shooting. From 20' back to 100 yards we shot standing, kneeling, sitting and prone. I was cranking the power ring up and down as we changed positions and spinning the parallax knob like a roulette wheel. Throughout the course, the TRS1 performed flawlessly. Regardless of whether I was standing at 20' using the system in a close-range threat engagement scenario (with the magnification turned down to 4X and the parallax knob set for the minimum focus range), or dropping into the prone at 100 yards and delivering a perfect head-shot (Magnification at 10X parallax set appropriately for that distance), rifle, scope (and, if I may say so, the shooter) put shots on target right where they needed to go!

In all, the course actually seemed easy (but extremely fun), even though some of the time limits and positions were a bit challenging (I have never liked shooting from a kneeling position!). When the gunsmoke cleared, I was very happy with the performance of the TRS1. I can state for the record that I don't believe I could have shot one iota better with a scope costing 10 times the price of the TRS1. At this point, I have one or two stages left before I conclude this evaluation. The TRS1 could still fail, but it is looking very promising. Gotta run for now, I think I still have some bugs to get off my body after yesterdays stalking exercise!

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Oh, one thing I neglected to put in my last post. On the shots that were less than 100 yards, I used holds rather than adjusting the scope to be POA/POI at those distances. So I wasn't turning the elevation or windage turrets. In an upcoming test, I will be doing just that, and I will report those results.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Another quick note. During yesterday's training session, I was switching back and forth between my AR system with the TRS1, and my 700P with the Leupy LR/T. With the type of shooting we were doing, I didn't notice any real difference in image quality. I suspect if we were shooting at greater distances, there would have been a more noticeable disparity, but it wasn't there at the relatively close range engagements we were working on.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hrf,
I am glad that you are coming to mostly positive conclusions about the scope. There is another post started on the Lrs-1 and it seems mostly positive as well. I am going to get out to the range tomorrow and will let you know how my trs-1 does.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Great write up HRF!

I purchased a Mil/.25Moa TRS-1 two years ago. I was looking for a scope I could swap between a couple of rimfires and if all went well, perhaps a bigger brother in the gun family. Before I made the purchase, I searched high and low for a thorough review of the scope to little avail. Most "reviews" were nothing more than vague opinions. At any rate, I purchased the scope and other than doing a few side by side comparisons to some of my other glass, it pretty much sat in the safe...until this week.

I threw the scope on a Savage 93r17 TR that had been waiting on a 20 moa base to arrive. After installing the base, I mounted the TRS in a set of Burris XTR low profile rings and headed out to the range with my daughter to give the rifle and scope a little work out.

Upon arriving at the range, I could tell the wind wasn’t going to be our friend as there was a steady 3-5 mph half value wind with frequent gusting of 12-14mph. (Might not seem like a lot, but a few miles per hour at 300 yards with a 17gr bullet can change the game)

After spending a few moments bore sighting the scope, (try finding a target at a 100 yards looking down a .17 barrel
crazy.gif
I found the TRS’ point of aim was sitting approximately 3 feet low and 2 feet left of the target. A few turns of each turret seemed to have me where I needed to be.

I started the sight in session at 50 yards shooting 17gr CCI hollow points. I found my first shots were within a few inches of where I needed to be. I proceeded to make small adjustments with the scope and found my rounds moving equally closer to my point POA.

After a 50 yard zero, I proceeded to move out to 100 yards. With there being only a little difference in POI at 100 yards, only a couple of adjustments needed to be made. Again the scope’s tracking was excellent as I moved the POI to where it needed to be.

Next I decided to “zero” my turrets. This is where things got ugly in a hurry. I proceeded to loosen the turret hold screws in order to zero the turrets. The elevation turret didn’t seem to present too much of a problem but I could feel a bit of drag as I moved the outer turret casing over the inners. After zeroing the elevation turret, I fired off another 5 rounds to make sure I hadn’t actually moved the turret and shifted my POI. I found my point of impact was still fairly close, however I can’t be sure due to the short term memory loss brought on from a an incident of sheer horror.

After getting the elevation turret set, I attempted to zero the windage turret. I locked down the turret and after loosening the screw, I found I couldn’t get enough height to clear the inner turret. After fumbling around for a bit, I decided to try to loosen the screw a bit more. I made a couple of turns on the turret screw with the turret locked down in order to prevent any possible dialing and POI shift. With the turret locked down, I could not get the sleeve to slip over guts. At this point I learned that you get a little bit more play if you loosen the turret lock and was able to barely move it to a zero.

I proceeded to put a couple of test rounds in the target and neither I nor my daughter could find any impact on paper. After several rounds of frustration, I proceeded to fire into a pile of dirt near the target and to my utter shock, found I was shooting approximately 3 feet to the right of my POA
sick.gif


I can’t tell you the amount of frustration that can set in after spending meticulous time getting the scope and rifle zero’d only to find myself starting over.
mad.gif
The only positive thing at that point was the scopes excellent tracking ability and ease of dialing the reticle back to near zero. After re-zeroing, I again attempted to zero the turret and after loosening the turret lock, I did manage to slip the outer turret to 0.
smile.gif


After that whole fiasco, it was starting to get dark. I had previously set two 4 inch balloons at 300 yards and wanted to see what the scope would do moving out a bit. I didn’t have any personal data from my gun to plug into my ballistic calculator so I ended up having to go with a different manufacture’s published data that had the same rated muzzle velocity. After plugging in the data, I found I needed to dial in approximately 11.6 moa. After dialing in the dope on the scope, I took a shot at the first balloon and to a bit of my surprise, the bullet impacted the balloon on the first shot. I then proceeded to terminate the second balloon with the following shot.
grin.gif


In conclusion;

I did notice while making adjustments with the turrets, every once in a while a “click” would feel a bit mushy but it didn’t bother me at all as the adjustment on POI was dead on and the majority of clicks were crisp and audible. The one complaint I have with the scope, although it eventually worked itself out, was the level of difficulty in zeroing the turrets. Although even if I hadn’t been able to zero them, it wouldn’t have been a huge deal to +/- while dialing in.

I found no “milkyness” in the glass, nor have I ever, although eye placement seems to be a bit more critical than in some of my other scopes. I don’t find this to be a big deal though as I try to remain as consistent and repetitive in my cheek placement as I can with every shot and I have set my scope up at the right eye level to my cheek’s natural point of contact with the stock.

I can’t express how pleased I am with the tracking of the scope and its ability to return to zero. Looking through the glass at 16x was bright and crisp. I could clearly see each .17 hold in the target at 100 yards throughout the evening, even as darkness set in. I could see each hole clearly from edge to edge and found no distortion around the edges. I did not try the illumination as I didn’t find I needed it, but my 12 year old daughter who shot the rifle after I did, used the illumination on level two to help pick up the reticle and was putting hit after hit on a 6 inch target at 300 yards in near darkness.

All in all, I was more than impressed with our first date and plan on taking her out again. I can see this relationship getting more serious as time progresses and if all goes well, she will likely be introduced to other members of the gun family, but as HRF stated, time will tell.

Sorry for the length of this post, HRF is certainly covering more bases than I could in a good length of time, but I didn’t want to come out and say; “Bought the scope, awesome, I would recommend this to others”, or “I had one, it’s the biggest piece of crap I’ve ever owned, it was broke before it was made. Buy once, cry once. Buy a Schmidt & Bender”.

Thank you HRF for your work and honest trial of the scope. I look forward to seeing the continuation of your running the scope through its paces. Stay safe out there.

Sincerely,

K9-



 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

hrfunk,

Thanks for your efforts in this writeup. I too am an LE sniper. My set up is a custom M40A1 .308 by Landtec Weapon Systems. It is currently wearing a Vortex PST 4-16 but it has worn Leupold MK4's, a Nightforce NXS 3-15, and a Vortex Razor 5-20. I've also had a couple of IOR's on a different rifle. So I'm no stranger to good glass. Over the last several years I have had several TRS-1's. I started with them when they were still the 1/8th MOA models and I had a couple of them. I've had 2 or 3 of the 1/4th MOA models and I still have one of them on an AR-10T. I've also had 3 of the .1 mil models. I WISH I STILL HAD ALL OF THEM! I never got rid of any of them because I didn't like them or because I had problems with them. In fact I've never had a problem or a complaint with any of them. When I went through sniper school in 2008, one of the guys in the class from another department was using one of the 1/8th MOA models. The class was 2 weeks long and as I'm sure you know, wasn't easy on us or our equipment to say the least. His scope performed flawlessly and proved to be just as capable as the Leupold MK4's that the rest of us were using at the time. I haven't experienced any of the milky glass that some have talked about in any of he TRS-1's that I have had. Before I make my next statement let me put out this disclaimer: I am not very good at looking through scopes and being able to tell which one has better glass unless one of them just has really cheap shitty glass. I lined up a NXS 3-15x50, a IOR 4-14X50 and a TRS-1 and I couldn't tell a nickle's worth of difference in any of the three. I was at the range today with my PST 4-16 and my TRS-1 and at 100 yds with both scopes on 16x, the TRS-1 actually looked alot better to me. Of course the contacts I have in are way over due to be thrown away but that should have effected both scopes equally. It is my opinion that in an LE sniper scope glass clarity is less important than the durability of the scope. As long is the glass is clear enough for the sniper to be able to aquire his target with 100% certainty, and in my experience the TRS-1 is, then that is good enough and in my experience the TRS-1 has had zero duribility issues. I had one on a Savage 10FP that I used for deer hunting for a few years and I beat that thing to death and it never had a hiccup! In one of the previous posts that said if you have to test equipment, then it shouldn't be used is just obsurd in my opinion. For example when I had the Vortex Razor, really wish I still had that scope but that goes back to your point about LE snipers having to buy their own equipment and me needing some major repairs done on my truck at the time, but anyway I mounted it, zeroed it, trained with it a few times then all of a sudden the next time we had a training session, I got my rifle out and the damn reticle had became canted really bad! Of course Vortex being the great company that they are, promptly sent me a new scope but my point is that any equipment no matter how expensive or great it's reputation can and will fail occasionally. So the point of my lengthy post here is that based on my experience with the TRS-1 would I trust it enough for duty use? Absolutely!
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Posting this thread has had some unexpected, but welcomed, results. When I was contemplating the idea of reporting my evaluation here, I knew the information I would present had the potential to run contrary to some pretty deep-seated preconceptions. As a consequence, I thought it was possible, if not probable, that I would be flamed off the internet. Nevertheless, after more or less making a career of challenging preconceptions in law enforcement, I thought I was at least being consistent!

What I did not expect was the overwhelming POSITIVE response from those of you who have commented here. For that, I would like to say thank you! The other unexpected occurrence has been the initiative demonstrated by some of you to test your own TRS1's, and to report your findings here. What I am now seeing are trends in this product line. The data you are providing helps me to believe the things I'm seeing in my test scope are representative of the TRS1 design and not just the performance of an individual sample. Again, I say Thank You!

To that last point, I have to agree with you K9-. The difficulty in resetting the turrets to zero is quite annoying. I think it is even more so because, with other scopes, this is a relatively easy and straight forward process. As I posted somewhere above, my solution was to simply record the "zero" settings in my databook (+2E/1R), and begin all my future sight adjustments from there rather than battle with the turrets and reset the makings to zero. Someday, if I feel adventurous, I may give it another try, but I doubt it will be soon. Also. I wanted to tell you "Good Job taking your daughter shooting!!!" All too often we teach our little girls that shooting is not for them. In so doing, we deprive them, ourselves, and the shooting sports of their participation, AND we potentially set them up as future victims. So again, good job and I hope she continues to enjoy shooting with her daddy for years to come!

KSP446 - At "typical" LE Sniper engagement distances, I don't think the difference in image quality between the TRS1 and the higher end scopes is very apparent. When you start looking at long-range engagements, I think you really start to note the differences in clarity. The question then becomes, how much difference does that clarity make in one's shooting, and does that justify the additional outlay of funds. I think only an individual shooter can answer that question. Keeping in mind my test parameters for this system, as stated at the outset, dictate that it is for employment at distances of 300 yards or less (the vast majority of LE engagements). The benefit of the enhanced optic quality provided by vastly more expensive glass would probably be negligible at best. The other area where the better glass comes into its own is in low-light engagements. Here again, having tested the TRS1 for its low-light performance, I believe it is acceptable for LE use. As you know, we rarely operate in true darkness. There is almost always some ambient light provided by street lights, interior lights, porch lights, spotlights, etc. Even so, in my low-light test, I did not use any artificial illumination, and the TRS1 eventually reached a point where it provided no useful image. I suspect every other day optic made would have eventually reached a similar point, and I suspect that the difference between individual optics would have been measured in minutes. The only answer for true darkness is a night-vision optic, and that is why such things are made.

In any case, I'm not quite ready to declare the TRS1 fit for duty, yet. I am, however getting closer and closer with each test.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Ok, I have a confession to make. I've been holding a piece of information back from you guys. There are a couple of reasons for my reluctance to mention this incident, top among them is operational security. As this continues to be a concern, I'm going to be purposely vague about many details. Suffice to say, our tactical team had a recent call-out.

This particular scenario involved multiple bad guys, at close range, in a lightly constructed building. Another factor was that the operation took place at night, in a very dark area. In short, this was a perfect scenario for the 5.56mm AR system and the TRS1. With my 700P, I would have worried about overpenetrating the structure (perhaps after having perforated a bad guy). It would have also been slower to cycle in a follow-up shot/multiple engagement situation. Lastly, much as I like and trust my Leupold LR/T, it's non-illuminated reticle would have been all but impossible to see In the very low-light conditions. I also felt that I've got enough trigger time under the TRS1 to have gained a modicum of confidence in its abilities (and my capabilities with it)

Thus, I opted to deploy the AR System. My partner and I had a relatively benign stalk into place, but we still had to deal with briars, brush, and the like. Both of our rifles (and optics) recieved their share of bumps, dings, and scratches as we negotiated our way to a hide in the dark. Once in place, we spent the next 4 hours observing our suspects and relaying intel (90% of a Sniper's job).

During the operation. The TRS1 worked about as well as I could have hoped in the very dark environment. Turning the illumination control to the NV setting gave me a clear reticle for aiming and ranging. Also, as the temperature trended down from the low forties to the mid thirties, the scope never fogged (except for when I whispered something to my partner and accidentally exhaled on the ocular lens. Even then, it cleared up in seconds). I'm happy to say that both Snipers, rifles and optics survived the operation. I still want to complete some tests on the TRS1, but I've gained enough confidence to give it a go in the real world.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

I forgot to mention that my partner deployed with his 700P and non-illuminated Leupy. He confirmed my suspicion that using the non-illuminated scope was quite difficult.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Thanks for the excellent thread. I did reset the turrets to zero on my TRS-2. Daunting task for sure but it worked out fine. That is surely the weak link of this system,albeit easily overcome even without the reset.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Thanks to all for the great information in this thread.
HRf & canman. I had the same difficulty re setting zero on my turrets and in fact thought that perhaps the reticle was shifting when i was zeroing them. In my case what I found was that I needed to loosen the hex nut completely to the stopping point then pull the turret up (or out) and keep pressure on it while I rotated around to zero. I still had chattering that I thought might be the gears engaging but in fact found that this was not the case. It was kind of disconcerting but i was able to zero the turrets without shift in POI. I may in fact contact Millett and inquire about this as we all seem to be having the same issue. I will report back with anything helpful that Millett might be able to tell me about this.

On a side note I was reading a few recent posts on the forum last night regarding some very high end optics that I will only say initials begin with S and end with B. I found it interesting what some of the owners of the 3K or so glass were willing to except as being "just the way it is" there was one post in particular that said something to the effect that there was no reason to dial the scope below 7x as the field of view did not change between 5x-7x the target just became smaller.
The posts were centered around what seemed to be a very critical eye position/relief issue on this particular model and included some information about known tunneling.

I am not bashing at all. I am new around here and do not wish to be flamed nor start any problems. I did however find it interesting that spending 3K or so on an optic did not solve all the problems that might be encountered with a rifle scope. Honest reviews are critical to helping us make informed decisions about equipment purchases and I appreciate being able to read them so that I know what I might encounter prior to laying out the cash.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Here are a couple of new observations regarding the TRS1. A previous poster mentioned that when he adjusted the ocular lens on his scope (I believe he reported seeing the same problem in both TRS and LRS models) he noted a deviation in the position of the reticle in the scope's field of view. While I have no reason to doubt his report, I looked for this condition in the TRS1 I am evaluating. After securing the scope as well as I could, I slowly turned the ocular lens adjustment ring. While doing so, I watched for any perceptable movement of the ocular lens. After several tries, I couldn't see any movement. Even if it had moved, I don't see this a tremendous problem. Adjusting the ocular lens necessary only when you are initially focusing the reticle. This is done only once when you first set up your scope (unless your eyes change). Once the rifle is zeroed (subsequent to setting the reticle focus), there should be no further need to adjust the ocular lens. Therefore, it would never alter the position of the reticle even if it did cause it to move.

Also, while I had the rifle out, I took the opportunity to switch on the illuminated reticle. There is a heavy overcast sky here today, and I was curious how much difference the illumination would make under these conditions. Even though it is overcast, the sky is pretty bright. As such, the reticle needed to be turned to nearly its highest setting for the green glow to be visible. I noted that, if you choose to employ the lighted reticle in the daytime, there is no leaking of the illumination into the scope tube under these lighting conditions. Here we see that if the illumination is employed properly (i.e. lower settings in low-light, higher settings for brighter conditions), the "problem" of excess light flooding the tube is negated.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Thanks for the detailed evaluation. I am new to this forum and appreciate the attention to detail I have found here. I am considering one of these scopes for my .308 AR. I am not a sniper and honestly cannot afford another $1000 for an optic. This gives me a lot more confidence in the purchase.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Well, it was another day and another trip to the range with the TRS1. Today I was working on come-ups. Starting at 25 yards, I moved back in 25 yard increments until I reached 200 (I want to extend this test back to 300 yards, but I didn't have time to make it to the bigger range today). At 25 yards, the ballistic table on my iPhone says I should come-up 6 MOA for POA/POI. In past tests with this particular rifle, though, I have always found 5 MOA to be dead on. Thus, I dialed up 20 clicks of elevation, aimed dead on, and fired. The result was a perfect shot right between the eyes of my target. Moving back to 50 yards, I came down 15 clicks (or 3.75 MOA if you're so inclined). Result was the second shot touching the first. Back to 75. Here, I screwed up. I marked down a 1.25 MOA sight adjustment in my databook, but never put it on the scope. Not surprisingly, the shot was about an inch high (not that the bad guy would have noticed!). OK, my fault, not that of my equipment). 100 yards, back to starting zero, 4 clicks left windage to compensate for a gusting 15 mph full value wind (I was fighting that wind all morning. Just when I had it called, it would gust or die down). Shot just above the target's right eye. Onward and backward. 125 yards (I don't change my sight from 75 yards back to 125). Shot is again just above the target's right eye. At 150, the wind died down and I came a half minute back to the right. Since I'd been hitting a little high, I didn't adjust the elevation at this distance. Shot fired, POI forehead above right eye.
175 - Wind still down around 5 mph. No windage change/+.75 MOA elevation. POI Forehead, just above inside corner of left eye. 200 yards, wind gusting again. .5 MOA left windage/0 elevation. POI - Right on the tip of the nose.

After all this, I went back to 100 yards, reset the 100 yard zero and put my next round into a 1" aiming spotter. I think we can safely call this test a pass. Return to zero was excellent, and although this was not my finest day of shooting, the scope and rifle functioned fine. No milky image, no canted reticle, no debris in the field of view. Just shot after shot going into the target's head after changing postion 9 times and making multiple windage and elevation changes. Along with the windage and elevation changes, I was also changing the magnification and parallax settings as I moved back and forth. Neither of them had any noticable negative effects on my POI.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Sounds like your getting the results that I fully expected you would. I have followed these scopes since Millett started producing them in 2006 or 2007. That was before Millett was purchased by Bushnell. Before the Bushnell buy out Steve from Millett was on here all the time commenting and answering questions about the scope. Folks didn't like the 1/8th MOA turrets very much and that was the biggest complaint on here about teh scopes back then. Steve listened and in '08 or '09 (pretty sure it was '09) the changed them to 1/4th MOA. Then later that same year, I think, they came out with the .1 mil model because alot of guys told Steve that they would like to see a MIL/MIL TRS. I remember when the TRS-1 first came out the waiting list to get one was almost like the Vortex PST has been. There was one point that I remember Steve commenting that he couldn't even get his hands on one for an upcomming hunt that he had planned. Since the Bushnell buy out I haven't seen or heard as much from Steve and I'm not even sure if he's still with them or not but I know that when he designed these scopes, he was committed to providing a serious scope at an affordable price and I firmly believe he did just that. I just hope that Bushnell doesn't end up letting it go by the wayside. I feel confident in saying that Bushnell is not nearly concerned about the TRS-1 as they are their own Elite Tactical line. I've had two 6-24X50 Elite Tacticals and one 3-12X44 Elite tactical and I like my TRS-1 better than both of the 6-24's that I had and almost as much as the 3-12. Based on my experiences with the TRS-1, I compare it to a Glock, it ain't the prettiest, it ain't the most expensive, but it just plain works every time that I need it to!
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

I remember when he was posting here. I mentioned him somewhere above. I wouldn't mind hearing his opinion of this evaluation if he's still around.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

As I browse through another item comes to mind based on my experience with my MIL/MIL version. A full turn of a turret is not an even number of mils. If memory serves (I'm at work, and having my rig sitting on the desk would be frowned upon) a turn is 4.5 mils, so I end up either doing the math or counting mils past 4.5. With a new Vortex on another rifle, and 5.0 mils per turn, I realize how annoying this has been.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

That's funny. If I didn't have a rifle sitting on my desk, my coworkers would probably think I was sick! I think a lot of the "annoyance" associated with counting clicks is dependent upon how much adjustment you typically apply to your scope. If a particular shooter is regularly changing back and forth from 100 to 1000 or more yards, I can see how the whole click counting thing could be monotonous and even a bit tricky. Since my work rifles rarely see the far side of three hundred yards, and my service rifle tops out at 600 (with half MOA clicks), I'm not vehemently opposed to doing so. I actually use the MOA markings on my work rifles as a double-check.

HRF
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hello All

I still look in on the hide now and then.

I am still consulting to Bushnell and spending more time with their Night Vision div. NIGHT OPTICS USA. If you need NV they have some nice gear.

I am also developing a scope testing machine that is amazing in the range of tests that can be accomplished on it. This machine test under recoil and vibrations from a 243 to 50 BMG and will give you a lot of data that is difficult to discover in the old methods of optics. It is being marketed to scope manufactures to test and evaluate designs and production scopes. It really proves the ruggedness of a scope.

I am doing some teching for military and law enforcement so all an all I am keeping busy.

I hope all of you are finding the time to get in some shooting and working on guns, its a great hobby and profession.

If you are at the NRA show next wk please stop in the Bushnell booth and say hello. John Plaster will be in the booth also.

Thanks for remembering me.

And for my answer on the article about the TRS, I agree with the major points. little things such as the knob settings, the first TRS had 3 screws that were a pain. I changed it to just one clamp screw on the top of the adj. knobs, this was much easier to set. So now the "0" should be easy.

I designed the TRS as a tactical scope, in that you use mils to hold over out to 500 or 600 and was never designed as "come up " type scope. the latter models have turn counters on the knobs and are made to be used as come ups and mils. both system work well, its just the mils are quick.

The Millett scopes DMS TRS AND LRS give the shooter alot of scope for the money they may not be the best scope made but for the price, the warranty and the features its a heck of a buy.

The review of the TRS was excellent and thanks for a great effort HR.

Steve Langford
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Glad to see you're still around Steve! I hope that Bushnell continues to produce the Millett tactical line as I agree that they provide a really good scope for folks that want a tactical scope but cannot afford 1000 bucks or more for a high end scope.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Thank you Steve. I have looked at your past posts and have gotten a lot of good information from them. I really like my TRS-1 and may be looking at the LRS in the future, I hope that bushnell intends to keep the line. Please keep us informed as you are able.
JH
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Hello

I mentioned Jim Millett and I have developed a scope testing machine that test under real recoil conditions, and a couple guys ask more about it. here is video on the basics of the operation.

www.kingtec.com/video/me_optics.mov

I think you will find it of interest, the SH guys seem to be into tec part of scopes.

thanks

Steve
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Have a friend that has the TRS and like you had problems with his first one he got it replace and mounted on a Savage 300 Win Mag and to date we kind of get tired of him tell us bullseye almost every shot target is at 1000 yards. So I would say good to go.
 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Just received my Millett TRS-1, going to install on my Savage 10FLCP 308 also new.
GREAT review HR. Clarification... the hash marks are not half mil dot?

 
Re: Millett TRS1. The test begins...

Correct. At 10X one mil equals the distance from the center of a dot to the next hash mark. Good luck with your scope. Let me know how it performs.

HRF