Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a Kobra. I don't believe a civilian can determine that someone is a threat over 100 yards away. Personally, I think the idea that you will need to engage targets at 100 plus yards is a fantasy. If SHTF, what gunfighting there will be will be CQB. A good red dot is much faster than irons.

 

The nice thing about the Kobra is the different reticles. For up close, I like the T reticle. For distance, the dot and chevron. In addition, if it dies, you can remove it and use your irons in a second.

 

All that being said, I am selling the Kobra. I found a used Mepro 21 for a good price. I like the non-electronic red dot. Like the Trijicon, it uses tritium and fiber optics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
150ish hrs of battery life, and you can co-witness. Anyone have any experience with these? I figure if I have something battery powered and SHTF, at least it uses AAAs and not some tiny little watch battery.

 

Hmmmm, I'd much rather have a 50,000 hr (roughly five years) battery life and use little watch batteries. The make battery covers that will also hold an extra battery. So it is pretty easy to have 10 years of batteries ready to go. Also, if one turns down the brightness of the dot it will be substantially longer. If a T1 is put on the lowest setting it has a 500,000 hr battery life. That is over 57 years. Basically if one turns down the brightness setting when the gun isn't in hand there is a decent chance a single battery will outlast the tritanium in a battery free sight. Now if you get that that cover that holds a spare you may well have enough batteries for the rest of your life depending on how old you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see that, however the PK-01 is like... $250 whereas the T1 is double that and then some lol. I suppose ridiculously long battery life can justify the extra cash spent for most guys, especially since you can't go wrong with an aimpoint, but I can't quite get up that far just for a sight right now. Not now anyways, I'd love to be able to pick up a nice aimpoint or even an eotech... are there any decent alternatives that aren't quite as expensive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Kobra. I don't believe a civilian can determine that someone is a threat over 100 yards away. Personally, I think the idea that you will need to engage targets at 100 plus yards is a fantasy. If SHTF, what gunfighting there will be will be CQB. A good red dot is much faster than irons.

 

The nice thing about the Kobra is the different reticles. For up close, I like the T reticle. For distance, the dot and chevron. In addition, if it dies, you can remove it and use your irons in a second.

 

All that being said, I am selling the Kobra.

I know what you mean, but I still couldn't help getting a big chuckle out of this. 021.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see that, however the PK-01 is like... $250 whereas the T1 is double that and then some lol. I suppose ridiculously long battery life can justify the extra cash spent for most guys, especially since you can't go wrong with an aimpoint, but I can't quite get up that far just for a sight right now. Not now anyways, I'd love to be able to pick up a nice aimpoint or even an eotech... are there any decent alternatives that aren't quite as expensive?

 

Dude you're killing me!!! the Aimpoint T1 is the ULTIMATE red dot for any AK/AR or any other rifle, shotgun, pistol you'd ever want to use. Batteries arent heavy! specially the flat types that go in the T1...carry an extra one! Are you saying that an Aimpoint sight is worth more than your life? You should never put a price on your life bro! I have T1 aimpoints on 2 of my AK's and a Comp M3 on my AR. If the utter and total reliability of the AP's can be trusted with my life/training in its hands, then why worry about cost...save your money, buy it once, have it for life!!! I also agree witht he guys that say IRONS...you ALWAYS need a good set of reliable irons to fall back on!

Edited by RoughRider666
Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to anyone in this thread. But it's always kind of funny how much talk there is abiut which items are best for SHTF. The best item you can have for a shtf gunfight is training and experience. Get off the bench. Find someone with property(I'm lucky to have the space) and try tofind out about shooting on thier land. Run your guns hard, wet, dirty sideways and upside down. Don't worry about scratches and little blemishes. Setup man sized cardboard. Or even better steel. Wherever you have a good backstop. And blast the hell away from every position and movement you can think of with your choice of handgun and rifle. You will immediately see what works and doesn't. I now know that my current holster for my sidearm blows l. But I love my CZ more everyday. I know that the ar and ak both work well and so much more. Get out and shoot. Borrow others equipment to find out wha you like and don't like

 

Eta: in other words spend the money you would on an optic on ammo or professional training. Other great way to do things is buy a cheaper analog run that hard, and of if you like the way It operates and feels(problems frombeing lower quality not important) then save and buy the real McCoy. I have been using a bushnell trs 25 for a few months now and it has made me start saving up for a T/H 1 aimpoint

Edited by hutchsaiga
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to anyone in this thread. But it's always kind of funny how much talk there is abiut which items are best for SHTF. The best item you can have for a shtf gunfight is training and experience. Get off the bench. Find someone with property(I'm lucky to have the space) and try tofind out about shooting on thier land. Run your guns hard, wet, dirty sideways and upside down. Don't worry about scratches and little blemishes. Setup man sized cardboard. Or even better steel. Wherever you have a good backstop. And blast the hell away from every position and movement you can think of with your choice of handgun and rifle. You will immediately see what works and doesn't. I now know that my current holster for my sidearm blows l. But I love my CZ more everyday. I know that the ar and ak both work well and so much more. Get out and shoot. Borrow others equipment to find out wha you like and don't like

 

Eta: in other words spend the money you would on an optic on ammo or professional training. Other great way to do things is buy a cheaper analog run that hard, and of if you like the way It operates and feels(problems frombeing lower quality not important) then save and buy the real McCoy. I have been using a bushnell trs 25 for a few months now and it has made me start saving up for a T/H 1 aimpoint

 

Excellent post.

 

As far as the optic, I Iike the idea of no batteries, no electronics to worry about, no switches to malfunction. I would also not lose sleep if I had an Aimpoint, Kobra, Eotech, etc. They are all proven combat optics. However, they are also man made and each one has had its failures. Fortunately, the failures are few and far between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see that, however the PK-01 is like... $250 whereas the T1 is double that and then some lol. I suppose ridiculously long battery life can justify the extra cash spent for most guys, especially since you can't go wrong with an aimpoint, but I can't quite get up that far just for a sight right now. Not now anyways, I'd love to be able to pick up a nice aimpoint or even an eotech... are there any decent alternatives that aren't quite as expensive?

 

Dude you're killing me!!! the Aimpoint T1 is the ULTIMATE red dot for any AK/AR or any other rifle, shotgun, pistol you'd ever want to use. Batteries arent heavy! specially the flat types that go in the T1...carry an extra one! Are you saying that an Aimpoint sight is worth more than your life? You should never put a price on your life bro! I have T1 aimpoints on 2 of my AK's and a Comp M3 on my AR. If the utter and total reliability of the AP's can be trusted with my life/training in its hands, then why worry about cost...save your money, buy it once, have it for life!!! I also agree witht he guys that say IRONS...you ALWAYS need a good set of reliable irons to fall back on!

 

LOL calm down... If you stake your life on a red dot, I think you have your priorities mixed up ;) I won't be completely incapable of shooting my rifle if I don't have optics... I've had a considerable amount of practice with my irons as any shooter should have. Optics aren't something I can spend lots of money on right now, I just figured I'd ask about the PK-01 since it was one of the cheaper, yet still solid red dots I could find. I'm only 19, I don't exactly have tons of money to throw around on $500-$700 optics. I just asked about the Russian ones because most guys say they are relatively reliable since they're made for AKs, and for the price, I think I'd be okay with having to switch out AAAs here and there. Really in the end a "SHTF optic" isn't necessary like hutch said since most encounters would likely take place within a range where you can reasonably use even the crappiest of irons, however, nothing says it wouldn't be nice to have a decent red dot to use...

Edited by fastmelodic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see that, however the PK-01 is like... $250 whereas the T1 is double that and then some lol. I suppose ridiculously long battery life can justify the extra cash spent for most guys, especially since you can't go wrong with an aimpoint, but I can't quite get up that far just for a sight right now. Not now anyways, I'd love to be able to pick up a nice aimpoint or even an eotech... are there any decent alternatives that aren't quite as expensive?

 

Dude you're killing me!!! the Aimpoint T1 is the ULTIMATE red dot for any AK/AR or any other rifle, shotgun, pistol you'd ever want to use. Batteries arent heavy! specially the flat types that go in the T1...carry an extra one! Are you saying that an Aimpoint sight is worth more than your life? You should never put a price on your life bro! I have T1 aimpoints on 2 of my AK's and a Comp M3 on my AR. If the utter and total reliability of the AP's can be trusted with my life/training in its hands, then why worry about cost...save your money, buy it once, have it for life!!! I also agree witht he guys that say IRONS...you ALWAYS need a good set of reliable irons to fall back on!

 

LOL calm down... If you stake your life on a red dot, I think you have your priorities mixed up wink.png I won't be completely incapable of shooting my rifle if I don't have optics... I've had a considerable amount of practice with my irons as any shooter should have. Optics aren't something I can spend lots of money on right now, I just figured I'd ask about the PK-01 since it was one of the cheaper, yet still solid red dots I could find. I'm only 19, I don't exactly have tons of money to throw around on $500-$700 optics. I just asked about the Russian ones because most guys say they are relatively reliable since they're made for AKs, and for the price, I think I'd be okay with having to switch out AAAs here and there. Really in the end a "SHTF optic" isn't necessary like hutch said since most encounters would likely take place within a range where you can reasonably use even the crappiest of irons, however, nothing says it wouldn't be nice to have a decent red dot to use...

 

thats the main thing i cant stand about Russian optics... its not the quality, its the battery life & battery type. its pretty sad when Bushnell is kickin the crap out of most russian optics with its little TRS-25 red dot (3000 hour battery life) for about $89.95 lol I did however just put a TRS 25 on my .223 Saiga and though its not an Aimpoint, it IS pretty durable and somewhat water resistant (not water proof)...just dont take a bath with it lol.. I still like it and it has served me well so far. So if you're on a budget, get a Bushnell TRS-25 and an Ultimak rail and call it a day... under $200!

 

feel free to PM me if you need too...

 

-RR

Edited by RoughRider666
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Kobra takes 2325 coin batteries. I kept 6 or 7 in the pistol grip. I don't see battery life as being the end all and be all. One of the advantages of Russian optics is they usually include the mount. The price of the optic includes the mount. I prefer having the optic over the receiver, rather than on the gas tube like an UltimAK. This is a major concern with a low cost, the heat may be an issue.

 

I would look at DPH's beryl rail. I think it is a better solution, if you need a mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose ridiculously long battery life can justify the extra cash spent for most guys, especially since you can't go wrong with an aimpoint, but I can't quite get up that far just for a sight right now. Not now anyways, I'd love to be able to pick up a nice aimpoint or even an eotech... are there any decent alternatives that aren't quite as expensive?

 

The aimpoint is also pretty bomb proof. The H1 can be had for a little less than the t1. Also the aimpoint pro is a real good buy at $400. The fact is, quality optics cost. However, to me, it is worth saving up and buying once something that will last and you can be happy with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
in other words spend the money you would on an optic on ammo or professional training.

 

I love when people act like buying an optic, or similar is, mutually exclusive with training. Most guns I've seen at courses would indicate that is not the case. That is to say they have optics. Typically people that care enough to get training also realize that well thought out equipment can offer significant advantages. Training is important but it is not mutually exclusive to good gear. In fact, when one has a chance to run gear hard it tends to make one gravitate towards quality gear.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
in other words spend the money you would on an optic on ammo or professional training.

 

I love when people act like buying an optic, or similar is, mutually exclusive with training. Most guns I've seen at courses would indicate that is not the case. That is to say they have optics. Typically people that care enough to get training also realize that well thought out equipment can offer significant advantages. Training is important but it is not mutually exclusive to good gear. In fact, when one has a chance to run gear hard it tends to make one gravitate towards quality gear.

 

Your statement is a logically incorrect. You are stating that people that take courses, have expensive optics. Therefore, all people that buy expensive optics take courses.

 

I know there is a huge number of gun guys that believe buying good gear makes them good gun fighters. That is why you see so many stupid arguments, like AK v. AR, 9mm v.45 etc. The underlying concept behind the argument is that gear is king. The fact is skills are far more important than gear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what I said at all. I'm actually rather puzzled by how you came to the conclusion that is what I stated.

 

Lets review. My statement was that buying an optic is not per se mutually exclusive to getting good training. If one buys an optic that does not per se preclude him or her from getting training with that gun.

 

As evidence of that I stated that, most of the guns I've seen at courses have optics. It is true, if we are discussion strictly formal logic, that most is anything above 50% up to and including 100%. In common vernacular, how I was using the word, there is an implication that if one says most instead of all that there were some number of guns that didn't have optics. Let me clarify now, I have also seen guns at training courses without optics.

 

Even if we take the word "most" to mean what it does in when dealing with formal logic, it is still not the equivalent of saying all. While most could be all, one cannot assume that it means all. Nothing in my post stated that all guns I have seen at training courses had optics, let alone all guns at all training courses. Thus, the first part of your conclusion is already fatally flawed. You have alleged that I said something I never did.

 

Furthermore, even if I had said that all guns at training courses have optics, you are the one that made the massively flawed logical jump about what that would imply in terms of people who purchase optics. You are correct that even if all guns at training courses had optics that would not mean that all guns with optics go to training courses. However, I never made that assertion or anything remotely close to it.

 

Skill sets are important. However, it is simply wrong to suggest that quality gear cannot make a difference. There is a reason shooting contests are broken into division which are drawn by gear used. Gear that one doesn't know how to use is unlikely to help a lot. However, quality gear that one knows how to use can be a huge advantage. Red dot sights consistently make people shoot faster. While I have seen people run double barrels, or even, pump guns really fast, they cannot keep up with the equally skilled shooters using semis. Gear can even require less skill to use and result in better results. An example is the laser range finder. I have mil dot scope and work on how to use it to range targets at unknown distances. That said, I could hand my laser range finder to anyone who is literate and can push a button and they would most likely get not only find the distance more quickly but also more accurately. As I said before, typically those that train get pushed towards quality gear based on what they learn during that training.

 

PS

 

Please brush up on your formal logic before calling me out on it again. Thanks. I hope you are not studying for the LSAT or anything.

Edited by Zambidis
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what I said at all. I'm actually rather puzzled by how you came to the conclusion that is what I stated.

 

Lets review. My statement was that buying an optic is not per se mutually exclusive to getting good training. If one buys an optic that does not per se preclude him or her from getting training with that gun.

 

As evidence of that I stated that, most of the guns I've seen at courses have optics. It is true, if we are discussion strictly formal logic, that most is anything above 50% up to and including 100%. In common vernacular, how I was using the word, there is an implication that if one says most instead of all that there were some number of guns that didn't have optics. Let me clarify now, I have also seen guns at training courses without optics.

 

Even if we take the word "most" to mean what it does in when dealing with formal logic, it is still not the equivalent of saying all. While most could be all, one cannot assume that it means all. Nothing in my post stated that all guns I have seen at training courses had optics, let alone all guns at all training courses. Thus, the first part of your conclusion is already fatally flawed. You have alleged that I said something I never did.

 

Furthermore, even if I had said that all guns at training courses have optics, you are the one that made the massively flawed logical jump about what that would imply in terms of people who purchase optics. You are correct that even if all guns at training courses had optics that would not mean that all guns with optics go to training courses. However, I never made that assertion or anything remotely close to it.

 

Skill sets are important. However, it is simply wrong to suggest that quality gear cannot make a difference. There is a reason shooting contests are broken into division which are drawn by gear used. Gear that one doesn't know how to use is unlikely to help a lot. However, quality gear that one knows how to use can be a huge advantage. Red dot sights consistently make people shoot faster. While I have seen people run double barrels, or even, pump guns really fast, they cannot keep up with the equally skilled shooters using semis. Gear can even require less skill to use and result in better results. An example is the laser range finder. I have mil dot scope and work on how to use it to range targets at unknown distances. That said, I could hand my laser range finder to anyone who is literate and can push a button and they would most likely get not only find the distance more quickly but also more accurately. As I said before, typically those that train get pushed towards quality gear based on what they learn during that training.

 

PS

 

Please brush up on your formal logic before calling me out on it again. Thanks. I hope you are not studying for the LSAT or anything.

 

 

The only point I was making is.

 

Let's say you have a tight firearm budget and have 500 to spend. You would be far better served by spending that on 2.5k rounds and training the way you want. Or taking a carbine course and getting professional instruction.

 

An aimpoint(or other electronic sight) can be a great asset to an already knowledgeable and trained shooter. but shooting fundamentals and combat knowledge/expirience is what gets the other guy dead before you. If you dispute that,well...get a job with some gear pimp, and fulfil your dream of being a gear wh... Well you know

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that if funds are limited, training should be a priority. However, If one's goal is to develop skills, I am not sure I would advise just buying ammo and shooting a lot without knowing what you are doing. One is very unlikely to get anywhere near as much out of a bunch of random shooting on their own as some quality instruction. Furthermore, doing a lot of shooting on ones own without knowing what one is doing can be a way to ingrain bad habits that one has to unlearn later. Unlearning bad habits is, in my experience, much more difficult than learning things correctly from the get go. Shooting is not the same as training. It take "deliberate practice" to develop skills. Pretty much any quality training course uses the rough outline of the deliberate practice model.

 

In essence one can go out and shoot, but unless he or she has identified a specific thing he or she is going to work on improving, designed a means of doing so, has a means of immediate feed back, and gives reflection to the results, and does the task repeatedly, one is not being nearly as effective as is possible and is likely getting very limited benefit. Blasting 1K rounds at targets may or may not include any of that.

Another thing is that a HUGE amount of training can be done without live fire. Various reloads, immediate action drills, various movements and manipulations, and more can be trained without live fire. Live fire is needed for somethings. You get someone that used the deliberate practice model to develop various skills without firing a shot and they most likely will have a better skill set than someone who has just gone shooting and gone through 2K rounds or random shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...