Your choice of optics

Swift...I agree with your comment about being pricey. I paid $530. which is about $100 more than the other scope I was considering in this price range.(Nikon Monarch 4x16x42)I read a lot of reviews about the these two scopes on the web and physically compared them. The optics on the Hawke looked better to me. Sniper Central compared the optics to Ziess and Leupold Mk4's.
Also, I saw a few scattered remarks about the Nikon holding zero. Not enough to be a major concern as I would still have no problem purchasing a Monarch. The Hawke line is aimed at air rifle users as well as powder burners. I am familiar with spring guns and a scope has to built very strong to take the double recoil created by a high power spring gun. I decided to give the Hawke a try.

Check out the review by sniper central.

http://www.snipercentral.com/hawke416.htm
 
I cant afford to pay more for the scope than gun so I like alot of others buy what I can afford at the time. Since buying my first Nikon a while back I fell in love with them. I have 2 prostaff and 1 buckmaster right now but sure I will buy more. I could not see any differance from my Nikon compared to my Luppy or Burris except the cost. I still have my bushnell banner 6x24 mildots on 2 of my varmit rifles though and for the money I still dont think you can beat them.
 
Thread started August 09 and went dead day 1 November 09, 10 years + ago.

Its a new decade now and Primary Arms ACSS-HUD-DMR 4-14x44 is the scope of today. Sits respectably atop an AR10 having all the weight of a sit still and ambush rifle. The scope
has a reticle designated Advanced Combined Sighting System - Heads Up Dummy - Designated Marksman Rifle. It surely is advanced and a marvelous combined reticle.

It worth tuning into youtube just to get a view of the best IMO affordable FFP ranging scope of today.

Ive got an assortment of scopes for up close engagement like 1.5-6 or 2-7x32 Leupolds for Alaskan dangerous game brush work, or Sightmark 8.5-25x50 for open plains p-dog splattering. But these dont have the finest of range finder reticles. And theres a big difference between a ACSS range finder reticle by Primary Arms and all them other supposed "finder" reticles. You could say, the guess work is nearly all done by the ACSS. Sure theres a little math to be done, but surely anyone can multiply or divide one number by another. Even I can divide 1083 by 4 to take down that trophy buck at 271 yards. I had the 1083 figure, the result of a prior calculation of 39" deer shoulder to hoof measurement and a constant, penned in the palm of my hand or tattooed inside my eyelids. Youll be dead on provided you throw in windage which the ACSS reticle has the adjustment component etched in provided its less than brisk, and you do your part with X placement and squeeze. *You could swag a 15MPH wind.

Ive no stock in Primary Arms, other than ownership of this scope, and Ive received no gratuities. Im simply overly excited by its capabilities and I wanted to share.
 
Last edited:
Addendum: PA ACSS-HUD-DMR Scope Continued - The primary vertical reticle line has those mostly laughable yardage hashmarks AND when you zoom in youll, more readily, see MOA measurements 1-10 beginning at the point of the chevron. Here is from where I derived that 4 MOA divisor. The buck's 39" shoulder to ground height measured 4 MOA. And I use the average between a so-said 36" average deer and a 42" big buck heights. If it significantly further out and it aint in no hurry to move on Ill reassess and redo the math in my palm pilot or the dirt, which ever is handier...36 x 27.78 = 1000.08 / 2 = 500 yards or 42 x 27.78 / 2.33 = 500 yards.

Ive found that, this ACSS reticle designated for 308/223, with the right .308 WIN ammo pill (grain wgt, B.C.) and velocity those designated yardage hashmarks can be darn close < 700 yards. While in other instances theyre more realistic > 400 or 500. But the same 308/223 reticle is way way off with a .270 WIN. I know of some scope makers, Athlon for example, state their BDC reticles are suitable for calibers ranging from 223 to 338 WIN w/ a 200 grain bullet. BS! ROFLMAO

I like addendums, gives the impression I dont suffer from diarrhea of the pen, mouth, or keyboard. Plus it runs up my Post number
cool.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gman757Swift...I agree with your comment about being pricey. I paid $530. which is about $100 more than the other scope I was considering in this price range.(Nikon Monarch 4x16x42)I read a lot of reviews about the these two scopes on the web and physically compared them. The optics on the Hawke looked better to me. Sniper Central compared the optics to Ziess and Leupold Mk4's.
Also, I saw a few scattered remarks about the Nikon holding zero. Not enough to be a major concern as I would still have no problem purchasing a Monarch. The Hawke line is aimed at air rifle users as well as powder burners. I am familiar with spring guns and a scope has to built very strong to take the double recoil created by a high power spring gun. I decided to give the Hawke a try.

Check out the review by sniper central.

http://www.snipercentral.com/hawke416.htm

Thought not of the same mechanics entirely of what you refer to as a high power spring gun, my Benjamin Mayhem Nitro Piston SBD 22 Cal has been friendly to a much lesser cost (inexpensive) UTG 3-9x32 Bug Buster. The rifle does have the two directional jolts. This scope is sold as compatible with spring guns. Its mil dot reticle is abundantly clear. It has a parallax adjustment which to me is surprising for a top magnification of 9 scope. Its only real flaw is the shortness of the tube sections, leaving no room for finer eye relief adjustments at high power. I dont have to strain to get up close but its not the most relaxed position.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GryphonI like addendums, gives the impression I dont suffer from diarrhea of the pen, mouth, or keyboard. Plus it runs up my Post number
cool.gif


well, it does run up the post count. as for the others, its debatable.
 
Back
Top