How much of a market is there for this.

[yobuck]

lol...I'm thinking not.

Well they would first need to jack the price way up in order to cover
the cost of doing (business) with the government.
But those who live by government contracts can also starve without them.
Tasco is no doubt smart enough to know who and what Tasco is and is willing to live within those confines, known as a nitch.
Most of their followers know it also and do likewise.

[earl39]

Darkker do the math again. 1mil is 3.6 inches@ 100 yards. 1 moa is 1.047 inches@ 100 yards. Math works out correctly. Other than that i will stick to my Sightron scopes much like you plan to stay with your PA scopes.

[scope eye]

Are you in the market for one of those dean? You get what you pay for but that's a nice chunk of change.

No I am not I just brought it up because, I had to do a double take on the price. I would go with 3 NightForce Bench rest 12-42X56 or 4 Sightron 10-50X60 with my $4000.00 +

Dean

[foxx]

I don't know, but I bet it would look pretty good sitting on top of my $475 Hog Hunter, custom-bedded-with-JB Weld-Tacticool stock and EGW base!

[darkker]

I have one question.
Where were you while the 4 wheeler was rolling down the hill?

I was standing at the top of the hill, watching my rifle, friend, and 4-wheeler all tumble to the bottom. No one lost any fingers, so it's all fun and games; still wish he hadn't done that, but wasn't a purposeful deal.


Tasco's for the military? Seriously? God help us.
Super Snipers, which had a Naval contract, were Tasco originally.
Gotta love Least-Cost bidding

[darkker]

Darkker do the math again. 1mil is 3.6 inches@ 100 yards. 1 moa is 1.047 inches@ 100 yards. Math works out correctly. Other than that i will stick to my Sightron scopes much like you plan to stay with your PA scopes.


That does get tossed out frequently. I'm not quite as "up" on geometry as I should be, I admit. But what seems to be the more technically correct, non-rounded number is more like:
1 Mil = 3.438 MOA

[earl39]

Depends upon which mil formula you use as there are 2.

[yobuck]

I don't know, but I bet it would look pretty good sitting on top of my $475 Hog Hunter, custom-bedded-with-JB Weld-Tacticool stock and EGW base!

The best $1000 saddle on a $10 horse one could ever dream of. lol

[darkker]

^^ +1!!

[LoneWolf]

[QUOTE=darkker;351081]


Super Snipers, which had a Naval contract, were Tasco originally.
Gotta love Least-Cost bidding[/QUOTE

This contract was only for units for the tests. Which the scopes did well in testing, but didn't offer everything the Military wanted.
It did however boost their sales by using it as a pitch.

I started with the SWFA 12x42, upgraded to a Gen 1 Vortex Razor, then finally to the Gen 2 4.5-27x56. Each upgrade has offered more consistency and easier shooting. Afterall the first step to shooting is seeing the target. I do believe, however that after the $2K mark in the optics world you are seeing diminishing returns for the cost.

A PA will never compare to high end Vortex, NF, Kahles, etc when it comes down to what you see when you look through them side by side.

Not saying you can't get it done with a PA, but the higher end scopes make it a lot easier, especially when you have to find targets quickly. If I didn't compete or understand all the benefits of the higher end scopes in the way I shoot I would have stuck where I started.

[yobuck]

[QUOTE=darkker;351081]


Super Snipers, which had a Naval contract, were Tasco originally.
Gotta love Least-Cost bidding[/QUOTE

This contract was only for units for the tests. Which the scopes did well in testing, but didn't offer everything the Military wanted.
It did however boost their sales by using it as a pitch.

I started with the SWFA 12x42, upgraded to a Gen 1 Vortex Razor, then finally to the Gen 2 4.5-27x56. Each upgrade has offered more consistency and easier shooting. Afterall the first step to shooting is seeing the target. I do believe, however that after the $2K mark in the optics world you are seeing diminishing returns for the cost.

A PA will never compare to high end Vortex, NF, Kahles, etc when it comes down to what you see when you look through them side by side.

Not saying you can't get it done with a PA, but the higher end scopes make it a lot easier, especially when you have to find targets quickly. If I didn't compete or understand all the benefits of the higher end scopes in the way I shoot I would have stuck where I started.

If you werent competing in the type of matches you are, would your opinion remain the same?
Say you were simply a 1000 yd target shooter, would your requirments be the same?

[LoneWolf]

Seeing better will always aide the shooter. I have a better understanding of what's going on down range in order to adjust. I wouldn't need all the bells and whistles, but I'd still want the super clear glass.

[LoneWolf]

I'll also note that my natural vision is still 20/15, so it has nothing to do with me having poor vision. Seeing better simply makes shooting easier.

[darkker]

I won't argue your point about about the high end lines.
But for those who have some money to spend and get the most they can, they do compete amazingly well.
Another board member and I did just this.
He spent the $750-ish for the current SWFA 3-15, and I bought the PA.

We met up, and had some others with us, just to try and keep things unbiased. If you just look through them, you may say the SWFA is "brighter". But as we settled in to shoot targets beyond 1200, ALL target recognition disappears in the SWFA on the small target. The large one was a 55-gal from lid. Had you not known what it was, you would have not picked it up.

So again, let's look at this practically. A $229 scope can happily compete against well known lines around the $600 mark. It has almost all the same features, not glass, features; that people say those $2000+ scopes have.

THAT disparity in price is no where near reasonable, for the average Joe. Certainly to some, they can extract the value, or have enough money that it doesn't matter. For the rest of the shooters who don't have that kind of money to throw around; believing the hype can be costly.

[LoneWolf]

I don't disagree and if classing by price range I pretty much look at it like this:

Low $200-$800
Medium $900-$1500
High end Med to low end high $1600-$2200
High $2300+

Basically everything priced in the High range only has minute differences in operation/features or is a fraction of a percentage better than many of the scopes in the low-high price range.

I put the Vortex Gen II Razor in the Low end of the high Range, but I believe you get the most bang for your buck from the Vortex. Not to mention with their warranty it's a lifetime investment!

I'd say the Bushnell's rule the medium range and from what I've seen PA and SWFA fight it out in the low range. All the ultra low end scopes aren't worth the time spent earning my paycheck that I would spend on them.

[sixonetonoffun]

Ouch I wouldn't put my $79 prostaff up against a 299$ vx-ii. Though it has more travel then the leo.

So I would have to move the low end divide a bit. But I wouldn't hesitate on a shot at a deer out to 500yds. Paper wouldn't be as forgiving but I don't eat much paper these days :-)

I do have to get a pa just to see what it brings to the table.

[yobuck]

Well what always makes me think about all this is looking back to not all that long ago, and what was used and the results produced.
The heavy gun 1000 yd record was untill (about) 5 years ago held by the same person for about 14 years. (14 years)
The shooter had built his own gun on a Rem 721 action. The scope was a 24 power Leupold with a 1" tube.
Countless rounds by countless shooters with better guns with better scopes (including Nightforce), were shooting at that record for all those years.
All that considered, how much credence should average Joe shooter, even average Joe match shooter, apply to the scope arguments?

[LoneWolf]

Well what always makes me think about all this is looking back to not all that long ago, and what was used and the results produced.
The heavy gun 1000 yd record was untill (about) 5 years ago held by the same person for about 14 years. (14 years)
The shooter had built his own gun on a Rem 721 action. The scope was a 24 power Leupold with a 1" tube.
Countless rounds by countless shooters with better guns with better scopes (including Nightforce), were shooting at that record for all those years.
All that considered, how much credence should average Joe shooter, even average Joe match shooter, apply to the scope arguments?

I here you yobuck. It's a lot of personal preference. When I first started I came along with a Savage Axis that I rebuilt total with scope included chambered in 308. I'd still beat a lot of guys shooting 300WM's and 6.5's in the long range steel matches with that set up. What I've found is that as you improve the gear sometimes that shooter gets lazy because the gear runs so well. So if the fundamentals aren't applied as thoroughly then the assistance from the better gear doesn't help much. I've had days where I run with the pro level shooters no problem, days where I beat them, and days where I get slaughtered. It's very hard to stay in the correct mindset to shoot consistently every time you get on the gun. I've found my best matches are ones where I can stay calm, cool, and focused without stressing about the task. You start doing the fundamentals subconsciously.

Basically if you overthink your shot, you'll probably miss. Takes a lot of conditioning to shoot all day matches with large round counts!

[yobuck]

So im gathering from what (your) saying, that an awfull lot has to do with mind over matter.
And of coarse we could go on to say if you dont mind it dont matter lol.
Im not totaly in the camp that it dosent matter, but i do believe we can do very well by not having the so called best.
I also dont think the gains made in the results weve seen in the last 30 years are in any way proportional to the cost in both time and dollars getting there.

[sixonetonoffun]

I do envy that mausingfield though :-)