Rifle Scopes SEALs Scope... I know!!!

#51
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"I would rate the glass quality 8/10.(0 is completely opaque and 10 is completely distortionless <span style="font-weight: bold">and 100% light transmission</span>) Brightness is top notch, but clarity around the edges could be better."
</div></div>

FYI, maximum theoretical optical glass light transmission is around 98%.
So 8/10 would make 80% transmission, which actually would suck a** and is worse than bad.
As far as I know, even cheapest junk scopes should have +80% transmission.
Latest Zeiss HT lenses have 95% transmission- they are currently the best, or advertised best anyway.

Just to tell you bit about numbers behind terminology.
 
#53
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

aynh2p.jpg
 
#55
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

No, maximum theoretical light transmission is somewhere around 100%. No, it is 100%. The loss of light is due to dispersion, refraction, and imperfections of the lenses. Note that a tube with a vacuum in it would have 100% light transmission. Also notice, that the glass rating included clarity. I never said that the glass rating was a "perdecage" of the light transmission.
 
#59
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

I paid less than $300 for the scope. So, it doesn't do fantastic in adjustment tests. I've been able to range, adjust, and hit targets as small as 20 oz pop bottles out past 300 yards. (Unfortunately, that's the furthest I've had the opportunity to shoot so far.)
 
#65
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have anything useful or relevant to say?</div></div>

I suppose not. I have not fell victim to colorful marketing or big words. Please toil on.
 
#66
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

Let me get this straight... I do an objective review of the scope after I've owned it for almost a year, I provide evidence of it's performance, I don't give a glowing review but more of a mediocre one, therefore I "fell victim to colorful marketing or big words"? Can you provide some evidence for the truth of this statement? Or does your religion prevent you from accepting any positive evidence about this brand of optic?
 
#67
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or does your religion prevent you from accepting any positive evidence about this brand of optic?</div></div>

I wouldn’t say religion, but you should know you’re going to get this response when discussing that scope. Accept the situation for what it is. If the scope performs well for you, use it. Want to post a review on it, understand there’re people that will use it to have a little fun.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be a butthead.
 
#68
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

It is a shame you have to lock the turrets to have it be accurate and consistent. That's probably a deal breaker for most people here. Most would want to be able to dial adjustments and not use hold-overs on occasion. JMHO.
 
#69
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

Agreed. It would be a lot better if you didn't have to remember to do that every time you shoot. But, it is what it is. If you just use the elevation, dope it out to a range, and lock it down, it works pretty well though.
 
#70
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

This response doesn't surprise me. I've seen people bash these scopes as far as the eye can see without ever having used one. Even though I wasn't surprised, I'm still going to defend myself.
 
#73
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

Listen dude, its not you at all. I watched your video, and it is objective, and confirms the quality of this scope, which is shit.

Its Counter Sniper themselves, who write all over their optic Military this and US Government contract that, which is completely false and bears no truth at all.

Furthermore, when these scopes came out, they had a $7000 retail price tag, also shit. SO many members on this board have contacted CS about their Government contract numbers, and the claims they use with the description of their scopes, and are either placed on hold indefinitely or hung up on. These scopes now sell for $300-$400 which is an obvious tell.

Take no offense, but when you post anything remotely serious about the effectiveness of this optic, the backlash will ensue.

I prefer Austin's CS review above all.
 
#75
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

I agree they have stupid and misleading advertising. But I was just looking at the scope itself. If it's not ME at all, why were your insults directed at ME?
I bought the scope to make my rifle work while I saved up for something better. The whole reason for the review is that I was hearing/reading all kinds of untrue things about the quality of these scopes from people that have never even handled one let alone mounted and shot with one.
 
#76
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, maximum theoretical light transmission is somewhere around 100%. No, it is 100%. The loss of light is due to dispersion, refraction, and imperfections of the lenses. Note that a tube with a vacuum in it would have 100% light transmission. Also notice, that the glass rating included clarity. I never said that the glass rating was a "perdecage" of the light transmission. </div></div>
I'm sorry to tell You this, but you dont have any idea what you are talking about.
 
#78
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What statement was incorrect? </div></div>

Like the whole thing?

Usually with fully multicoated lens, light transmission can be in the neighborhood of 99.5% PER air to glass interface. However, a rifle scope is made up of many many lenses. The front objective would have 2 lenses (at least) for 4 minimum air to glass(or glass to air) interfaces. So that alone result in (.995*.995*.995*.995) for a total transmission of 98%.

Then we got erector 2 to 4 lenses and the eyepiece 3 to 7 lenses depending on fixed power or zoom.

Here, read up on this:
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/reports-coating.htm
 
#79
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

Nick,

Thanks for the shout out of the Counter Shit review
laugh.gif


armednsafe, I reviewed one as well. Its still broke as fuck in my garage. I promised way back when I started that thread, it would die a Carlos Hathcock death, that will happen Monday
laugh.gif


Sorry you fell victim to their bullshit, for what its worth.....its shit
 
#81
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

None of what you just said contradicted any of the paragraph that you said was all wrong. Glass has a refractive index change from air and therefore has some reflectivity. Specially coating the lenses helps with that. Also, the glass is not perfect, nothing is.

You said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Usually with fully multicoated lens, light transmission can be in the neighborhood of 99.5% PER air to glass interface.</div></div>

And then you went on to tell me there is more than one lens is a scope, what a revelation...

I'm not going to bother to look that up the exact percent reflected because the exact number is irrelevant. I agree that in practice a glass lens scope isn't going to achieve better than 98% light transmission. The point is that it is possible to build a "scope" that does have 100% light transmission. If parallel rays pass through a straight tube that has a vacuum in it, none of the light will be lost. It's not a very good scope but it has 100% light transmission, right? Also, it is theoretically possible that a lens behaves as a lens and still reflects no light and has no dispersion. If the material is perfectly smooth then there will be no variability of the refractive index as a function of frequency/wavelength , thus no dispersion. When it comes to surface reflection, look up magnetic lenses. There is no refractive index change with a magnetic lens. If you want to talk theory that's fine, but don't switch over to arguing about practice half way through.
 
#84
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should I have started a new thread? After how long should no one ever post a thread again? </div></div>

Sorry+nigga+she+went+full+retard+_df94fea65c3860cf04978b309ff8713b.jpg
 
#89
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> it would die a Carlos Hathcock death, that will happen Monday </div></div>

Be sure and take some video of that...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sorry you fell victim to their bullshit, for what its worth.....its shit </div></div>

I don't feel victimized at all. I got a decent scope for $300. If there are scopes that perform better with the features of this scope, please show them to me. I don't have any ego invested in this scope being awesome like you seem to in it being shitty. I'm sorry if things didn't turn out the way you expected, but the data speaks for itself.
 
#90
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

For when you feel like upgrading ...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pn-ZqInOfrQ"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pn-ZqInOfrQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
#91
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't feel victimized at all. I got a decent scope for $300.</div></div>There are many scopes you can buy for $300 or less that are not broken when they arrive at your door.

...And it's not a 'feature' if the feature doesn't work.
 
#94
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

Every manufacturer that doesn't do 100% sample testing will ship defective products eventually. I got a slightly defective product and they covered it under warranty. And what features didn't work on the scope? Did you watch my review or did you just jump to an unfounded conclusion based on a previously held conception?
 
#95
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you watch my review or did you just jump to an unfounded conclusion based on a previously held conception? </div></div>I was particlarly impressed by the positive 'feature' uncovered by the reviewer that although the tacticle adjustments don't work, the auditory 'clicks' could be heard while using ear protection. That's not something I usually test for with a new scope.
crazy.gif


But to answer your questiuon: Even if I adopted your methods I would not reach your conclusions.
 
#98
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

By the way, when you resort to name calling over something as innocuous as a scope review, it exposes the fact that you have no reason or evidence for your opinion or conclusions. I agree that the scope is not perfect. When did I ever say "This scope is perfect and I would rather have it than a Nightforce, US Optics, or a Schmidt & Bender."? Was I not objective in the review? Did I misrepresent or falsify the results? Did I not demonstrate in an effective way that this scope will be capable of putting lead on target?
 
#99
Re: SEALs Scope... I know!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way, when you resort to name calling over something as innocuous as a scope review, it exposes the fact that you have no reason or evidence for your opinion or conclusions...</div></div>I have not called you any names, and that quote is not from me. Feel free to make-up stuff in your scope review, but why do it also in this Thread?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: armednsafe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I said the clicks weren't "super" tactile. They don't have that really positive knock that you feel with higher end scopes. But you can still feel them. </div></div>Not "super" tactile 'clicks'. I get it: This scope failed the "super" tactile click test due to not having 'really positive knock', but you can still feel the knobs (presumably with your fingers).
crazy.gif


Have you considered writing copy for the outside of the Countersniper box?
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
This may be a dumb question, but hear me out?
Replies
10
Views
457
Terry Cross
Terry Cross
Makinchips208
Scope for bushmaster AR15
Replies
11
Views
271
Aftermath
Aftermath
Quatro1122
Scope Weight, how does a heavy scope affect accuracy?
Replies
7
Views
202
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
N
Rifle Scopes Internal Scope Operation
Replies
0
Views
66
nick338
N
9
Digital vs. Optical scopes
Replies
2
Views
262
Rancid Coolaid
Rancid Coolaid
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts