Goddamn @Frank Green ~ You make a hell of a barrel. Just put 80 rounds through my 20" Bartlein/WinTac 1:10 .308 Factory AI barrel, and now can't wait to see what my 24" setup can do. These barrels are notably beefier than the Lothar-Walther, and weigh a full pound heavier. Full targets shown, no cherry picking. You can tell which rounds were shot early, as the barrel slowly settled in. I did take the time to bake molybdenum disulfide into the barrel by doing 1/2 the M24 SWS barrel break-in process by doing nothing but wet-patching with moly. It seems to respond well to it. And finally, I have a barrel that likes Hornady TAP ELD Precision 168gr. You've made me a believer, Frank. Keep snagging those beautiful batches of Crucible Steel! (To ease folk's minds, no: I did not end up using the boresnake at any point. Opted not to.)
Last edited:
Special order direct from Win Tactical.
20" 308s are retarded... run a 16 or a 24 if you "need" the velocity you're going subsonic before 1k regardless. You are talking minimal velocity loss between a 16 and a 20. Run the numbers with a 175... 16" 308s ftw.
Accuracy International ATAX SA Finish Barrel: .308 Win, 16.5" - 5/8x24, Black - Bartlein
Win Tactical : Factory Accuracy International Barrel, chambered by Win Tactical
www.milehighshooting.com
20" 308s are retarded... run a 16 or a 24 if you "need" the velocity you're going subsonic before 1k regardless. You are talking minimal velocity loss between a 16 and a 20. Run the numbers with a 175... 16" 308s ftw.
View attachment 8685752
Accuracy International ATAX SA Finish Barrel: .308 Win, 16.5" - 5/8x24, Black - Bartlein
Win Tactical : Factory Accuracy International Barrel, chambered by Win Tactical
Not if the length of your rail won't accommodate something as short as 16.5". I would go 18", but that would require me to get one spun up, and when 20" pre-fits are readily available, it's the easy choice.
^ That's like seeing a really hot chick from across the room, but after eyeballing for a moment you notice her dick poking through her dress.
Hard pass good Sir, but if it floats your boat I'll pretend I didn't see you mount it...
Hard pass good Sir, but if it floats your boat I'll pretend I didn't see you mount it...
Currently in ISO of a new scope. This will have to do for now. At least it's still better then a MK5.
Ah yes..Coyote brown TT on ES AX. I’m sure you’re familiar with that color combo? Come on, let’s see it.. It’ll hurt, but you can always reminisce..
And it never gets old seeing this AI picture. You must miss it.. lol.. And there’s a few here with ES/ TT combo’s too.I may know a thing or two about the coyote TT x ES comboView attachment 8686266
Miss it is an understatement. I should’ve kept it how it was before the vision chassis and had basically the twin to yours. Now that I’ve recently become a dad, the likely hood of seeing one in my home is slim. At least in the next several years lol
Corrected statement is "knew" as in past tenseI may know a thing or two about the coyote TT x ES combo
Obligatory elite sand pic
Y'know what, I'm gonna step in on this one:
All you folks who say [Insert Cheap Scope Mfg Here] is better than a Leupold MK5HD: post up your 10, 15 and 20 round 100 Yard/meter shot groups and show me what you can do with yours. Because I don't buy the noise being generated for one second.
I've quite consistently have had great success with my Leupold MK5HDs. And mated with my AT308s -- whether with Lothar-Walther or Bartlein/WinTac barrels -- the shot groups I've posted on here for a year and a half now speak for themselves.
The ONLY downside I've seen to a Leupold is the slightly narrow eyebox, which forces consistent cheek weld... I have a hard time even faulting this. Everything else has been stellar, whether it's the MK5HD 5-25x56mm or 7-35x56mm. The only eyebox I've seen better is from glass twice as expensive i.e. a Schmidt & Bender PMII Ultra Performance, ZCO, etc.
I'd take a MK5HD over a Zeiss S3 or S5, having compared them back-to-back at distance: the Leupold has better clarity, less color distortion, and puts less strain on your eyes. The only comparable scope in its class is a NF ATACR 7-35x that beats it on clarity and ruggedness, with the ATACR 5-25x having an odd distortion when compared to the same spec MK5HD. And the ATACR is almost a full $1000 more.
At under $2000 for MIL/LEO, the MK5HD is a fantastic scope for all that it does, with phenomenal light gathering and practically non-existent chromatic aberrations, even on max zoom while trying to engage 1200 yard IPSCs.
And the zero-stop system is the best I've ever used: the ease at which I can re-zero AND the zero-stop simultaneously in the field is phenomenal.
Both of my scopes track extremely consistently, turn after turn, having done multiple tests checking both. Further, I've seen these scopes take blows in muddy, rainy sniper competitions first hand, scuffed and banged up, and still perform without a hitch.
So if your bias is from using a Leupold M3 on a M24 from two decades ago (or more), or you are just parroting what others are saying to sound trendy? Put your money where your mouth is: post what you can do with your "cheap" scope, or shut up. The mouth-breathing keyboard warrior banter is exhausting.
All you folks who say [Insert Cheap Scope Mfg Here] is better than a Leupold MK5HD: post up your 10, 15 and 20 round 100 Yard/meter shot groups and show me what you can do with yours. Because I don't buy the noise being generated for one second.
I've quite consistently have had great success with my Leupold MK5HDs. And mated with my AT308s -- whether with Lothar-Walther or Bartlein/WinTac barrels -- the shot groups I've posted on here for a year and a half now speak for themselves.
The ONLY downside I've seen to a Leupold is the slightly narrow eyebox, which forces consistent cheek weld... I have a hard time even faulting this. Everything else has been stellar, whether it's the MK5HD 5-25x56mm or 7-35x56mm. The only eyebox I've seen better is from glass twice as expensive i.e. a Schmidt & Bender PMII Ultra Performance, ZCO, etc.
I'd take a MK5HD over a Zeiss S3 or S5, having compared them back-to-back at distance: the Leupold has better clarity, less color distortion, and puts less strain on your eyes. The only comparable scope in its class is a NF ATACR 7-35x that beats it on clarity and ruggedness, with the ATACR 5-25x having an odd distortion when compared to the same spec MK5HD. And the ATACR is almost a full $1000 more.
At under $2000 for MIL/LEO, the MK5HD is a fantastic scope for all that it does, with phenomenal light gathering and practically non-existent chromatic aberrations, even on max zoom while trying to engage 1200 yard IPSCs.
And the zero-stop system is the best I've ever used: the ease at which I can re-zero AND the zero-stop simultaneously in the field is phenomenal.
Both of my scopes track extremely consistently, turn after turn, having done multiple tests checking both. Further, I've seen these scopes take blows in muddy, rainy sniper competitions first hand, scuffed and banged up, and still perform without a hitch.
So if your bias is from using a Leupold M3 on a M24 from two decades ago (or more), or you are just parroting what others are saying to sound trendy? Put your money where your mouth is: post what you can do with your "cheap" scope, or shut up. The mouth-breathing keyboard warrior banter is exhausting.
I really have no quarrel with your Leupold scope and don't know what this is all about...
But I'll play, here's my cheap rifle / scope combo.
One of my Tikka T3x Lites, can't remember if it was in 6.5mm Creedmoor or .308 Winchester, with one of my older SWFA SS scopes, might have been a fixed 6x or 10x.
Single - feeding, as hearing the brass scrape against those tin can magazines is like scratching chalk the wrong way on the board for me (those of you who actually know what this is about, I think there's a proper word for it).
I sometimes post 200 yard groups actually shot at 25 yards, just to irritate people, for fun
Last edited:
Similar threads
