Discussion in 'Optics and Tactical Gear' started by spamassassin, Oct 27, 2016.
A little fun for Halloween. Enjoy!
I loved it !
LOL....That's a pretty cool video. I like my little UTG scope though. Had a boo boo lip when you shot it . I know I know....there are much better scopes. But I've had zero issues with it so far.
The stink beetle was funny
I like mine also. I didn't have boo boo lip, had to bite mine.
Sorry for the text wall but please do read:
If you guys look at the description on the youtube page you'll see that I actually make a statement about the scope quality. As it turned out there were lots of features in it and for the most part they worked. None of them worked extremely well though. It's important to understand about advertised versus measured capability. This is why the disclaimer was there. If you have a UTG like this one then you spent about 100 bucks and if it works for you it's not a bad 100 bucks... the features operate apparently within your tolerance window. I'd be happy to slap it on a .22lr ranch gun or a tank fed air rifle. However, it's not a very good scope when compared against the balance of scopes that are available on the market, in some (but rare) cases, even those at a similar price point. The issue is not brand but poor implementation of a large number of features because of a low price point. Lots of features are not going to be well implemented, not enough money in the profit margin to do so. What problems did I find, well...
The reticle was just ever so slightly off center. How far? About .25MOA down and to the left, not far but not centered. The parallax adjustment was only useful at extremely close ranges and did well there. Focusing long range targets tightly was tough though and touchy especially since infinity was not infinity, slightly before infinity was. 3 yards was 3 yards though and that was impressive. To say it didn't pass the box test would be an understatement. Several clicks failed entirely to register throughout the very short adjustment range. Close isn't good enough there. The glass coatings allowed for a lot of sub-optimal optical effects. General optical quality was not high but was acceptable for your average deer hunter. Clear at modest ranges but I found it hard to resolve things like orange dots against white backgrounds as close as 500m. The total vertical adjustment range was tiny by tactical scope standards. Physically the mounting options were extremely limited by the wickedly short main tube. One surprise, it used a wire crosshair! Wire crosshairs with mil dots seems a lot strange but is how they managed to get all those features in the scope. There was no etched reticle which dropped costs enough to add red and green illumination (which had quite a bit of bloom) but also made fragile the wire reticle, with lots of places for it to weaken and break.
So you see, it's not that I'm insulting it for the sake of doing so. I'm placing it in context against all scopes here and in the film against a USO scope which are both ridiculous and unfair comparisons. The latter done for purely comedic value.
I will say, if those that invested $100 in the UTG offerings were to invest $200 in something like a plain ol' Leupold VX1 next time that they'd probably get pretty down in the mouth about their previous choice in the UTG... for just as long as it takes to find something more suitable than a high power rifle to stick the UTG on, like a .22lr, sitting in the back of their safe unscoped.
So, please quit being insulted the lot of you. And please, everyone release the dental grip on your lower lips. Take my advice on your next scope purchase and buy as basic of a scope as you can deal with for as much as you can afford to spend. Thank me when you do.
I wonder if I blew up a Yugo and replaced it with a Porche how many Yugo owners would think I was bagging on Yugo owners instead just comparing Yugos to Porches.
I wasn't insulted at all Spam and completely understand what you were doing and why (well maybe not completely understood why) which you made clear in the above post. When it does fail I will replace it with a better scope for sure and likely ask advise from the crew here.
LOL....I would never defend a Yugo!
I get it. It's about equipment for serious applications in demanding shooting disciplines and not about the shooters ourselves.
They drove o.k. and were affordable enough to get some folks driving, you gotta give the car that.
Like the scope, the Yugo provides a basic service. While there are better choices out there, it will get the job done. Probably not well but adequately, depending on what you define "adequate" as. My Tasco scope on the .22LR rifle that was given to me when I was 12, falls in this category. The optics are horrible but get the job done within the parameters of the round. Well enough that I've never replaced the scope and the rifle itself isn't the best either. It works and I take it out to plink on occasion but it isn't my "go to rifle" for serious work.