Quality Price Floors, Globalization, and the Harmful Notion of "Just a Red Dot"

I get this question or hear this comment all the time... People think they're going to  "save money on their optics" with "just a red dot".

Unfortunately, that's a very harmful idea.

There is no such thing as "just a red dot" 

Yeah, sure, you absolutely can save money going with a red dot type sight over a scope... A top quality Red Dot is a LOT cheaper than a top quality scope.

And frankly, for most of the rifle shooting that most people do (plinking and casual target shooting, possibly some short range competition shooting; even hunting at 100 yards or less... which in most of the country, is most hunting), a 1x red dot (or holosight or similar), or even a 2x or 4x red dot, would be better for their needs than a traditional scope anyway.

That's another piece for another day... but I really do think that most of the shooting missions, most people are buying most scopes for; would be better served, for less money, with a quality 1x-4x dot sight (either in tube, or with a magnifier).

So how much exactly is "a lot cheaper"?

All these numbers  are current as of February 2015. I may update this later on,"acceptable" and "good" price points have fallen significantly over the last 20ish years, and particularly in the last 5, as higher precision higher quality manufacturing has become more widely available and less expensive).

Red dots are generally somewhat less complex designs than scopes of equivalent quality; requiring less, and less expensive, materials and manufacturing technologies and processes. This generally results in a lower price for a given quality of optic.

You're talking about $150-600 for a decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable Red Dot (Something like Vortex StrikeFire to Aimpoint or Trijicons mid range sights); up to around $1,000-$1400 at the top end (with some outliers up to around $3,000).

With traditional multi-lens reticle in tube optics (scopes), you're looking at around $300-400 for the lower end of decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable; moderate to high magnifications scopes. Possibly a bit cheaper ($200ish) for acceptable lower magnification, less precise, less "tough" applications, and climbing up to around $2500-$3,000 on the high end, with some outliers in the $3500 to $6,000 range (Schmidt & Bender or U.S. Optics for example).

That list of qualifications... decent (meaning reasonable quality design, materials, manufacturing finish etc...), tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable... is rather important. Critical in fact.

Those are the basic properties you need from any sighting device in order for it to be useful, and provide value, no matter what the purpose or mission you're trying to fulfill.

A sighting device that isn't decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable, is actually HARMFUL to whatever you are doing. You're better off without it, than with it, no matter how little it costs, and what capability it seems to provide.

Of course, that's rather a broad price range, but still, with both scopes and red dot sights "you get what you pay for" generally applies (there are some exceptions of course).

While there are times you do pay a premium for "name" or reputation to an extent**, if you need the capabilities the better brands or product lines provide, they really are worth the money.

** Yes...Some manufacturers in particular charge premium prices for midrange product, or too high a premium for high end; thus you can get better optics with other brands for the same money, or as good for less. And of course, the reverse is true. There are some brands well known for giving you much more for your money than other brands at the same price point, or the same capability and quality at a much lower pricepoint.

Which are which? That's another piece for another day.

Hit the floor...

Most importantly regarding price, there are very definite price floors for acceptable quality optical sights.

Most people with even a bit of knowledge and experience, understand this price floor applies to scopes. They don't expect a scope you buy in a blister pack at Wal Mart to be very good, or even "acceptable".

Unfortunately, many people (even many of the same people who seem to understand the concept of a price floor for scopes) don't seem to understand that price floors apply just as much to red dots as to scopes.

No-one with any knowledge or experience in firearms optics, expects a $50 or even $100 scope to be much good... and generally $150-$200 is just into the "acceptable" range (Redfield, low end Vortex, low end Nikon etc....).

So why do they expect any better out of a $50 or $100 red dot? A red dot you can buy in a blister pack, isn't going to be any better than a scope you can buy in a blister pack.

Red dot optics are every bit as much precision optical instruments as scopes are... They're just somewhat simpler designs, using less of the most expensive components and manufacturing processes.

Simpler and less, not "simple" and "inexpensive".

There is just a minimum level of materials and design quality, labor, manufacturing, and quality control, to produce an acceptable optical sight of any type. These don't change, no matter how simple the optic is, how short a range it's intended for, how big a dot or tube etc...

Specifically, there are very definite minimums for quality of adjustment mechanisms, sight barrel/tube/body materials and machining, lenses (even in a 1x optic), lens mounting, adhesives coatings and finishes, skill and precision of assembly, tolerances and clearances, and quality inspection and testing.

These are real minimums, that apply to ANY optic of any type or design.

One flat plate of glass with no magnification, and an adjustment mechanism that's repeatable to under 1 moa (and preferably under 1/4 moa); that will take a slight knock on the sight, being adjusted a few hundred times, and getting lightly rained on, and which will  still stay precise and repeatable for years (a c-more sight isn't much more than that really); is going to cost nearly as much as a 40mm 2-6x zoom that can meet those same criteria and standards.

The expensive part isn't the materials, it's the manufacturing processes, labor, and quality control. That's probably more than 80% of the cost of ANY optic, no matter what its design, or where it's made.

These minimums go up... sometimes WAY up... with more difficult mission requirements, but they never go below that absolute floor. You can't go below those minimums, and still be decent, tough, reliable, precise, and repeatable.

Right now, that floor is pretty clear, and it's around $150-$200 for "acceptable" in a lower magnification scope, or not quite so tough red dot; and $300 to $400 for "good" in a lower to medium magnification scope, or somewhat tougher red dot.

What do you get for your money?

More money tends to add more precision in the optics and adjustment mechanisms, more toughness, and higher quality materials, coatings, and finishes.

Less money on the other hand, generally results in an optic that won't hold zero, won't have consistent and precise adjustments, won't return to zero after adjusting, and won't take any rough handling without breaking... Or even just breaking on its own for no reason.

Really... Just don't do it. It's a waste of money. You'll end up buying and breaking 3 or 4 of the things and hating it the entire time; while spending far more than an acceptable or even a very good optic would have cost in the first place.

So who makes "acceptable" or "good" optics at a low price?

The least expensive optics that I have generally found acceptable or better, are:

• Nikon: Monarch or higher are good to excellent, limited lifetime warranty
• Redfield: Great quality, low price high value, some USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty
• Burris: Excellent quality, great value, some USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty
• Vortex: Diamondback or higher are good to excellent quality, good to great price and always great value, some US made, and all have a 100% lifetime warranty
• Leupold: Good to excellent quality, good to terrible price leading to anywhere from great to poor value, sometimes erratic but generally excellent customer service, all USA made, and a 100% lifetime warranty (they also own Redfield)
• Nightforce: Higher priced line ($800 to $3,000), but also among the best quality in the world, and among the lowest price for the quality and capability they offer. As good as optics costing 50% to 200% more. All USA made, with excellent customer service, and a 100% lifetime warranty.

More expensive brands that are also generally very good, include (but are not limited to) Pentax's mid range and higher end models, Aimpoint, Trijicon, Zeiss, Schmidt and Bender, Hensoldt, ELCAN, Leica, Swarovski, and US Optics.

Made in WHERE... Huh?

IN GENERAL... and this is a big generalization with exceptions... Regardless of the brand name an optic is sold under, if that optic is manufactured in the U.S., western Europe, or Japan, it's going to be "good" or better. Frankly, with the cost of manufacturing products in those places, it doesn't make sense not to.

However, even the "premium" brands sometimes have factories in eastern Europe (particularly Poland and the Czech republic), the Philippines, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Sri Lanka, and increasingly mainland China.

These are sometimes owned and operated directly by the companies in question, and sometimes they are very high quality, usually long term, subcontracting deals with excellent third party manufacturers.

So... fortunately for lower prices, higher quality and more competition... but unfortunately for figuring out what to buy (or what not to)... While where it's made, is often a positive indicator of quality, it isn't necessarily an indicator of a lack of quality.

Don't discount something just because it's made in China (or anywhere else). Process, technology, materials, and quality control are all more important than nation of origin. Some excellent optics are coming out of China (and everywhere else), at very attractive prices.

Sadly, brand name isn't always an indicator of quality either, because some major brands with excellent quality product lines, also produce lower priced lower quality product lines (or worse... more on that later).


Some companies may even  subcontract out their lower cost product lines to lower quality OEMs (more on that below). For example, some Nikon ProStaff, and I believe all Vortex Crossfire line optics, are not actually made by Nikon or Vortex (other companies do this as well, I'm just using these two as an example).

As of 2014, I believe those product lines are subcontracted out to a Chinese company, who also make optics for NCstar, Barska, Bushnell, Tasco, and other low end brands (and sometimes including what seem to be the same or similar designs... Or at least visible external design).

The optics manufactured for Nikon and Vortex are definitely manufactured to higher quality standards than those for low end brands, but not to the same standard as Nikon or Vortex's in house manufactured product lines.

What about other brands? 

Here's the thing... You never know. Sometimes you're going to get a great piece for a great price, sometimes not so much.

I have seen some of the Mueller, Millet, Weaver, Leatherwood, Tasco, Bushnell etc... (name brands which are licensed and OEM contracted out to offshore manufacturers) scopes be good or even excellent... and I've seen another scope from the same "brand", at the same price point... even at higher price points, be unacceptable.

In fact I've seen two examples of the same model vary from "pretty good" to "total junk.

And these aren't all low end, low price models. Millet scopes run from $150 to $500. Some Weaver models run as high as $1,500 etc...

In my experience, and those of many I know and trust; some of those $500 to $1500 models have been excellent... Unfortunately, some have been just OK, and some have been entirely unacceptable.

The problem, is that Millet, Mueller etc... aren't actually made by Millet and Mueller. Either they contract production out to offshore factories (usually on a per production run basis, but sometimes on a long term year to year or multi-year basis, which usually results in higher quality), or an offshore manufacture pays the name owners for the right to make scopes with that name.

It can work both ways, sometimes simultaneously, and through multiple levels of naming rights licensing, subcontracting, or both.

Land of confusion

Bushnell is a prime example of the confusion this can create.

First, Bushnell is the parent company of Simmons, Millet, Tasco, Browning and Bausch and Lomb (for rifle scopes and binoculars only).

Their lower end lines generally run from junk, to just barely "acceptable". Their "elite" line theoretically their top of the line best quality optics. However, the elite line consists of 40 someodd models with different features and specifications, and spanning a price range from $200 to $2,000.

The biggest issue is however, that all Bushnell scopes (and any of their other brands) "Elite" or otherwise, are contracted out to different manufacturers on a model to model basis, and sometimes even a production run to production run basis. The same model may be manufactured by three different companies in three different years, in three different countries, and with three different resulting quality levels.

As a result, the "Elite" line end up ranging in quality from "acceptable" (I haven't seen one yet that wasn't at least acceptable), to truly excellent. Bushnell's higher end Elite models are generally made in Japan, by two of the worlds best optics manufacturers, to the highest standards; or in Philippines Sometimes, if one of those manufacturers has excess capacity, they'll also make some of the lower end models, or they'll have extra top quality components, which they'll send out to be put into lower level product lines.

It's the system man...

This system of contract manufacture and licensing, is how the EXACT same design can be sold under a dozen different brand names from NCstar and Barska, to TruGlo, Tasco, and Bushnell, at price points from $29 to $89.

Sometimes... sadly, frequently... those widely divergent price points are for the exact same product, with the same materials and quality control, just a different brand name stamped on them.

Sometimes, for a higher price you actually get the same design, but with better materials and quality control.

Sometimes for a higher price you get the same external design, but with better designed internals, and higher quality of materials and manufacturing.

Worst of all, sometimes the same brand name and model number, sold at the same price, will start off very high quality, and over time, be reduced in quality, without reducing in price.

So, you might get a great example from one of these contracted brands, or you might get junk. You won't know until you actually get it into your hands, and test it (by shooting the square repeatedly to test for return to zero, and ability to maintain zero with recoil for example). If they have a great warranty and return policy... great. If not... Who knows.

Personally, unless I can inspect them beforehand, and test them without penalty, I choose to stick with the major brands who keep manufacture in house, or to top quality subcontractors only.

Firearms Basics - Part 2: Cheap Optics?

This is the first full post in my new series "Firearms Basics", which I introduced here.

So, I got a question on a non-gun forum today, that I think is pretty common... and I haven't really seen what I consider to be a good and comprehensive answer around the gun blogs and gun forums (and I've seen a lot of bad advice, and a lot of derision and mockery about this sort of question).

 I'll paraphrase it here:

"I just bought a used 10/22, and I want to put an optic on it, but I don't want to spend too much money. 

It seems silly to spend more than $200 on a scope for a rifle that cost less than $200. 

I'm just going to be plinking at 25 or 50 yards anyway, I think I should probably just get a cheap red dot... It seems like they're a lot less expensive than scopes, and I don't really need magnification. 

I'd really like to spend less than $100 if I can get something good, but I suppose I can spend up to $200 if I need to."

Fair enough...

Though I disagree about it being silly to spend more for a scope than for the rifle you put it on... In fact I generally recommend you spend MORE for your scope than you did for your rifle (unless it's a high end custom rifle).

... for one thing, good optics are a lot more expensive than good guns.

But, if it's just a bone stock 10/22, you don't actually NEED "good" optics, you can get away with just "acceptable" if you have to (though you'd be surprised how little you have to spend to go from "acceptable" to "good").

And budgets are budgets...

Sometimes, you've only got $100 or $200, and you need an optic. When that's the case, it's not useful just to say "oh they're all garbage" or "don't be so cheap" (which unfortunately you'll hear a lot on firearms boards).

Conversely, it's also not good advice when people say "Oh, I love my NCStar, it works just fine, you all are idiots for spending more money" (which unfortunately you'll ALSO hear a lot of on gun forums and blogs); when in fact, NCStar "optics" are generally utter garbage that no-one should ever waste their money on.

Note: Yes, that's harsh on NCStar I know... but I stand by it. Buying junk is not even being cheap, it's just throwing away your money. If you got a "golden sample" that wasn't garbage, great for you... you're the exception.

That's the problem with quality control (and the overall field of quality management): There's no such thing as getting everything perfect all the time; there is only managing tolerances, defects, and deviations from standards. The more rigorous your standards are, and the closer to meeting that standard you have to be to pass your QC testing (and the more QC testing you do); the more expensive your manufacturing process is going to be.

A brand with good quality control will maintain very tight manufacturing tolerances, and strict standards; and they will require a minimum degree of deviation from the standard to pass their extensive quality control testing. This makes the product much more expensive, but you can count on it meeting spec, and being reliable (at least in theory...)

No-one sets out to make a crappy product that doesn't meet specs, even a junk brand like NCStar. An NCStar scope may actually meet standards, and be manufactured exactly as designed; but to keep costs minimal, they don't have much in the way of quality control... So a scope that isn't anywhere close to meeting standards will get shipped, just the same as one that is perfect and reliable and will last forever.... And you have no idea which one you'll get. If you got lucky and got a good one, great, if not, you're out of luck. Worse, you may not be able to tell you got a bad one, until you're actually depending on the product... and it fails...  

So, to business...

As always, my first recommendation is to buy for VALUE, not for price.

Sometimes cheap is good, just low cost. Sometimes cheap is just cheap. In general, you get better value paying a bit more, to get better quality and reliability.

My second recommendation, specific to a little .22 plinker; is rather than a red dot, to get a relatively low power, mid quality, variable magnification scope, with a medium sized objective; from a decent manufacturer, with a good warranty.

I just think that for most uses of a 10/22, you're going to get more use, and more enjoyment; out of a scope, than out of a red dot.

Yes, an acceptable quality scope is generally going to be more expensive than an acceptable quality red dot; but you can generally get into something reasonable for well under $200 pretty easily; and certainly under $250.

Nikon, Pentax, Redfield, Burris, and Vortex all have really quite good scopes available between $120 and $250, which will do just about anything you would want to do with a 10/22 or similar rifle... And still be useful for a longer range center fire rifle if you want to re-purpose it later.

There's no need to go down to wal-mart blister pack priced Bushnell and Simmons scopes; when you can get a Redfield or Vortex 2-7x32 with a lifetime warranty for $120, or a Nikon or Burris 3-9x40 for $140 (lifetime warranty on the Burris too).

As it happens, I use a Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40 on my 10/22, that I picked up for around $100 on special sale at Cabelas a few years ago (well under even online price actually. I think list on it is $240, and online prices are $140-$170).

It's a decent enough scope, with acceptable light gathering, acceptably smooth zoom operation, and repeatable adjustments that hold zero (that last bit is really important. Lower cost scopes are often somewhat imprecisely made internally; and their adjustment mechanisms don't produce repeatable precision, or hold zero under recoil or being banged about).

Also important, it's quick to acquire a sight picture at low magnification (the primary advantage of a red dot), but still has sufficient magnification for any distance I'd want to shoot my 10/22 at (I usually shoot it off my deck, with my suppressor. It's about 70 yards to the water; but I sometimes go over 100 yards at the range, or out in the woods, just for grins).

The secret to quick sight picture with a scope, is using relatively low power, with a relatively large objective lens, of sufficient quality to be bright, sharp, and clear, at all magnifications and in all lighting conditions you choose to shoot.

With proper scope selection, you can shoot just as quickly and simply with a scope as you can with a red dot sight.

Realistically, a 2-5x or 2-7x is perfectly adequate for most peoples .22 shooting; and a 3-9x is about the most you'll need for anything short of a benchrest competition (and most rimfire competitions don't allow optics anyway). There's really no need to go to 10x or higher; doing so will just add cost and weight, without giving you any real advantage (again, unless you're doing competitive long range rimfire shooting).

Remember, if you can see the holes your bullets make in the target at 10 yards, a 9x magnification (presuming good light, and a good quality scope), will let you see the holes at 90 yards. Most people rarely fire their .22s at longer than 25 yards (except when they're just goofing around), and very rarely at more than 50 yards, or 100 yards. Even if you can only see the holes you're making at 5 yards, a 9x will let you see them at 45 yards.

My vision isn't perfect, and with my glasses; on a high contrast target I can see individual .22 holes at somewhere between 15 and 25 yards depending on the exact target type, target background, and the lighting. With a shoot-n-c or something similar I can see the hits at well beyond 25 yards. I rarely turn my 3-9x up beyond 6x when shooting my 10/22.

A 32mm or 35mm objective lens is just fine for a 5x or 7x maximum magnification, and acceptable for 9x (unless you're shooting in dim light). A 40mm or 42mm objective is just fine for 9x max magnification; there's really no need to go bigger than 42mm for anything less than 10x (again, unless you're shooting in dim light).

Note: For a given quality level and magnification level; a bigger objective lens is going to give you a better, brighter image (particularly in dimmer light); at the expense of a higher cost, larger size, and higher weight. 

If you're going to be in bright sunlight most of the time, it won't make much difference (your pupils will be narrowed down to protect themselves from sunlight anyway, and can only use so much light); but in dim light, twilight (sunrise or sunset), a dark overcast etc... going with a bigger objective is generally a good choice. 

BUT... when you're deciding how to spend your money, you are probably better off going for a higher quality piece of glass, rather than a larger lens.

My third recommendation is that, in general, I find most optics under $100 to be... A poor value shall we say? Generally not worth the money, even at how little you may pay for them.

..But a budget is a budget; and there are at least some minimally acceptable options under $100, and a fair number well under $200.

Now, we've already talked a bit about lower cost scopes, so from here let's focus on "red dot" sights (unmagnified or low magnification optical sights that feature a lit dot or reticle, generally projected onto the back side of a glass lens, as the aiming point).

For a .22, if you're not shooting it very much, you can get away with a lot lower quality and toughness, particularly in a red dot; if you don't mind that at some point it's just going to die for no reason.

Not probably, definitely; and "some point" is going to probably be sooner than later...

By that standard, you can get at least minimally acceptable red dots under $100.

You can pick up some models of TruGlo red dot on sale for under $50 online; and most models are between $80 and $150. They're acceptable.

Millet has a line of relatively low end red dots, in the $60-$90 range. they're acceptable, and they've got a good warranty.

Simmons, same thing.

Tasco has two product lines for red dots, and the lower product line, same thing.

I group these brands together, because it seems they all use the same Chinese OEMs for their hardware.

That said, it isn't safe to assume that pieces that look the same externally ARE the same under the skin. The Chinese vendors will build several different models that look externally very similar, but may have VERY different quality of components, and overall quality control. Sometimes these different models will be at widely different price points; sometimes they are actually very close in price, but very different in quality.

I think Swift, BSA, Barska, and NCStar also use the same OEM; but as I said above, I have observed significant differences in quality between visually similar models, from what seem to be the same OEM, but sold under different brand names. Specifically, I have found that examples from these vendors are generally of unacceptable quality, and particularly of unacceptable reliability.

On the other hand, I have found the TruGlos to be of slightly higher, and frequently "acceptable" levels of quality. I even have a couple of them around to throw on guns for testing.

Others may have had different experiences of course... and as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

From "about the same" to "slightly higher" quality, and around the same pricing ($60 to $160) are Bushnells trophy line of red dots. They're acceptable.... Some of the higher end ones may even edge into "good" territory; and they have a decent warranty, and acceptable customer service.

Tascos higher end red dot line, the "pro points" use the same Chinese OEM as the Bushnell Trophy line. They're priced and specced similarly, and are of similar quality.

For a LOT higher quality and reliability, you can get into a Burris SpeedDot or Fastfire for as little as $180 (online, on sale); or an XTR or AR-Prism sight starting around $240.

I've owned and used several of them, and they're actually quite good. Also, Burris has great customer service and a great warranty (among the best in the business in fact).

At a similar quality level, you can get a Vortex strikefire for as little as $160. I have had several of them and like them very much. I haven't used their customer service myself, but I have heard from others that they have very good customer service (and an excellent warranty).

Now... my personal recommendation, is to skip the cheap stuff, and go straight to the midrange.

I guarantee you, if you actually use the thing, you will go through two or three of the TruGlo/Simmons/Tasco/Bushnell generic Chinese OEM sights; before you even put a ding in a Burris or Vortex...

...And in my experience, the Burris and the Vortex will take most of the punishment that a much more expensive (three to five times the price actually) Trijicon or Aimpoint will. Not all of the punishment necessarily, but most of it; and unless you're defending your life (or the lives of others) with it... I don't think the price difference is worth it. I'll take the Burris or the Vortex for most guns, in most circumstances, most of the time.

You're going to pay $60-$90 for a minimally acceptable red dot that isn't going to have repeatable adjustments, that IS going to lose zero, and that will generally fail, in a year or two at most (less if you shoot it more); that is only usable on your .22...

... or you're going to pay $100 more for a red dot that you probably can't kill (unless you're actually trying to), that WILL retain zero and make repeatable adjustments, and that you can use on anything you've got, now or in the future.

If you HAVE the $100 it's not even a question. If you don't, well then, you just don't have it.

But it still comes down to, buy for value, not for price.

New Household Appliance

There has been a serious deficiency in our household for the past couple months.

For the past few years, I've had a lovely little Marlin 880sq; a heavy barreled target .22 boltie, with a low powered fixed scope, and a reasonably comfy synthetic stock.

Sweet shooter, if a little muzzle heavy; as you would expect with a heavy barrel and synthetic stock. Of course that just made it more stable; and it was very nice off a rest or a bipod.

I say was, though that is inaccurate; it still IS a sweet shooter, but it's no longer MY sweet shooter.

Really, it was only temporarily mine in the first place. A few years ago, Kim was selling off some of his guns, and I bought it (and a 625) from him; with the proviso that whenever he felt like it he could buy it back.

Well, in March or April, he dropped me a line to say "hey, whenever you can arrange it, I'd love my marlin back"; and in May, I sent it on its way to him.

This unfortunately left us without any kind of .22 rifle; a critical household deficiency indeed.

This weekend, we corrected that deficiency, with one of these (Big 5 had them on sale for $60 off list):



Yes yes I know, everyone and their grandmother has a 10/22... which is kind of why we got one actually; because they are so popular, there's so much stuff for them. Everyone has parts, everyone makes accessories, everyone knows how to use them, work on them etc....

Fact is, there isn't a semi-auto .22 out there I'm particularly fond of and the boltie I want is a bit steep at the moment (a CZ452 lux, at around $400, plus optics, a new barrel, and trigger work). Since there is no particular model that meets exactly what I want, out of the box, and the 10/22 is the AR of the rimfire world, might as well have a go. Want a better barrel, done. Trigger, a snap. Stocks? Whooo boy do they have stocks.

In fact, I've already started customizing... Right now, there's already optics on the gun. Bass pro had a nice price (same as SWFA actually) on the Nikon Prostaff scopes, so I grabbed a set of QD rings, and this:


It's the Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40; in matte black, which I think looks better in contrast to the stainless, than a silver would matching it.

Honestly, it's more glass than I need, even if I put a match barrel and trigger on the rifle. The problem is, trying to find a decent, reasonably priced, fixed power scope of medium power and medium size these days, seems damn near impossible.

I wanted more than a 4x... I was hoping for a 6x42 actually; but other than expensive tactical scopes, and pistol and muzzleloader specific scopes (who needs a fixed 6x pistol scope?), I couldn't find one.

So, I made what I hope was the next best choice, and went for the 3-9x40. It's nice and clear and bright up through 7 power; with just a LITTLE bit of light falloff at 8-9 power; but it maintains good sharpness throughout.

Now, one of the reasons I also went with the 10/22, is because I've already got an E.R. Shaw threaded 10/22 barrel on the way (through Tactical Innovations); and I didn't have to pay an outrageous amount for it, or wait three months (have you tried getting a gun smith to do any small work lately? Best of luck friend). My barrel should be here before the weekend; and I hope to be able to take it out next weekend to test with my .22 suppressor.

Believe me, there's not much more fun to be had shooting, than with a semi-auto .22, heavy subsonic rounds, and a suppressor.

I've also ordered the standard extended mag catch, bolt buffer, and automatic bolt release; now I just need to pick out a stock, and decide what I want to do with the trigger.

I'm not sure exactly what I want yet, and basically everybody makes 10/22 stocks; but I'm kinda thinking something like this one from Clark Custom (the top one):


I may even splash out on one of Clarks barrels; though they DO have an eight week minimum lead time if I want one threaded (I called and asked), and they charge $75 on top of the $225 for the barrel... which is quite frankly a bargain considering you're getting a really great barrel, worked PROPERLY. Besides, Lilja, Volquartsen and Shilen want even more for their barrels (unthreaded); and I'm not convinced you're getting more.

Now the trigger... I'm really not sure. Volquartsen, Clark... lots of other for that matter; all do trigger, sear, hammer etc... and a couple do drop in triggers (Kid, JARD, others). At this point, I'm really not sure who to go with.

The factory trigger isn't totally awful, it's pretty crisp, without any creep or stack; but it has a distinct step or hitch in the pull just before release that I really dislike (it's typical of Rugers machining though). Also, I'd estimate the weight at 6lbs; though I haven't had a chance to get my trigger scale on it. For a .22 rifle, I'd consider anything above two pounds excessive.

Anyway, I'll have pictures and a review up as soon as I pick out and fit the rest of my parts; because after all, who needs just another 10/22 review? At least my review should be of the stuff that makes mine slightly different.

It's so cute and tiny...

From Aimpoints site:

Micro T-1 - No matter what your mission, the size and weight of your equipment is a critical factor. With the Micro T-1, Aimpoint has introduced an aiming system that provides the performance of our full-sized sights in the smallest package possible. Built to offer the same battle proven ruggedness as other Aimpoint products, the Micro T-1 is able to perform under extreme conditions while adding negligible weight to your weapon. Suitable for use on Rifles, Carbines, Shotguns, Submachineguns and Handguns, the Aimpoint Micro T-1 is ideal as a stand-alone sight, and can also be “piggybacked” on top of larger magnifying scopes, night vision, or thermal imaging optics. The Micro T-1 can also be used by hunters and sport shooters that need night vision comptability. The performance of the Micro T-1 is optimized for use with all generations of night vision devices (NVDs), but is especially suited for 3rd generation night vision technology. Aimpoint’s unique band-pass coating on the reflective lens reflects select frequencies of red light at near 100% efficiency in order to give the highest possible dot brightness, while transmitting nearly 100% of light in the Infrared and near-infrared part of the spectrum to provide the clearest, brightest image possible when used with a 3rd generation NVD. With 6 NVD-compatible brightness settings and 7 daylight settings including one extra-bright setting, the Micro T-1 is ready for use around the clock. Unique features for Micro T-1 Unique features of the Aimpoint Micro T-1 • Ideal for rifles, carbines, shotguns, submachineguns and handguns • Weight 3.7 oz. (105g) including mount • 1X (non-magnifying) parallax free optic. • Compatible will all generations of Night Vision Devices (NVD) • 6 night vision compatible settings and 7 daylight settings – one extra bright for use with laser protection glasses or in bright desert sunlight. • Integral Picatinny-style base allows easy attachment to any rail. • Patent pending mount is keyed to the sight body to absorb recoil. • New ACET technology allows 50,000 hours (over 5 years) of constant operation from one battery • 4 MOA dot • Hard anodized non-reflective finish. • Submersible to 80 feet (25 meters) • Precision adjustments for windage and elevation. Top of protective caps fits into holes on adjustment screws – no other tool required. • Use as a stand alone sight or “piggybacked” on larger magnifying, thermal, or night vision optics. Standard features for all Aimpoint® sights Unlimited field of view Parallax-free and unlimited eye relief Unaffected by extreme weather conditions Rugged, durable construction No hazardous materials No laser emission that could be harmful to your eyes Mechanical switch for speed and reliability Increased aiming confidence Aimpoint also offers 2 other Micro sights. The Micro H-1 and the Micro R-1. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OPTICAL DATA System Passive Red Dot Collimator Reflex Sight Magnification 1X Eye relief Unlimited Reticle, size 4 MOA Optical coating Anti reflex and Band Pass coatings, NVD compatible ELECTRONIC DATA Battery Type One 3 V lithium battery, type CR2032, commercially available Battery Life, typical** Over 5 years of continuous (day and night) use at pos 8 of 12 and Switch, dot brightness 12 settings – 4 NVD and 8 Daylight of which 1Extra Bright, MECHANICAL DATA Material housing Extruded, high strength aluminum, hard anodized Surface finish Black to dark gray, non-glare finish Material lens covers Rubber, black, non-glare finish Adjustment Range ±1 m at 100 meters (±1 yds at 100 yds) in windage and elevation, Mounting Keyed surface Patent pending mount keyed to the sight body to absorb recoil DIMENSIONS Length 62 mm (2.4) Width/height 41 mm x 36 mm (1.6” x 1.4”) for sight only and 41 mm x 40 mm (1.6” x 1.6”) for sight with Mount Ring width none Weight 84 grams (3.0 oz) Sight only, 105 grams (3.7 oz) Sight with Mount ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Temperature Range -45 oC to +71 oC (-50 oF to +160 oF) Water resistance 45 m (150 ft.) Fits on Picatinny rails

Hmmmm, 3.7 ounces, submersible to 25 meters (45m resist), 5 year battery life, built in pic mount, 2.4" long, 1.6" wide, and 1.4" high.

No additional mount required, and it'll co-witness right off the bat... Hell, it wouldn't even stick up higher than my BUIS.

At $650 it aint cheap; but it's a hell of a lot cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a 1.5x ACOG.

Hell the only smaller optic out there is the Docter and it's derivatives; and that isn't in a sealed tube.

Heres a pic of it in Michael Toths (from field and stream magazine) hand:

Oh yeah, I've gotta get one of these.

HT: David Petzals Gun Nut Blog