Other than color/sticker, is there any difference as far as quality/features goes, between this one and the "MTM 50 Caliber Ammo Can"?
1160911
Bought this for my wife and 3 year old grandson for there Zombie collection, a military 50 cal is what I use for MY ammo, it is heavier but much more durable. This one is lighter and can stand a use of a three yea told with no damage but it depends on what you want it for!
1160912
Sorry this took so long. They are the same. Love the Zombie edition though.
51158
I had it on a 25-06. Traded it out for a scope that had numbers on the turrets so it is easier to change zero for different ammo. No way to index the turrets on this scope other than actually counting clicks.
1024505
Amazon offers both scopes. Mine is the mil-dot. It has an adjustable brightness illuminated green and red reticle. I like the quick release on it. Worth the money.
1286453
You can download the nikon "spot on" app and check out how different loads match up using the BDC....its great and printable. I love that scope and utilizing the "spot on" app really helps better dial it in based on ammo using or if you ever decided to put it on a different rifle. But realistically depending on the ammo use its all about the fps as well as bullet weight and coeffocient, but download the app first and you will see what I mean. Enjoy
201212
Primarily the height difference. Awesome piece of equipment for anyone. My 12 year old used it on the front of his 7mm-08 for a perfect rest. Smoked a huge buck at over 100 yards. Rest is everything for any shooter, but a must have for young shooters.
1935272
ordered a 1000 lot, there were a lot of federal brass. The brass only holds the bullet and powder, it does not improve or hinder gun performance. All manuf. tell you that their brass is better than other brands. Have shot six shot groups with three or four different brands, no different result with all same brand.
39796
Daniel, The major thing between these two is the reticle one has a first focal plane reticle (bushnell) which magnifies with your magnification setting. The MTAC has a 2nd focal plane reticle which will not adjust with your magnification. Some reviews I read about the MTAC says its way to small (i suspect not for the style of scopes we are talking about) The glass would be the next thing, personally I have not had tons of time behind a Burris scope but I typically suspect it to be clearer and better eye relief. Pros of the Bushnell 1/10 moa adjustments, BDC reticle sighted at 100 yards good out to 500 yards, Illumination is good for medium light, the quick adjust bar for magnification great for changing magnifications on the fly. Bushnell Cons High profile turrets, Illumination not good in bright lights (even though you wont need it). Mtac Pros Turret has covers and are low profile, Crisp clear glass, on off position for every brightness level of illumnation Mtac Cons Turret adjustment 1/2 MOA, Illumination not suitable for bright light (sunshine, over exposed lighting). Price of the scope I think it comes down to two things price and type of reticle. I believe the AR Optics holds over the Burris Mtac because of price, the glass is clear and I have no problems with fisheye problems. The adjustments of the AR optics allow for better sighting in. The reticle different off First focal plane (bushnell) and 2nd focal plane (Burris) is preference. I like the ar optics because I enjoy it at 1x as a small ghost ring for quick transitions, where the Burris will stay the same size through all magnifications. That is good if you intend no magnification out 100+ yards which may be your preference. Its really a hard decision because the two will get the job done, but I feel as I try to do pros and cons between them I feel they both have applications and can be very comparable. I do believe overall the bushnell is the way to go for price point and surely get the job done.
801278
It has load data for the 223, which is the same difference. I use it for my 223/5.56 loads. This is one of the most commonly loaded calibers, so any loading manual will have data on it.
938802
Greatly different. Snap caps work for what you purchase them for as far as trigger pull practice is concerned but actually ammo weight there is no comparison you can tell its plastic when you hold I your hand and it it feels empty when chambered
777464
They are both patriot models so I don't think much, if anything. They are listed together on the mm site. I wonder if it isn't just a packaging difference?
2176988
Occasional muzzle flash for me but I have only used one type of ammo so far. Concussion and sound are pretty amazing. Sounds like a cannon at an indoor range. I would say a major plus for it would be the reduced recoil and muzzle rise. Definitely worth the money.
632502
9mm = tapered case.380 = straight caseBtw the expander die won't work.Having said all that. I did manage to load a few rounds after tweeking a few things and adding a few things. But only a few. It wasn't worth it and did not produce ammo that I was happy with. I'd just save the headache, bite the bullet and drop the $40-$50 on a 380 set. I have a turret press so I also bought an extra turret.
1210273
So you are saying you prefer the older LTTO rather than the new ones? I'm just happy they are still making the guns.
1962734
nothing compares to the m50, it's origin's murray cup champion, successor to the 300i. it's small, lightweight, and very fast. 4 hardpoints for 2 missiles and 2 class 1 weapons. trust me go with the m50
719543
Optic performance is almost identical, slightly better autofocus. Although it look and feel better in hand, paints wear out much faster than old version.
1908499
Short answer: They won't compare.Long answer: These are not "mil-spec". The rear aperture will not accept an A2 replacement, so forget tritium or fiber optic upgrades. The front sight post has wiggle, which means that a long range zero is impossible, even though the FSP detent is spring loaded. There is just too much slop. The FSP also doesn't move well using a standard A1/A2 adjustment tool. The hardware is not Grade 8, and the aluminum is not 7075-T6. Hell, even the "anodizing" is not Type III; more like paint. If these will be used for HD, duty, war, or carbine courses, forget it! If these will be used on your backyard dirt clod plinker, then go for it. Short answer: They won't compare.Long answer: These are not "mil-spec". The rear aperture will not accept an A2 replacement, so forget tritium or fiber optic upgrades. The front sight post has wiggle, which means that a long range zero is impossible, even though the FSP detent is spring loaded. There is just too much slop. The FSP also doesn't move well using a standard A1/A2 adjustment tool. The hardware is not Grade 8, and the aluminum is not 7075-T6. Hell, even the "anodizing" is not Type III; more like paint. If these will be used for HD, duty, war, or... » Read More Short answer: They won't compare.Long answer: These are not "mil-spec". The rear aperture will not accept an A2 replacement, so forget tritium or fiber optic upgrades. The front sight post has wiggle, which means that a long range zero is impossible, even though the FSP detent is spring loaded. There is just too much slop. The FSP also doesn't move well using a standard A1/A2 adjustment tool. The hardware is not Grade 8, and the aluminum is not 7075-T6. Hell, even the "anodizing" is not Type III; more like paint. If these will be used for HD, duty, war, or carbine courses, forget it! If these will be used on your backyard dirt clod plinker, then go for it. « Show Less
1492541
Of course the .177 is faster and more range I find it more accurate, but does not have the knock-down power as the .22. But with the .177 hollow points they seem to do pretty well. I prefer the cheaper crossman hollow points. There just as good and cost a fraction of some of the others.