$300 Tactical Optic? Is It Any Good?

SEE OUR REVISIT OF THIS CONCEPT HERE: www.youtube.co...
AMAZON Store: amzn.to/2H7Lq6Y
PATREON: / iv8888
JOIN USCCA LEGAL SELF DEFENSE NETWORK: usccapartners.c...
CHECK OUT OUR MUSIC CHANNEL: / guitarsenal
In this video we take a look at a very budget minded optic, the Primary Arms 1-6X24mm in a 7.62x39/300 BLK ACSS reticle pattern and see if it tracks out to 600 yards with Wolf 123gr ammunition. After the filming of the video, we were informed that the reticle was graduated using Golden Tiger ammunition which is supposedly a little hotter than the Wolf we were using which was going transonic at 525-500 yards and destabilizing. Rest assured that we will revisit this concept in the future. Stay tuned, much more on the way
CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE!
www.iraqveteran...
AR500 STEEL TARGETS: goo.gl/PDBNmN
FULL30: goo.gl/5sAkHe
FACEBOOK: / iraqveteran8888
Follow Us On Instagram:
/ iraqveteran8888_official
/ mrsiraqveteran8888
/ chad_iv8888
AMAZON NOTICE: As an Amazon Associate, Iraqveteran8888 earns from qualifying purchases.
Copyright 2018, 88 Industries, LLC
FTC- This video contains a paid product placement in a syndicated professional video production; all opinions are our own and are neither approved nor disapproved by the advertiser.
DISCLAIMER: Our videos are strictly for documentary, educational, and entertainment purposes only. All shooting is performed on state-approved firing ranges under the supervision of trained professionals. Imitation or the use of any acts depicted in these videos is solely AT YOUR OWN RISK. All work on firearms should be carried out by a licensed individual and all state and federal rules apply to such. We (including KZbin) will not be held liable for any injury to yourself or damage to your firearms resulting from attempting anything shown in any of our videos. We do not endorse any specific product and this video is not an attempt to sell you a good or service. We are not a gun store and DO NOT sell or deal in firearms. Such a practice is heavily regulated and subject to applicable laws. We DO NOT sell parts, magazines, or firearms. We are not instructing our viewers on how to modify firearms, accessories or otherwise to change their basic legal function. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately. By viewing or flagging this video you are acknowledging the above.
Fair Use: In the rare instance we include someone else’s footage it is covered in Fair Use for Documentary and Educational purposes with the intention of driving commentary and allowing freedom of speech.

[@hilltop4847]

When you spend $1000 on trijicon scope, you get what you pay for, a quality scope. With primary arms, you always get MORE than you pay for. Plus their customer service is excellent.

[@christianmcnally4323]

Dang... That's kinda poetic

[@fallout1116]

MrGunNGear loved this same optic, performed great for him. Even GarandThumb liked this optic.

[@travislupum]

I ran an acog ta01nsn for the last few years it now sits in a box replaced by primary arms 5x prism due to the reticle being what it is now don't get me wrong I'll never get rid of my acog as it has this weird place in my heart

[@blowinshtup6553]

I'm no fan of Primary Arms scopes but this was a lousy test of an optic, gentleman. You guys are better than this. Hopefully, you think it through next time abit more. Cheers.

[@doubletap10mm]

Superdude70 then why are you watching them

[@Cavemanheartrock]

@@doubletap10mm Probably because he thought it was going to be a good review. IV8888 normally does good reviews and tests of things. I'm honestly a fan of primary arms but I agree with this guy.

[@pre_ban_andy]

I'd like to see you guys do the exact same thing but with a 5.56 ACSS reticle and an AR.

[@sinformant]

Andrew Bradshaw I have 1x-6x x24 with acss reticle on my ar and love it! Best christmas present ive gotten in years. Twang and bang does a review on it.

[@CrazyPalidin57]

It seems like they were trying to cheat the optic with the round of choice.

[@sinformant]

c koch well thereticle in these is based off of their bullet drop and wind calculations for a specific round. Wouldnt you want to have a SCOPe configured for the round you are shooting out of that rifle? Mine is for a specific grain of 5.56, but it also works with .308 and a couple other rounds. The manual has bullet drop tables in it for different grain bullets and different calibers

[@Vlad7Sokruta]

Yas!!!

[@fireball1322]

Myself included

[@biggboysouth]

Love the stuff guys but come on. You are using the cheapest ammo available and complaining that the scope doesn't track perfectly. That 3 foot drop at 600 yards is more than likely due to the ammo used rather than the scope. I don't own any primary arms products so I have no bias. I just see this as a bit of a fixed outcome due to the variables. Also I dont think buying an affordable optic means you'll buy the cheapest ammo, I'm sure if someone is trying to shoot out to 600 yards they'll spend a few dollars more and get some slightly better ammo than wolf. Do like Chad was saying and give this another try with some better ammo. Doesn't have to be that real expensive stuff like he mentioned but something with a little more consistancy to it. Those rounds you were using were very inconsistent, not ideal for trying to test a scopes tracking accuracy. Also the different caliber models would be great, that way we could see if the different models read more accurate than one another i.e. 5.56 vs 308 vs 7.62x39 ect.

[@wwaytobe]

Not due to the ammo but the caliber. 7.62x39 and 300BLk are really sub 300 yrd rounds. Real life shooting over that is tricky.

[@nikolauswilliams3124]

It could be any number of factors, quite honestly

[@biggboysouth]

Well being that they revisited this video already and found out that the scope worked as advertised with proper mil spec ammo as well as other non under powered ammo. I think it's pretty definitive with that test that the wolf ammo was the cause of the problem here. I think the wolf was firing something like 300fps slower than all other 7.62x39 loads they tried. Wolf is the same in .223, it fires something like 200 fps slower in that round. Wolf gold on the other hand is better but if I recall wolf gold 5.56 was actually a tad bit slower than other 5.56 loads but I could be wrong on that.

[@leroyatleroys]

I think it's funny because I just saw the vid where they compared the 4x ACOG to the Primary Arms Platinum 1-6x. They used a piston driven AR in 5.56 for that one. In this video, the put more rounds consistently (although rather high, but still generally in the same spot for the ammo used.) on the 600 target with this low cost scope than they did with a 5.56 chambered rifle and a 4x ACOG. This 300 dollar optic technically out shot a 1200 dollar ACOG. Yet they say it wasn't tracking. I know there are several variables. But I think this scope is definitely worth getting.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

You aren't going to get the build quality of a $1200-1500 optic in one costing many times less. The whole point of the ACSS system is to minimize external adjustments using the windage and elevation knobs, instead making corrections from the reticle itself. And at 600 yards, you are going to see considerable variability in trajectory of bullets as light as those fired from5.56/.223 ammunition. You are absolutely correct that poor ammunition negates the purpose of the test, which is an honest evaluation of the scope. The optic in question is a screamingly good value for what it offers, considering the price. Not long ago, I worked in the retail FA industry, and not even high-dollar $2000+ scopes and optics from people like Nightforce and U.S. Optics offered a reticle as good as the ACSS. Why? Because they don't have one. They're probably going to end up licensing the ACSS from PA, if they want the best. Trijicon is already doing just that.

[@Mrgunsngear]

good stuff; I'd guess the BDC would be a little better with some Federal or other hotter ammo.

[@octoberfalls5870]

These guys are testing optic capabilities while shooting beyond the 7.62x39 capabilities... the absolute worst science-based "Test" or review I have ever seen. These bullets go sporadic right at 520 yards 😳 👏

[@DeafeningPew]

@@octoberfalls5870 1.) This optic has holds for 100-600 yards. Why not test the optic's claimed capabilities? 2.) The description literally explains they were using ammunition that was sub-optimal for these ranges. They also talk about this at 26:00 minutes then again past 31:50. 3.) They contacted Primary Arms about their results and got valuable information about this. A ton of people shoot wolf steel case, this test is very valuable for those people. 4.) They revisited this optic in a later video and improved on their testing criteria. 5.) You're complaining about this test by replying to a comment that is four years old... Leave MrGunsnGear out of this xD

[@gooberminther3tik25]

@@octoberfalls5870 the drop at 525 is -123". They're lobbing them in. I calculate MPBR to be 236yds at -7.5".

[@michaelpereira808]

So you guys put out a video review on an optic zeroing it using a different load than what was recommended from the manufacturer (as admitted in the video description). Instead you use a cheap but inconsistent ammo for an accuracy test of the reticle. And after all that, you question the manufacturer's integrity by saying the manufacturer thought no one would actually use the scope at 600 yards and implying they made it up. I know you said that the viewers requested more budget options and that's great but if you guys are going to do it please give it a fair shake. I know you said you will revisit it and I'm hopeful you will. I appreciate the work you put into your channel.

[@matthewchastain136]

Michael Pereira there is nothing you can learn from a review like this on optics. Every scope will shoot if you zero it and shoot it within a similar timeframe. It is longevity and consistency that matters which is not gathered from this. I don't care though I just watch for fun.

[@michaelpereira808]

Matthew Chastain I agree with everything you have written. I'm disappointed about the implications that reticle was made up because who would shoot 600yds with 7.62x39. Give the scope a chance by zeroing with the proper round. Also, don't spin dials just because one has idea to work Kentucky windage from the 400yd and then blame the reticle.

[@andrewslagle1974]

mrgunsandgear raves about primary arms scopes his vidios prove it as well what gives with these guys

[@jeffreyphillips3048]

key phrase here... viewer requested. they aren't schilling for Trijicon here, so it's not going to be a glowing review.

[@rainmechanic]

Robski over at AKoperatorsunion has run these scopes through the proverbial ringer and they've come out the other end smelling like roses.. This and the fixed 3X Prism scope have been bolted to AK's and tossed into the air, dropped onto concrete, thrown into his creek, into mud, sand, ect,.. Shaken off and made first round hits on 300 and 400 yard steel.. Impressive doesn't begin to describe these ACSS Optics. I also think his WASR10 is more accurate than whatever strange AK variant Eric chose to use in this test..

[@codyhess5713]

" let's test this optic, also were using crap ammo".... Wtf guys!?

[@gluemuncher1986]

That's what I was thinking.

[@bigalfrombrewster1842]

Scope was tracking fine begin started messing around,,trigger finger misfire, amateur !

[@jenky1044]

@@bigalfrombrewster1842 I never thought he was a tack driver by any means. That's why shooting out to 300 and on steel and not paper. I laughed when Chad said "aim small - miss small". LoL 😂.

[@williamiverson903]

My 7.62x39 AR shoots Tul and Wolf just as accurately as Federal and Hornady. Easy 2" at 100yds.

[@frankopanklaric]

Because that is the ammo one would buy/use if they are using a lower end optic and frankly more reviewers should take this in to account.

[@Excedrine]

Shooting a 7.62x39MM to 600 yards is more akin to calling in a mortar strike than firing a rifle.

[@estebahngoldman396]

7.62 was design for CQB ! Not long range !

[@tatiana11158]

Excedrine only if you’re used to girly rifles! When presented with a man’s rifle, you can’t shoot for shit! How typical! 😂

[@milferdjones6081]

@@tatiana11158 you do realize hes talking about the ark of the bullet right?

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

You're right about that. Your typical 7.62x39 123-125 grain FMJ load @ 2350 fps is really running out of gas by then, and is transsonic or getting ready to go transsonic, hence unstable/inaccurate in flight. Considering that many AK47-pattern rifles only group 4" at 100 yards, it is not surprising that the groups were nonexistent by that time.

[@andycraig6905]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 about 350-400 meter point target and about 600-700 meter area or group fire target for aks. Ar 15s are more along 400-500 point target and 800-900 for an area or group target.

[@rcairnut]

I am sure this optic is not the weak link @ 610 yd, this video smeed to show that this gun, ammo, scope was 300 yd and closer fun and a good plinker. However wolf steel case @ 600yd = fail and that is not a shock, this ammo did what it should up close and that is what it is good for.

[@nc_classics_9610]

Rodney Peters I agree the velocity Extreme Spread could be 100 fps. I would have liked to have seen this video with some high-quality ammo.

[@gooberminther3tik25]

calculator indicated drop of 161" and FPE 325 at 600yd. It's not a .308x51.

[@thedrip109]

Are you guys haters of primary arms, what gives. Let's not test a ss Camaro on the cheapest tires we could buy!

[@hdtvcamera1]

True, but this is real life shooting for many people. This is plinking ammo. There's nothing wrong with this setup. It's a real life test at extreme range. I've never seen anyone shoot this setup at 600 yards.

[@hailtothe_rooster1572]

I've got two. One on the m10x and one on a cmmg mutant. They do everything I ask and perfect for hog hunts

[@andrewmanus5686]

Which rifle is your favorite?

[@rainmechanic]

Holy shit the height over bore axis is like 5 or 6 inches on your setup.. Its probably a major reason why the ballistic drop reticle is not working for you the way it does for Robski over at AKoperatorsunion.. His Arsenal SLR107 and WASR10 with soviet rail mount and 2 - 3in lower sight over bore are consistently making hits on steel out to 500yards.. The strange AK variant being used here has a tall pick rail and your using a 1.5" height over bore AR15 mount. Get that line of sight lower over the bore axis and the drop compensating reticle should work a lot better for you.

[@hyceman]

no wonder they were lost. couldn't even tell when he hit it. lol. he would connect and dude would say "over the birm"

[@SanaaImages]

I think the 600yard issue was related to the 7.62 round and ammo selection. Note: At the 600yard table, right after making slight scope adjustments I was able to confirm 4 hits, Out of 10 shots, 1-low right and 3-high left. The remainder were majority landing high left. I want to thank you both for the experiment, where I gain some knowledge regarding distance and round selection under extreme condition.

[@willowbrookhomestead7492]

Wolf ammo is the problem at 600yds, not the optic. Test again with some match ammo please. I would bet you get drastically different results. And on a good SKS.

[@ElijahDecker]

Willowbrook Homestead If not match ammo, then they should at least use ammo that meets milspec muzzle velocity for 7.62x39mm. Golden Tiger or Brown/Silver/Golden Bear ought to perform a bit better at 600 yards.

[@JunkfoodZombieGuns]

Elijah Decker Eric amended the video description. The bdc on the reticle was designed with different ammo and the Wolf apparently has quite a bit less velocity. Hopefully they will revisit like he said.

[@derrick76oneal88]

So what the best pE optic for 556

[@carlovelasco1825]

Wolf is fine. The biggest issue would be the caliber (600 yards is when 7.62 goes subsonic), the gun, or even the shooter. Not really the fault of the optic in my opinion. They should've used 5.56 or 5.45.

[@tennesseetarantulas5129]

I got the same one on my 300 black out it works great for the woods and hills of TN great video guys keep up the good work.

[@redneckpb821]

Your cheap optic you keep calling it, is made in the same factory as your higher end ones you guys love so much.

[@andrewstoll4548]

Your asking a 300 yard rifle with a 400 yard scope shooting 200 yard ammo to hit a target at 600 yards. Basically you're asking everything here to out preform it's abilities. So I think it did pretty good.

[@Rebel635csi]

I'm still having a hard time understanding what exactly you reviewed here....you basically told us, dont worry about the box test, just leave it alone. So you dont trust that it will return to zero? Did you put the optic on a high power caliber to show us its resistance to shock? no....did you tell us the clarity of the glass other than "trust me, its good". So what exactly did you do here? You put the optic on a mediocre accuracy rifle, with horrible 7.62x39 ammo, lobbing bullets way past their effective range to show us exactly WHAT about this optic? Sweet fuck all, other that Wolf Ammo is not accurate at 600 yards. (hint: we didnt need you to tell us that). The closest thing you guys did was to test the BDC function of the reticle and when the impacts didnt line up with distances "well you know this is for 7.62 and 300 blackout...." So in other words, it doesnt really work either. Good job guys!

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

Rebel635csi - exactly!

[@frankie3grx7]

Trijicon actually uses ACSS reticle design from PrimaryArms on their certain acog models, that says a lot about PrimaryArms.

[@jamesstephenson2346]

That says trijicon developed it and licensed it to pa

[@HypocriticYT]

I'd rather have this scope then the Vortex I paid $1k for. Zero went off about 6 inches, everything was torqued correctly. Sent scope back, they said they tightened the lenses and purged with nitrogen. Was not the correct fix and it still wanders off zero just as much. Now I just want the $$ back or another scope. These "mid range" priced scopes seem to be low end priced higher. So cold I haven't been out to shoot a target I can send back to the company. I'll try this scope you're showing in 5.56mm.

[@ChrisCoyoteV117]

I have a Hilux CMR 1-4 and it fell apart on the first 200 rounds through my Tavor. Sent it back and received a new one. The new one has been great! Went from my Tavor to Mini14 and now a FrankenAR.

[@GrumpyGenXGramps]

I think your choice in ammo and rifle didn't give this optic a chance. If your testing an optic, it should be tested on a rifle and ammo that is known to be accurate. That doesn't give the optic a chance. This to me is more a testament that this rifle and ammo combo sucks. Not so much the optic. You should be testing the OPTIC, not what "the average person" MIGHT do.

[@JD24230]

Trigger Happy yeah, this needs a re-visit

[@madmagrider]

Trigger Happy exactly.

[@roonimac]

this gun is more accurate than any ak or sks i have ever shot so you dont know much. unless you own a m10x dont talk shit

[@JimmySilverFoot]

@@roonimac he's not talking shit. He makes a valid point. Use a gun and ammo combo that is more capable than the optic, that way you eliminate a lot of variables. There is no need to accuse the man of talking shit for simply stating his opinion.

[@bugmanmd1576]

Totally agree. On my 556, Wolf ammo is all over the place, with keyholing, shots can be 12 inch apart or more at a hundred yards. With Federal ammunition shoot 1.5 inch groups at 100 yds. The ammunition Choice totally killed this test. I'm not at all surprised you were three feet off at the distances up to 600 yds

[@derrickreidenbach5367]

Why not put the optic on a bolt gun that can realistically show accuracy? Eric should slap it on his ruger and see what happens. I get the optic is marketed toward the tactical style weapons, but putting it on a sub par platform to show the capability of the optic that’s being scrutinized doesn’t make since to me.

[@emanuelebarrovecchio5814]

Derrick Reidenbach well that type of optic is for 7.62×39 so he uses a gun with that ammo lol

[@derrickreidenbach5367]

Never said he wasn’t using it for the correct type of ammo just that he was using a sub par platform to show accuracy. Why use a a weapon cable of only practical accuracy viruses one more capable of precision?

[@FXIIBeaver]

Derrick Reidenbach because at 600 yards you won't see much of a difference between a semi auto machine and a bolt action machine.

[@ctprepper69]

You would if using ammo better than Wolf.

[@marvinbrock960]

Why is everyone so focused on 600 yards?? He shot every range from 50 on out... At 300, a decent bolt would still be stackin'em inside 4", I know... We do it. Ruger American Ranch with Wolf military 124gr HP

[@chadn.6770]

Ever heard of Ak Operators Union 47-74? Apparently not because Rob has been proving for years how good these scopes are. They're for everyday people, not gun/scope snobs. And btw 7.62x39 isn't effective past 400 yds. so what do you expect?

[@airportbumdad]

Yeah he beats the hell out of his optics. I put a Primary Arms red dot on my Ps90 after watching his videos. I asked Rob and he said that would be a perfect fit. The one I bought was a used one from letgo. It didn't even have all parts to mout it. A quick call to Primary Arms and I had the missing pars in two days for free. No problems with a used optic. What more can you ask from a company?

[@highonhog]

I have seen you post before about this scope so I got a question for you. I wear glasses. not blind but have trouble reading without them. I saw how you can adjust the focus on this scope so if I were to lose my glasses is this scope still usable? also what are your thoughts on the PA 1-6x VS 3x Primary Arms Prism Scope GEN 2 Rob has both on site not sure on the on I want. I like the size of the GEN 2 but I like the focus on the PA 1-6x.

[@timesque9790]

@@airportbumdad yes the do have the best customer service that there is

[@Serenityindailylife]

I have 2-7.62 wounds they prove the effectiveness over 300m in a rpk it is effective much further.

[@Tyler-uc4ye]

@@Serenityindailylife RPK is also a SAW. If you can see where you're bullets are landing, which I'm assuming every other bullet is a tracer for that reason, you can shoot rather accurately and be an affective gunner.

[@tripleog9557]

It’s a second focal plane u zero it on max power at 100 yards and then use the holds... don’t go spinning the wheel of fortune like Eric was...eahh

[@scout-187inf]

So true, just completely ignoring the instructions that came with the optic. The worst part is he no calculation in the input he put into the scope.

[@Marco-fi6gv]

Lmao

[@samwhittemore5614]

This right here! 'Operator ' error.

[@MJ-kn7cc]

Big issue seeing the optic dialed in up close and grouping decently, and then having chad say you should dial a scope in at the farthest distance you shoot?? Obviously that's absurd. If you had a gun/ammo choice with sub-moa capability then that might apply?? But chasing your shots with a gun that's marginally accurate with ammo that's completely inaccurate is really poor judgment. And to then take a dig at the optic over it is really irrational.

[@SHWELL11]

I have had great success with mine. The Optic is a good optic, and the reticle take it to another level for the money. Steel cased 7.62 definitely wouldnt be my choice of ammunition to check just how good an Optic is. Maybe used the Steel cased ammo out to 300 and then something better for further distances. I have been testing the ACSS reticle for a year now. I'd recommend it to anyone that is considering it. The only thing I havent been able to verify is how durable these affordable optics are. What would be considered Reasonable Abuse?

[@mboudreaux94]

Y'all keep assuming it won't pass a box test but I'd like to see it attempted. I understand what you were getting at with cheaper optics but I'd like to see it tested rather than just assuming it won't work.

[@betosarmy2324]

I agree with you! A lot of people talk about it but they don't do it even on the expensive ones. Good call. I challenge Erick and Chat to do the box test!

[@SHWELL11]

They mentioned the Box test in the video, and immediately decided this Optic wouldnt pass it. It should be expected that folks would now be intrigued by the idea.

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

Michael Boudreaux -my money says itll pass. i have the PA 1-8x sfp ACSS scope and love it. it has passed a 20-click (10") 100 yd box test perfectly. pay no attention to these goons. using a 3 MOA rifle and 5 MOA ammo at best at 600 yds and then blaming the scope? yeah, im not gonna swallow that.

[@user-jv4ic8rh4d]

Tibasouras rex does a tracking test on the primary arms silver line scopes. It held up and returned to zero with 99% accuracy. After extended wear it dropped to 98% pretty good for the price. Rex is top tier instructor for extreme long range shooting and is consulted on and asked to test most scopes. Rex spent many hours testing PA scopes.

[@GarRETE88]

Not sure you can fault the optic for the inaccuracy out at 600.

[@adamdyment9732]

The main problem with cheap ammo on these scope seems to be the difference in velocity. You don't notice it until you get out to distance. A 50 fps muzzle deviation makes a huge difference in drop. I've shot hundreds of rounds at over 500 yds with cheap and premium 556 ammo thru an acss. The cheap ammo always has elevation issues. The premium ammo has much more consistent drop. The windage is usually fine for a given bullet weight.

[@jordanhastingss1066]

I think for the next optic video, show a picture of the inside of the optic and show what part your using to aim. It would help newer people like me understand what part your talking about! Just my $.02.

[@brysonw1815]

250 dollars primary arms 3x prism scope best scope I’ve ever owned

[@Helllllerrrrrrrrrrr]

Blake O yea for sure. I think I'm gonna sell mine when I get the money for an acog. But the 3x is insanely good for the price

[@calholli]

I bought the china copy of the acog for $80 on ebay... works magically. Only difference is that it doesn't have the tritium glow in the dark space juice.

[@Helllllerrrrrrrrrrr]

calholli Damm boy you cheap lol.

[@calholli]

It works great... Built my AR for under 360 also... You keep paying off the loans you took for your one rifle while I have 2 safes full of rifles from what I saved.

[@Helllllerrrrrrrrrrr]

calholli I don't want two safe full guns. I want 1 safe full of high quality guns and optics. Thank you very much

[@JohnNordic]

erm.. What size targets are the ones on 50 and 100? Cause I could get a group the size of a fist to 150 meters with the iron sights of my service rifle (RK62 7,62) so I would expect just about any kind of optic to do better.. Or is it the ammo or the wind? Granted we used Sako 7,62 ammo with our rifles.

[@johnpredmore3283]

I get what you were going for here, but there are some of us who may be interested in this optic but have a solid rifle and buy name brand ammo. I really feel this combo would make a great follow up video. Perhaps the Primary Arms 4-14 ACSS HUD DMR scope with one of your known good .308 bolt action and ammo combos?

[@45acpete52]

My PA 4-14 ACSS HUD scope has instructions in the manual for zeroing with different ammo types. Im wondering if they didn't follow the instructions. For example, the ammunition I use in my .308, I have to sight it in to be 1 inch high at 100 yards for the rest of the ranging marks to be accurate. This video might be a case of user error, and man are they really stretching the legs on Wolf ammo.

[@tommyd688]

This vid should have never seen the light of day.. Thing is they admit the firearm/ammo platform was not up to the task at hand... then continue on anyway.. Like the scope can correct the other issues present.. I don't think so...

[@Helllllerrrrrrrrrrr]

John Predmore I wouldn't blame this on the gun or the ammo man. At 600 yards to even make a single hit with 762×39 is good. Not sure what they are smoking but it drops like 40 feet at that range. The hold over is ridiculous.

[@johnpredmore3283]

b brady That’s a fair point.

[@jamesstephenson2346]

@@tommyd688 eh not really. This is a pretty accurate representation of what someone with this optic may attempt

[@99AudiMan09]

I had the pleasure to shoot one of these optics on a BCM AR15 at the Green Beret Warrior Patriot Match this past September. Basically a civilian (Patriot) gets paired with a Green Beret (Warrior) for charity. But this optic performed great with the reticle, out to 320yds. The stage allowed you to shoot 30 rounds at 6 targets at various ranges. One of the Green Berets only missed 2 shots out of a 30 round mag on 6 different targets. The optic performed great.

[@jakedunning9995]

I love these optics reviews....keep up the great work guys!!!

[@lunar_logan3324]

I have a primary arms 2.5 prism on a colt "16 AR. I zeroed it for 62 grain m855 ammo. I have never pushed it past 250 yards but the BDC tracks correctly and has never failed to deliver. Now i have it as a home defense "all around " optic and find it the perfect balance of cost and durability. Also, i find most people like me although we have a budget in mind, try to run the best ammo we can get. I usually run federal American Eagle(which is Lake City stamped) or IWI rounds. I avoid the bottom of the barrel ammo as i personally can justify the cost of decent ammo for piece of mind. Are they an ACOG?,no. However the ACSS reticle is perfect for the average shooter who is not comfortable with dialing for shots.

[@rcrenegades4735]

With this guy as a spotter trying to zero in at 600 yards would cost a large fortune. He can't see the spah of the misses or see the POI on the gong or hear it half the time. Shooter #2,(sorry I must of MISSED your name) you sir need to get another spotter, one thats not blind or deaf. You might have fared better using Helen Keller (if she was alive) or any other Blind & deaf person to call your shots. at a certain point I had to stop watching, I just couldn't take it anymore. Prior to that here are a few examples listed below, and yes I'm being hypercritical but when it comes to anything gun related we all should be to some extent. Eric needs a better pair of binoculars or a new spotting scope and a hearing aid, something - anything that would help him see and hear better. At 20:45, 20:51 and the third shot in a row at 21:02 he didn't see the splash a11 3 were around 10 to 11 o'clock. says he's having a hard time seeing it? Misses the every berm splash point. He takes a guess of over the gong and "I dont think your going over the berm?" Seriously then it gets even worse when not only his eyes fail to see the 1st and only strike on the freshly painted gong( looks fresh anyway) but he also misses the ding from hitting it. At 22:00 he hits the gong at 600 yds"Emmm can't see it, must be going right over the uhh over the uh over thee uh gong" At 22:40 he once again calls a shot thats wide left about 10-11 o'clock

[@FNTZMA11417]

⭕️ please do the same test with the 5.56 version with M855⭕️

[@jn3750]

My RRA can hit (have tested it) the 600yd target at approx. 85% with the green tip ammo (95% when I used the Federal Gold Medal Match 69gr).

[@tatiana11158]

FNTZMA11B2P yes always test a girly round for those not able to handle a 7.62 Leave the real caliber for men!

[@tracyscheuermann2301]

@@tatiana11158 your an asshole

[@Tyler-uc4ye]

@@tatiana11158 7.62x39mm is not the same as 7.62x51mm NATO you turbo tard.

[@jamesstephenson2346]

@@Tyler-uc4ye notice the "real man" has an avatar pic of a v6 mustake?

[@treemaniac26]

Wow, lots of haters in the comments section today. I was impressed. And what's wrong with wolf ammo? I'd call it standard AK ammo, at half the price of any brass case 7.62 ammo its what everyone shoots. Its relatively clean and is free from lacquer on the case to keep your rifle from gumming up in the action. Well done guys. And hats off to the "cheep" primary arms optic, any optic under $500 is a budget optic IMO

[@ElijahDecker]

Treemaniac Golden Tiger is only a few cents per round more, but has ~200 FPS more muzzle velocity and a bullet that's more likely to tumble in a living target than Wolf.

[@treemaniac26]

Elijah Decker yeah a have a couple thousand rounds of the golden tiger but have heard that the laqure coating is prown to gum up the action and cause malfunctions. I want to get some tula m83 offered by sgammo, supposed to by the "deadliest" round and was a special order made for sga. Only thing i don't like about the golden tiger is the 5.45x39 only has 20rnds a box, instead of 30 like all other brands. Ill be honest i havent tested much 7.62 for accuracy lol

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@treemaniac26 - Premium 7.62x39 is easy to get -Lapua makes it, but it isn't cheap. But it will turn a garden-variety 4 moa AK into a 2 moa gun.

[@bullgiraffe]

As far as the reticle tracking, that's just not fair. There's so much variation in trajectory between bullet weights and shapes and velocities that you can't blame the scope for not tracking. You get a ballistic calculator and apply your own real numbers to the reticle.

[@zevo9314]

i tend to agree, which is why i think this type of optic that tells you specifically what yardage each hold is for is silly. because theres simply too many variables

[@CVMN-kf2qc]

I like the camera set ups here, you're able to watch the vapor trail of the bullet moving down range.

[@CountArtha]

Are you training yourself to jerk the trigger immediately after each reset? Seems like it might be a good habit for shooting fast, but not necessarily with precision . . . .

[@HawaiianReloads]

Aloha Chad and Eric! I have a reloading question. I've just started loading 308 Win. I've used a hornady 150gr sst. With IMR3031. Starting load at 40gr and Max load at 43.5+. Dropping 42gr with this hornady bullet. Sat the bullet on the powder and slightly shoved the bullet down into the powder. I could hear the powder as I sat the bullet. It's weird because the max powder drop would have creeped up the neck. Starting powder drop had little more space but the bullet still touched the powder. Please give me some feed back. I'm a reloader also and currently load 19 calibers. But this one really caught my attention. I have been using the lymon 49th edition. CCI 200 large rifle primers. Brand new Winchester brass. I just love your guys vids for informational purposes and entertainment joyfulness. Thanks a bunch and keep up the great work!! Aloha.

[@wayneair]

the full manual for these scopes with ACSS is available to view on Primary Arms website, includes everything about how to use the reticle.

[@clintmiller88]

Would love to learn about using a scope and the basics of getting something like this up and running for a beginner like how to adjust for wind drop etc

[@beefcakes27]

Great perspective guys. And great interaction between you two.

[@koeryn]

Hitting 3 feet low at 611 yards using a 600 yard hold is not surprising, considering you've got an extra 40+" of drop you aren't accounting for.

[@mephInc]

For someone who doesn't have the distance to really stretch the legs on his rifles, and isn't terribly worried about dead nuts accuracy at 1000yds, this looks like a decent optic. However, I really like seeing how good my own eyes are via irons. Love the vids. Keep up the good work.

[@ThePolareyes53]

You should have Dmitri come out to your place and show you how to use the optic. Everyone has raved about this scope except you.

[@eljuano28]

I run a Traditions AR 1x4 on a Savage MSR Recon mounted with a 30mm Burris. Other than being a little on the heavy side, it's a 250+ yard jackrabbit capable scope. I've only shot it out to 300 yards on a kd course, but I have no reason to believe that it won't reach 500-600 yards on game that shoots back. For under $200, it's not a Leupold, but I have no complaints. It's built like a tank. Optics perform above their weight and reticle is glass etched and sharp, (still works when you forget to check the batteries.) The center mil lumes red or green and the adjustment is consistent and positive. Just a thought if you're on a very limited budget. I have other "better" scopes at home and considering the rifle shoots as tight as any Savage, I suppose I didn't need to go that cheap, but I figured it was worth the education value. For what I use it for, this one's staying on the rifle.

[@titocolon2562]

Is this optic really worth it? This one and the vortex I have been looking at but I also heard if you have an expensive rifle then why would you cheap out on an optic! I'm actually looking for a 1-6 for my Daniel Defense DDM4V11....... Any help will be much appreciated

[@achilliez5565]

Vortex razor, such a badass lpvo bro

[@grizwoldstad9956]

Great Video. My sweet heart just gave me a Primary Arms 1-6 for my birthday, looking forward to playing with it on my FAL. Your 600 range was plagued with wind, I thought the rounds were in there with the same hold, wind and transitional speeds make for a large group. When Chad adjusted at 600 did he remember the clicks are 1/2 not 1/4?

[@danshaffer2890]

You guys need a camera feed or something because the 2 shots after Chad adjusted the scope I could see were upper left of the berm, but Eric didn't see them through his scope.

[@jguerrero0311]

3yrs later. Thank you for your input gentelmen.

[@kevinmarrow7234]

Gotta love it when the tip of the stadia hits the center of the gong

[@brucetucker4847]

That's the reason I'm not big on BDC reticles - they're only dead on for the exact load they were designed for. Not much of a problem under 200 yards or if you're in the military and only ever issued one kind of ammo, but for long range shooting I prefer to work out my own dope for the loads I'm using. Since I shoot a lot of different rifles with different ammo what I do is print a small picture of the reticle with the aim points for my go-to load (or 2 loads) marked on it and tape it to the inside of the flip-up lens cover. One other issue with budget scopes is that the illuminated reticles are pretty much never daylight bright. The Leupold Firedots are about most affordable scopes I've seen with a brightness that compares to a decent red dot. The others are certainly usable but acquisition is slower at CQB ranges without that bright dot.

[@ScrapMetalBomb]

You boys are heatin that barrel up pretty good at the end there.

[@mattr.1804]

I know I'm late to the party but at 5:00 I'm pretty sure you were having issues at 200 because your hold should have been the same as your 50 hold - the tip of the chevron. The hold for 250 was the one you were using here - the underside of the meeting arches of the chevron. Therefore, your hold for 100 is going to be slightly higher than the tip of the chevron.

[@justa3v619]

I've got the 2.5 prism on my 300blk and the 4x on my 223 and they both track perfect. Chad is just a snob and didn't give it a chance and was shooting shit ammo. He was consistently hitting a little low then he hit the gong several times and they didn't even here it. The other shots were just left of the gong and some a little high. I'm sure if they were shooting some Hornady ammo it woulda been a lot more consistent.

[@ModernSurvivalSense]

If 600yds is too far for 7.62x39, 300blk isn't going to have any easier time. 300blk has less energy... The only thing I learned is the combination of the 3 items(gun/scope/ammo) didn't produce reliable hits to 600yds. You guys were having issues hitting 440yds with this rifle back in 2015. Blaming misses at 600yds on the scope is not exactly fair, or accurate. Throw this scope on a bolt gun with a proven track record of hitting targets at that range and really test the scope. You must have a solid basis for comparison if you want your results to mean anything. As an aside... that scope is marketed as a CQB to medium range optic.

[@JJGuccione]

On top of everything else you mentioned, I see a plus in the lens caps. Many cheap scopes can't keep their hinge pins in the plastic lens hinge. Great VDO as always - Thanks.

[@texaspatriot4549]

Good video guys really appreciate what y'all do

[@anthonygendron9737]

I have this same optic for my 300blk and love it. The scope is set for Barnes 110 grain from the manufacturer if I remember correctly. That’s the round I use and it’s always dead on but the farthest I’ve shot is 500 for consistent grouping .

[@SirFornicateRectum]

I have one of these on a CZ 527 bolt action. With Wolf military classic & Tula, the reticle loses usability after 400 yards. The cheap ammo just isn’t consistent enough to track with the reticle. With the Hornady Black, Hornady steel case SST’s, and my handloads of PPU brass/123gr Zmax/28.6gr CFE Black the reticle tracks to 500 yards but there’s a noticeable loss in accuracy. I’ve never pushed past 500. There’s not really any place around here to push further and I really don’t see the point. It’s an intermediate cartridge that works best out to about 350 yards. I liked the scope well enough to buy 2 more for my AK’s.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Re: " It’s an intermediate cartridge that works best out to about 350 yards." Bingo! Give that man a cigar as Groucho Marx used to say years ago.... Krebs Custom could probably build you a tack-driving AK-pattern rifle that would group well at 600 yards, provided you fed it premium Lapua or hand-loads, but like you said - why bother? It wasn't designed for that use. The Russians would be switching to Dragunov SVD rifles by then, in 7.62x54.

[@shaocaholica]

FYI the M10X top rail is connected to the barrel trunnion in an odd way. Putting pressure on the forward rail can shift POA. Not much investigation has gone into it at least that I’m aware of but it’s definitely something to look into if you are going to shoot at range with the platform.

[@frankplissken143]

Wow, I'm not sure what to think about some of these comments. Relax a bit guys! - It is not the scope. -It is not the shooter. -It is not the steel case or the ammo brand. -It is not the rain, elevation or barometric pressure. -It is not semi auto rifle. The primary issue here is, as Chad noted in the video, That the ammunition is going subsonic just after 500 yards and destabilizing. 7.62x39 runs out of poop, slows down and crosses the sonic barrier and ends up destabilizing. Even bullets with a high ballistic coefficient don't perform well past the sonic barrier. This bullet is just wobbling all over the place anywhere from 40 to 110 yards at the end of it's trajectory. This isn't a sierra matchking HPBT match bullet with a high BC, and the effects are quite pronounced. With the 7.62x39, anything around 400 yards should be considered suppressing fire, at least in my mind. Anything past 500, you are just lucky if you get an impact on target.

[@ElijahDecker]

Frank Plissken It is the brand of ammo. Wolf 7.62x39mm has the least efficient bullet design in this caliber and exits the barrel with ~200 fps less muzzle velocity than most other brands of Russian 7.62x39mm.

[@frankplissken143]

Elijah Decker Yes, but that isnt the fault of the ammo. Wolf is affordable blasting ammo. I don't think many people plan on it being a go-to hunting or long range ammo.

[@Matt-mh5ud]

For $300, the honest best bang for the buck are the SFWA SS scopes, have been for years. The glass is excellent and seeing as they're an old military contract scope, no need to question durability. I've heard where the PA scope shines is in the utility of the reticle. Those not using hold-over and actually use the turrets for adjustments though, repeatable tracking just isn't there in almost the entire scope lineup. In a 6x magnification and under on non-precision rifles, I have a hard time not recommending something like a prism or other fixed mag scope anyway.

[@betosarmy2324]

Y'all need Rob Ski to come show you how it's done! C'mon dudes, it is user error. I betcha! Great video though. Keep it up.

[@healthyhappyhero]

I'd love to see you guys test the Primary arms ACSS 1-8 budget scope on a precision 556 ar15 and try it at 600 yards. It currently costs 389$

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

Healthy Happy Hero - mine will wear an enemy 5-gal bucket out to 550 yds no sweat! i have no doubt its on to 800 yds when i get to really stretch it out.

[@cptnrighteous32]

I have the gen 2 PA 1x6 and have been pretty happy with it. Haven't shot it pass 100 yards yet but it shoots nice groups out of my AR.

[@donalddickins8493]

Maybe You guys should have "READ THE MANUAL" to zero it.

[@chasecook2151]

At the end of the video they did say the read the manual

[@beefcakes27]

We don't need no stinking manual...

[@tonyestrada6747]

You should try the box test if you don’t think it will pass then put it to the test

[@bransonjessel8063]

Do some TruGlo, CenterPoint, and Barska reviews. TruGlo is the only red dot I have used, and have no problems hitting targets from 20-200 meters with 5.56 rounds. Longest shot I've made so far was with an $170 .308 rifle and a $60 CenterPoint scope. Landed a shot on a 4 inch plate at 600 yards. If I can find a reason to use a more expensive optic, I might consider it. From what I've seen though, $30-$150 optics work just fine.

[@M--GT8223]

Just watched your (5 yr old) video on your 5.56 AR build using irons... Interesting and informative! DANG if the 7.62x39 round in this video, though, doesn't make that AR look downright anemic!!

[@gregpena9874]

All I run are PA sights/scopes anymore. Great bang for the buck!

[@auracle3207]

Love these vids where Eric and Chad just hang out and jam.

[@tjfritts9013]

I'd love to see that exact platform tested, but change only the optic to something more expensive. Keep the mount, keep the ammo, keep everything, but switch out the optic. I suspect a lot of the error is coming from the mount rather than the glass. I also so suspect that barrel is going to string like hell once it's warm too. I sincerely wonder how much of the huge grouping is attributable to factors beside just cheap glass. It might stack impacts in a coffee cup at 600, but I seriously doubt it.

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

TJ1985 - way off base. theres no problem with the optic or the mount. the PA ACSS reticles are DEAD ON! the problem is the gun "experts" used a 3-5 MOA rifle with ammo thats capable of 3-8 MOA making for a potential error of 24" at 300 yds and 48" at 600 yds. not to mention the morons apparently need glasses. they were dead on target after dialing in the ballistic solution, missed the target by inches but didnt see it so then blame the scope and declare its incapable of tracking properly. i think 2 bafoons with a case of PBR, a rack of ham sammiches and a stack of Playboy mags could conduct a better scope review and they didnt even bring rifles! but atleast they didnt bring crappy ammo and an inaccurate rifle.

[@hexoseful]

Perfect timing, I've been looking for variable optic for my next ar build. Keep up the good work! :)

[@brazzy1467]

I have the same scope on my 300 blkout 16" AR and I use the Remington green and white box 120gr HPBT. I have found that it's a really accurate round because it's Barnes bullet and brass and it has been my favorite 300 blkout round.

[@joboo7143]

Prop up a full sheet of plywood painted white.. paint a 4"grid with 1/4" thick black lines,ABC's across the top 123's down the side and hang a Gong directly in the center. With a really good spotting scope or even better get a drone you will be able to see exactly where your bullets are missing

[@nemisous83]

I think this test needs to be taken with a grain of salt since your testing wolf 7.62x39 which is 3 MOA at best also coupled with the fact that your going to have a lit of inaccuracy problems with 7.62x39 past 500. Like they said in the video this is one of those optics you zero once and leave it, and as a combat optic that is perfectly acceptable. Even under military evaluations this would be acceptable accuracy as crazy as that sounds.

[@threexfromwsg]

Dmitry will be proud great video guys.

[@Blazeforteen]

Love your videos guys- Long time subscriber- However considering that Trijicon just licensed the ACSS reticle from Primary for use in the ACOG- I gotta think a company like Trijicon did their homework making sure the reticle works as advertised- In this case I think the shooter- not the optic is at fault- Full disclosure- I own that scope and have had outstanding results at ranges further than 600 in .223

[@Tula1940_LB]

I've got a Vortex Diamond back 3-9×40 in a set of Nikon rings and it's great

[@MarkThomas-pf8ml]

It might be a good follow up video, to chrono some ammo for this rifle and see which might be the most consistent ( velocity & accuracy ) to see how well the reticle will track...

[@koofdome]

For Black Friday I got a vortex strike Eagle 1-8 WITH the offset mount for $319 after shipping. Could not pass that deal up at all.

[@2000rayc]

can you do vidoes on what to look out for when buying uppers are ARs from a gunshop that makes them by there self

[@medichugh]

Is it shooting high at 200 yards based on the reticle? If you did a 50 yard zero, the tip of the chevron should be your 50/200 zero. 100 yards should impact a bit high due to trajectory. All depends on if you did a 50 or 100 yard zero.

[@A8vscRrabbit]

We have been shooting 7.62 combloc for 20+ years at the farm. Anytime we got hits on 'yotes past the 400-500 mark has always been chalked up to luck. As chad said after apex pre trans-sonic zone destabilization has been viewed through optics. I can also imagine a whole lot of spin drift in certain value winds

[@stevegee218]

A trick with a BDC second plane scopes impacting below the "range mark (600 as an example)" at the distance is to decrees the zoom power a little. Then when you set the "range mark" to the true impact point, the rest of the marks of the BDC should be more true for the bullet used at the lesser ranges.

[@unrulian]

Test scopes with a more accurate platform/cartridge combo shouldn't blame the scope for the limitations of the platform; still gets a thumbs up you guys are great.

[@jameseastridge2273]

That's how we do it guys,great simple video👍👍

[@holdernewtshesrearin5471]

i have a Primary Arms 1-8x ACSS sfp scope and their 4-14x ACSS R-grid scope and love them both. theyve proven accurate durable and effective. ive done a box test with the 1-8x and it worked perfectly. ive swapped the 4-14x to several different rifles and it always goes to perfect prerecorded zero every time. they both seem to track perfectly. great scopes all around too. love the ACSS reticle! and my BDC works perfectly to 550 yds so far. i have little doubt itll be on out to 800 yds as well. feed that pig some decent ammo and try again. that gun/ammo combo would be lucky to hold 3-4 MOA. at 600 yds thats a variation of 18" to 24" easy. dont blame the scope for the fault of crappy ammo.period

[@thejoey468983]

It seems to 762 by 39 goes subsonic around 500 to 550 yards which could explain why the accuracy is so bad at 6

[@heytonyman]

Probably a habit from your pistol shooting, but “shooting to reset” for precision is kicking your butt. You shot better at 300 when you stopped. Just an observation.

[@bigmomma2720]

heytonyman what do you mean?

[@johnm3907]

Yeah its a basic mistake

[@nc_classics_9610]

Ive noticed Eric pulls the trigger and after a long pause, you can hear the trigger reset and then he pulls it directly after. It's just a method of trigger control that's a little different than what most people do.

[@roonimac]

agreed. he is snatching the trigger as soon as it resets and that is definetly gonna throw bullets everywhere. SLOWDOWN!

[@thewatcher611]

You'd never see Jerry Miculek, Garand Thumb, or any other fast and accurate shooters hold on to the reset.

[@whiskeyactual.]

Atibal is coming out with a first focal plane variable optic for under $400 I think. You guys should try to get your hands on one.

[@davebags4576]

I have one on my DDI AK and on a few occasions have got 1 inch groups with that same scope and wolf ammo.