Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn moreJust got released a few weeks ago after a long wait.So…your product already exists…good for you.
A modest telescope at 80x.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.
Hensoldt SSG-P has all of that. They are pretty old, but were pretty cool for the time thoughOnly two things, get rid of the stupid ring mounting system and let me see the elevation turret
position in the scope image.
I’ll piggyback on that: a 4x acog that isn’t a BDCA budget Trijicon ACOG line made in Japan with a diopter so we can all finally have some peace with both the poors and the old folk enough for them to both shut up finally.
I mean...they got the LAPD crosshair ACOG...I’ll piggyback on that: a 4x acog that isn’t a BDC
“I would like a flavor that isn’t watermelon” “well they technically make one that tastes like literal shit”I mean...they got the LAPD crosshair ACOG...
Well if that's what it would take to appease the poors, penny pincher non poors acting like a poor, and the elderly or others with bad eyes from raging all over the internet about ACOG's and rather buy from muh china budget just as good? I'd be totally okay with that then. Let them have the POS things that they want so they can finally shut their sucks about it finally and leaving the rest of in peace to talk about and enjoying the things that they don't like.“I would like a flavor that isn’t watermelon” “well they technically make one that tastes like literal shit”
I mean, my example case here is a 14.5" barreled 6.5 Grendel or 6mm Arc, the 4x acog has a ton of great advantages, but even if I wanted to use it on a rifle like that I can't *easily* because none of the BDCs even remotely match. A problem that a Milrad 4x would fix very nicely.Well if that's what it would take to appease the poors, penny pincher non poors acting like a poor, and the elderly or others with bad eyes from raging all over the internet about ACOG's and rather buy from muh china budget just as good? I'd be totally okay with that then. Let them have the POS things that they want so they can finally shut their sucks about it finally and leaving the rest of in peace to talk about and enjoying the things that they don't like.
Just my opinion here but I think that cartridge deserves an LPVO and one of the finer ones, one of the lightweight ones like an ATACR or the March Super Shorty, even a Cred 1-6 for the ones on a budget constraints. Put it on a recce or a mine recce 12 or 12.5 with a reliable magazine that holds at least 20 rounds, not costlier than a 308 to purchase, and the do all AR15 cartridge would finally be here for the masses to enjoy.I mean, my example case here is a 14.5" barreled 6.5 Grendel or 6mm Arc, the 4x acog has a ton of great advantages, but even if I wanted to use it on a rifle like that I can't *easily* because none of the BDCs even remotely match. A problem that a Milrad 4x would fix very nicely.
so the reasoning behind the acog is that it is fine for the 700m limit of 6ARC/6.5G terminal ballistics when using a 14.5” barrel (non-nfa p&w). The cartridge can make hits further than that, but will lack the energy to initiate expansion of the bullets commonly used for non-target applications.Just my opinion here but I think that cartridge deserves an LPVO and one of the finer ones, one of the lightweight ones like an ATACR or the March Super Shorty, even a Cred 1-6 for the ones on a budget constraints. Put it on a recce or a mine recce 12 or 12.5 with a reliable magazine that holds at least 20 rounds, not costlier than a 308 to purchase, and the do all AR15 cartridge would finally be here for the masses to enjoy.
EuroOptic now has the G3 in Black...I'll repeat this. Vortex: Razor HD Gen 2 and 3 rifle scopes in black. That is all.
EuroOptic now has the G3 in Black...
I'd buy at least one.If NF brought back the OG F1 3.5-15 with mil-xt and/or T3, digilum, and an ocular that doesn’t rotate with magnification I’d buy 3 of them right now.
That's not a dumb question. Being able to dry fire indoors is a huge selling feature.Get ready for a dumb question - what about reducing minimum parallax on a scope? I love my FDNs, but min parallax is 50 on the 17x and 75 on 25x. Why is it that the G3 razor's parallax (10yds) is lower than the G2 (32yds), or that the 7-35 ATACR has 11yds min parallax where the 5-25 has a min of 50yds? Does changing the magnification range compared with erector size change minimum parallax?
With NRL22 and PRS Rimfire getting more popular, I imagine a lot of optics manufacturers could up their sales margins if their parallax could make to down to 25yds or less.
IDTSOld thread but,
The numbers/markings on the elevation turret should be biggest and highest contrast combination possible. Would be a very low cost upgrade.
I have one on my Razor, love it. Kind of wish it was white writing on black and as mentioned in my earlier I wish it had come from the factory like that.
I am not sure where the original post is, so I am commenting here. I have the same questions (e.g, the different parallax ranges on the different ATACRs) and concerns (why not lower parallax on more scopes?). I have been wondering if lowering the parallax causes some sort of optical (or mechanical??) compromise, or possible inconvenience; referring to the latter, I mean having more and unnecessary numbers and throw distance on the knob to deal with. If it does none of these, why wouldn't a manufacturer lower the parallax to draw in the rimfire and airgun crowds, both which seem to be growing?That's not a dumb question. Being able to dry fire indoors is a huge selling feature.
Okay, as I read you, I was in the ballpark with my suspicion that knob travel, etc.,. had something to do with it. I figured there had to be a reason.The problem with focusing a lens is that as the distances diminish, the depth of field diminishes and the amount of travel to focus increases. For instance, changing the focus from 500 yards to 1000 yards requires very little movement, whereas going from 100yards down to 10 yards requires much greater movement. Of course, gearing can be adjusted for that, but if the pitch is too coarse, it's more difficult to get a good focus at longer distances and if the pitch is too fine, there is a lot of travel in the focus at the shorter distances. You will have complaints whichever way you opt to go.
I do know that there are a lot of high-end air rifle competitors (field target) who use the high magnification March scopes (8-80X, for instance) and take advantage of the fine focus range close up. They install a big wheel on the side focus (I loathe calling it a parallax adjustment), they put a tape around the wheel, and note the setting for various distances. When the target is in perfect focus, they can read off the distance and aim accordingly.
It also allows me to check the scope settings indoors with a laser boresighter; very useful when you travel to matches.
Being newer to optics if you are interested in some of the optics design trade offs check out this playlist by our own @koshkinOkay, as I read you, I was in the ballpark with my suspicion that knob travel, etc.,. had something to do with it. I figured there had to be a reason.
Thank you for elucidating the matter.
Now, one question remains: Precisely why does the NF ATACR 5-25 have a 45-yard parallax and the 7-35 an 11-yard one? I presume there are different purposes or disciplines intended for each scope?
For the record, I am quite new to scopes and all this stuff. And I do not compete, etc., where experience would assist my learning curve. I have learned a good deal over the last year or so, but my understanding still has gaps. Thanks. F7
Edit: The elevation travel of the 5-25 is greater than that of the 7-35, but the FOV numbers seem commensurate with the respective magnification ranges. I am trying to see what specs I can (possibly) infer from. And I am not trying to give you a part-time job, here.
It is a playlist of his 13 explanation videos.I have watched various Koshkin videos and will check this one out. Thank you.
Ah. I am watching a video and only now see the list. Thanks.It is a playlist of his 13 explanation videos.
I like the hold-under dots. I agree with cutting the ring thickness for sure. Take care.Every optic has compromises-If the manufacturer was listening, what realistic thing would you change about your favorite optic? I'm not talking about the mythical 10oz, ffp 1-8 that's bullet proof, German glass, and costs $100. I'm talking realistic change(s) to your favorite optic
For me, I'd change a couple small things in the atacr with the fc-dmx
1-get rid of the hold under dots.
2-cut the thickness of the outer ring in half. Without illumination the circle dot isn't visible at 1x anyway and with illumination they are a bit too thick and can turn into a blob instead of a circle dot.
3-Get rid of the second mil Windhold at the 1 mil mark
4-Widen the fov. I'm not talking going from 95 or whatever fov to 150. But I think an increase to 100-105 houldn't be an issue. This is the most minor gripes though
Screenshot attached for reference
Non-illuminated I feel might be a trap for the manufacturer though. most of them design the reticle assembly with the illumination built in these days, so taking it out isn't as simple as older scopes. plus it leads to SKU bloat. So a fractional cost savings for the consumer, but a lot of extra overhead in manufacturing.Include standard accessories like lens caps and sunshades specially if paying over 3k. Non illuminationated models for people that don't need it and can possibly save a lil on the cost.
its funny, the actual manufacturer doing that is Sig. I recently got a Canyon 4 scope because of the free K2800 LRF deal, and I was actually genuinely impressed with it for a lower-priced SFP hunting optic, to the point I might actually use it on one of my hunting rifles instead of a 22mag plinker like I planned.Here's a strange request in today's world.
Back off on the mag ranges so you don't have to compromise on so many factors.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd rather have a bomb 4x erector than a 6x or 7x erector that makes for compromise on clarity issues, focus issues, worse tunneling, fisheye, etc...
They've been completely off my radar. There's just been so much inconsistency in their recent QC since all of their Mil contracts.its funny, the actual manufacturer doing that is Sig. I recently got a Canyon 4 scope because of the free K2800 LRF deal, and I was actually genuinely impressed with it for a lower-priced SFP hunting optic, to the point I might actually use it on one of my hunting rifles instead of a 22mag plinker like I planned.
I tend to agree.Here's a strange request in today's world.
Back off on the mag ranges so you don't have to compromise on so many factors.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd rather have a bomb 4x erector than a 6x or 7x erector that makes for compromise on clarity issues, focus issues, worse tunneling, fisheye, etc...