And WHY?! It's not like companies are still in DISCOVERY mode...we KNOW what works under bad conditions and heavy recoil. We have for DECADES.
Bill Weaver knew it--and filed his patent--in the 1950s.
Ever hear of a thing called "Micro-Trac"? To this day, it's probably still the most robust and best executed scope erector system ever used. The only thing Bill Unertl had to say about the system was that he should have invented it first.
The 1950s.
Optical glasses and crystals and reticle technologies have improved since then, but tell me again how we are making major progress.
-Nate
And WHY?! It's not like companies are still in DISCOVERY mode...we KNOW what works under bad conditions and heavy recoil. We have for DECADES.
Bill Weaver knew it--and filed his patent--in the 1950s.
Ever hear of a thing called "Micro-Trac"? To this day, it's probably still the most robust and best executed scope erector system ever used. The only thing Bill Unertl had to say about the system was that he should have invented it first.
The 1950s.
Optical glasses and crystals and reticle technologies have improved since then, but tell me again how we are making major progress.
-Nate
Where we are making progress is companies are providing more quality for less dollars. Sometimes they do that through thinner margins, s ok sometimes they do that through cutting back elsewhere (ie internals that 80% of the optics buyer will never use). I'm guessing at the 80%. It's not a factual number.
Hence my comment about the rule of thumb of scope $=rifle $ being WAY out of date.
I won't hangout in this thread, but I just want to say, it's not that companies doing know how to make quality internals, it's that companies chose to spend their manufacturing dollars elsewhere. Knowing how to do the job, and doing the job are not the same thing.
Companies know that all they have to do is meet a certain price point, and look good inside a store. Function on a firing line plays second fiddle because by the time you get there (80% probably never do) your money is spent.
Where we are making progress is companies are providing more quality for less dollars. Sometimes they do that through thinner margins, s ok sometimes they do that through cutting back elsewhere (ie internals that 80% of the optics buyer will never use). I'm guessing at the 80%. It's not a factual number.
Don't understand all the hits on Nikon. I have at least 30 of them, in various configurations, and never had one go bad. Must just be lucky. It's good entry-level glass, IMHO. I have started buying Leupolds in the last few years, but mainly for the smaller ocular bell. Granted, I'm not a practicing long-range sniper, so I don't have the knowledge of you serious shooters, but Nikons have served me well, at a price I could afford to get in the game (even if it's the short game).
Yeah, I'm thinking that moving my cheap Nikon 2-7 to the AR would bring a rather rapid death. SA bolt thrust kills cheap optics.
At least, that seems to be the experience of M1A/M14 guys.
Because Nikons have plastic guts and do not track or last long term. If all you do is dial in zero once and don't shoot your rifle as much as people on these boards do, they'll do fine. But if you are at the range and dial your shots, they won't cut the proverbial mustard.
You can take that same money you would spend on Nikon and buy something that would actually work very well. Nikon skimps on the guts of the scope that you can't see in order to maximize their profits. That's the issue people that actually know something about scopes have with Nikon.
Vortex, Sightron, Weaver, SWFA, etc... all offer MUCH better scopes for the same money.
I'll ask here I guess...
I need to drop weight from my 10/22. It's 8 lbs and I need to get to 7-1/2 for CMP Rimfire Sporter. It might be possible but I'll have to remove my fantastic Vortex 3-12x42 and go with something else like a 10 oz Weaver 4x32. ~$160 I think.
How's that scope glass quality wise? Should I step up to a Leopold 4x? I don't think Vortex has anything in this category.
My 1990 era made in Japan Tasco just doesn't look good.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I'll ask here I guess...
I need to drop weight from my 10/22. It's 8 lbs and I need to get to 7-1/2 for CMP Rimfire Sporter. It might be possible but I'll have to remove my fantastic Vortex 3-12x42 and go with something else like a 10 oz Weaver 4x32. ~$160 I think.
How's that scope glass quality wise? Should I step up to a Leopold 4x? I don't think Vortex has anything in this category.
My 1990 era made in Japan Tasco just doesn't look good.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Thanks for the explanation. I don't know a lot about scope internals, and don't run any of my rifles enough to really push the scopes. I've been transitioning to Leupolds last couple years, mostly VX2's. How do the Leupolds stack up, in the guts department?
The factory wood laminate stock is 2 lbs & I'd hate to cut into it (has some collector value). Same as my KKC stock, which is illegal since it has an asymetric / palm swell style grip. I'm not opposed to getting another stock.
Vortex says my Diamondback HP weighs 18 oz and it does have some heavy looking rings and a heavy extended picatiny rail.
A 10 oz (website says 8.5 oz) Weaver 4x, light tip off style rings and standard scope rails should drop enough weight to make 7.5 lbs. Getting proper eye relief using this combo could be a challenge. Typically this setup is way too far rearwards.
[edit - very tempting! Leupold’s VX-3i 1.5-5x is only 9.3 oz but twice the $ as the Weaver. Decisions, decisions...]