Longest range recorded kill

Will have to take that photo tomorrow in daylight,
Scope is right here,no need to be suspicious - I ain't one to fool folks


for comparison of the cloudy PU posted above,I would say this 4X Dialtyn is in comparitive shape

 

You could always post your own photos or your own specific conclusions on the hunderds (or is it thousands?) of sights you used and then we could find out where your 'suspicions' are coming from.

 

I've seen that one on ebay actually. But again notice, no distortion on the German scope even there, only a very clear overall cloudiness (not just the edges), which is obviously due to the scope having leaked its nitrogen; it's all fogged up. The Russian scopes on the other hand generally feature a lot of distortion as-well as clouded edges.

 

And as you can see in the photo I posted above of the PU scope - no distortion

 

What the heck are you on about? Just leave this thread m kenny, you wont find any proof to your theories about Russian gunsights in here.

Specific conclusions for a thousand sights, you gotta be kidding me

 

one more photo I have of my Izhevsk PU rifle,this one also has excellent optics and I dont see any distortion in it

 

That's one picture, and we don't know wether the scope has been refurbished, from WW2 or at all original, it's not your scope after-all but a friend's.

Take a picture through your own Leopold with your own camera, and then the PU. We should able to see the difference.

 

Scope has not been refurbed,if it was there would be a box with an X inside right between the mount as well a refurb date would be present next to the serial number (example 1968) - as the photo shows the refurb mark is not present,its original WWII. I would be more than happy to send you a few of my original condition PU scopes for examination - I think it may possibly change your opinion,I really love my PU scopes and these rifles are actually my hunting rifles

 

Looks a little bit cloudy, but I don't notice any distortion. Is it an original WW2 PU scope with no extra work having been done to it?

 

I'm talking about your friend's scope, not your own. Is that a side picture of your friend's scope?

 

I think the cloudiness is due to a glare from the sun,which was pointing right on me from behind that day ( This scope is original WWII - no refurb was done to it thankfully. Yes sir that's my friends scope in both photos

 

That could be. As for your friend's scope, if indeed it is original then it is the best PU scope I have ever seen, a rare jewel of which he should be extremely thankful.

The best Russian scope I have looked through with my own eyes was a PEM scope, which also featured a wider FOV than the PU. It was quite nice, but not nearly as nice as a modern scope. I have however never looked through any Russian scope that could rival the clarity & brilliance of the best German scopes I have looked through. A great condition WW2 German scope features clarity as crisp as that of the most expensive modern scopes you can get today, it truly is incredible. It is no wonder that they cost as much as they do.

 

I am very interested in someone who is posting actual photos of actual examples he has and giving us his actual observations.
I note that you mentioni you have 'suspicions' as to the authors motives.
I want facts here and so far they are all coming one way.
Is it too much to ask you to be a bit more specific about the hundreds (if not thousands) of sights you have used?
Surely you have details and technical information about some of them?

Vintovka is a classic case of someone who puts his money where his mouth is.
I can only echo Joe Friday. Just the facts, ma'am


Vintovka.
Excellent posts and the most informative I have ever seen. Too much information in this area is opinion posing as fact.
Keep posting your photos. They are most informative and a revelation to many.

 

I will admit that 1st photo you posted of the German scope is pretty darn nice, I think though that there are PU scopes out there that could compare somewhat in clarity,
couple more photo's I dug up of the scope I posted earlier that looked like it had edge distortion,I still believe thats my cameras fault because I dont see edge distortion in these 2?





1 more i have of the same scope (excuse the camera flash marks)


notices in the 2nd photo the bottom left of the scope appears blurry but the 1st photo its clear,I believe my camera had dust on the lense and or because I have no bipod

 

Problem is m kenny you don't actually know what specifics it is you're looking for, in part because you're not looking for any. Your only reason for showing your face in this thread is to question every post I make, but I am sorry to disappoint you, I aint gonna take the bait.

I am a great enthusiast when it comes to WW2 optical equipment, be it naval, army or airforce, it's all the same. I have a nice collection of different WW2 binoculars myself, which I enjoy watching birds with. In addition to this I am a member of small collectors club concentrating mainly on WW2 optics and radio equipment. I've seen more optics then you can dream of.

 

Notice the poor clarity at the edges and the road bending on top picture, that's the distortion again. Also notice the discolouration at the edges. There's a bit of cloudiness at the lower left corner on both pictures.

Also a question: Is it hard for you to acquire the correct eye relief and alignment for a clear picture through your PU scope (no black spots)? I'm asking because I found this to be a quite persistent problem for me with the PU series of scopes, but it also needs to be noted that this is a very narrow scope with a very narrow first lense, so it will be harder to align perfectly with the eye than other scopes. This wasn't as much of a problem with the PEM.

 

These are some of the specifics I am interested in:
Soviet optics were all cloudy.
Soviet optics were not effective over 800 mtrs.
All Soviet optics were poor quality.

The excellent posts here by Vintovka have shown these claims to be incorrect.

 

I keep making excuses lol ! Honestly though when I look through any of my WWII Russian scope's I dont see any problems/distortion etc... I believe the camera's "macro setting" picks up all the flaws - for instance on my 36 PE scope the front lense has a chip but when looking through the scope its 100 percent clear,the camera however picks up a large blurr due to the macro. I wish that I lived near you so I could show you my collection of Russian WWII scopes,Indeed there's some bad examples out there from hard use in the war,I have only bought examples that are in almost new condition,or the soldier took good care of it.

Indeed the eye relief on a PU scope is not excellent,That was why the Red Army snipers were not initially happy with the PU,They liked the PEM which allows easier eye relief. But the small compact PU soon won over their user's - they found the smaller lense would hide a glare from the sun easier

 

I'll let you know this then: Russian tank optics are worse than their rifle optics, esp. since they required more lenses, and without AR coatings this leads to cloudy optics; the more lenses you need to use, the more you need AR coatings.

Also I will again stress that the one picture shown by Vintovka in the previous page of a view through a friend's PU scope shows an absolute rarity, most PU scopes are nowhere near that clear, and I have my doubts about wether that specific scope hasn't been refurbished. Not all refurbished scopes are marked, infact a great many refurbished scopes aren't marked because the owner knows it decreases the value of the scope, so that is no insurance.

 

Notice that only one person is questioning your posts and do not worry too much about it. If there were any problems with your information someone else would have chimed in and asked a question. I am sure I speak for most when I say your contributions are excellent. We belive you. Keep it up.

That is what you were saying about the rifle scopes at the start of this thread.

Reminder:

Have you have modified your view?

When confronted with a reality at odds with your 'belief' you make excuses.............

You are calling Vintovka a liar?
That really is a serious charge.
What evidence do you have to back it up?

Can I make a suggestion?
Instead of simply qestioning everything Vintovka posts give us the results of your experience with hundreds (if not thousands) of Soviet sights.
Show us where the mistakes are with examples from your own research.
Give us the details and stop repeating 'I do not believe it'.

Frankly you are being referenced out of sight here .