Post: #26

(03-04-2016 07:03 PM)Gmac Wrote:  The guy sure gets a lot of shit for his acting career... Don't know if true or not:

I don't like nut riding celebs but there was a pretty big thing circulating around the time of the Matrix sequels that he distributed a large portion of his pay to the film crew too. I think he got points on the Matrix sequels.

He seems like a decent dude. Never heard any bad gossip about Keanu acting like a prick. Those things that happened to him are pretty harsh though.

Post: #27

For shooting inside 100m a red dot or holographic sight is better than a 1-3x or 1-4x scope (mainly because alignment is not as critical). I'd pick an Aimpoint everyday over an EOTech for that purpose. ACOG, to me, means a 4x scope but I know they make a bunch of different models.

In 3 gun matches, assuming you have a long enough range (depends where you are) it's not unusual to shoot out to 300m. So, it's better to have a single optic you can quickly change magnification on than to use a more specialized optic, or to use two optics, canted irons/micro RDS, or use crude iron sights at close range like the first ACOGs came with, etc.

I used to use an Aimpoint with a QD 3x magnifier. It was pretty nice ten years ago, but it's a clumsy, heavy setup compared with a good 1-4x illuminated optic.

Post: #28

This is him training for Jhon Wick 2, he has always prepare himself for movies, the entire cast of The Matrix trained for the fight scene.

This is him training Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for the first Jhon Wick with the Machado brothers.

Post: #29

(03-04-2016 10:15 PM)weambulance Wrote:  For shooting inside 100m a red dot or holographic sight is better than a 1-3x or 1-4x scope (mainly because alignment is not as critical). I'd pick an Aimpoint everyday over an EOTech for that purpose. ACOG, to me, means a 4x scope but I know they make a bunch of different models.

In 3 gun matches, assuming you have a long enough range (depends where you are) it's not unusual to shoot out to 300m. So, it's better to have a single optic you can quickly change magnification on than to use a more specialized optic, or to use two optics, canted irons/micro RDS, or use crude iron sights at close range like the first ACOGs came with, etc.

I used to use an Aimpoint with a QD 3x magnifier. It was pretty nice ten years ago, but it's a clumsy, heavy setup compared with a good 1-4x illuminated optic.

I've got a TA-31 ACOG, and I've got a EOtech w/magnifier that's on loan to my brother. I prefer the ACOG to just about anything else.

Post: #30

Okay, if that's your preference. But I'd bet you're losing a bit of speed at close range.

My sight preference for AR-15s in general goes like:

Good 1-4x illum optic > TA31 chevron reticle = Aimpoint CompM4 2 MOA dot >>>> EOTech*.

If I don't want the bulk/weight of a 1-4x optic, or I'm worried about durability in the field, I'll choose either an ACOG or Aimpoint. The TA31 (the only ACOG model I've used, as it happens) gives me precision and extends my effective range, while the CompM4 doesn't sacrifice my rear iron sight and is faster at close range. On my "winter rifle", I usually just roll with tritium iron sights because cold optics fog when you go inside or get in a warm car. So, what optic I put on a rifle really just depends on how exactly I want to use that rifle.


* EOTechs suck: they're not durable, they have shitty battery life, and at least the ones I've used shut off after 8 hours. Yeah, brilliant, worrying about whether or not my sight is still on is exactly what I want during 12+ hour combat patrol or when something goes bump in the night. Meanwhile, an ACOG is self illuminated and I never even bother shutting my Aimpoints off. Just change the battery once a year.

Post: #31

Served in the German Military 2 years. 1.5 years in the KSK (German Special Forces). I've seen those guys go to work and his movements sure Look pretty similar to them. Gotta Keep in mind though, that he isn't wearing any Body armour, Helmet, or gloves. Full equipped it's a lot harder to pull off something like this. I am highly impressed by his skills. I would gauge, he has been Training several weeks for that. He shoots 3 times better than me, I also like how he's very continuous and smooth in his movements. You only get this by a lot of repitition.

Post: #32

Isn't anyone else going to comment on how the first half of John Wick was awesome and the second half sucked balls?

Post: #33

I enjoyed it. Can't recall much of the story in the latter part, but all the action was bad-ass.

Post: #34

Anyone have experience with the Elcan Specter DR? Only con from what I hear is that its heavy

Post: #35

(03-05-2016 05:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  Isn't anyone else going to comment on how the first half of John Wick was awesome and the second half sucked balls?

Weren't they pretty much identical?

Post: #36

I used Elcans on M240s. I didn't like them much. Heavy, bulky, not a fan of ARMS mounts. It's also a rather expensive sight.

I hear they have noticeable (repeatable) point of impact shift when switching between 1x and 4x, due to the mechanical design. That info is a few years old, maybe they fixed it by now.

As far as I can tell, the big advantage of Elcans is durability. They probably stand up better to the vibration of machineguns better than other scopes (this is an educated guess), for example. But, quality optics are already very durable, so unless you're putting your weapon through serious hell, it's not worth the extra expense and other downsides.

Do you have a specific application in mind?

Post: #37

One of my subscriptions did a video on Tactical training vs former SWAT team members. Testing out to see how Rainbow Six will play out in real life:




Far superior training than what Keanu Reeves is getting in my opinion. Given that the targets fire back.

Bit cheesy but interesting nonetheless. To see how it plays out skip to 9:57

Post: #38

Yeah I used the older Elcan when I served. It was also heavy, and bulky. I've seen a lot of photos of the Specter DR being used by SEALs and other guys like that is why I'm curious. From what I read the point of impact problem has been fixed now. Durability would make sense when it comes to team guys.

As for specific application, nothing specifically yet. I'm holding off on getting my firearms license until I immigrate to the USA because the gun laws in the country I'm from are not the greatest.

Post: #39

In the last year I've racked up around 200 hours of time at the range.
Someone mentioned that Keanu has no gear. This is a big part of the game. Even the new plate systems are still bulky and you will be tired under all that movement.

Either way. Dude clearly has been at it for a while. At a point..you have to do a lot of reflexive training to get where he is.

Luckily he has the money and time..And probably trainers to get that far.
The average person is usually just sending time shooting at the broad side of a barn.
I see plenty of military personnel that are barely able to qualify with their weapons.

Post: #40

(03-05-2016 07:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I used Elcans on M240s. I didn't like them much. Heavy, bulky, not a fan of ARMS mounts. It's also a rather expensive sight.

I hear they have noticeable (repeatable) point of impact shift when switching between 1x and 4x, due to the mechanical design. That info is a few years old, maybe they fixed it by now.

As far as I can tell, the big advantage of Elcans is durability. They probably stand up better to the vibration of machineguns better than other scopes (this is an educated guess), for example. But, quality optics are already very durable, so unless you're putting your weapon through serious hell, it's not worth the extra expense and other downsides.

Do you have a specific application in mind?

When shit gets real, the assembly point is Weambulance's house. Hopefully he'll be able to provide an address before the zombies chew through the interweb cables.

Seriously, though, good to know there are other Rooshites out there who know which end of the gun goes bang.

Post: #41

I second that there is no point in getting a Elcan unless you are...actually going to war for at least a couple months.

If you just have to have something "military" spec and you plan to put it anything lower caliber than say.. a 7.62
Save your money and buy yourself a M68 CCO.

Post: #42

(03-05-2016 03:56 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Okay, if that's your preference. But I'd bet you're losing a bit of speed at close range.

My sight preference for AR-15s in general goes like:

Good 1-4x illum optic > TA31 chevron reticle = Aimpoint CompM4 2 MOA dot >>>> EOTech*.

If I don't want the bulk/weight of a 1-4x optic, or I'm worried about durability in the field, I'll choose either an ACOG or Aimpoint. The TA31 (the only ACOG model I've used, as it happens) gives me precision and extends my effective range, while the CompM4 doesn't sacrifice my rear iron sight and is faster at close range. On my "winter rifle", I usually just roll with tritium iron sights because cold optics fog when you go inside or get in a warm car. So, what optic I put on a rifle really just depends on how exactly I want to use that rifle.


* EOTechs suck: they're not durable, they have shitty battery life, and at least the ones I've used shut off after 8 hours. Yeah, brilliant, worrying about whether or not my sight is still on is exactly what I want during 12+ hour combat patrol or when something goes bump in the night. Meanwhile, an ACOG is self illuminated and I never even bother shutting my Aimpoints off. Just change the battery once a year.

What optics would you recommend for a beginner shooter ?

I've been shooting iron sights for a few months now. Reason is I wanted to get the basics down, I'm still learning of course.

Walked it out from 50 (to sight) to about 175.

Everyone that's talked to me says EOTech is a rip off.

What's a good starter 1-4x self illuminated optic ?

Oh and when I saw this video I thought Keanu has some serious dirty hands behind the trigger - then I got stuck on YouTube and watch some insane pros.

Post: #43

1. As mentioned: can't see targets and therefore can't judge marksmanship. I don't think a lot of people realize how hard it is to hit a target accurately and consistently; especially while moving. Just breathing a certain way can throw a shot off even when stationary. Point is, moving fast doesn't mean shit if you are not hitting your targets.

2. He looks impressive because he is moving around and switching weapons quickly. Looks cool but doesn't mean much in a combat situation on it's own. It's also a lot harder to move that quickly with full tactical gear on. I recall doing combat exercises and how much I loved playing the bad guy because I only had to carry an M-4 sometimes. I could move SUPER quick; especially since I trained/worked all the time in full gear including sometimes carrying heavy weapons/ammo. It's was almost like the difference between driving a pick-up truck vs a roadster in traffic and the corresponding feeling of speed, mobility, and responsiveness.

3. In the beginning, he kept the buttstock mostly pressed against his right shoulder so he could fire quickly in the next shot. He also kept his elbows closed in to avoid exposing himself. So, he has some basic techniques down; not that is a surprise given his movie background.

4. Also, as mentioned: speed is not the goal in combat situations exactly. You are usually better off pacing yourself and your shots (two to the chest and one to the head is preferred) then running around all crazy and firing shots off like Rambo. It goes against your instincts but slow is fast and fast is slow.

Post: #44

(03-28-2016 12:38 AM)kaotic Wrote:  What optics would you recommend for a beginner shooter ?

I've been shooting iron sights for a few months now. Reason is I wanted to get the basics down, I'm still learning of course.

Walked it out from 50 (to sight) to about 175.

Everyone that's talked to me says EOTech is a rip off.

What's a good starter 1-4x self illuminated optic ?

What's your budget, and what sort of rifle? AR-15?

Post: #45

(03-28-2016 12:38 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

(03-05-2016 03:56 AM)weambulance Wrote:  Okay, if that's your preference. But I'd bet you're losing a bit of speed at close range.

My sight preference for AR-15s in general goes like:

Good 1-4x illum optic > TA31 chevron reticle = Aimpoint CompM4 2 MOA dot >>>> EOTech*.

If I don't want the bulk/weight of a 1-4x optic, or I'm worried about durability in the field, I'll choose either an ACOG or Aimpoint. The TA31 (the only ACOG model I've used, as it happens) gives me precision and extends my effective range, while the CompM4 doesn't sacrifice my rear iron sight and is faster at close range. On my "winter rifle", I usually just roll with tritium iron sights because cold optics fog when you go inside or get in a warm car. So, what optic I put on a rifle really just depends on how exactly I want to use that rifle.


* EOTechs suck: they're not durable, they have shitty battery life, and at least the ones I've used shut off after 8 hours. Yeah, brilliant, worrying about whether or not my sight is still on is exactly what I want during 12+ hour combat patrol or when something goes bump in the night. Meanwhile, an ACOG is self illuminated and I never even bother shutting my Aimpoints off. Just change the battery once a year.

What optics would you recommend for a beginner shooter ?

I've been shooting iron sights for a few months now. Reason is I wanted to get the basics down, I'm still learning of course.

Walked it out from 50 (to sight) to about 175.

Everyone that's talked to me says EOTech is a rip off.

What's a good starter 1-4x self illuminated optic ?

Oh and when I saw this video I thought Keanu has some serious dirty hands behind the trigger - then I got stuck on YouTube and watch some insane pros.

The current trend is with LPVO (low-power variable optic) scopes. The Millett DMS is a good option if you want an illuminated scope. The Vortex Strike Eagle is new, but it's been getting good reviews (it's a 1-6x I believe). Leupold Mark AR scopes are similar, but smaller and cheaper (and not illuminated.) All of these options, with mount/rings should be under $300. I've had Eotechs for a while and I think I'm going to take advantage of the factory recall/reimbursement and get some new glass.

Post: #46

(03-28-2016 02:07 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 12:38 AM)kaotic Wrote:  What optics would you recommend for a beginner shooter ?

I've been shooting iron sights for a few months now. Reason is I wanted to get the basics down, I'm still learning of course.

Walked it out from 50 (to sight) to about 175.

Everyone that's talked to me says EOTech is a rip off.

What's a good starter 1-4x self illuminated optic ?

What's your budget, and what sort of rifle? AR-15?

Built my own 80% lower AR-15 rifle.

Budget I'd say is couple hundred dollars.

Post: #47

I never got the hate for Keanu's acting. He plays the character that he's cast to play. Not everyone needs to be a method actor.

I could see if the guy was performing in musicals, but he's playing hitmen and drug addicts and demon hunters. His acting fits well within the roles, and he's got one hell of a filmography. He's not getting nominated for any Academy Awards, but he gets the job done.

To be fair, he does have his share of awful movies and scenes, it just seems like he gets too much of a bad rap. Meanwhile there are tons of shitty actors who do shitty movies that don't get nearly as much flack.

Post: #48

(03-28-2016 11:08 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Built my own 80% lower AR-15 rifle.

Nice. Hope you didn't use loctite on the buffer tube threads.

Quote:Budget I'd say is couple hundred dollars.

I hope that's not a hard budget, because if it is my answer is "save more money".

Basically the least expensive but still decent stuff I can recommend is in the $500 range for the scope, and figure about $80-120 for good rings.

Do you have a folding or removable front sight, or the standard front sight base?

There are some good low power variables for less than $400, but you have to give up illumination, and they're not true 1x at the lower end. In this price range, I'd recommend the Leupold VX2 1-4x20mm. It's more like a 1.5x at the low end, but has good build quality. Normally goes for $300. This is a good general purpose woods hunting scope too, though it's not great for longish shots in low light. FWIW, $300 on a known-good brand scope is about the minimum I'd spend on a scope, even for a 22 LR.

Next up I'd recommend the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24mm with capped turrets. The only downside to this scope that I know of is it uses a second focal plane reticle*. It goes for about $500 online.

If you're willing to spend a bit more, go for the SWFA HD 1-4x24mm. Excellent build quality, first focal plane reticle. Goes for $800. This is my standard choice. There are lots of other excellent scopes in this price range too.

If you care more about illumination than magnification and want to keep the price down, just buy an Aimpoint PRO for $432 (base included). It's a great value. You can shoot out to 300+ yards with a red dot; the big downside is having to use binoculars to see things**, and occluding the target with the relatively big dot (2 MOA = ~2 inches at 100 yards, ~4 inches at 200 yards, etc.) can be an issue if you're trying to shoot tiny groups. I've shot out to 600+ (obviously with lots of hold-over) with a red dot for fun, hitting rocks on hillsides and stuff. Aimpoints are also extremely tough and run forever on batteries. If I needed to outfit a squad of riflemen, this is the sight I would give most of them.

Scope rings are another story. I can't give definitive advice here because what you need depends on your cheek weld, stock length, etc. You'd probably be best off getting your scope and going to a well-equipped gun shop and trying out different rings/mounts to see what works in the system. Figure $80-100 for good, basic, non-QD rings. If you need a QD forward mount system, you're looking at more like $200-250.

The reason I asked about your front sight is if it's a standard FSB or you don't want to remove a bolt-on non-folding front sight, you have to make sure the scope is mounted high enough so you're not staring right at the FSB in low magnification. A better option, IMO, is to mount the scope as low as you can comfortably go and keep folding iron sights on the gun. For a red dot sight, I recommend a lower 1/3 cowitness and fixed irons (standard FSB with a Daniel Defense A1.5 rear sight).

Caveat: I don't follow the gun world closely anymore, having settled on what I like in my gear years ago. So there might be stuff available I don't even know about that's better for the price than what I listed here. But, I'm confident my recommendations are solid nevertheless.


* A second focal plane reticle stays the same size as magnification changes. It's not really a big deal in this context, but it means the reticle will be busy at low magnification and only useful for ranging at one specific magnification, which should be maximum magnification. If you look at the SWFA first focal plane reticle, at 1x you have a smallish red donut that's very fast at close range, with a more precise and useful ranging reticle when you crank it up to 4x. The second vs first focal plane argument matters a lot more in the precision rifle world where reticle ranging is a more common, but ranging with a 4x scope is perfectly feasible and good practice for field shooting.

** I know you're not supposed to use a mounted scope to look at unknown objects, but let's be real here, everyone does it. I use binocs if I have the time, but if I'm hunting and need to ID a deer right quick, I'm using my scope, because odds are very good that whatever I'm seeing is not another human. But I also keep my safety on and keep my finger off the trigger. Don't observe with your scope is a good rule to teach in hunter safety, though.

Post: #49

(03-28-2016 06:10 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 11:08 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Built my own 80% lower AR-15 rifle.

Nice. Hope you didn't use loctite on the buffer tube threads.

Helll no, funny you bring that up - I'm having issues with my rifle cycling, I think I need to move to an H3 Buffer, I'm gonna test first with the 62 grain green tips I have, if it doesn't cycle, then swap the buffer weight.

Quote:I hope that's not a hard budget, because if it is my answer is "save more money".

Basically the least expensive but still decent stuff I can recommend is in the $500 range for the scope, and figure about $80-120 for good rings.

Do you have a folding or removable front sight, or the standard front sight base?

Yeah I figured it'd be about $500ish and I have magpul folding sights (front and back)

Quote:There are some good low power variables for less than $400, but you have to give up illumination, and they're not true 1x at the lower end. In this price range, I'd recommend the Leupold VX2 1-4x20mm. It's more like a 1.5x at the low end, but has good build quality. Normally goes for $300. This is a good general purpose woods hunting scope too, though it's not great for longish shots in low light. FWIW, $300 on a known-good brand scope is about the minimum I'd spend on a scope, even for a 22 LR.

Next up I'd recommend the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24mm with capped turrets. The only downside to this scope that I know of is it uses a second focal plane reticle*. It goes for about $500 online.

If you're willing to spend a bit more, go for the SWFA HD 1-4x24mm. Excellent build quality, first focal plane reticle. Goes for $800. This is my standard choice. There are lots of other excellent scopes in this price range too.

If you care more about illumination than magnification and want to keep the price down, just buy an Aimpoint PRO for $432 (base included). It's a great value. You can shoot out to 300+ yards with a red dot; the big downside is having to use binoculars to see things**, and occluding the target with the relatively big dot (2 MOA = ~2 inches at 100 yards, ~4 inches at 200 yards, etc.) can be an issue if you're trying to shoot tiny groups. I've shot out to 600+ (obviously with lots of hold-over) with a red dot for fun, hitting rocks on hillsides and stuff. Aimpoints are also extremely tough and run forever on batteries. If I needed to outfit a squad of riflemen, this is the sight I would give most of them.

Scope rings are another story. I can't give definitive advice here because what you need depends on your cheek weld, stock length, etc. You'd probably be best off getting your scope and going to a well-equipped gun shop and trying out different rings/mounts to see what works in the system. Figure $80-100 for good, basic, non-QD rings. If you need a QD forward mount system, you're looking at more like $200-250.

The reason I asked about your front sight is if it's a standard FSB or you don't want to remove a bolt-on non-folding front sight, you have to make sure the scope is mounted high enough so you're not staring right at the FSB in low magnification. A better option, IMO, is to mount the scope as low as you can comfortably go and keep folding iron sights on the gun. For a red dot sight, I recommend a lower 1/3 cowitness and fixed irons (standard FSB with a Daniel Defense A1.5 rear sight).

Caveat: I don't follow the gun world closely anymore, having settled on what I like in my gear years ago. So there might be stuff available I don't even know about that's better for the price than what I listed here. But, I'm confident my recommendations are solid nevertheless.


* A second focal plane reticle stays the same size as magnification changes. It's not really a big deal in this context, but it means the reticle will be busy at low magnification and only useful for ranging at one specific magnification, which should be maximum magnification. If you look at the SWFA first focal plane reticle, at 1x you have a smallish red donut that's very fast at close range, with a more precise and useful ranging reticle when you crank it up to 4x. The second vs first focal plane argument matters a lot more in the precision rifle world where reticle ranging is a more common, but ranging with a 4x scope is perfectly feasible and good practice for field shooting.

** I know you're not supposed to use a mounted scope to look at unknown objects, but let's be real here, everyone does it. I use binocs if I have the time, but if I'm hunting and need to ID a deer right quick, I'm using my scope, because odds are very good that whatever I'm seeing is not another human. But I also keep my safety on and keep my finger off the trigger. Don't observe with your scope is a good rule to teach in hunter safety, though.

And here I thought I could just bolt on and go with optics.

Sounds like I need to do some more research for optics and rings.

Post: #50

How easy does the bolt move in and out of the bolt carrier? I had an issue with cycling on mine from the time I finished building it back in '13. I blamed it on poor ammo. But it got bad enough that it wouldn't cycle properly even on factory Federal ammo. Back in January I took it to the range and it really got jammed up. I cleared it out and went home. When I disassembled the bolt and carrier, the gas rings came out in pieces. It had maybe had 800 rounds through it at that point. Always oiled and cleaned. I went and bought a bolt carrier rebuild kit from Stag. Put on the new gas rings, and then I went and looked at a new bolt carrier group from Spike's. The Spike's BCG was so much nicer. The bolt would move in and out buttery smooth. My old Bushmaster BCG in comparison felt slightly rough and tight new rings or the old ones. I bought the new BCG, oiled and installed it, and I haven't had a problem since. A day or two later, I shot 200 or 300 rounds without a single hiccup.

Who made your upper? Didn't you post a thread showing your build and finishing of your 80% lower? Did you have it anodized? Cerakote?