anyone have any input on millets trs1 with the illuminated reticle. at this time a high dollar scope is out of the question. thanks scott
Rifle Scopes millet scope
- Thread starter wayyonder
- Start date
Re: millet scope
Yea man... I bought 2 of them, sold 1 to a buddy for his A-bolt 300wm and i kept one on my .17hmr.
Zero function problems, glass is great for $300.
Buy it if that is all the funds you can scrape up.
Yea man... I bought 2 of them, sold 1 to a buddy for his A-bolt 300wm and i kept one on my .17hmr.
Zero function problems, glass is great for $300.
Buy it if that is all the funds you can scrape up.
Re: millet scope
I purchased one, mounted it on my Crusader, and used it in my first comp this past summer. I've no issues with it at all, and it outpaced my abilities.
It worked great, and I was thankful to have a scope that 'held it's own' right off the hop.
I purchased one, mounted it on my Crusader, and used it in my first comp this past summer. I've no issues with it at all, and it outpaced my abilities.
It worked great, and I was thankful to have a scope that 'held it's own' right off the hop.
Re: millet scope
I've had three of the TRS-1 models and sent two back. The BK81001 is ok but the BK81008 has a real design problem. At 16x the image will turn totally milky if your eye is not precisely positioned. the problem appears to be a lack of blackening of the tube inside wall. When your eye is off axis, the light reflects off the wall and turns the image into milk. There may be other brand/models in this price range that are ok. The Bushnell 32-5154T is ok but doesn't have the features of the TRS-1. The Bushnell 42-3124F is nearly identical specs but over twice the price. I'm tired of testing scopes and paying shipping both ways. I'm going to sit back and read.
I've had three of the TRS-1 models and sent two back. The BK81001 is ok but the BK81008 has a real design problem. At 16x the image will turn totally milky if your eye is not precisely positioned. the problem appears to be a lack of blackening of the tube inside wall. When your eye is off axis, the light reflects off the wall and turns the image into milk. There may be other brand/models in this price range that are ok. The Bushnell 32-5154T is ok but doesn't have the features of the TRS-1. The Bushnell 42-3124F is nearly identical specs but over twice the price. I'm tired of testing scopes and paying shipping both ways. I'm going to sit back and read.
Re: millet scope
I've had 4 of them over the past few years and never had an issue out of any of them! I think it's a great scope for the money!
I've had 4 of them over the past few years and never had an issue out of any of them! I think it's a great scope for the money!
Re: millet scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arctic_Eddie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BK81001 is ok but the BK81008 has a real design problem. </div></div>
Is this a widely held belief that the BK1001 with the inch turrets is a better design than the Mil turrets.
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arctic_Eddie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BK81001 is ok but the BK81008 has a real design problem. </div></div>
Is this a widely held belief that the BK1001 with the inch turrets is a better design than the Mil turrets.
Thanks
Re: millet scope
The 81001 and 81008 should be the same scope except for turrets, 1/8MOA vs 1/10MRAD. I still have the 81001 and have tried two 81008. The view at 16x is noticeably different. I'll keep the former and not try anymore of the later. For those of you that are satisfied with the 81008 at 16x, I'm envious. Try looking down the tube from the front at 16x and see if you have a lot of shiny inner wall visible.
The 81001 and 81008 should be the same scope except for turrets, 1/8MOA vs 1/10MRAD. I still have the 81001 and have tried two 81008. The view at 16x is noticeably different. I'll keep the former and not try anymore of the later. For those of you that are satisfied with the 81008 at 16x, I'm envious. Try looking down the tube from the front at 16x and see if you have a lot of shiny inner wall visible.
Re: millet scope
Found another possible difference. The 81008 is FFP and the 81001 is SFP. This may explain the difference in the 16x view. For whatever reason, it's still bad.
Found another possible difference. The 81008 is FFP and the 81001 is SFP. This may explain the difference in the 16x view. For whatever reason, it's still bad.
Re: millet scope
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arctic_Eddie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Found another possible difference. The 81008 is FFP and the 81001 is SFP. This may explain the difference in the 16x view. For whatever reason, it's still bad.
</div></div>
are you sure about the FFP vs SFP? never heard that before. i had a .25 moa and now have a .1 mrad. il go check it out.
nope. both SFP
ok mine is good at 16x, no issues. one thing i did see looking in the obj end was there were striations or lines inside where it looked like machine marks and silver and black lines but its more dark than silver. no silver deep down towards the eye. if the eye is over a light color, it looks like its that color down there inside. i used a black glove and everything was black down the tube by the eye. put a white sheet of paper, it looks white. so take that as an observation.
as far as the scope, im happy with it. i havent box tested it or and repeatability wwork as i was just testing loads at first to see what shot good, then gonna fine tune the scope gather data at different ranges and get more to scope testing. but my first mil/moa was busted and didnt meet advertised elevation. bushnell took it back and let me upgrade to a mil/mil when they were scarce at first. brand new and they even had the techs go over in before shipping. so for the money, im very happy. i will snag a trs2 the 10x version in mil/mil for my gas gun.
you gotta spend around this much. 200-300 to get the few other lower dollar scopes out there. in mil/mil its less choices. 3200 from midway. the weaver. falcon? what other >$300 scopes are there in mil/mil with knobs and nice features. so, it was a decent option for a starter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arctic_Eddie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Found another possible difference. The 81008 is FFP and the 81001 is SFP. This may explain the difference in the 16x view. For whatever reason, it's still bad.
</div></div>
are you sure about the FFP vs SFP? never heard that before. i had a .25 moa and now have a .1 mrad. il go check it out.
nope. both SFP
ok mine is good at 16x, no issues. one thing i did see looking in the obj end was there were striations or lines inside where it looked like machine marks and silver and black lines but its more dark than silver. no silver deep down towards the eye. if the eye is over a light color, it looks like its that color down there inside. i used a black glove and everything was black down the tube by the eye. put a white sheet of paper, it looks white. so take that as an observation.
as far as the scope, im happy with it. i havent box tested it or and repeatability wwork as i was just testing loads at first to see what shot good, then gonna fine tune the scope gather data at different ranges and get more to scope testing. but my first mil/moa was busted and didnt meet advertised elevation. bushnell took it back and let me upgrade to a mil/mil when they were scarce at first. brand new and they even had the techs go over in before shipping. so for the money, im very happy. i will snag a trs2 the 10x version in mil/mil for my gas gun.
you gotta spend around this much. 200-300 to get the few other lower dollar scopes out there. in mil/mil its less choices. 3200 from midway. the weaver. falcon? what other >$300 scopes are there in mil/mil with knobs and nice features. so, it was a decent option for a starter.
Re: millet scope
I can't find it now so I'll retract my statement.
The BK81008 is NOT an FFP scope. If I find it again I'll post with a reference link. I have been looking at the Bushnell 42-3124F scope also and it's FFP. That may be where the confusion came from.
I can't find it now so I'll retract my statement.
The BK81008 is NOT an FFP scope. If I find it again I'll post with a reference link. I have been looking at the Bushnell 42-3124F scope also and it's FFP. That may be where the confusion came from.
Re: millet scope
you would think that with bushnells depth in available options and designs that a guy could call up and say i want a blank in SFP or FFP with X-Y mag, 30mm tube, 50mm obj, side focus, mill/mill, illum reticle and get just about any combo they offer with millett, bushnell options. make a decent entry level scope in either FFP or SFP like vortex is doing with the PST? is it? not familiar. but even a choice of finishes would be cool. i had to find two identical scopes for a 10/22 project and wanted one silver and one black. both matte. that was a pain
you would think that with bushnells depth in available options and designs that a guy could call up and say i want a blank in SFP or FFP with X-Y mag, 30mm tube, 50mm obj, side focus, mill/mill, illum reticle and get just about any combo they offer with millett, bushnell options. make a decent entry level scope in either FFP or SFP like vortex is doing with the PST? is it? not familiar. but even a choice of finishes would be cool. i had to find two identical scopes for a 10/22 project and wanted one silver and one black. both matte. that was a pain
Re: millet scope
It's too bad the Millett has this problem. Everything else is good and exactly what I want. Just because of this one show stopper, I have to consider a Bushnell with nearly identical specs at over twice the price. Since my sniper pipe won't be ready until March, I'll just sit on the decision and keep reading the forums. Sorry to mislead you.
It's too bad the Millett has this problem. Everything else is good and exactly what I want. Just because of this one show stopper, I have to consider a Bushnell with nearly identical specs at over twice the price. Since my sniper pipe won't be ready until March, I'll just sit on the decision and keep reading the forums. Sorry to mislead you.
Re: millet scope
My buddy has one and it's great. I have an LRS and I love it. I was surprised at how clear and bright it was all through the magnification scale. If that is your price range, I don't think I would pick anything over it. Unless you like fixed magnification, then the super sniper is also a good choice.
My buddy has one and it's great. I have an LRS and I love it. I was surprised at how clear and bright it was all through the magnification scale. If that is your price range, I don't think I would pick anything over it. Unless you like fixed magnification, then the super sniper is also a good choice.
Re: millet scope
As I said earlier, I still have an 81001 and it's fine. It's the two 81008 scopes that were both bad. These were from two different sellers and bought about three months apart. I would buy one now but only if I could look through it first. Paying shipping both ways is getting old with nothing to show for it. You have to look through both models to see the problem.
I just looked at the specs for the Bushnell again and see things I don't like, and at twice the price.
As I said earlier, I still have an 81001 and it's fine. It's the two 81008 scopes that were both bad. These were from two different sellers and bought about three months apart. I would buy one now but only if I could look through it first. Paying shipping both ways is getting old with nothing to show for it. You have to look through both models to see the problem.
I just looked at the specs for the Bushnell again and see things I don't like, and at twice the price.
Re: millet scope
AE, what was the problem? just the internal coating? did you deal with bushnell? i bitched til they paid the freight both ways. i could see it if i had used the scope. but new in box broke? i shouldnt have to pay a dime. and i didnt. but clarity from 4-16x is fine
AE, what was the problem? just the internal coating? did you deal with bushnell? i bitched til they paid the freight both ways. i could see it if i had used the scope. but new in box broke? i shouldnt have to pay a dime. and i didnt. but clarity from 4-16x is fine
Re: millet scope
These were new scopes from two different sellers. I had them out of the box only long enough to look through. Both had the same milky image and glossy internal tube wall appearance. I'll not be buying from either one again unless I know ahead of time the scope model is ok. Both sellers were not aware of the problem, or so they said, but took them back for refund. I have another in model 81001 which initially had a bad illuminator switch. That had to go to Bushnell for repair which also costs both ways even though it was still in warranty. That's why I'm not too fond of Bushnell either.
These were new scopes from two different sellers. I had them out of the box only long enough to look through. Both had the same milky image and glossy internal tube wall appearance. I'll not be buying from either one again unless I know ahead of time the scope model is ok. Both sellers were not aware of the problem, or so they said, but took them back for refund. I have another in model 81001 which initially had a bad illuminator switch. That had to go to Bushnell for repair which also costs both ways even though it was still in warranty. That's why I'm not too fond of Bushnell either.
Re: millet scope
did you see my description of the lines in mine? they run lengthwise. was that the look of yours?
did you see my description of the lines in mine? they run lengthwise. was that the look of yours?
Re: millet scope
It had the longitudinal marks down the barrel and was more obvious with a white background. Even if that's not associated with the problem, the image is unacceptable. They may have made some optical changes recently under the same model number but didn't tell the public. The two I had were one last week and the other about two months ago.
It had the longitudinal marks down the barrel and was more obvious with a white background. Even if that's not associated with the problem, the image is unacceptable. They may have made some optical changes recently under the same model number but didn't tell the public. The two I had were one last week and the other about two months ago.
Similar threads
