want2race Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I was considering a 'blem', $170 shipped. Figured it was worth trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 A "blemed" what exactly? Millet? Or Meopta? Merlin Orr wrote: Yes...unless it breaks in the middle of a match (which seems to be about right for me - Murphy's Law # 24). Dependability is as much a factor as about anything - maybe more of a factor than anything else..... And then their customer service/warranty(repair?) will quickly be the next important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazos Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 I have a Millet DMS-1 with over 1000 rounds fired from under it with no issues. In fact, I have another that I bought for my 6.8 that I take to matches as a back-up. Anything can break, I suppose...but for less than one of the Meopta's (40% less) I have two DMS-1's. YMMV. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmccrock Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 There is a bit of discussion (27 pages, at the moment) on Arfcom regarding the Millett DMS-1 Seems like the quality is spotty but if you get a good one they are much liked. And Millett's service seems good for the ones with problems. That is, if they have any stock to do warranty exchanges. My approach was to go cheap: Simmons Pro Diamond until I outgrew it then (in my case) IOR, which has not quite made it onto the rifle yet (dangit). Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircooled6racer Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Hello: Those of you that have the Simmons 1.5-5 diamond and the Weaver V3 1-3 power scope which do you like better? I have the Simmons already but was just wondering about the Weaver. I know Merlin is going to say Meopta but I am not ready to do that. Please let me know. Thanks, Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 A lot of difference in the two scopes you list. The 5 power will be a huge help at long ranges over the 3 power. IMO The true 1 power is definitly faster at close ranges than a 1.5. You can shoot with both eyes open with a true 1 power much easier than a 1.5... But....! Meopta. OR maybe.....Swarovski Z6 1-6x24 - the new object of my lust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I'd like a Swarovski too, but I believe the topic here is frugal scopes. Not scopes you need to get a second mortgage to purchase! I don't have the Simmons, just 4 of the Weaver 1-3s. What I've seen of Simmons products is a lack of quality control. I bought a Simmons rangefinder a year or so ago that I sent back. It just just wouldn't work. Then I bought a Nikon for very little more money that works perfectly. But I can vouch for the Weavers. VERY good little scope for the money. Yes, a little lacking on the high end, but the 3x is still adequate for most shots I've seen, if not ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe D Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I kind of like the Bushnell 1x4 with the circle plex. It is a true 1x. Best cheap scope I have found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tattoo Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Hey thanks for all the advise. Is the weaver better, other than cheaper, than a 1-4 VX-II Leupold? I can get the Leupold for "free" w/ Cabelas bucks, but they do not carry the 1-3 Weaver. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry White Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I have a weaver and like it a lot, I havent used the leupold so I cant tell you the weaver is better or even as good but free is worth a bunch.----------Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I've been told the Leupold is not a true 1X on the low end. But I have no experience with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 The Leupold 1x4 is not a true 1X. The Leupold CQT is though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tattoo Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 The Leupold 1x4 is not a true 1X. The Leupold CQT is though Thay sucks, true 1x is a must, I think. Are you positive? T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The Leupold 1x4 is not a true 1X. The Leupold CQT is though Thay sucks, true 1x is a must, I think. Are you positive? T Yup I have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The Leupold 1x4 is not a true 1X. The Leupold CQT is though Thay sucks, true 1x is a must, I think. Are you positive? T I dont think that a true 1x is a must. I use a 1.25x and I feel its ok for most. I dont think a whole lot is given up with a 1.1x or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The Leupold 1x4 is not a true 1X. The Leupold CQT is though Thay sucks, true 1x is a must, I think. Are you positive? T I dont think that a true 1x is a must. I use a 1.25x and I feel its ok for most. I dont think a whole lot is given up with a 1.1x or so. I agree, though I still prefer a true 1x. Lots of shooters do great with the 1.5 - 5x Leupolds and 1.25 - 4x Accupoints. But having a true 1x still gives a certain advantage. It's almost like iron sights in that there is an unlimited field of view. Everyting you see both around and through the scope looks the same and there are not 'dead' areas that disappear as you bring the gun onto a target. But, some great shooting can be done up close with scopes which have varying degrees of magnification. Some do quite well with the fixed 4x ACOG. I think that's where the 'Bindon' aiming concept comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLD SF MJT Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 A Question for the Weaver 1-3X20 users out there: How fast is the reticle to acquire given that it's a 'plex' reticle vs. some sort of dot? Thanks in advance for the assist. Old SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baa Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) I have a 1-3x20 Weaver on my 16" 3-gun rifle and you can really hose with it in 1x mode. This is purely subjective, but I feel like i can pick up and shoot targets with the Weaver in 1x mode as quickly as I can with my EO-Tech sight. Your looking through the sight at the target. The only downside to the Weaver is that sometimes you can "lose" the reticle vs. an illuminated scope. This is more an issue at longer ranges. Edited January 14, 2008 by baa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bore Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I have yet to have any problems with my Weaver. I wish it was a 4x for the Rocky Mountain 3 gun, but it really hoses well on the close stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobob Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Personally, I see little or no advantage to illuminated reticles, except for low light shooting. I suppose an occassional match may go on until the twilight hours, but not often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now