AK Rifles banner

Opinions On The Kobra

28K views 81 replies 31 participants last post by  Mahk 
#1 ·
Was looking at the newer generation two version. Anyone have one? What is your opinion, and why.

Also, in case I decide to get one, who has a source for the real deal?
 
#2 ·
I've had a few EKP-1S-03M models over the years and while I like them IMO they are what I would consider just range optics. I don't think there is anything terribly wrong with the Kobra its just that I've ended up using optics that I think work much better, like the PK-A and the PK-AS (and most recently the PK01-VS)

I like the 4 style reticules you can switch through and the 03M is the AA battery version which is nice because batteries are easy to find. A possible problem with the Kobra is that the emitter is on top and not protected from the weather, there is a chance to get debris or water in the emitter channel which could interfere with the dot. Though I think this is unlikely to be a serious problem the other optics don't have that potential at all. I've also heard of internal components breaking on the Kobra (like the on/off switch). While the net isn't full of horror stories about them, in general I am left with the impression that the Kobra isn't as robust as many other combloc optics. After owning a variety of optics my impressions in person are similar...again while nothing terribly wrong with the Kobra my subjective impression is that its just not as tough as the PK series.

Zeroing the Kobra isn't really hard but it's not as easy as the PK-A which uses PSO style turrets. The PK-AS is probably my favorite overall due to the always on black dot and excellent design for both eyes open shooting but its also a bit of a PITA to zero compared to other combloc optics. Lately I've been smitten by the PK01-VS which allows cowitness...while not critical for me in an optic because of the nature of how side rail optics can be quickly dismounted, it is neat to have it available.

Lastly what has killed the Kobra for me is price...they were kick ass at $150, passable at $200 but now at prices often hitting $400 they just aren't worth it. I'd rather spend $179 for a PK-A at Eastwave or even $400 for the PK01-VS instead, IMO both optics are superior (for me) to the Kobra.



Z
 
#3 ·
TX-Zen said:
Lastly what has killed the Kobra for me is price...they were kick ass at $150, passable at $200 but now at prices often hitting $400 they just aren't worth it. I'd rather spend $179 for a PK-A at Eastwave or even $400 for the PK01-VS instead, IMO both optics are superior (for me) to the Kobra.



Z
I have been out of the game for awhile, when the hell did these things jump up so high?
 
#4 ·
It's just been in this past year and it's the distributors doing it from what I can see, Kalinka and Eastwave don't seem to be able to get Kobra's and PK-AS's much anymore. There's also a new wave of modern combloc optics that are on the market and they are all going for $300-400+. I get the impression that Russian optics manufacturers have caught on to the popularity in the US and seems to be ratcheting the price up, but then again it could just be that they have become that rare over there as well.

I really don't get the impression the Kobra or PK-AS are widely available anywhere, thats probably the biggest reason for the price hike.





Z
 
#5 ·
one of the only pluses for the Kobra is that i sits lower over the bore. For me its no issue having to use Russian optics but i have seen a lot of guys bitch about the fact that you cannot get decent cheek weld when using a PK-AS or other similat mount optics

Kobra does sit a little lower.
 
#6 ·
TX-Zen said:
It's just been in this past year and it's the distributors doing it from what I can see, Kalinka and Eastwave don't seem to be able to get Kobra's and PK-AS's much anymore. There's also a new wave of modern combloc optics that are on the market and they are all going for $300-400+. I get the impression that Russian optics manufacturers have caught on to the popularity in the US and seems to be ratcheting the price up, but then again it could just be that they have become that rare over there as well.

I really don't get the impression the Kobra or PK-AS are widely available anywhere, thats probably the biggest reason for the price hike.

Z
This combined with the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. :sad:
 
#7 ·
When i received my first Kobra, the power switch brokethe first time i tried to turn it on. I promptly returned it for another, and still have it. I put i small drip of Kroil on the edge. (i heard some dissassemble and put grease underneath.)
I cannot see this optic holding up to any kind of abuse. The PK-A seems much more robust and is easier to zero
 
#8 ·
petro said:
When i received my first Kobra, the power switch brokethe first time i tried to turn it on. I promptly returned it for another, and still have it. I put i small drip of Kroil on the edge. (i heard some dissassemble and put grease underneath.)
I cannot see this optic holding up to any kind of abuse. The PK-A seems much more robust and is easier to zero
I have to speak from a great deal of experience I've had with both of them, for many years. I would guess that your unit was from a later batch of Gen 2 Kobras that had the porous, defective shaft casting. The Kobra has generally always enjoyed an excellent reputation for years of good, reliable and rugged service. However, the factory that made and marketed them was always in a severe financial situation, and the lack of a long term plan (and steady military sales) forced them to close down several times, and they were at least twice restructured. Sadly, it was simply very hard for them to keep the quality control up to the standards they had previously set when they were actively courting the military for sales in the mid-1990's. Apparently, they have not produced any new Kobra sights in many months. This is likely why the prices have increased so high.

I love the PK-A, but in 14 years I had to take in an above average number of returns on broken PK-A's, which I always promptly replaced out of my own pocket in an attempt to keep their reputation (and mine) in good standing. PK-A is certainly structurally built like a tank (using the combat proven military PSO-1 body casting) and has the traditional advantages (and disadvantages) of a closed system, which means it is slower on target acquisition but far superior in bad weather. However, IMHO they have inferior electronics and switches, a far less precision dot, and inferior optical quality with little to no coatings/polarization (the rear lens seems to be clear plastic?).

Still overall a good optic for the money, and more reliable (and far more solidly built) that many others I tested and used, but the money I lost on quite a few returns does not incline me today to characterize them publicly as being more reliable than a Kobra, which I sold more of for a longer period of time and had less trouble with. I only post this info because I hope that a defective Kobra power switch does not discolor it's otherwise well-deserved reputation earned over the last couple of decades.

BTW, not to make a plug but maybe this will help somebody. If you need a spare power switch shaft for your Kobra (just in case), I still have a few power switch parts sets in stock. these are a drop-in solid-shaft replacements, US CNC-machined from high grade aircraft aluminum. A truly bulletproof design that won't ever go out on you.
 
#9 ·
JoeMomma said:
Was looking at the newer generation two version. Anyone have one? What is your opinion, and why.

Also, in case I decide to get one, who has a source for the real deal?
For plinking and screwing around there are cheaper options. For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options. Is it total crap? No, but the only reason to have one is for the novelty. Even for collectors who want "all Russian" or whatever on their gun, I would challenge anyone to show me an actual (not staged) pic of any Russian soldier employing a Kobra sight no their issue AK.
 
#10 ·
Thanks for the replys guys! I just wanted to bulk up on a bit of knowledge and personal experience with these sights in case I ever run across one for a decent price.

Believe it or not, the best optic I've used on an AK is a Miltary issue Aimpoint on a modified BP02 mount. With the mod, its sits decently low, and did better than expected at 300M.

But since I have an AR now, I use it strictly for that. Still, I would like to try a Kobra on my 74 some day, unless I run across an EG Zeiss cammed for the 5.45.
 
#11 ·
Jay Cunningham said:
For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options.
Okay, I will have to totally disagree with that summary, more durable? What's so non-durable on a Kobra sight? I mean, please specify how you came to that concusion, I really do want to know. What in your experience is not durable enough on a Kobra sight to bet your life on? And indeed, they truly did employ them in combat in the first Chechen conflict. Lets put cash money on the table, before I show you some images to prove it. I guess you are an Aimpoint man?
 
#13 ·
Tantal said:
Jay Cunningham said:
For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options.
Okay, I will have to totally disagree with that summary, more durable? What's so non-durable on a Kobra sight? I mean, please specify how you came to that concusion, I really do want to know. What in your experience is not durable enough on a Kobra sight to bet your life on? And indeed, they truly did employ them in combat in the first Chechen conflict. Lets put cash money on the table, before I show you some images to prove it. I guess you are an Aimpoint man?
Doug, why do you even bother wasting your time arguing this point over and over. There will always be commando groups that swear by aimpoint, and that Russian stuff is inferior.

i remember you did an incredible write up and a comparison of our very own PK-AS (that has features that aimpoint couldn't even hold a candlestick to), right here in the optics section. That should have been made a sticky...
i will try to dig it up.

let them buy $700 + optics that they can "rely on with their life". and will keep our junky clunky- high over the boor sitting commie crap.

irons.

you want an optic and have exellent cheek weld?get a quality stock or make your own adjustible cheek piece for a traditional triangle stock, then simply rotate the cheek piece


oh oh batteries are dead..no problems

you want red dot? you want BDC for 5.45 @ your fingertips?


what the hell do Russians know about optics that they can "rely their life on" anyways?
perfect cheek weld, takes less then 4 seconds to take off....and under 300$ for a decent PK-AS.
whats not to like?

:allright:
and here some history.
this whole "get a western optic" crowd should think about this. When they say "western" they usually mean "aimpoint", which is far from western. Being a Swedish made optic, this is not far from "eastern world"

since the term "Russia" comes from an Ancient Swedish tribe of Variags called "Rus" that settled the northern region near now called "murmansk" and most "true" Russians are nothing but decendants of their Viking ancestors that settled that area and then migrated south.

so when you buy Russian, Swedish... :twisted: :wink:

edit thanks to Cambiadude

here the original write up
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=120291
 
#14 ·
voron said:
Tantal said:
Jay Cunningham said:
For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options.
Okay, I will have to totally disagree with that summary, more durable? What's so non-durable on a Kobra sight? I mean, please specify how you came to that concusion, I really do want to know. What in your experience is not durable enough on a Kobra sight to bet your life on? And indeed, they truly did employ them in combat in the first Chechen conflict. Lets put cash money on the table, before I show you some images to prove it. I guess you are an Aimpoint man?
Doug, why do you even bother wasting your time arguing this point over and over. There will always be commando groups that swear by aimpoint, and that Russian stuff is inferior.

i remember you did an incredible write up and a comparison of our very own PK-AS (that has features that aimpoint couldn't even hold a candlestick to), right here in the optics section. That should have been made a sticky...
i will try to dig it up.

let them buy $700 + optics that they can "rely on with their life". and will keep our junky clunky- high over the boor sitting commie crap.

irons.

you want an optic and have exellent cheek weld?get a quality stock or make your own adjustible cheek piece for a traditional triangle stock, then simply rotate the cheek piece


oh oh batteries are dead..no problems

you want red dot? you want BDC for 5.45 @ your fingertips?


what the hell do Russians know about optics that they can "rely their life on" anyways?
perfect cheek weld, takes less then 4 seconds to take off....and under 300$ for a decent PK-AS.
whats not to like?

:allright:
and here some history.
this whole "get a western optic" crowd should think about this. When they say "western" they usually mean "aimpoint", which is far from western. Being a Swedish made optic, this is not far from "eastern world"

since the term "Russia" comes from an Ancient Swedish tribe of Variags called "Rus" that settled the northern region near now called "murmansk" and most "true" Russians are nothing but decendants of their Viking ancestors that settled that area and then migrated south.

so when you buy Russian, Swedish... :twisted: :wink:

edit thanks to Cambiadude

here the original write up
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=120291
I am not saying Aimpoint is the end of all optics, but they do deserve props. That being said I do love the way that has a dot even if the batteries died...that is sweet. I would really like something like that, but since I don't have a side rail I'll have to stick with my aimpoint micro. Luckily it does co-witness so if the dot does go out I have a back-up plan. Only thing I am lacking is a QD mount that is low enough to co-witness.
 
#15 ·
In my opinion, the Russian red dot optics (or whatever the above optic is classed as, since it's not a true red dot, but a 1x scope) look cool, but are inferior to an Aimpoint micro or Comp series mounted on an Ultimak or TWS Gen II rail.

Here's why:

The Russian optics and mounts are heavier, have shorter battery life, sporadically reported quality control problems, non-existent or poor customer service should you buy one with QC problems, some have durability issues, and they are now approaching the prices of optics like those made by Aimpoint. The Russian optics are under developed and use technology that is quite dated by American standards (thus the comparatively low battery life and high weight).

My SLR-106FR with Ultimak and R-1 micro Aimpoint weighs roughly 1/4 pound more than it did without any optic at all. Tell me how any of the current Russian red dot optics with or without integral sidemount could compare with that?

Aimpoints are not known for breaking easily, even in combat. The batteries used with them last for months even if left on the highest setting- years if left on middle settings. Batteries for both the Mirco Aimpoints and the Comp series are inexpensive and, at least for the button batteries used by the micro, are readily available at any Wal-Mart or other store that deals with watches or electronics. $2 for a pack of 2 at Wal-Mart or $3 for 5 if you look around online. Because of this, I don't see the fact that they use batteries to be as much of a limitation as it was during the infancy of red dot optics.

The Russian optics offer some novel innovations, like changeable reticles, 1x scopes with etched "black dot" reticles that work in daylight with no batteries and have battery illuminated reticles for use at night, and pulsating dots that help increase battery time and avoid losing the dot due to "washout," but they simply don't compare to optics like the Aimpoint and Eotech because of the above mentioned issues. The novel features and slight reduction in price aren't enough to overcome their comparative weaknesses in my opinion.

I have come to the opinion that the Russian red dot optics simply aren't worth the money when compared to optics like those offered by Aimpoint. Even optics like those made by Vortex and Primary Arms offer a better value since they are cheaper, typically have good customer service and don't pretend to be optics that could survive and function well in a military environment.
 
#16 ·
Doug, if you get a chance, could you post one or two pics of the Kobra being used being used by Russians? I'd love to have a few for my pic collection.
 
#18 ·
Aries14482 said:
In my opinion, the Russian red dot optics (or whatever the above optic is classed as, since it's not a true red dot, but a 1x scope) look cool, but are inferior to an Aimpoint micro or Comp series mounted on an Ultimak or TWS Gen II rail.

Here's why:

The Russian optics and mounts are heavier, have shorter battery life, sporadically reported quality control problems, non-existent or poor customer service should you buy one with QC problems, some have durability issues, and they are now approaching the prices of optics like those made by Aimpoint. The Russian optics are under developed and use technology that is quite dated by American standards (thus the comparatively low battery life and high weight).

My SLR-106FR with Ultimak and R-1 micro Aimpoint weighs roughly 1/4 pound more than it did without any optic at all. Tell me how any of the current Russian red dot optics with or without integral sidemount could compare with that?

Aimpoints are not known for breaking easily, even in combat. The batteries used with them last for months even if left on the highest setting- years if left on middle settings. Batteries for both the Mirco Aimpoints and the Comp series are inexpensive and, at least for the button batteries used by the micro, are readily available at any Wal-Mart or other store that deals with watches or electronics. $2 for a pack of 2 at Wal-Mart or $3 for 5 if you look around online. Because of this, I don't see the fact that they use batteries to be as much of a limitation as it was during the infancy of red dot optics.

The Russian optics offer some novel innovations, like changeable reticles, 1x scopes with etched "black dot" reticles that work in daylight with no batteries and have battery illuminated reticles for use at night, and pulsating dots that help increase battery time and avoid losing the dot due to "washout," but they simply don't compare to optics like the Aimpoint and Eotech because of the above mentioned issues. The novel features and slight reduction in price aren't enough to overcome their comparative weaknesses in my opinion.

I have come to the opinion that the Russian red dot optics simply aren't worth the money when compared to optics like those offered by Aimpoint. Even optics like those made by Vortex and Primary Arms offer a better value since they are cheaper, typically have good customer service and don't pretend to be optics that could survive and function well in a military environment.
Great post!
 
#19 ·
Tantal said:
Jay Cunningham said:
For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options.
Okay, I will have to totally disagree with that summary, more durable? What's so non-durable on a Kobra sight? I mean, please specify how you came to that concusion, I really do want to know. What in your experience is not durable enough on a Kobra sight to bet your life on? And indeed, they truly did employ them in combat in the first Chechen conflict. Lets put cash money on the table, before I show you some images to prove it. I guess you are an Aimpoint man?
Hi Doug,

Aries14482 wrote a wonderful summary, in addition to some of the anecdotes from some of the other members previously.

If you have a pic of actual Russian soldiers using actual issued Kobra optics in Chechnya - that's cool, I'd like to see them! If they are such great optical sights, however, I wonder why they are not current general issue for Russian troops? If not general issue, then I wonder why they are not current issue to at least special forces troops?
 
#20 ·
voron said:
Tantal said:
Jay Cunningham said:
For an optic you can bet your life on there are more durable options.
Okay, I will have to totally disagree with that summary, more durable? What's so non-durable on a Kobra sight? I mean, please specify how you came to that concusion, I really do want to know. What in your experience is not durable enough on a Kobra sight to bet your life on? And indeed, they truly did employ them in combat in the first Chechen conflict. Lets put cash money on the table, before I show you some images to prove it. I guess you are an Aimpoint man?
Doug, why do you even bother wasting your time arguing this point over and over. There will always be commando groups that swear by aimpoint, and that Russian stuff is inferior.

i remember you did an incredible write up and a comparison of our very own PK-AS (that has features that aimpoint couldn't even hold a candlestick to), right here in the optics section. That should have been made a sticky...
i will try to dig it up.

let them buy $700 + optics that they can "rely on with their life". and will keep our junky clunky- high over the boor sitting commie crap.

irons.

you want an optic and have exellent cheek weld?get a quality stock or make your own adjustible cheek piece for a traditional triangle stock, then simply rotate the cheek piece

oh oh batteries are dead..no problems

you want red dot? you want BDC for 5.45 @ your fingertips?

what the hell do Russians know about optics that they can "rely their life on" anyways?
perfect cheek weld, takes less then 4 seconds to take off....and under 300$ for a decent PK-AS.
whats not to like?
Hi Voron,

I never mentioned Aimpoint.
 
#21 ·
Aries14482 said:
In my opinion, the Russian red dot optics (or whatever the above optic is classed as, since it's not a true red dot, but a 1x scope) look cool, but are inferior to an Aimpoint micro or Comp series mounted on an Ultimak or TWS Gen II rail.

Here's why:

The Russian optics and mounts are heavier, have shorter battery life, sporadically reported quality control problems, non-existent or poor customer service should you buy one with QC problems, some have durability issues, and they are now approaching the prices of optics like those made by Aimpoint. The Russian optics are under developed and use technology that is quite dated by American standards (thus the comparatively low battery life and high weight).
thanks for re-posting katars earlier post which was posted here

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=120291

this was discussed in great detail and all if points you made have been addressed.

but i like how you guys troll, change names and continuously bring up same topics and same issues to get to your point across.

after all, this is the internet and everyone has equal right to get their point across. and disussions like these , are good because they often lead to education and suggestion from everyone and other can benefit from :smile:

i also own an aimpoint and really like the optic. its a great piece of technology, and like everything else it has it ups and downs. i still use once in a while

today in north east PA was about 7F with wind. I was out with piss poor quality control PK_AS with zero issues, even after dropped the rifle ground, as i slipped on ice below snow and banging the shit out the optic. Ironically, despite it lacking technology and advanced circutry and all else... it still works.

i just dont see the need to purchase very high price optic for my peasant weapon.

as the weight being an issue? wow. ok. I am drinking milk.
 
#24 ·
you are right, please PM me and advise
thanks
 
#25 ·
voron said:
Aries14482 said:
In my opinion, the Russian red dot optics (or whatever the above optic is classed as, since it's not a true red dot, but a 1x scope) look cool, but are inferior to an Aimpoint micro or Comp series mounted on an Ultimak or TWS Gen II rail.

Here's why:

The Russian optics and mounts are heavier, have shorter battery life, sporadically reported quality control problems, non-existent or poor customer service should you buy one with QC problems, some have durability issues, and they are now approaching the prices of optics like those made by Aimpoint. The Russian optics are under developed and use technology that is quite dated by American standards (thus the comparatively low battery life and high weight).
thanks for re-posting katars earlier post which was posted here

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=120291

this was discussed in great detail and all if points you made have been addressed.

but i like how you guys troll, change names and continuously bring up same topics and same issues to get to your point across.

after all, this is the internet and everyone has equal right to get their point across. and disussions like these , are good because they often lead to education and suggestion from everyone and other can benefit from :smile:

i also own an aimpoint and really like the optic. its a great piece of technology, and like everything else it has it ups and downs. i still use once in a while

today in north east PA was about 7F with wind. I was out with piss poor quality control PK_AS with zero issues, even after dropped the rifle ground, as i slipped on ice below snow and banging the shit out the optic. Ironically, despite it lacking technology and advanced circutry and all else... it still works.

i just dont see the need to purchase very high price optic for my peasant weapon.

as the weight being an issue? wow. ok. I am drinking milk.
lol, +1 to all this. Every one of these issues was just addressed in the post linked to immediately before the one made by Aries :mrgreen:
 
#26 ·
I didn't see the link to the thread mentioned above and hadn't read it.

I was just sharing my impressions having owned and handled a few Russian red dot optics and having recently replaced an Aimpoint Comp M2 (mounted with a side mount borrowed from a broken PK-23) with an Aimpoint R-1 mounted on an Ultimak rail. I switched because I wanted to reduce the overall weight of the weapon. My rifle is now more than a pound lighter from the combined weight savings with the new mount and optic. This is useful to me because I found a muzzle heavy, nearly 10 pound, rifle wore out my arms too quickly when running around, frequently scanning with the weapon held high, and looking through the sights. My scrawny arms, which came with my scrawny 5' 9" 160 lbs ass, didn't handle that so good. Taking a little over a pound off the weapon has helped.

Holy shit guys, no need to attack me for giving my experience on the matter. I've been here a while and try to post only when I think I have something relevant to offer. Geez, I'm one of you guys. I'm the guy at the local 3-gun that kicks everybody's AR-shooting ass with my SLR-106. I'm not someone else's "second account" as Voron seems to think.

I like Russian magnified scopes on my AK just fine, I just don't like their red dot type sights for the reasons I listed. I've never played with a PK-AS. My only concern with it would be the illuminator, since I've had bad luck with illuminated reticles in other scopes and have read at least two reports of them breaking on the PK-AS with no way to fix them or send them in for repair.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top