Handi Rifle optics

[1slow01Z71]

If your statement is true how are we able to shoot the new scopes with both eyes open like a red dot? What scopes do you have? I don't need to do the research because I'm an actual user of the scopes being discussed. So tell us why a company that acknowledges some designs can't go down to 1x actually label some of their other scopes as 1x scopes? Put class in session.

 

[itchin]

That's because the magnification is minimal. I have many different scopes from the ta31f to the aim point pro red dot. I am not a fan of variable optics. I'm not trying to argue or upset you. They advertise it as that because they are selling scopes. 1.1x isn't 1x neither is 1.001x. There is plenty out there explaining how none of these are true 1x. The higher end ones like the elcan aren't true 1x. They are around 1.1x. Before you go on here calling me a liar and accuse me of spreading bullshit, why don't you do some research? I don't care, because I'll probably never buy one. I'm sorry if facts offend you

 

[Tejano Scott]

Wow. That escalated quickly. Haha. It is an interesting debate I'd like to have as intelligently and "bullshit" free as possible. Lol.

ETA: I say that jokingly since I have heard both sides of this on many other forums.

 

[1slow01Z71]

So you just dislike magnified optics, got it.

I'm well aware of the multi lense maginifaction inherent to the design of a variable power optic. Quality scope manufacturers have now gotten it to where it is unintelligible to the human eye and since I'm using a human eye to look through the scope I fail to see where your "there's no such thing as 1x" tiraid has anything to do with the OPs subject except to interject old parroted internet lore rather than actual facts. Even my cheapest 1x optic(1-4 viper PST) is nowhere close to the 1.25x you rattled off. You're misleading people with your uninformed opinion due to your optic bias where you even state you don't own the type of optics being discussed. This is the exact problem with people like you parroting crap on the internet. My razor actually makes stuff look a little further away when looking at objects closer than 15-20 feet so what power should vortex have put on it?

 

[1slow01Z71]

Wow. That escalated quickly. Haha. It is an interesting debate I'd like to have as intelligently and "bullshit" free as possible. Lol.

ETA: I say that jokingly since I have heard both sides of this on many other forums.

Sorry it just gets old watching people parrot the same crap over and over again. Times change, technology gets better, quality 1x options are available that to the human eye are 1x, period. It happens on every forum though unfortunately, not just firearms.

 

[itchin]

Dude, I have no bias. There is plenty of info on this topic on the World Wide Web for those interested. I'm gonna bow out of this. I'm sure your scopes are great and serve you well. Have a nice evening.

 

[1slow01Z71]

I actually did do a quick search to make sure I wasn't going crazy. I couldn't find an article within the last couple of years that actually showed that true 1x optics couldn't be made. The razor, swarovski, khales, mk6 and the usual spattering of USO, and bushnells all do a great job of being both eye open scopes with the razor and swarovski being absolutely awesome. There are plenty of articles to back that stance up of them being 1x scopes that can be shot with both eyes open. If you actually shot these scopes you might know that if they're not ridiculously close to 1x that you can't do that.

 

[itchin]

I shoot both eyes open with my acog, that doesn't make it non magnified. You're wrong. They are not true 1x. If that was the case there would be unlimited eye relief. Anyway like I said before 1.1x is not 1x. This is my last post since you're being rude and a dick.

 

[1slow01Z71]

How do you explain people's splits being the same with the newer 1x scopes and red dots?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean in any way shape or form that it's good. Shooting an ACOG with both eyes open is slow as hell compared to a red dot or 1x scope. You do realize eye relief gets LONGER not shorter with lower magnification right? The fact that you think there would be 0 eye relief with a 1x but somehow magically my apparent 1.1x scope has 3.7" of eye relief is ludicrous. Explain to the peanut gallery and myself how one tenth of a power wold lose almost 4" of eye relief.

This is the problem with parroting internet stories.

 

[itchin]

You know I meant unlimited. You're just trying to be a jerk. You're wrong. End of story.

 

[1slow01Z71]

No I didn't because you don't know what you're talking about. Your agruments make so little sense that I literally have no idea what you meant. Again you're wrong though so it's fine. The top tier 1-6s are as close to a red dot as you can get and while they've got good eye relief it's nothing insane. Eye relief is a factor of much more than just the magnification range as you'd contend.

Please just show me SOMETHING to support your stance because literally everyone who is serious about shooting and uses these quality 1-X scopes disagrees with you as evidence by their match results and split times. I live in the rear world not in the internet keyboard warriors.

 

[scap99]

Hey, goofballs, stop thread jacking my handi rifle optics thread with optics talk....

Oh wait, you mean this is the only thread on this forum that is actually on topic??? Carry on.

 

[Tejano Scott]

I never realized optics and internettin' was such serious business.

 

[scap99]

I never realized optics and internettin' was such serious business.

I can't see it spatially....

 

[breakingcontact]

Looking for a 1-4x to put on my 300blk Handi rifle...anyone have any optics on a Handi that they can recommend?

Eotech just looks silly.

What is your budget?

 

[1slow01Z71]

I never realized optics and internettin' was such serious business.

It's not serious business, I just hate to see someone spend their hard earned money on something because an Internet reader said so.

I haven't posted much in the last year or so because of the constant bickering with the idiots who don't actually shoot or want to parrot internet info. It's kind of sad the nose dive this site has taken when it comes to solid info. Hardly any of the actual shooters post anymore unfortunately because they get tired of the bickering. I'm not always the best at delivering my message but when I pipe up its because I have actual experience on the topic.

 

[itchin]

Funny thing is you're the one spreading misinformation. They are not true 1x no matter how pissy you get. And you have no idea how much I shoot. I probably shoot more than your whiny ass.

 

[1slow01Z71]

All you have to do is support you position instead of just saying your opinion. And sorry sugar tit$, if you're still running an ACOG you can't be too serious about shooting in the type of situations you'd want a 1x variable scope. No one and I mean no one except someone who is just beginning runs an ACOG. The beginners even run the cheaper Burris, Bushnell and leupolds over ACOGs. So please show us where these newer scopes aren't true 1x that makes any difference to the human eye.

 

[itchin]

There is plenty out there. Why don't YOU prove your position? I'm not much into the ar platform and think I'm. Tactical operator at the range. I honestly rarely bring ars to the range. I'm done with this pissing match. It's well known info and widely available on the web. These variable optics are not true 1x. Ok? Got it mr operator?

 

[itchin]

Ps I never said what the eye or brain perceives. All I said is they're not true 1x, which is fact.