13xx scope opinions?

[eric]

different manufacturers will use different thread pitches so one probably won't be compatible with another.

[quickster47 †]

As eric mentioned, this is one of thee least compatible areas in scopes.  Everyone appears to use their own thread standard.

Carl

[Madkoifish]

That kinda bites. EXP since centerpoint is sold out on the sunshade. WHen shooting at night I get some nasty glare off of lights in the area. Though the centerpoint I have from my trail looks to have the same pitch as my photography stuff. Seems leapers though they offer them in manuals or product inserts they do not have anything online either.

Anyhow I have decided on that centerpoint. However not from wallyworld. It would cost just as much after tax to do a site to store. VS having it shipped to me without the drive.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001PO5QOK/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I also decided to get this too:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003BONFGI/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
20$ for a indoor scope. . . figure if it sucks I can throw it out or give it to someone for their airsoft. GOing with this over a red dot since the latter would sost 2 to 3 times more for a ugly 4moa dot.

I gotta get rings since the larger scope is weaver
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001WJ4TKK/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
hopefully these will do. Height is a concern. Double screws all over is probably overkill but I refused to get a set with stamped metal clamps. 

Also ordering that UTC weaver adapter thing for the HB17 (barrel clamp doves) and later on for possible use on the 1322 I plan to build. Just in case I have issues with the tippman stock height I am thinking about using on it vs the crosman stock.  Guess I could to a technical thread with that build starting with the ever popular photoshop image

Anyhow thanks for the help everyone. I was just so overwhelmed with all the brands Barska, NcStar, (knockoffs?) Nikon, tasco etc.

The whole Leapers/utg and centerpoint thing is  as well. Since I have seen what appears to be exact clones but some small spcs are off but stuff like zoom rings diopter etc are exact. Even a few images of the reticles are similar.

[arkmaker †]

I went with this one, but adjusted for 100 yards, not 35. Thought was to use it on my Marlin 22, but I can get a pretty clear focus at 10 yards.
Rich

[ShadowLurker]

I have a Leapers bug buster on my 1377. It's the 5th Gen 4x32AO (I know nothing about the 3-9 version or if the reticle is the same). I paid around 50 bucks for it and I have zero complaints. I never thought the mil dots were fat. I've taken out quite a few pests without any problems, but I'm not a target shooter so I can't chime in there. Nickel sized groups at 30 feet is good enough for me. The brass turrets are pretty nice. Plus, it's cool that you get two colors with the reticle light. That wasn't a decision maker for me because I never use it, but it's fun to show it off to people. I like it so much I might buy one for my .22 rimfire this fall. Not to ham it up too much, but it's more fun and versatile than any of the scopes I own for my firearms. But again, I'm not much of a target shooter other than for zeroing purposes and hunting practice.

[NorthStaR]

X2 Bugbuster!    ...but I have the 3-9 version. It's the best scope I've bought and cheaper than some of them.

The parallax adjustment is a HUMONGOUS plus with my tiny home range (5m). 

[eric]

the bugbuster is a decent scope for the money fer shur --- may not be the best for target work but it will get the job done 

[AlanF]

I'm considering the Bug Buster as well. Will probably go with the 6x version. Will be using it on a planned 1325 carbine for hunting primarily.

[NorthStaR]

My bugbuster is great especially if you don't have a long range to shoot down (which was my main reason for choosing this lil'puppy).

Parallax adjustment =   

[Madkoifish]

I went with that centerpoint. the 6ft difference in AO was a bit moot. (5yds vs 3yds) I wouldn't need a scope anything closer or Id get bored. Mostly it was eye relief in the end. Though I did have a go at flies the other day. Dead rat in one of my traps was bringing them in. Kinda fun and likely have me get one for messing about on a a purely pistol or short short carbine.
http://www.mac1airgun.com/images/Mvc-026s.JPG
shows how I was shooting with the peep and red dot before I got the stock and barrel to carbine my current pc77. I think something like this would be great fun for fly detonation or super small short range shooting.

THOUGH I hear the 4X fixed unit has better optics. I found an image that Tom Gaylord did on PA's site and the reticle looks different from what I have seen on videos (g2 vs g5 I think or 3X9 vs 4X)


Good greif that scope is up to $98 now. O_o hate that place because of this. Have not ordered my 1377 for the 1322 conversion yet cause they jacked the price up. Wow they jacked the prices up on everything, weaver adapter is up to 9$ as well as the rings I got for the 11mm dove.

I plan to photo the reticles on my scopes and start a thread with the hope others will post scope info and images to help other decide. For me the biggest issue was seeing what was in the reticle. The graphics most manufacturers use are not at all representative of the real reticle. If they give an image at all. Good example is how Leapers uses nearly the same graphics for all of their scopes when it is easily found even within the same family of scope the reticles are different.

[Madkoifish]

Got my scopes today. The pc77 is a tack driver now, mostly cause I can see the target lol. I am consistently stacking the pellets at 10~12 yards. The scope is so sensitive just the 8 ft further down my kitchen makes me alter the AO on the scope to bring things into focus. I ended up putting the cheapo 4X35 scope on my Trail NP mostly cause I found it was a bit blurry in the reticle. (eye kept focusing on the targets vs the reticle.) I figured why not anyhow. I found some intresting things with the 2 guns and differing pump counts. I will get to that in another post though. 

Now my plans were to photo all the scopes so that one can compare the reticles. As expected the Leapers one was thicker, not by much but enough that it is easily spotted. A lot of things are very similar obviously same parts bins. However leapers mil dots are DOTS centerpoint are more like bars. I liked the scopes and felt the leapers was a steal even if i found it did not fit my needs as much as I hoped. Maybe when I get a new prescription for my glasses and can SEE again. hah. I still think the leapers will fill a plinking role more than a shoot the dot game. Say cans at 50 yards.  Off track a bit there, long day. Anyhow as I said I had these plans and all but once I started shooting them I found I had to keep altering zoom to 1 focus the reticle and 2 to fill the camera's screen. So it isnt a real objective apples to apples. Since each image is at a different zoom level. I will still post the images with stats. But it does seem to be a bit of a failure to compare the relative sizes. What it will do is give people an idea what to expect in the layout and look of the reticle.

I also found the threaded ends for shades and filters vary in dai not thread count. So far these appear to be the same just not photographic on sizing or standards. EG the 2 40mm scopes both have 2 different dai to the threads. My trail scope has a removable ring the new centerpoint does not, the threads are exposed. And smaller in dai. Disappointing. The leapers has a sunshade thread but it is inset into the scope and well I have not found parts for leapers scopes.

Oh, the rings I noticed they had some sort of fiber or ribbon glued inside. Seems they are starting to look at scope slip for springers and NP guns. One had a rubbery feel but was clearly woven. The centerpoint barely clears the barrel on the pc77 cannot use the flippy cover thing but it gets in the way of the AO anyhow.