What do you think of the Burris AR-332 scope?

Like said.

They drop 3k into an AR, optic, sling, all the doodads, then shoot maybe once or twice a year. I mean it's their money to waste, but I always end up feeling a little embarrassed for them. Don't get me wrong, I've got a nice setup on a few of my rifles, but it's always funny seeing a few guys walk up to their target during cease fire, look over at mine, then look at theirs, then quickly take theirs down before putting up a fresh target.

I'm not saying I'm god's gift to marksmanship, but if the rifle can do it, then I usually can too.

Big Burris fan, but I don't like the big fat reticle. It seems to obscure what I'm trying to aim at more than it helps me aim in the first place.

I have the same problem with most other tacticool scopes. Maybe it's just me.

I've wondered this myself and I've found that it's most often because alot of people get into shooting because they think it'll make them seem cool, or something like that. When you do it to seem cool, you aren't going to focus on the skill and are going to go with the "gucci'est" gear. But like I said before, it's not a behavior exclusive to rich idiots. There are just as many people with NCStar's and shitty groups/poor form

>just as good
t. poorfag

I agree 100%. Just saying it's funny and somewhat amazing to me anyway, to see people blow that much $$ when they know they don't have the time and/or inclination to practice.

I'd rather be a poor shot with a cheaper setup than a poor shot with 3k+ down the hole. There's a reason why "entry level" products exist. It's also why small single engine aircraft have enormous death rates. Lawyer/banker/doctor types think they'll jump right into something that's beyond them. With rifles it's fine because using one safely at a range doesn't put others at risk, but with aircraft or sports cars it may not be... the mentality is alien to me.

>The glass is dark and grainy and it doesn't hold zero very long.

Are you just talking out of your ass or are you really a fudd? It has held zero for 2 years now and still is clear enough to easily see and hit a 500 yard platE. What are you basing this statment on?

>what are you basing this opinion on
Having used one for awhile now. I've used that optic on my kicking around rifle but it doesn't come close to comparing to the ones only my competition rifles. "Clear enough to see a plate at 500" is not very clear at all, my dude. Also,
>fudd
Idontthinkyouknowwhatthatwordmeans.jpg

That’s the usual comment when this is brought up. Funny enough, generally it’s the literally poor people who waste money on overly expensive scopes then say something like ‘poorfag’. Most well-off people are well-off because they learn where to spend money and where not to spend it (I.e. a scope that will give them no pragmatic advantage over a cheaper optic).

t. Someone who buys a $5k flir scope for night hunting because it has value but won’t spend over $4-500 for a regular optic because you get literally nothing back from the extra money spent. If I were going to fight in a war overseas then yeah the extra $ that *may* translate into durability more than anything make it worth it. For use here stateside as a range toy or tool for hunting? It’s simply a waste of money.

The AR332 glass isn't so bad. It's excellent for its price point.

But you're right, it doesn't compare to premium glass. There's a difference between "neat! I can see 500 yards with my reticle on top" and "holy shit, I didn't know I could see 500 yards in 4k at dusk".

What type of competition are you shooting where you’re shooting targets >500 yards with a 556 rifle? Or stated another way, at what distance or situation is this not ‘clear’ enough?

Used this on my g2bull

Attached: opplanet-burris-ar-536-5x-36mm-kit-300223-main.jpg (260x260, 20K)

FT/R class.

Rifle

Attached: 0225181738.jpg (2560x1280, 1.01M)

looks like it's a tack driver. fun looking build if not terribly pretty.

So you’re telling me you’re using fixed 3x power scopes for f-T/R..?

F-class or service rifle? It's not really that weird. When your target is a spot that's barely descernable at a given distance, the quality of your optic makes the difference between seeing the edge of that Target or seeing a blurry line. For most purposes, 500 is a good benchmark price though, as beyond that your really spending a premium for rather small differences.

>excellent for the price point
I totally agree with that.

I didn't say anything about a 3x scope. Merely 500+ yards with a .223 where glass clarity is extremely important.

How often do you see fixed 3 power scopes used in those though...?

All the time. Magnification is limited to 3x (or 4x, depending on who you're shooting with)

The thread is about a fixed 3-power scope compared to expensive fixed scopes like trijicons. When you’re getting into high magnification then yes, glass quality concerns are exacerbated.

I guess a better question in context of the thread is how often are prism scopes usedfor that? I never see them.

Not often. I don't think I've seen one being used since I've started competing. I don't see how that's relevant

>The glass is dark and grainy and it doesn't hold zero very long
sorry m8 that's not how prism scopes work

The OP scope is a prism scope and the comparisons are being made to other prism scopes, not long scopes.

There are comparable non-prism scopes out there, and nobody specified prism scopes until you did

Anybody try this yet?

Vism ECO. Just bought one for fun. only $160 on amazon. If it doesn't work I'm going to return it but it seems ok. It has a lifetime warranty which is cool as long as the company that makes it doesn't disappear. The light and laser on the side is dumb and adds weight but whatever. Reticle isn't too bad. Wish it was a chevron.

Attached: Vism_ECO_cheapo.png (823x677, 314K)

*crack*
*sips*

i know nothing about that company didnt even know it existed but that sight just looks like the most gimmicky pile of shit from the picture. especially at that price point.

Here is the reticle. Its a blue reticle which is different but not bad. The illumination sucks in low light.

Attached: Vism_reticle_blue.png (904x1202, 2.51M)

I've been considering a similar build in .243 win. I worked at a big sporting goods store during the Obama panic buy years and one of the things that I noticed was that we were never, not once, sold out of .243 Win. God forbid we have to deal with that ever again, but I have been entertaining the idea of keeping around a .243 in case I want to shoot center fire rifle during another round of panic buying and also because it works great for distance shooting and hunting.

I bought one and didn't like the eye relief much. I prefer my strike fire

Strike eagle, fuck

It looks like a shitty knockoff elcan

>wealthy people are wealthy because they effectively manage their finances.
what kind of witchcraft is this?????
truth on my Jow Forums????
GFTO, you do not belong here.

It isn't necessarily true though. I meet plenty of rich idiots that spend frivolously. They're rich because whatever it is they so to make money enables it. Often times, rich people on Jow Forums simply have more money they're willing to spend on firearms and accessories than most people

Can you take a worse pic? I can still make out some detail.

Lemme see what I can find

Attached: 1215171806a~2.jpg (3886x2914, 1.69M)

Better lol?

Attached: 1215171806a~3.jpg (1432x3655, 916K)

Nah, u just poor

I have the 5x on one of my AR's. They're a lot cheaper now than they used to be. Good scope for the price, and never had an issue with mine.

Granted not as nice as my Trijicon my uncle gave me that he bought in the mid-90's (richfag) but it's nicer than most tactical optics I've used. Though I prefer my Leupold Mark 4

It's not at my range. Theres like a handful of guys with nice things and theyre all regulars who are pretty decent. Are you sure you're not looking at people with cheap shit and you just don't know the difference?