GUNS!!!!!!!!

[leroy jenkins]

My wife is really starting to dislike this whole gun thing.

When I bought my rifle I picked up the on-sale Cabelas scope for it. After I let the sticker shock of the gun itself wear off on my wife I'm hoping to upgrade the optics a bit.

I've been sorta/kinda joking with her that I need an effective sighting device. This of course is met with stern looks and complaints of a clothes dryer that needs replacing.

I'm somewhat torn on what to get, (optics wise, not dryer). My two interests are either an Eotech with a 3x magnifier, or an ACOG. Neither option is cheap, but the Eotech is a couple hundred bucks cheaper.

Uses for either sight would be mainly plinking, limited use hunting, and as a MBR in an EOTWAWKI scenario. (I've been reading way too many survival blogs researching this whole gun stuff)

I've heard the Eotech stuff is fantastic in sub 100 yard distances, but the ACOG is great all around. I like the simplicity of the ACOG, but like the strengths of the Eotech for shorter distances. Has anyone tried the 3x multiplier with an Eotech? If so, does it compare to an ACOG at distance? Or, I'm open to any other optic package suggestions.

I'd post these questions on some of the boards I found, but quite frankly those people kinda scare me. I'm scared I'll get sucked in even deeper, last night I was checking the prices of wheat grinders...

Fuck acogs, for the money, you really arent getting all that much.

Its a fairly low power fixed power sight. For the same coin you can get a high power adjustable power rifle scope from a top tier company like nightforce. A 4X rifle optic is not a 'long range precision optic'. There are pistol scopes that are 4X. An acog is a compromise between a red dot and a real rifle scope.

I also dont get the fascination with the high speed low drag red dot super fast target acquisition type rifle sights. Civilians are never going to need that shit for anything other than plinking at cans. Even if the SHTF, I'd be trying to stay as far away from my targets as I can, not clearing houses.

Do you really need a fiber optic illuminated reticule? Why? SHTF? I've found when doing long range shooting at dusk/dawn, you lose sight of the target long before you lose sight of your reticule, every once in a while an illuminated reticule lets you shoot at most about 10 minutes longer before it gets too dark. Besides, the illumination will still wear out and need to be replaced in like 15 years.


There are lots of good scopes out there that provide a lot more bang for the buck than an acog. Look at IOR, I picked up one of their 2.5-10X scopes for my sig 556, with an improved mildot based reticule. Lifetime warranty, their glass is ground by the same people that grind scmitt/bender's in germany, and theyve been making scopes for like 70 years. I picked one of these up for about $800, new.


As for the eotech/magnifier combo, again, why? Its heavier, less versatile and more cumbersome, and more expensive, than a comparable rifle scope. The reticule of my IOR naturally guides your eyes onto the target, at 2.5X target acquisition is still really quick, quicker than iron sights.

[TNKen]

I have both. Have used the Eotech a bunch, and like it for a non optic device. Never put a multiplier with it. Mostly used for defensive rifle competitions. Then put it on the Mac 11 with a slow-fire upper. Mac hammered it to death, but Eotech replaced it a no charge.

Just got an ACOG TA-11 for my Aug A3. Seems like a nice piece, too expensive. But gathers light really well. Range report later.

Most will tell you the cost of the optics should match the cost of the rifle. Not sure I believe that, but anyway...

Ken

[AKPogue]

An acog is a compromise between a red dot and a real rifle scope.

So an ACOG is a wannbe rifle scope? An acog was designed for exactly what you just said, it is an Advanced Combat Optic Gunsight. It is meant to be a jack of all trades and master of none, which is what you want in combat. Should a civilian get one, that is up to the person. I think certain model acogs would make for a great hunting optic just because you can acquire the sight quicker than a regular reticle scope but it isn't as fast as a red dot.

[leroy jenkins]

So an ACOG is a wannbe rifle scope? An acog was designed for exactly what you just said, it is an Advanced Combat Optic Gunsight. It is meant to be a jack of all trades and master of none, which is what you want in combat. Should a civilian get one, that is up to the person. I think certain model acogs would make for a great hunting optic just because you can acquire the sight quicker than a regular reticle scope but it isn't as fast as a red dot.

Yea, but it was designed to work acceptably well at extremely close ranges, like indoor, across a small room type ranges, which a civilian would just about NEVER need.

I think my scope on 2.5X works better for that than a 4X acog does, although its a bit bigger.

I think most civilians, even for hunting, would be better served by having an actual rifle scope, and if you want to use the gun as a just in case gun to protect your house, just mount the scope with QD rings, and use iron sights if you ever need to use it indoors. You really think you'll have a problem aiming a rifle at 10 feet? If you practice, it should be almost instinctual.


If youre determined to go with one of these two choices, I'd recommend the acog, it will at least have some ranged precise capability.

An eotech, with a magnifier, is a horrible long range sollution. The smallest red dot is 1MOA across at 100 yards, thats not bad, but put the magnifier on and its 3MOA, then at 200 yards its 6MOA, at 400 its 12MOA. I can hit a 4" clay pigeon out to 300+ with my optic, yet its still pretty quick in close as well, since there are 3 thick bars on the top and side of the reticule that guide your eye onto the target pretty well. Not to mention that for an eotech to be really good at close range like its designed to be the dot should be more like 3MOA unmagnified, which because 9MOA @100 with the magnifier.



No offense to anyone, but I think a lot of people just decide that they want to use what the military uses, and thats cool, its good stuff, but I think there are better options, and MUCH better values than these two sights/systems, especially for civilians that wont be kicking in doors with a bunch of buddies behind them who also have guns.

[AKPogue]

I think his best option though is to find someone who has some optics and try them out. Shouldn't be too hard.

[bio-smear]

and as a MBR in an EOTWAWKI scenario.

Bob, what's that stand for? The only one I know is SHTF.

[BobMc]

No offense to anyone, but I think a lot of people just decide that they want to use what the military uses, and thats cool, its good stuff, but I think there are better options, and MUCH better values than these two sights/systems, especially for civilians that wont be kicking in doors with a bunch of buddies behind them who also have guns.

The reason I have narrowed it down to those two choices are indeed because the military uses it. I want something that is tough as nails. I want something that will continue to work as designed through any kind of abuse.

I'm hard on stuff, I've already destroyed a new boresighter by knocking over my rifle with it in the barrel. Those two optical devices were designed to take the abuse I'm likely to give it.

Bio, "Main battle rifle", "End of the world as we know it." The survivalist guys seem to have more acronyms than the auto manufacturers, heh.

[leroy jenkins]

The reason I have narrowed it down to those two choices are indeed because the military uses it. I want something that is tough as nails. I want something that will continue to work as designed through any kind of abuse.

I'm hard on stuff, I've already destroyed a new boresighter by knocking over my rifle with it in the barrel. Those two optical devices were designed to take the abuse I'm likely to give it.

Bio, "Main battle rifle", "End of the world as we know it." The survivalist guys seem to have more acronyms than the auto manufacturers, heh.

The Military uses LOTS of things. Why narrow it down to basically just what the grunts use? There are other scopes used by the military that may be better suited to civilian uses.

Nightforce if you got the bucks. Aimpoints acogs and eotechs will fall apart when mounted on 20mm rifles, nightforce will not, and the adjustments will stay exact and repeatable, or at least thats the rep they have, I have no personal experience with anything that powerful. I know acogs get used on machine guns a lot, so they're tough, but there are other tough scopes.

The SWFA Super Sniper scopes run about $400 for a fixed 10X that is actually used and abused by professionals, albeit not on anything that powerful I'd bet. They also make some that are 3-9X i think.

The military does not use IOR, but other militaries in the world do, and I think they make some of the best scopes for the money.

Military also uses plenty of Leupolds for DMR rifles, and some sniper rifles I think. I know they're on a bunch of m14s.

I'm sure there are other brands in service to look at too.

Theres a lot of politics and bureaucracy that goes into how the armed forces adopts gear, choosing it just cus the military does is silly, especially since your needs are probably different.

Even as a SHTF rifle, which you will probably never need, you'd probably be better off to model your rifle on a DMR or sniper type setup than a doorkicker's setup.

Look at these guys. These arent even true snipers either, i dont think, I think they're just DMRs (notice the vertical foreward grips).

[AKPogue]

I would stay away from Leupold. There scopes as of late have gone to shit. I know way too many people, including myself that have had problems with them.

[zion zig zag]

I like the eotechs and aimpoints, but that's just personal preference. I've only shot my AR outside of 50 yards once and the majority of what I shoot is inside of 30 yards. I do a lot of the two gun stuff where you're moving from cover to cover shooting moving targets and picking out which ones are the bad guys, then going to your pistol when you need to reload.

[Jer]

The reason I have narrowed it down to those two choices are indeed because the military uses it. I want something that is tough as nails. I want something that will continue to work as designed through any kind of abuse.

Iron sights. Nothing is tougher. If you're usually shooting < 300 yards and don't need brain stem accuracy, I'd go with iron. Personally (at least for these kind of rifles) I would break it down like this:

>300 yards - iron sights

200 - 800 yards - "tactical"-type variable power scope. Nothing stronger than 14x. Mils are nice even if you aren't using them for ranging. I hate ballistic reticules - none of them work. Why there are so many on the market is beyond me.

Farther - get a bolt rifle in a better long-range caliber.

ACOGs are cool too for the >300 yard stuff, but it's a steep price to pay for quicker aquisition and ease of use. But if you have the $$, why not?


You could always throw a 3-12x mil reticule scope on there with some Back-Up Iron Sights underneath. That way you could lose the scope if it fails or if you need to do some close-in zombie killin'. That's what I did with mine: Burris Xtreme Tactical 3-12x50/ DPMS magonal BUIS. Prices have gone up, but at the time I payed about $800 for the whole set-up. No problems yet and it's crawled through snow/rain/mud/zombie entrails/all kinds of shit.

[khakis]

price check on an OG (not walmart) stainless 10/22?
Has folding stock (prob butler creek) and bushnell scope

[TNKen]

Reminder of why Obama is a worthless POS

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ique-m-rifles/

The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."

Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.

"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."

But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.

"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."

M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.

"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.

"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."

He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."

Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.

According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.

Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.

"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."

Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."

Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.

The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.

In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.

A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.

"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."

Henigan disagrees.

"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.

The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.

[TNKen]

price check on an OG (not walmart) stainless 10/22?
Has folding stock (prob butler creek) and bushnell scope

Looks to be in the $250-300 range upper limit. Gun NIB looks to be $250 or so, Scope and rings can be purchased at Wally world for $50 or so. Stock doesn't add anything much.

You will find out a folding stock typically isn't very useful other than to look ATAS.

Ken

[waxman]

re: the gubermint not letting the M1(s) back in...
yep i see a lot of gangbangers doing drive bys with Garands in the future....
bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,ping!

[gh444]

...................stuff...........

I like this thread for the lack of politics, and the pics.



So lets say I want two guns for end of days kind of shit. Reasonable budget, NATO rounds (I guess), one handgun, one whatever else. I currently have a 12g Ithaca pump and an old 30/30. Suggestions? The more simple, the better.

[TNKen]

SHTF Zombi combos.

If you are thinking in terms of military conflict issues, think about availability of ammunition and mags. Therefore limited to .223 and 7.62x39. US caliber/Com. block caliber. Get an AR-15 and be able to use GI equipment; get an AK and use their stuff.

For practical purposes, get the AR-15. Tons of options for the days when zombies don't attack and pre-WWIII. .22 kits, 9mm uppers, long barreled accuracy uppers, etc. And, you have the ATAS options too. You can pick up an actual Colt 6920 right now for around $1,000, or knockoffs starting at $600. I have a full sized Armalite M-15 I'll hook you up with reasonably. Of course, assuming you are in a jurisdiction that allows this sort of stuff.

Handguns. Again, back to military. Beretta 92 or M9. 9mm used by our military.

And yeah, the Kenyan is still a POS.

Ken

[Caucasian Asian]

re: the gubermint not letting the M1(s) back in...
yep i see a lot of gangbangers doing drive bys with Garands in the future....
bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,ping!

Yes, it seems they can't tell the difference between an M1 Garand and an M1 Carbine.

on another note, I can't remember if I posted this

[leroy jenkins]

I would stay away from Leupold. There scopes as of late have gone to shit. I know way too many people, including myself that have had problems with them.

I'm curious which scopes these were? Did you use any in the service?

I've heard their higher end stuff can be counted on, but thats not good to hear.

[AKPogue]

I'm curious which scopes these were? Did you use any in the service?

I've heard their higher end stuff can be counted on, but thats not good to hear.

My personal scope which I bought was a mark 4 2.5x10 FFP with a TMR reticle and had to have it sent back for warranty. I have used them in the service and none of them broke that I used in the service but they were older models. It is the new stuff that is coming out that people have been having problems with. I will say this, the customer service was great. I do know guys that run tactical shooting courses and they say they are getting a really high failure rate for optics right out of the box. They all say the same that the customer service has been great getting them fixed, it just seems that Leupold just doesn't care about quality control anymore.

From my experience, what I have read online and heard from guys I will never buy from Leupold until they fix their quality control. With all the scopes out there these days, much better off buying from a company that cares about getting it right the first time rather than just fixing it afterwords. I know that no company can do everything right 100% of the time but Leupold is starting to get a bad reputation in the tactical shooting market.

[Jer]

re: the gubermint not letting the M1(s) back in...
yep i see a lot of gangbangers doing drive bys with Garands in the future....
bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,ping!

...with sore shoulders, nonetheless. Rapid fire 5.56 works, rapid fire 7.62x39 is ok, but rapid fire 7.62 NATO takes quite a bit of practice.

I would love the opportunity to get my hands on an M1, especially if the market got flooded by a huge surplus and the prices came down.

[Cono Este]

They are heavy beasts. I dont know how all those 5 foot wops and micks carried those things all over europe and the south pacific.

[LeeC]

I have Leupolds on everything from22-416 remingtonMag..Never had a problem. If I do, or anyone else. They have a lifetime warranty that is like no other..They fix, and send back.. No questions asked.. I won't leave em. Been shooting them for 30yrs or more, and I have sent one back..Received it back no charge. Great Company

[AKPogue]

I have Leupolds on everything from22-416 remingtonMag..Never had a problem. If I do, or anyone else. They have a lifetime warranty that is like no other..They fix, and send back.. No questions asked.. I won't leave em. Been shooting them for 30yrs or more, and I have sent one back..Received it back no charge. Great Company

Almost every company that makes high end scopes has a warranty like that. I for one expect some kind of quality control and it is becoming blatantly obvious that they have skimped on this as of late to save money. They are looking at short term gain over a huge long term hit in their reputation. There are a lot of companies out there now that produce scopes at their level that actually care about quality control.

[leroy jenkins]

My personal scope which I bought was a mark 4 2.5x10 FFP with a TMR reticle and had to have it sent back for warranty. I have used them in the service and none of them broke that I used in the service but they were older models. It is the new stuff that is coming out that people have been having problems with. I will say this, the customer service was great. I do know guys that run tactical shooting courses and they say they are getting a really high failure rate for optics right out of the box. They all say the same that the customer service has been great getting them fixed, it just seems that Leupold just doesn't care about quality control anymore.

From my experience, what I have read online and heard from guys I will never buy from Leupold until they fix their quality control. With all the scopes out there these days, much better off buying from a company that cares about getting it right the first time rather than just fixing it afterwords. I know that no company can do everything right 100% of the time but Leupold is starting to get a bad reputation in the tactical shooting market.

Thats shitty, but not that surprising. Sounds like sig's business model, hey we have a great reputation so lets cut corners and skimp on quality control, most of the idiots that buy our stuff won't ever know the difference, and its cheaper to just fix it for the handful of people that will actually complain rather than get it right the first time.

Thats especially shitty with scopes, since I dont have the time or money to spend on ammo to test that every adjustment in a new scope is repeatable and accurate. Thats something you just gotta trust if you buy a high dollar scope with a good rep.

I'll stay away from luepold now. Its sad though, theyve been around for forever.