Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Page / 15
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 4:39:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Thanks Ed; got the voicemail this morning.

PD is in at #332
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 10:41:47 PM EDT
[#2]
I must be missing something, but I can not find Ed's e-mail address on grsc website.  I would like to place an order for one of these scopes and would prefer to do it via an e-mail.

Thanks.
ILya
Link Posted: 4/6/2007 11:08:59 PM EDT
[#3]
koshkin,

Go to one of Ed's post on this thread and click on "email user". Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 7:04:04 AM EDT
[#4]
ED...email sent....Put me on the list!  Ed, Thanks...I am #340
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 12:26:30 PM EDT
[#5]
#334. Can't wait.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 1:12:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Thank You.
Link Posted: 4/7/2007 8:42:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Just talked to Ed.

I am #341.

As a sidenote, having some familiarity with Chinese scopes, and having just talked to Ed about it, I am pretty confident that this will be pretty much the best that you can currently get in China.  Scopes from the same chinese factory that I have seen have decent glass and are pretty sturdy.

I have to compliment Ed on his choice of a factory.  This is going to be an awesome scope for the money.

ILya
Link Posted: 4/8/2007 9:57:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Email sent.
Link Posted: 4/9/2007 2:41:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Link Posted: 4/9/2007 4:23:15 PM EDT
[#10]
PM sent...
Link Posted: 4/10/2007 7:03:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Email sent.
Link Posted: 4/10/2007 11:35:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 4/12/2007 9:37:30 AM EDT
[#13]
BTT.
Link Posted: 4/12/2007 1:14:52 PM EDT
[#14]
just talked to ed-he mentioned the scopes might ship on 5/15, but re-iterated there's nothing firm on that yet.  seeing is believing, were his words.  sounded like a great guy and was very helpful with any questions.  

so maybe i'll have it in time to work on it for the MG nats in tulsa.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 3:52:03 PM EDT
[#15]
BTT. Im #348.
Link Posted: 4/13/2007 11:01:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Link Posted: 4/14/2007 6:19:52 AM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does the illumination work in bright daylight?


Not bright enough.  

Only scopes that has bright enough reticle is S&B short dot and Spectre DR. both are well over 1500.00 each.



Incorrect.  Meopta K-Dot is damn bright, and works just fine daylight, comparable to the dot on the aimpoint.


It its Half of $1500
Link Posted: 4/14/2007 6:23:14 AM EDT
[#18]
sent you an email, with email and phone
Link Posted: 4/17/2007 11:14:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Well,  I'm in!  FWIW,  Once I get it in my hands, it will be competing against a Meopta K-Dot for the real estate on top of my competition gun.  

Competition won't require the toughness this scope was built for, but it will likely hinge on:
True 1X
Speed (some illumination, some reticle features will provide this)
Glass quality
Ranging capabilities
Rugged (only to an extent)

I won't care too much about submersability, battery life or a host of other combat considerations.

Ed,  Hope it all works out for the scope.  Given the miserable track record between Mueller and China,  I'm cautiously optimistic.  But there's more caution than optimism in that mix  
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 1:05:47 AM EDT
[#20]
If only you could have contracted this optic with Meopta instead of China.
We could have the perfect sub $1000 optic.

This scope plus Schott glass and daytime illumination would rock.  It would crush the demand for Leupold MR/T 1.5-5, CQT, Meopta K-Dot, Horus, and Nightforce scopes all at once and even pull half the S&B crowd too.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:09:16 AM EDT
[#21]
I don't think the market being targeted is the sub $1000. More like sub-$500. The price being where it's at is the only way I (and MANY others) can even begin to look at a 1-n variable scope.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 5:15:49 AM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
The price being where it's at is the only way I (and MANY others) can even begin to look at a 1-n variable scope.


+1. There are interesting alternatives from Burris and Millett coming down the pike near this price point, as well. It's nice to see mfrs acknowledge that not everybody has $1500+ or even $700 to dump on this class of optic.





Link Posted: 4/18/2007 8:39:26 AM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:
If only you could have contracted this optic with Meopta instead of China.
We could have the perfect sub $1000 optic.

This scope plus Schott glass and daytime illumination would rock.  It would crush the demand for Leupold MR/T 1.5-5, CQT, Meopta K-Dot, Horus, and Nightforce scopes all at once and even pull half the S&B crowd too.


Not necessarily. A lot of people want non-caliber specific optics, know exactly what they want in an optic, and some of the others fit the bill better than this optic for that purpose. At $350 (or less for Mil/LE) it's hard to knock what you are getting with this optic. At $700+ you have the right to be a lot more demanding. I really think people need to get out of the mindset of the "perfect optic" because there is no such thing and there will never be a such thing. There is only an optic that is best suited for a particular purpose to a specific person. That's the great thing about the AR platform is choice to pick and swap what works for you in a particular situation and what doesn't. If there was a hypothethical "perfect optic" I'm sure it would be close to or more than S&B prices. There will always be a compromise somewhere whether it's price, reticle choice, the amount of magnification, weight, FOV, type of mounting system, or any of the other factors.
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:13:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 4/18/2007 9:57:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 4:23:30 PM EDT
[#26]
I was gonna ask......... are these etched glass reticles?

Link Posted: 4/19/2007 4:35:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Link Posted: 4/23/2007 9:52:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Another question............

FOV?

I see the 1X photo at 100yards and looks fairly wide, but I'd like to know the numbers.

Thanks
Link Posted: 4/24/2007 5:55:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Link Posted: 4/24/2007 7:06:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Ed,

Sent ya an email to get on the list.  Thanks (I'm the guy w/ the wiu.edu address )
Link Posted: 4/25/2007 8:47:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Just got the call from Ed!

#380

Should be around the first part of June!

I'm going w/ a Larue SPR-E mount on mine.

Can't wait!!!

Thanks Ed!

-Pat
Link Posted: 4/25/2007 1:27:41 PM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If only you could have contracted this optic with Meopta instead of China.
We could have the perfect sub $1000 optic.

This scope plus Schott glass and daytime illumination would rock.  It would crush the demand for Leupold MR/T 1.5-5, CQT, Meopta K-Dot, Horus, and Nightforce scopes all at once and even pull half the S&B crowd too.


  I did meet with reps from Meopta at the shot show 2/3 years ago but they were not interested in doing a ffp scope with this type of reticle. If I remember correctly, at that time thier illumination was not as bright as it is now. Iwould love to see this reticle in thier scope. I talked with a employee from Trijicon last night about the possibility of having the M4-62 reticle put in the TR21. Can only hope for now.


While I love your reticle I have to wonder how beneficial the FFP is in a scope of this magnification.  Out to about 125 yards the 1X setting is good enough even if it is set up for 100 yard zero at 4X to get good hits.  

If the scope was designed around a 50/200 yard zero at 4X and had a dot above the centerline zero for the 100 yard range and the 300-600 marks below the reticle you could easily use the optic at 1X-4X out to 200 yards with no problems.  I cant imagine using the scope at any magnification other than 4X for shots over 200 yards.  I know you give up being able to use 2X or 3X at 300+ yards but who would actually use the scope in that fashion?  The benefit is the MUCH better usability of the scope at 1X as the reticle is full sized.  While your reticle design is IMO perfect for 4X the ability to use the scope unilluminated is hindered as it shrinks so small at 1X.  While I completely understad the reasoning behind a FFP reticle in higher powered scopes, it seems to make less sense in a 1-4X.

If you ever do talk to Meopta again I think this reticle design in a scope FFP or not, it would cause me to immediately sell my Meopta and buy your version.  The reticle is Meopta's weak point IMO (and that long sunshade that blocks access to my top rail). Also consider people who buy scopes in that price range and actually shoot over 200 yards will usually be shooting better ammo.  A reticle designed around the 77 grain MK 262 or 75 grain Hornady TAP from a 14.5" barrel would appeal to a great many.  The BC is close enough either ammo could be used and match up while the guys with 16" barrels could use .223 pressure ammo and people using the match style 13.7 and 12.5" barrels would also have enough velocity to make the reticle usable.

I completly understand why you would want the 62 grain reticle in this price bracket and for a first optic.  I hope your product catches on and you continue to expand your product line.  It is nice to see someone with good ideas bring products to market like this.
Link Posted: 4/25/2007 1:36:12 PM EDT
[#33]
DevL you described exactly the reason why I opted against the Meopta.  The reticle...I'm not a fan of and 4" or whatever sunshade is a bit much
Link Posted: 4/25/2007 5:38:26 PM EDT
[#34]
#381

I've been looking at getting a 1-4X CQB style scope for a while, but the price and reticle design of most designs leave a lot to be desired.  I have a feeling that I will be very pleased with this one.  All the design features of the reticle seem quite intuitive.

I talked with Ed for a while about the design.  He was very informative and a pleasure to talk with.  He told me that each scope will go through testing to make sure that they will hold up to rifle recoil.  (Some sort of vibration rig.)  Also, I asked about the illumination knob, and it's supposed to have positive clicks for each brightness setting. In-between clicks will turn the illumination off. (Which is pretty cool)  Production versions are supposed to have a wider range of illumination then the prototypes.  (Less illumination at the low end and brighter illumination at the high end.)

I'm definitely looking forward to getting my hands on this optic.
Link Posted: 4/25/2007 6:27:20 PM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:
#381

I've been looking at getting a 1-4X CQB style scope for a while, but the price and reticle design of most designs leave a lot to be desired.  I have a feeling that I will be very pleased with this one.  All the design features of the reticle seem quite intuitive.

I talked with Ed for a while about the design.  He was very informative and a pleasure to talk with.  He told me that each scope will go through testing to make sure that they will hold up to rifle recoil.  (Some sort of vibration rig.)  Also, I asked about the illumination knob, and it's supposed to have positive clicks for each brightness setting. In-between clicks will turn the illumination off. (Which is pretty cool)  Production versions are supposed to have a wider range of illumination then the prototypes.  (Less illumination at the low end and brighter illumination at the high end.)

I'm definitely looking forward to getting my hands on this optic.



Yep it was a pleasure to talk to Ed on my end also.  So will this possibly be NV compatible?

Link Posted: 4/25/2007 10:40:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Sent my request to be put on the list.. :)
Link Posted: 4/26/2007 8:14:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Link Posted: 4/26/2007 9:45:39 AM EDT
[#38]
Ed,

Thanks for calling me and explaining the NV situation.

Okay guys I'll somewhat sum up what Ed told me.

B/C the Optic is an extended eye relief optic it is hard to mount an NOD/NV optic behind the GRSC optic.  

Now a PVS-14 or the civy ITT version will work behind it or if you have the money you can mount a PVS-22 system in front of it w/out using the illumination being that you would still be able to see the reticle.  The problem w/ using illumination behind a PVS-22 type setup is you begin to get the blooming effect which will pretty much render that setup useless so it's a must to use it w/out illumination on the optic.  

You would most likely need a monolithic rail setup to get a NV device to piggyback or sit behind the GRSC setup.  Also Ed told me he had heard of guys using head mounted NV devices and saying they work.

Guys Ed is a really nice guy and I can't wait to get my optic.  I have no intentions of using NV on my optic but when I posed the question earlier Ed took time out of his (I'm sure) busy schedule to call me and talk to me for about 10-15 minutes explaining the whole deal.  I recommend you call him or let him have your number if you have questions.  

Thanks again Ed.

Ed if I got any of that info wrong please correct it or call me and tell me to take it down but I'm just trying to help some of the guys become aware of the NV deal and also show that my question above didn't go unanswered.

Link Posted: 4/26/2007 1:38:41 PM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:
Tag because this looks like a scope that won't cost more than my rifle and will do what I want it to.

x156




Exactly, faster aquisition than an ACOG, true CQB usable reticule, and at a price that is very user friendly. Ed it was good talking to you today, I know I spoke to you for about an hour which I'm thankful that you took your time to answer my questions. I hope all of us who are on the list enjoy the scope as much as we believe it will be.


One of the interesting things Ed told me about was the has marks on the sides of the distance reticules, for each hash then space then hash again= 10". So for 400 meters you have 40" of windage and for 500 meters you have 50" windage at those distances without having to adjust your scope.

Another thing Ed told me about was the stress simulation test prior to delivery, basically they attach the scope on a machine which shakes the scope back and forth 500 times with the same G-Forces equivalent to a .50BMG. If the scope reticule is moved on the grid after the G-Force stress test, then the optic will not be sold. Very well thought out design to say the least and it sounds like they are producing it right.

#391


C77
Link Posted: 4/26/2007 3:51:41 PM EDT
[#40]
#390, here.
Link Posted: 4/27/2007 8:20:35 AM EDT
[#41]
I know that the reticle was designed for a 62 gr bullet but how far off will I be if I use a 55 gr bullet? What about going from a 1x7 barrel to a 1x9? Will there be much difference or will this only work with my 1x7 guns and M855? Thanks.
Link Posted: 4/27/2007 11:00:25 AM EDT
[#42]
#392 here...

going in a LaRue SPR mount on top of an 18" rifle
Link Posted: 4/27/2007 11:18:18 AM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:
I know that the reticle was designed for a 62 gr bullet but how far off will I be if I use a 55 gr bullet? What about going from a 1x7 barrel to a 1x9? Will there be much difference or will this only work with my 1x7 guns and M855? Thanks.


Twist will have no effect.  The differences in the BDC can be seen in the tacked thread on ACOGs at the top of the optics section.


For a Flattop 16" firing M193:
Sight in at 100 per your manual. You'll be a half-inch high at 300, dead on at all other ranges until 500. At 500, the M193 starts losing juice fast on this trajectory, you'll be 2" low at 500 and 9" low by 600.

For a Flattop 14.5" firing M193:
Sight in at 100 per your manual. You'll be a half inch low at 300, 3" low at 400, 9" low at 500 and 15" low by 550. Once again, the 55gr loses gas fast past 300, so there isn't much you can do here without making your near zero absurdly high.


You did not specify barrel length and height above bore will be very slightly different but this should gove you an idea.
Link Posted: 4/27/2007 3:44:33 PM EDT
[#44]
email sent #393 please :)
Link Posted: 4/28/2007 9:54:22 AM EDT
[#45]
If you notice on the reticule it has aiming points inbetween the various set distances. This is your hold over/under for longer barrel lengths or various bullet weights.


C77
Link Posted: 4/29/2007 2:12:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Since I'm on the list for one of these optics, I've got one question that has come up.

What mount should I get?  

I see that SMGLee has an SPR-E mount, but that looks like it puts it a little too far out for my tastes.  I was going to get a Larue SPR mount, but I wasn't sure if I should get the "E" or should I get an "M4" or the "S"?  Personally, I like my optics to be quite low and I run my stocks a little longer so my nose is about 1/2" from the charging handle.
Link Posted: 4/29/2007 2:39:37 PM EDT
[#47]
You need the Larue SPR-E mount.

Reason being is this is an extended eye relief optic.  Hence the "E" in the SPR-E for Extended.

The other mounts wont work unless you have a true monolithic rail in which you could get a regular mount and move it more fwd having part of the mount on the handguard section and the rear of the mount on the receiver.
Link Posted: 4/30/2007 2:05:57 AM EDT
[#48]
@GRSC: Ed, do you export to Germany? If you do, what would be the approximate shipping costs? Payment via Paypal or Mastercard would be possible.

TIA, greetings from Old Europe, Jake C.
Link Posted: 4/30/2007 2:56:09 AM EDT
[#49]

Quoted:
Since I'm on the list for one of these optics, I've got one question that has come up.

What mount should I get?  

I see that SMGLee has an SPR-E mount, but that looks like it puts it a little too far out for my tastes.  I was going to get a Larue SPR mount, but I wasn't sure if I should get the "E" or should I get an "M4" or the "S"?  Personally, I like my optics to be quite low and I run my stocks a little longer so my nose is about 1/2" from the charging handle.


The eye relief is listed at 3.0"-3.5"  my Meopta is listed at 3.1" and I use the SPR-S to get the scope low and I also sit .5" off the charging handle.  So either the SPR-S will be fine or it will be .4" to close if mounted the same way. My Meopta cannot run the turret housing against the ring as the rear of the scope tapers up too large.  This scope does not have that problem so you gain a few mm of forward placement.  SPR-S will be tight but it should work out to putting you somewhere between .4" and .8" behind the NTCH hold.  Keep in mind everyone has a different nose length.
Link Posted: 4/30/2007 10:44:24 AM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:
The eye relief is listed at 3.0"-3.5"  my Meopta is listed at 3.1" and I use the SPR-S to get the scope low and I also sit .5" off the charging handle.  So either the SPR-S will be fine or it will be .4" to close if mounted the same way. My Meopta cannot run the turret housing against the ring as the rear of the scope tapers up too large.  This scope does not have that problem so you gain a few mm of forward placement.  SPR-S will be tight but it should work out to putting you somewhere between .4" and .8" behind the NTCH hold.  Keep in mind everyone has a different nose length.


Hmmm... That's what is so hard about choosing the mount for this type of optic.  I wouldn't want to drop the coin on such an expensive mount and have it not fit me.  Too high of an optic really bugs me...  With your Meopta using the SPR-S, do you have any major difficulty with it interfering with the charging handle?  Do you have any BUIS?

I might just have to wait for the optic to come out, then throw it into a 30mm ring just to get a feel for placement.  And then buy the SPR mount...
Page / 15
Page AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Top Top