AK Rifles banner
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Discussion starter · #22 ·
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

i have been shooting HP regulation matches for the last 3 years or so, and been acquiring a lot of help from a fellow shooter there. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable shooters i know, ex military and a master level HP shooter. I owe a lot to him as he was teaching me LOTS of excellent techniques throughout the years.

he is another big AK supporter and understand the platform inside and out.

after last match i happen to have my AKs-74 with 1p63 mounted on it, and we were able to do a little shooting with it, and he really liked the glass and the functionality of the scope. this has been his corresponding to the this thread via emai

Anton, An excellent logical write up. However, I did have the advantage of looking through scope at the last match and could easily relate to all of your comments.

The CQB aspect of the sight I really liked. It reminds of the Finn snipers back in WWII. Although they didn’t have a scope like this, they did use match aperture sights for quick target acquisition at ranges from 100 to 300 meters. So when looking through an aperture (front circle) the bullet drop of 5 MOA from 100 to 300m easily covered the center of a man sized silhouette.



On the drop test I’m wondering what moved? Was the variation due to movement within the scope or was it the actual mounting between the scope and receiver? Since the obzor is an aluminum body and the receiver is stamped, my guess is that the movement likely occurred where the scope mounts to the receiver. There may have been a little cold flowing of the aluminum due to the impact. To prove this, I would mount and dismount the scope 3 to 6 times, checking the bullet impact each time the scope was removed and re-installed to the receiver. If there’s a significant variation I would conclude the POI change due to the mounting lock up to the receiver. Also, there may be some give and take in the receiver (movement) that could account for some of the movement.



Knowing how the Russians like to keep things simple and keeping with the reliability of the AK platform, I wouldn’t think the obzor internal mechanisms don’t move enough to change the POI 3 MOA @ 100m, given the relatively mild shock (drop test, but realistic) you subjected the scope too while mounted on the rifle.



Again, great article and it looks like a lot positive responses on the postings…..


Regards…Dave


Hey man, staying dry up there? we got hit pretty hard.
The POI shift wasnt 3 moa, more like 1.5. And to be honest that could have been my (shooters) fault. Since this is 1x scope, and i was using a man-size silhouette to see the POI shift, you dont really knw where exactly you are in the black..you know what I mean? My POA was the same as before, but this isnt a magnified optic, so even a RCH of change would reflect the POI shift.
Regarding the mount, the bottom is not alluminium but steel. The clamp on the Obzor is actually a SVD-type mount made by the NPZ. Not a belarus ot bulgarian versions. After this shoot i already tried taking the optic on and off, and it held zero.

see you on sat.
A.

Anton, Go ahead and post it – no problem on this end.

The main reason I centered on the mounting of the scope for a POI change is that with the M14 I’ve had issues with various mounting brackets as it pertains to the POI. Dissimilar material when mounted together often is the problem. For example, the M14 receiver is a forged steel, I think they use 8650 if memory serves correctly. Springfield uses an investment casting with the M1a’s. Point being is that many of the original aftermarket scope mount brackets were made of heavy aluminum. The coefficient of expansion and contraction is different between the two materials creating opposing mechanical movements – hence small changes in the POI. Additionally, a consistent torque lock up between the two materials was nearly impossible to maintain. Also, there was the various methods of mounting between the different manufacturers that came into to play with respect to a consistent POI. Anyway, the best mounts for the M14 are forged steel. So in this case you end up with similar materials mounted to the receiver and coefficients of expansion and contraction being the same…… Now having said all that the down side is the additional full 1 pound or more in weight that is added to the rifle due to the mounts and scope.



The point being with all this conversation is that you can have a very good main battle rifle, such as an issue AK or M14, both relatively light in weight, the M14 weighing about 8.6 pounds as issued, and when you go to turn these rifles into a sniper rifle, they end up weighing considerably more. In the case of M14 they now weigh 13 to 15 lbs. CQB rifle must be light and easy to maneuver with sighting mechanism that is fast and accurate out to a maximum of 400yds. The Obzor clearly fills that objective and does it well. In my opinion if I was to choose between a well-built AK with an Obzor mounted on it or our current issue M4 with say a Trijicon mounted to it; I would go with the Russian scenario every time I could. The main reason is that the 5,45 X 39mm round is superior for knock down power, the rifle always functions, the Obzor is small and really fits well to the eye, and since most combat is 300yds and under, the whole system is optimized for close quarter combat……. By the way if all the Russian built stuff is junk, why the heck do our own Marines often end up carrying AK’s into combat????? I have not seen an as issue M4 capable of shooting better than 2 MOA. But I sure have seen a few AK’s that are in pretty poor shape shooting as issue ammo holding 2 MOA. And then there is your VEPR....



Yeah…. Staying dry down here. I was lucky didn’t have any impact from the flood, except for the fact that I haven’t been able to get up to the range and shoot. Route 26 just was opened up yesterday and I’m not sure about the bridge going to the range. Will check that out tomorrow. Are the roads ok in your area?



Talk later …Dave
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

I like it!

Just wish it was lower to the bore... I am sure cheek weld would suck without the pad.
 
Discussion starter · #24 ·
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

no, thats where one of the biggest mis-undestandings of the AK platform come into play in the US.

even if i didnt have the proper cheek weld, its doesnt matter. I know most tactical operators will argue and thats fine, simply because its a preference, not a necessity.

1) we are talking about the recoil of 5,45 which is miniscule. chin weld is perfectly enough to deliver quick and accurate follow up MAN size hits out to 300 meters.
2)this is not bulls eye shooting. These scopes were not developed for that. You want to go to the range and shoot tight groups dont get a reflex 3MOA red dot, you get target scope

but that doesnt mean that it cannont be done with this type of sight :wink:

practice.

get off the computer and go to the range. :doh:
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

Good points, obviously.

To be fair, I was always taught that a good cheek weld is important, and that is just how I learned to shoot. I didn't mean anything by what I said as far as the high rise on the scope. I am pretty new to Carbines (less than 6 months) so I do not have too much experience to speak from. I do compete with my Saiga 5.45. First time out I finished first in Iron Sights division. Tomorrow I am competing with the PK-01 I just got. We'll see how I do.


Check out my review of the PK-01. Let me know what you think.
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

I've actually grown really comfortable with the height of Russian optics and these days prefer it over the traditional nose against the charging handle of the M16/AR series. Like I say all the time IMO it's really just a matter of trigger time on an AK...once you spend a lot of time with optics or irons it all falls into place. IMO most of the people that complain about it don't have any significant time behind the optic and are used to something else in the first place.

I'm sure there are theoretical match level differences in accuracy with a cheekweld vs a chinweld but that's not really significant in the real world, again IMO. I was taught the same way about cheekwelds by the US Army but it's been my experience that it isn't necessary to get hits even out to 300-400m. With a 5.45 and any optic I own I can hit offhand a half mansize target with only the classic chinweld that AK's + optics give. I used to really like the SVD cheekpad + triangle folder but these days I don't bother. I'm not a great shot either, I just think it's familiarity with the system.

Also when you use your PK01V in the match maybe you could post your results in your review thread? I'm interested to hear how you like it.




Z
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

After reading this review, i just order this junk from Kalinka....now its waiting game.......thanks for the review.
Tuesday, 11/29
I just got the sight from Kalinka, that was fast, this little thing its build like a tank......pic's later.....
Update, after many trips to the range and one carbine class, i order me second Obzor from Kalinka today 2/25.
3/3 i was gona order my third Obzor but they jack the price to $470......and they are not in stock o well....
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

prom93 said:
After reading this review, i just order this junk from Kalinka....now its waiting game.......thanks for the review.
Tuesday, 11/29
I just got the sight from Kalinka, that was fast, this little thing its build like a tank......pic's later.....
Update, after many trips to the range and one carbine class, i order me second Obzor from Kalinka today 2/25.
3/3 i was gona order my third Obzor but they jack the price to $470......and they are not in stock o well....
WELL? Where's the pics? Your almost a year overdue.
 
Re: Another Russian JUNK-Obzor 1P63 Collimator Review.......

jrsuds said:
prom93 said:
After reading this review, i just order this junk from Kalinka....now its waiting game.......thanks for the review.
Tuesday, 11/29
I just got the sight from Kalinka, that was fast, this little thing its build like a tank......pic's later.....
Update, after many trips to the range and one carbine class, i order me second Obzor from Kalinka today 2/25.
3/3 i was gona order my third Obzor but they jack the price to $470......and they are not in stock o well....
WELL? Where's the pics? Your almost a year overdue.
Ok ok, this is my first one, installed on the 106....maybe ill get more pictures later.....
[


]
 
I get the tritium, but what do you mean by "microfiber element"? Is there something that makes the reticle light up during day, i.e. a fiber optic? is this a Russian 1x acog? :goof:

So what is the big rectangular box below the sight actual sight tube?

If you had to choose between this and the Rakurs, which would you go with?
That was my initial question , yet if you read his narrative closely his clear choice is the Obzor. In fact, many who compare the two prefer the Obzor.
The Acog is a great scope, I've got one. The problem I have with it is the sight to target acquisition speed because of the smaller objective.

I expect that the "box" below has some type of light gathering capability, not certain though.

It would be helpful to know what the individual considers the strengths and weaknesses of bot the Obzor and the Rakurs.
 
ok that stock is sexy where does a poor soul acquire such a necessity
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top