Best Semiautomatic DMR?

[akodo]

H2OMan, how similar are the M110's inner workings to the M-16/M-4/AR15 minus the caliber. Because from the wikipedia article pictureand what I've been able to glean it bears at least a superficial resemblance to the AR-15 but chambered in 7.62mm. The M110 is definitely a top choice for a 7.62mm DMR.

maybe I am stating what you already know but....

Originally there was the AR-10, designed for 7.62NATO. It never garnered much interest in the USA, but some were sold to the Sudan, some ended up in Cuban hands (Raul and Fidel both thought highly of it)

(note where the bolt handle is, inside carry handle)

Later the AR-10 was scaled down to become the AR-15, which can only handle a shorter cartridge.

After the AR-15 was established, there was renewed interest in the AR-10 due to as you cite, platform familiarity. Some guys wanted a bit more power, as they couldn't have a happy switch...and some guys wanted a bit more power because they wanted a 'survival' rifle that could handle a bear, and they could legally hunt deer and elk with


So AR-10 re-enters the scene. The first two big makers are Armalite Inc II (same name different company than the original armalite, actually related to the Lewis Machine and Tool guys, who make excellent LMT AR-15s) and Knight Industries.

As the AR-15 is well estblished, Knight Industries builds backwards toward it's AR-10 from the AR-15, and has a large amount of parts compatability with the AR-15, hence the name SR 25 (10+15) Armalite's new AR-10 also has a big degree of parts swap with AR-10. Armalite's new AR-10 takes M-14 20 rounder magazines.

DPMS has also stepped into the 7.62x51mm AR field, as have some others.

I think the AR-10 'platform' can make a wonderful DMR rifle for a heck of a lot less than the $7K knight armament is asking for their M110

In fact, I don't think a lot of 'sniper style stuff' is needed on a DMR. A lot of guys are found of the standard 5.56 with a quality mid-range optic. In the same token, put a good medium range optic on an AR-10 with a 16-18" barrel is still going to outshoot most users and fill that DMR roll just fine. Sure, it may not be the best choice for the 600+ shot, but is that realistic?

Something like this

 

[akodo]

I know for a fact now that I'm gonna go for the Armalite based DMR systems because of familiarity with the maintenance, marksmanship and other aspects of the system.

Now it's gonna be between 7.62 or 5.56. I'm leaning towards 5.56 because of accuracy and again, plenty of use with said ammunition.

Are you stuck on Armalite Inc the company as your maker, or are you saying you want the AR platform (AR-15, M-16, M-4, plus it's bigger brother, the AR-10, both old and reinvented)

because not just Armalite makes ARs. While Armalite holds a US trademark on the name "AR-10"[20], other rifle manufactures currently produce .308 semi-auto rifles that are based on the AR-15/AR-10 design: the DPMS LR-308, KAC SR-25, Rock River Arms LAR-8, American Spirit Arms ASA .308, Fulton Armory Titan, RND Manufacturing's "The Edge" and the German Oberland Arms OA-10.

Now it's gonna be between 7.62 or 5.56. I'm leaning towards 5.56 because of accuracy and again, plenty of use with said ammunition.

you are saying you think the 5.56 is more accurate than 7.62NATO? I think the gun matters more, but match grade 7.62NATO ammo is ACCURATE AS ALL HELL AND THEN SOME.

Or do you mean 7.62x39

Any inputs on what to chamber my AR-15 DMR in?

Note, you seem to be switching from referring to the AR-15 an then AR-10 and back again.

While both are 'ARs' and while one is an enlarged version of the other, and while they have a lot of parts compatability, they aren't the same. Maybe they are the same platform, but they are definately different subplatforms. The 7.62x51 is just too long to fit in the AR15.

I THINK what you are trying to ask is this:

"I have settled on the AR style platform due to being familiar with the M-16. Now, do I get the AR-15 or the AR-10? Help me decide"

Final question/comment:

You repeatedly speak about being familiar with the AMMO itself. What do you mean by this? Are you a reloader who has the equipment setup for 5.56 already? Beyond that, I don't see how familiarity with the chambering matters all that much, once you have established that both are readily available.

I suppose you may be referring to knowing how the 5.56 kicks lightly and liking that but being a bit wary of the 7.62x51 kicks, or possilby have memorized the drop over distance of the 5.56 (or maybe have a subconsious grasp of it?)

 

[Maverick223]

Note, you seem to be switching from referring to the AR-15 an then AR-10 and back again.

Understandably, as they are very similar in design, appearance, and often manufacturers. However they are NOT the same...if you chose the AR-10 you limit yourself to 7.62x51mm, and upgraded parts are more scarce (still available, just less to choose from). With a AR-15 you have a multitude of uppers available in different calibers and configurations. The AR-15 is also lighter and more ergonomic IMHO. Whatever you do make sure to try it on before you buy it, it will save you hundreds with a seamstress, and like underwear you cant return it.

 

[Zak Smith]

..if you chose the AR-10 you limit yourself to 7.62x51mm

Not true.

 

[Maverick223]

Not true.

Well available factory, unless I missed the memo Tell me more...

 

[Zak Smith]

If by "memo" you mean "advertised for sale for the last 5+ years" then yes.

The AR-10 pattern rifles are made in most of the "08" family (specifically .260), also: 6.5 Creedmoor and some of the RSAUMs.

 

[LoneRider]

Understandably, as they are very similar in design, appearance, and often manufacturers. However they are NOT the same...if you chose the AR-10 you limit yourself to 7.62x51mm, and upgraded parts are more scarce (still available, just less to choose from). With a AR-15 you have a multitude of uppers available in different calibers and configurations. The AR-15 is also lighter and more ergonomic IMHO. Whatever you do make sure to try it on before you buy it, it will save you hundreds with a seamstress, and like underwear you cant return it.

Well, my Dad has an Armalite AR-15 at home, so I'm familiar with it.

I THINK what you are trying to ask is this:

"I have settled on the AR style platform due to being familiar with the M-16. Now, do I get the AR-15 or the AR-10? Help me decide"

I should've been a bit more clear and simply said the word Armalite type rifle instead. An AR type platform manufacturer immaterial would suit my needs well.

You repeatedly speak about being familiar with the AMMO itself. What do you mean by this? Are you a reloader who has the equipment setup for 5.56 already? Beyond that, I don't see how familiarity with the chambering matters all that much, once you have established that both are readily available.

My folks have reloading equipment back home and we started reloading 5.56 back in 2003. My Dad's more familiar with reloading than I am, but I frequently assist in reloading cartridges.

Also familiarity refers to the fact that I'm familiar with its performance at various ranges and circumstances. I've only fired 7.62 chambered weapons a handful of times and in the vast majority of instances they've been crew served weapons (M240G and M60 LMG). I have fired a .308 bolt action centerfire (a Remington 700 my father owns).

Are you stuck on Armalite Inc the company as your maker, or are you saying you want the AR platform (AR-15, M-16, M-4, plus it's bigger brother, the AR-10, both old and reinvented)

Again I'm not stuck on Armalite as a manufacturer, I simply want the AR type rifle (still trying to figure between calibers).

you are saying you think the 5.56 is more accurate than 7.62NATO? I think the gun matters more, but match grade 7.62NATO ammo is ACCURATE AS ALL HELL AND THEN SOME.

I know 7.62 NATO is accurate as hell, and that's why it is preferred. I meant 5.56 is more accurate than 7.62x39 plus I do appreciate its lighter recoil. The lighter recoil means I can get a second accurate follow-up shot faster than with a heavier 7.62. That being said I recognize the merits of the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge especially it's long range accuracy (800+m).

I suppose you may be referring to knowing how the 5.56 kicks lightly and liking that but being a bit wary of the 7.62x51 kicks, or possilby have memorized the drop over distance of the 5.56 (or maybe have a subconsious grasp of it?)

An accurate statement. Pun intended.

The real question is, what is the space around you like? Where do you go shooting, usually? That's the main determinant of what caliber you should choose. If it's a suburb, 5.56. If you live out in the country, get the 7.62. Hopefully, you'll never have to actually use the thing like that (and probably never will), so remember, keep it fun for the range, too.

Both types of ranges are within driving distance of where I normally shoot. My usual shooting area is in Daytona Beach, FL and there is a rifle range there which has a berm that can withstand both types of rifle.

Think he was referring to stopping a lg. animal/human target at longer ranges; 5.56 does quite well [especially with HP ammo] at shorter ranges on a human target and can penetrate pretty well. I built my own target out of 3/8" mild steel for close range work with 5.56 HP, left about .30 cal holes straight through, not exactly the desired result but it left me pretty impressed.

That's precisely what I meant. Stopping power at distances roughly 400 - 600 meters away.

 

[gvnwst]

I meant 5.56 is more accurate than 7.62x39 plus I do appreciate its lighter recoil

Oooooooo.......Not quite. The AMMO of the 7.62x39, yes, is typically less consistant than that of .223, and the firearms of lesser quality. But that does NOT mean it is a less accurate cartridge, just ask krochus. Since you handload, get a good rifle, you can make some really accurate loads.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

See pics and description of my rifle in this post:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5537483&postcount=20

Now you have your answer of "Best DMR" caliber, rifle, and optic (at least on a somewhat limited budget - on a higher budget, I'd upgrade the optic to a March, US Optics, or S&B).

But to review: .260 Rem, DPMS AR-10 type, Elite 6500 2.5-16x50mm. Way, way more range than any 5.56x45 round, without breaking a sweat, and more range than even a 7.62x51, and less recoil than a 7.62x51. You just need to add suppressor and adjustable buttstock. YMMV.

Oh, it fails the Walmart test, but I submit that that test needs to be scrapped, as it's not a very important consideration. If you stockpile ammo, as you should, then it won't matter, particularly if you reload.


Contemplation: I suppose if you are your own army, then you WOULD be the marksman who is the "designated" one, wouldn't you? If you ain't designated in an army of one, then who is? Talk amongst yourselves.

P.S. DPMS offers AR10 types in .308 win / 7.62x51, .243 Win, .260 Rem, .338 Federal, 6.5 creedmoor, and possibly others that I'm not seeing. In addition to that, you could have someone make you a barrel in 7mm-08 or even a wildcat.

http://www.dpmsinc.com/

Caliber choices are NOT at all limited in either AR10 types or in AR15 types (particularly expansive in AR15 types). Don't forget that if FALs are your thing, DS Arms sells them in .260 Rem and .243 Win also.

.243 Win would be a very very formidable choice in a DMR / Militia / HDR / MBR / Self-Defense type rifle. I think the choice really comes down to .243 win vs. .260 rem for this purpose in a "full-sized" round. .243 win has far more range than even the most hyped 5.56x45, and not much more recoil. But the .260 can do even more, with a bit more devastating/penetrating power, and a bit more range, albeit at the cost of more recoil and bullet price.

A lot of guys use .260 rem for accurate competition shooting out to 1000 yards or more, and it hits hard enough that you can hear the steel ring - is that enough range for ya?

 

[LoneRider]

Oh, it fails the Walmart test, but I submit that that test needs to be scrapped, as it's not a very important consideration. If you stockpile ammo, as you should, then it won't matter, particularly if you reload.

Well, I like considering all situations no matter how unlikely. I'd prefer a commonly available round, so thus the 5.56x45 mm, which is relatively inexpensive, accurate and readily available seems to be the winner in this contest.

I could then spend the money that I would have used to buy pricier rounds on rifle upgrades, training, range admissions and other such things. (Especially training...)

Contemplation: I suppose if you are your own army, then you WOULD be the marksman who is the "designated" one, wouldn't you? If you ain't designated in an army of one, then who is? Talk amongst yourselves.

I meant designated marksman rifle in the context of a rifle to be utilized in that fashion, i.e. a semi-automatic accurized weapon that can realiably strike man sized targets at 400-600 meter distances without a lot of recoil.

P.S. DPMS offers AR10 types in .308 win / 7.62x51, .243 Win, .260 Rem, .338 Federal, 6.5 creedmoor, and possibly others that I'm not seeing. In addition to that, you could have someone make you a barrel in 7mm-08 or even a wildcat. Caliber choices are NOT at all limited in either AR10 types or in AR15 types (particularly expansive in AR15 types). Don't forget that if FALs are your thing, DS Arms sells them in .260 Rem and .243 Win also.

.243 Win would be a very very formidable choice in a DMR / Militia / HDR / MBR / Self-Defense type rifle. I think the choice really comes down to .243 win vs. .260 rem for this purpose in a "full-sized" round. .243 win has far more range than even the most hyped 5.56x45, and not much more recoil. But the .260 can do even more, with a bit more devastating/penetrating power, and a bit more range, albeit at the cost of more recoil and bullet price.

Hmm, I'll consider .243. The stopping power of a .243 sounds good, but I'm not sure if .243 passes the WalMart test. Last time I remember I think it did, but things may have changed since I last fired one in 1998.

 

[Zak Smith]

I think the 223/556 has a lot of advantages, the most important being ammo ubiquity and versatility of the platform. 3-Gun shooters regularly use low-power optics to tag LaRue and smaller sized targets out to 400-500 yards. This is almost the definition of DMR.

When you step into what other long-action calibers can offer, you need to upgrade the optics to really take advantage of their accurate, effective range. If I were going to go this route again, I'd build a rifle substantially similar in concept to my MSTN 17" (.223) but based on JP's LRP-07 action-- and do it in .260 preferrably, or .308 is ammo availability was an issue.

 

[LoneRider]

I think the 223/556 has a lot of advantages, the most important being ammo ubiquity and versatility of the platform. 3-Gun shooters regularly use low-power optics to tag LaRue and smaller sized targets out to 400-500 yards. This is almost the definition of DMR.

Well. I've got the chambering decision made. 5.56mm sounds like where I'm liable to go with this particular weapon.

Now about optics I might go for the ACOG TA-11 or any low power optic. Any recommendations here? I'm not strait-jacketed by price or type of scope, just as long as it can aid me in hitting a man sized target between 400-600 meters and can be worked with my BUIS.

And as far as lower receiver goes, I'm not certain if I should go for telescoping butt stock or a stock AR solid buttstock. I've used both with good results all around.

Barrel I'll probably go for between 16-20 inches.

Any suggestions for the bipod. I'm probably gonna forgo the forward broomhandle, I'm not a huge fan of it.

 

[gvnwst]

And as far as lower receiver goes, I'm not certain if I should go for telescoping butt stock or a stock AR solid buttstock. I've used both with good results all around

At the 3-Gun match i recently attended, most guys were using some telescoping buttstock (magpul CTRs and VLTOR E-Mods were pretty popular), or a ACE socom / skeleton stock.
As for bipods, Harris makes some nice ones.

 

[Zak Smith]

The summary of my optics advice is in that article (the Type II/DMR section specifically), except that there are some cheaper alternatives on the market now, such as the Burris XTR 1-4. For myself, the only optic that has a combination of features that might give me an advantage over the TA11 for this application (ie, my 3-Gun rifle) is the S&B Short Dot, which is over 2x the price and has its own disadvantages. The downfall of the TA11 is smaller-than man-sized targets beyond 500 yards. I've hit "just smaller than" IPSC plates at 700 with it on an SBR (12").

On the stock, I prefer the Magpul M93 or now UBR. They have the stability and cheek weld of a fixed but the compactness and adjustability of the telestock.

I do not prefer a bipod on my carbines, mainly because of the bulk, how they screw up other positions and close and mid-range speed, and partly because of most "Tactical" class divisions outlaw them. A proper "magazine monopod" position is very stable.


............... Larger version of above photo.
(that's not my upper, but one I borrowed for the 07 RM3G nationals due to a last-minute emergency with my regular one)

hope this helps

 

[LoneRider]

On the stock, I prefer the Magpul M93 or now UBR. They have the stability and cheek weld of a fixed but the compactness and adjustability of the telestock.

About how much does that family of stock/lower receiver run for these days and who are the best vendors?
Come to think of it, who are some of the best upper receiver vendors?

The summary of my optics advice is in that article (the Type II/DMR section specifically), except that there are some cheaper alternatives on the market now, such as the Burris XTR 1-4. For myself, the only optic that has a combination of features that might give me an advantage over the TA11 for this application (ie, my 3-Gun rifle) is the S&B Short Dot, which is over 2x the price and has its own disadvantages. The downfall of the TA11 is smaller-than man-sized targets beyond 500 yards. I've hit "just smaller than" IPSC plates at 700 with it on an SBR (12").

Question, are these cheaper alternatives genuinely as good as their pricier competitors or is this a case of 'you get what you pay for'? Also what are some other good, solid (in the sense that they are rugged and can withstand a good deal of knocking about without losing zero) low power optics that are availble as cheaper alternatives to the ACOG?

I've heard mixed opinions on bipods, but since I'm not intending to enter any 3-gun championships anytime soon, just looking to build a rifle to my specifications.

 

[Zak Smith]

About how much does that family of stock/lower receiver run for these days and who are the best vendors?

It's just the stock. Both the M93 (if you could find one) and the UBR simply replace the existing buttstock.

For the other question: you generally get what you pay for, but you need to know qualitatively what features support your uses.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Hmm, I'll consider .243. The stopping power of a .243 sounds good, but I'm not sure if .243 passes the WalMart test. Last time I remember I think it did, but things may have changed since I last fired one in 1998.

.243 Winchester is ubiquitous, and found at 99.98% of places that selling "hunting" ammo. It will definitely pass the WalMart test.

What I'd *really* like to do if I had enough time & money, is to build two nearly identical AR10 types - same scope and everything - one in .243, one in .260 rem, and then hunt with each, examine wounds on game, shoot at the range with each, reload for each, feel the recoil & test follow up shots for each, etc., and then settle on one for a utility rifle, and then get 2 or 3 identical ones in the chosen caliber. My goal is to get away from being "pretty good with many rifles", to being "really really good with just one (centerfire) rifle."

But the .243 is a bit light if going after Alaskan or African game (but see contra offered by Alaska natives on this board who've BTDT with a .243 and .223 rem). Which is where .260 rem comes in, and why I have what I have now. Bell took out bull African elephants with a 7x57 mauser and there ain't a scrunthair worth of practical difference between the 7x57 of that day and the .260 rem. So that's versatility for you. Not needed strictly for defense against human predators however.

Another couple things:

--Bipods suck; forget about them. They make your rifle heavier, aren't any more stable than a good rest on a tree branch, rock or similar (under your support hand), and unless you live in a desert, they won't put you up out of the weeds anyway shooting from prone, so they're next to useless.

--Since you've settled on 5.56x45mm (not the best choice, IMO, for that specific use, but not a bad choice), I recommend you run with a 1 in 7" twist barrel, and use an 18-20" bbl, since you want to hit targets out to 600 yards, as you said. If you had limited it to 400, I would have said 1 in 9 and 16"-18" are fine. You're gonna want to use bullets in the 75-80 gr range to buck the wind.

 

[LoneRider]

It's just the stock. Both the M93 (if you could find one) and the UBR simply replace the existing buttstock.

I found that out when I went and checked out the stock on another website. Do you know of any manufacturers of lower receivers to avoid?

For the other question: you generally get what you pay for, but you need to know qualitatively what features support your uses.

Features I know I like in an optical sight. Firstly no reliance on batteries for the red dot or crosshair (main reason I'm not a fan of the M68 Aimpoint that tops my issued M4). Secondly, I tend to like ruggedness in an optical sight, as in one that would withstand battlefield knocks. Good eye relief is a third and being able to sight in on and shoot with accuracy man sized targets with the scope at 400-600 meters.

I'm not on a shoestring budget, but at the same time I don't want to blow half my annual salary in creating this thing. I'm aiming (pun intended) for a happy medium.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

On your optics, based on what you describe (and I like and agree with your criteria), except for the eye relief issue, some flavor of ACOG would suit your purposes - it relies on ambient light, not batteries, and is extremely rugged. Either that or one of the other choices Zak describes as a type II optic (lightweight 1.0-ish to 4.0-ish with small objective - there are many of these, at different price points).

But, for a little more magnification, versatility, & low-light performance (at the expense of slightly more weight), don't rule out a good 1.5-6x40/42 for a fantastic multi-purpose scope - take your pick, depending on budget:

http://www.swfa.com/pc-2452-279-schmidt-bender-15-6x42-variable-hunting-30mm-riflescope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-1661-277-swarovski-15-6x42-professional-hunter-30mm-riflescope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-8503-258-zeiss-15-6x42-victory-diavari-30mm-rifle-scope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-1966-219-nikon-15-6x42-monarch-gold-30mm-riflescope.aspx (less $$ than an ACOG, and arguably better/more useful)

http://www.swfa.com/pc-14462-933-new-nikon-165-5x36-slughunter-shotgun-scope.aspx (budget choice, and very interesting new scope - great eye relief @ 5", and a BDC, which can be adapted to your caliber choice).

Unfortunately, Sightron dropped this config. Pentax Gameseeker makes a cheap one too, if you need to go that low.

Or, even the larger objective ACOG - the TA55:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/trijicon-ta55a-acog-55x50-red-chevron-bac-308-riflescope.html (yes, it's theoretically for a .308, but would also be an excellent scope for other calibers).

 

[Zak Smith]

You describe the TA11.


............... Larger version of above photo.

............... Larger version of above photo.

............... Larger version of above photo.

 

[LoneRider]

On the TA11, pricey but then again the things I'm not willing to compromise on for this rifle are sights, upper receiver/barrel, lower receiver stock. I very likely will go for the TA11 or something along those lines. I find they go for $959.00 a pop...phew...oh well, for quality one has to pay top dollar.

What about lower receivers? I've subscribed to the latest thread regarding them, but still would like to know which types to avoid and what are the best.

 

[Maverick223]

P.S. DPMS offers AR10 types in .308 win / 7.62x51, .243 Win, .260 Rem, .338 Federal, 6.5 creedmoor, and possibly others that I'm not seeing. In addition to that, you could have someone make you a barrel in 7mm-08 or even a wildcat.

Forgot about the .260 and .243 (didn't know about the others), and even toyed with buying one in either caliber not too long ago.

 

[LoneRider]

Forgot about the .260 and .243 (didn't know about the others), and even toyed with buying one in either caliber not too long ago.

I am going with 5.56 as I'm accustomed to shooting that particular caliber and am fairly comfortable with its balistics. .243 has been considered and likely will be used when I build a second AR after I build my first.

But, for a little more magnification, versatility, & low-light performance (at the expense of slightly more weight), don't rule out a good 1.5-6x40/42 for a fantastic multi-purpose scope - take your pick, depending on budget:
http://www.swfa.com/pc-2452-279-schm...iflescope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-1661-277-swar...iflescope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-8503-258-zeis...fle-scope.aspx

http://www.swfa.com/pc-1966-219-niko...iflescope.aspx (less $$ than an ACOG, and arguably better/more useful)

http://www.swfa.com/pc-14462-933-new...gun-scope.aspx (budget choice, and very interesting new scope - great eye relief @ 5", and a BDC, which can be adapted to your caliber choice).

Unfortunately, Sightron dropped this config. Pentax Gameseeker makes a cheap one too, if you need to go that low.

Or, even the larger objective ACOG - the TA55:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/trijicon...iflescope.html (yes, it's theoretically for a .308, but would also be an excellent scope for other calibers).

Weight isn't too much of an issue. I am rather intrigued by the Nikon scope. My question is though, how good is it for battlefield knocks. Now, I do treat my weapons with the utmost of care, but I do like a ruggedness in optical sights or weapons. The price sounds pretty fair, but I'm also attempting to avoid a 'you get what you pay for' type scope.

Also if I were to go with the Nikon telescopic sight what sort of mounts are best suited to the RAS of the latest gens of the AR-15 upper receiver (the ones similar to the military grade Rail System) Because of it's versatility I'm going for an upper receiver that has the same RAS type that my issued M4 has. As such what, Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, would you recommend for scope mounts? And also what is best to look for in general for telescopic sight mounts besides the obvious durability and stability.

 

[Maverick223]

I'm not the Doc. but I like the weaver tactical rings, and you can do great deal worse than a Nikon scope, although a Ziess or IOR would be my first choice.
http://www.weaveroptics.com/rings_bases/rings/tactical/tactical.aspx

 

[lipadj46]

I'm not the Doc. but I like the weaver tactical rings, and you can do great deal worse than a Nikon scope,

On a budget Weaver rings can be a solid choice especially the ones that are all steel (steel grand slam) or have steel bases with aluminum upper rings. I prefer this Monarch for $220 for a budget scope.

http://www.swfa.com/c-2119-nikon-team-primos-riflescopes.aspx

My Budget DMR is this SAI M1A with a SEI Weaver mount, weaver steel grand slam rings and a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40: