I offered a fair price but it wasn’t accepted.

@cdholmes
I too offered way more than a fair price and was ignored....

No, Finnish

Those are some of our company optics, I work for a Finnish sound suppressor manufacturer.

Supply and demand, people. Supply and demand.

And they closed the ad...

Didnt sell, I asked. Said he got tired of $500 offers.

$500 is a fair price, even with supply and demand....
Hell it was only $169 new. X7 mark up is obsurd.

Heck, I even threw out a $600 offer after he actually responded declining my 1st $500 offer... oh well.  Thanks E, we're both making out...

And for that dude.

You need to update your sig line now....

Forgot about that. Looks like I can keep my left nut now.

It's funny how that "fair" thing works... I thought $1,200 was pretty fair.

Pretty obvious that the demand isnt there for $1,200. Since no one bought it or even offered close to that. However, they did offer a very large sum of money for that part.

To each their own on what they think something like that would go for.

I wonder if he got that one from EMC just to flip it and make some money. Dude registered in 2018 and has 11 posts...

That’s exactly it. And we won’t know what supply and demand is until it sells.

No one has to buy anything. Nor is anyone entitled to another’s property.

At $1200, I’d be thinking about a T1/T2 in a Wilcox mount. Better overall package, “clone correct”, same capability, and available all day.

Wasn't one from one of my lot unless one of the clone homies sold one.

Even $500 is crazy to me for a backup optic mount. When the mount is more expensive than the optic I have to do a double take.

I'd be willing to pay $500-600 but $1200 is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying the guy has to let it go for cheap but It's like trying to sell a WMX200 for $2000, at the same time that most of them sell for around $900-1000.

The last set of arms 22's were not overly cheap either.  I forget what it was but I was like wow.  I think it was close to 500.  Cloners be cloning.  

Although that's not even in the same league as this mount you guys are talking about.  Quadruple wow.

Let’s get back on track.



Unfortunately 8 months and 2 weeks in on the AEM5 and still pending...

Side note, Wilcox Mount is just high enough to zero the Docter on the front ring. You just have to pop elevation turret off.



That gap.

End of the world today in OK, got like 3mm of snow haha.

Did your dog mind the snow on his paws?  Or are you hunting Cujo?

Doesn't the white make everything look beautiful?

Nice rig.

Haha dog loves the snow.

First post on this thread. Just scored this for a great deal. Colt 14.5 with MRE and NT4
Looking forward to posting complete rifle in a months time!

Attached File

Nice matech too.  And upper.  Seems like a scope  wouldn't clear that sucker.  I guess I never noticed if they do or not.  LOL.  Ooops.

As cool as the tip looks, itll be a cooler whener my aem5 is approved... 241 days and counting.

Make sure you strip the paint on the collar and brake when you do. I made a gooey mess with mine.

Noted. Thanks for letting me know, didn't even think about that.

Dumb question, but what Nightforce rings do I need to mount the Leupold? Doing the "poor mans" Recce / Recced M4A1

1.375 Ultralights.

I don't think they are. I think I know what they actually are, but I had to make sure I ordered a set before the cat gets out of the bag, because they're also related to the MSG Horrigan MRE Recce. IF someone is HARDCORE going for a Brenner, with the 3-9x40 PR Leupold and everything, maybe I will spill the beans. I just want to make sure the little company that made the rings doesn't decide to discontinue them, and have there be only 3 sets left, but I'm sure they can be found second hand.

I'm just wanting to point out the base of the rings where the cross-bolt comes through. Notice how they protrude quite a bit, while the sides of NF rings are pretty much flush with the base, and NF rings seem to have an inwards curve to them, these seem to be flat/angled.

On a similar note, Hunterex and I have gone through a metric shit-ton of photos of new and old Leupolds, Bushnells, Burris, Redfields, Tascos, Weavers, Hakko, Nikon, and any other brand we know of that may have offered a quality American or Japanese glass scope from the early 2000s or earlier, that has the same dimensions, magnification ring and lock ring as a 2.5-8/3-9 Leupold commercial scope (Not TS30, MR/T, etc), and yet has taller turret caps or knobs. Checked through whatever S&Bs I could find, old Hensoldts, Kahles, Zeiss, and any other old German scopes as well. There were a few here and there that checked off 1 or 2 boxes, but not all of them. Obviously the 3-9x40 PR turrets are WAY too tall, but M3s and M2s are also not the right shape and you can't see any markings in the pics.

Still nothing 100% proven.

My only thought now is that this is a custom shop scope, but I can't prove it. So I'm going to save some $$ and buy the closest Leupold I can and have done what I think he did based off a few theories, and run with that until I can prove otherwise. Hoping to have the first close Horrigan clone if I can here.

One way or another, I'm building this thing. It will have a 16" SOCOM barrel with my AEM5 in the meantime, eventually I'll pick up a 14.5" SOCOM and get this lower SBR'd or do a pin & weld. I have an NT4 flash hider I can throw on there for a few pics. I'll need to convert my GG from a Lonestar to an A2 and do the button mods, though I do not even have a PEQ-2 so that can wait. I'll need a Masen butt pad as well, and throw my other Lonestar on the rifle.

This is an M4 barreled RECCE. Without a doubt those are 1.375 Ultralights.



The picture he posted looks to be a 17” Lilja build with medium ras. The rings on that rig are def not NF.

Yeah, I was referring to Brenner350s Recce with the 3-9x40 PR, the pic he posted. Almost certain they aren't NF rings.

Yea that Lilja barreled rig definitely doesn’t have NF rings

They kind of look like Barrett rings.



But other photos of the same rig make it look like NF rings.

I don't see the window cutouts in the caps like the Barret rings had.

I'm pretty sure they are MFI rings.

It dawned on me as well that they could have easily picked up the phone and called leupold and ordered what they wanted.  Which is why we don't really know exactly what it is.

Because you can send your scope in and have them do all kinds of things to it.  I might have to with my 2x7 because I busted the glass on the eye piece.  I could also have them throw in a different reticle while I'm at it if I do.  Either that or I just buy a new scope.  It wasn't horribly expensive to begin with.  But I like the size and magnifcation of it.  It's jut not terribly clone correct.   I've always wanted a 1-4 to look more clone ish.  Plus I think I'd like the 1x.

Thoughts on whether this scope has a 1" tube or a 30mm tube?

To me it's really hard to tell.  I mean we're talking 4mm difference.  2 on either side,  eh?  I would say it's a 30mm though...  just a guess.

If it's a Leupold 3-9x40 PR, they're listed as a 1" tube. There may have been an older 3-9 with those tall precision turrets though, but that would have been a 1" tube as well.

Looks a lot like a Vari-x III Tactical. Attached File

Thanks for all the input...

I was always under the impression it was the 3.5-10x40 Leupold.... I found a cheap SFP version for like $500 and figured I was good...

Yes it does.   Now can you figure out the other guys?   Now I forget his name.  Is that Horrigan?

I got me a CTR stock and like it.  But my Navy Recce is not clone worthy with the scope and mount I have right now.....

The biggest thing I like about the CTR is it gives your hand a place to rest the stock on when you're shooting for groups.  Whereas all the other ones if you wrap your left hand underneath there to steady you're likely to engage the adjustment lever.  I think the sopmod gives a nice big spot to put your hand but the adjustment is still kind of easy to hit in that regard....

His looks a bit long to be a 3.5-10 though, although it does seem to have the throw nub on the power ring.

There was a Vari-X II Tactical 3-9x40 prior to the Mk4 3-9x40 PR.

Vari-X II 3-9s:



This is listed as a 3-9x40 Tactical, but looks a bit longer than Brenner's:


Here's the 3.5-10's rough relationship with rings/dimensions:



But this one looks shorter:


And here's the 3-9x40 PR, would have been super new in 2003 when some of brenner's pics were according to him. Many Leupold products were in Mil hands before they hit the catalog:


And, here's a cache of the 2001 Leupold website with the older Vari-X Tactical scopes:
2001 Leupold Tactical lineup

Here's what should be the 2004 site with the 3-9x40 PR. The 2004 Tactical Catalog does show it however, and I think the one pictured is the 3-9, these links here still seem to work:

2004 Leup PR Tactical scopes

I'll let y'all decide.

My head is spinning.....

They all look pretty much the same to me.  LOL.

Welcome to the difference between Close Enough and True Clone Autism.

Close enough isn't good enough for a Horrigan clone, he was too badass to leave it there. I want the right optic, rings, etc. We'll get to the barrel and suppressor when the time is right.

It does indeed... I have one in 4.5-14 mildot, great optic for the time...

lancecriminal86, thanks for the info dump!

I still have the scope that I posted a picture of, a 3.5-10X40 Tactical that I bought in that 2001-2003 time frame. I could have bought one of those Vari-X II Tactical 3-9x40s at the same time, but passed in favor the better glass of the Vari-X IIIs.

I hear you and don't disagree.   I'm usually into the details.   But for some reasons the differences in these are going over my head.  

From the reading I’ve done it seems that the Mark4 3-9 PR is just a relabeled Vari-XII Tactical and the Mark4 3.5-10 PR is just a relabeled Vari-XIII tactical. I may be wrong though...

The Var-X III LR family are what became the Mk4 family, so that is correct. Around the early 2000s is where a few items started having those names changed.

The 3-9 and 3.5-10 types should have a very fairly different OAL, so that relationship between the ring width and the objective bell should easily sort out which it is. The other thought would be if it's a 4.5-14 or not.

Need to measure a mounted 3-9 and a 3.5-10, reference how far in front of the receiver and behind the rear it goes.

I'm against it being a Vari-X II / PR. Seems to have a Vari-x III / VXIII magnification ring length.

I need to spend more time in this thread. Lots of great info in here.

so sawmans SPR rig had the same rings. and i was able to source them. and OF COURSEEEEEEEE they are the most pricey damn ones....from that company.

enjoy, everyone!

KAC