New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Kahles vs. older Simmons Aetec
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Kahles vs. older Simmons Aetec

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 09:32
jughead View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/14/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 13
I knew that would get you guys' attention. Big%20Grin
 
But, in all seriousness, that's the premise of this post.  As I told you guys in my earlier post, I am a rookie when it comes to good optics as I've simply never had the income to even buy mid-range optics until now.  To refresh you guys memories, I acquired a Kahles Helia 4x36 scope with a MZ I bought.  Just for grins and giggles, I ran a test the other night to see just how superior this Kahles would be to the best scope I have personally owned which is an older Simmons Aetec (I think you guys call them Pre-Meade....whatever that means Big%20Grin).  Since the Aetec is variable (2.8-10x44) I set it to 4x so it would at least be on the same magnification as the Kahles.  Long story short, I went out every 5 minutes until total black darkness and was looking at a neighbor's birdbath in their yard (similar gray color to a deer) and though the crispness and clarity of the Kahles was in another league, I absolutely could tell NO difference whatsoever in the brightness category.  In other words, I could have made a shot just as late with the Aetec as I could have the Kahles (I started looking through them every minute once it started getting really dark).
 
Is this normal?  I really expected to see a huge difference, but didn't.  Why?  Does the 44mm objective make that big of a difference?  I'm really at a loss because I've been really excited about getting some better optics for my rifles, primarily for woods hunting so perhaps I could make a shot on a big buck just a few minutes later.  Obviously, this is a very limited test with no scientific validity whatsoever, but I still expected the results to be different based upon everything I've read.  I'm interested in hearing anytying you guys want to throw out.  Thanks!   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 10:35
brodeur272 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/23/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 609

Different eyes see different results.  I know my Kahles Helia C 1.5-6 was great in low light last year.  Have never been able to see that late with my Sightron SII.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 11:31
jughead View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/14/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Originally posted by brodeur272 brodeur272 wrote:

Different eyes see different results.  I know my Kahles Helia C 1.5-6 was great in low light last year.  Have never been able to see that late with my Sightron SII.

  I know exactly what you mean.  The two scopes I mentioned are in another league altogether in the light gathering (or transmitting, whatever you call it Big%20Grin) from other scopes I have including Tasco's, cheap Bushnells, and my son's new Sightron SI for his rifle.  I'm just wondering if those older Aetecs (or at least the one I have) are really that good (I know many people who are very fond of them), or if I just got a super old Kahles (I don't think it is, but I'm not sure how to find out) that isn't up to par with today's glass, or what?  I'm gonna do my best to also compare these scopes with my Dad's Leupold VXIII and the Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5 that I'll soon be receiving as well.

Even so, I would love to hear opinions/theories from the guys on here who have so much more experience with optics than I do.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 14:21
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
To answer your question The amount of exit pupil will determine the amount of light that will be transmitted to your eye. The Glass is going to determine the clarity and to a certain degree light. Both of these scopes have good coatings, the kahles has better glass. This being said is why you can see no appreciable difference in brightness. The true difference is can you see the finer things that will allow you to see that it is indeed a deer and not a stump, or tree. That is where the resolution comes in handy. Think about it this way you knew you were looking at a bird bath. To truly test this theory go somewhere that isn't familiar to you and look at several things with both. You will then see a big difference.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 14:28
jughead View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/14/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 13

Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

To answer your question The amount of exit pupil will determine the amount of light that will be transmitted to your eye. The Glass is going to determine the clarity and to a certain degree light. Both of these scopes have good coatings, the kahles has better glass. This being said is why you can see no appreciable difference in brightness. The true difference is can you see the finer things that will allow you to see that it is indeed a deer and not a stump, or tree. That is where the resolution comes in handy. Think about it this way you knew you were looking at a bird bath. To truly test this theory go somewhere that isn't familiar to you and look at several things with both. You will then see a big difference.
  That makes perfect sense.  I think I'm gonna re-do the test in a wooded area (instead of a wide open lawn with no other items around the item I was looking at), perhaps with one of my 3d bow targets standing behind some brush.  I haven't thought much about really zeroing in on small details (which obviously will be very important when judging how big a buck's rack is for example), I just knew that I could have killed that bird bath with either one of them. Big%20Grin  Thanks cyborg!

Anyone else who has input on this issue, please add it.  Thanks!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 14:42
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
I will say though the preMeade AETEC was a good little scope. One of my best hunting buddies has one. He got another a couple of years ago, that was not premeade, and he was so mad, he used it to hammer nails, and later decided it was a great target.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 16:45
dougedwards View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: April/16/2008
Location: Williamsburg, v
Status: Offline
Points: 213
Originally posted by brodeur272 brodeur272 wrote:

Different eyes see different results.  I know my Kahles Helia C 1.5-6 was great in low light last year.  Have never been able to see that late with my Sightron SII.

 
 I love Sightron II scopes when there is good lighting.  Good contrast, great repeatable adjustments......but falls off hard in low light.  Big Sky is a different story. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 18:32
mercenary1947 View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar
**

Joined: April/02/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1392
Originally posted by jughead jughead wrote:

[QUOTE=cyborg] I just knew that I could have killed that bird bath with either one of them. Big%20Grin  Thanks cyborg!

Anyone else who has input on this issue, please add it.  Thanks!

 
 The only thing I can add is ... bird baths are tough to chew ..... I would'nt kill it if ya are'nt gonna eat it !  Plus have you ever seen that alfred hitchcock movie birds ?  You're gonna have alot of p*ssed off birds after you !  Bucky
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 19:25
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8043
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

The true difference is can you see the finer things that will allow you to see that it is indeed a deer and not a stump, or tree. That is where the resolution comes in handy. Think about it this way you knew you were looking at a bird bath. To truly test this theory go somewhere that isn't familiar to you and look at several things with both. You will then see a big difference.


Well said, Cyborg. In heavy cover at any distance in any light, the better glass will give you a shot. The lesser scopes will not.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 19:41
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291
Set a newspaper out at 75 yards and see which one will let you read more as it gets dark.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 20:19
jughead View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/14/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 13

Originally posted by silver silver wrote:

Set a newspaper out at 75 yards and see which one will let you read more as it gets dark.
  I'll try that too, but here's what I'm trying to wrap my brain around.  Say someone has optics for one purpose and one purpose alone (to kill deer, especially at last light as anything will work during bright light) and all you need to do is to be able to see the silhouette and the crosshairs in order to kill it, then is it really money well spent to be able to tell one hair from the next (so to speak).  I guess that's all I'm trying to think about since I'm as practical (i.e. tight Big%20Grin) as the day is long.

Ultimately, I'm just really hoping that the Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5x38 will absolutely satisfy me for what I'm looking for (I just don't WANT to spend anymore than that thing costs).  Based upon Cyborg's post about exit pupils (more than twice the exit pupil at 1.8x compared to this Kahles I have) and Zeiss's website, this particular model should be pretty darn bright in the dark woods yet still scratch my itch for having low power settings for close range moving deer when the need arises.  

Best I can tell looking at the specs on the Kahles and Aetec, in all fairness, the exit pupil on the Aetec is substantially more on 4x than the Kahles is (if I interpolated correctly, about 12 mm vs. 9 mm).       
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 20:20
crispycritter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/30/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 115
The guys have nailed it. A well lighted blob is still a blob. The better glass lets you identify the blob.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/23/2008 at 21:34
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Look at small details.  That is the first step.

Then, look into the shadows: place an object there and see if you can penetrate the shadow and see the object.

Then place a bright light within a few feet of the scope (in front of it), but outside of the field of view and see of you start getting odd reflections in there. 

Then look at the moon once it gets dark.  Are there multiple ghost images formed?

Then take a fairly bright light source and place it behind and to the side of the scope.  Can you still see anything through the scope despite the light reflecting off of the ocular lens?

On terminology: "brightness" as applied to what we see with a human eye is one of the most misleading and useless terms you could possibly use.  Perceived brightness of the image depends on a number of parameters including resolution, contrast, light transmission, internal reflections, etc; with the total amount of light getting through being one of the less important ones.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/24/2008 at 11:29
noluv View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: July/24/2008
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 13
this is what i do lol but at the chip shop 300 yard away and i can clearly see it and read the adds in the window at 200+yard with a simmon wtc 6.5-20x50 and a old aetec phillipenes.
what they mean by pre meade mate is that meade has now took over and have up dated there models which in my opinion do not deserve the aetec name.
looking threw my gun mart scopes section in detail there is not yes not 1 scope with simular magnification that can come close to the aetec on field of view.

why cant these expensive makes make a scope like the aetec with massive field of view.
did you notice the difference in field of view between the 2 scopes?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/24/2008 at 11:30
noluv View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: July/24/2008
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 13
gun digest not gun mart i ment sorry
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/24/2008 at 21:33
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
You have been given very good advice, but I would like to respond to your "..I went out every 5 minutes until total black darkness ..." comment. This suggests that you did not allow your eyes to dark adapt, which will certainly comprimize what you were able to see in low light. Had you dark adapted and looked at small objects with a narrow color contrast, you might have been better served.

To address your question about the importance of the diameter of the objective lenses, lets use some simple concepts to help us:

Light can be thought of as waves or particles. Let brightness be directly proportional to the number of light particles per unit area entering the scopes. Set the number to 100 particles per square millimeter entering the scopes. Assume that 90% of the light entering the objective lens exits the scope.

The total light entering a scope will be equal to the total area of the objective lens times 100 particles per sq mm. The amount of light exiting the scope will be 90% of the amount entering the scope. The exit brightness is still directly proportional to the number of light particles per unit area exiting the scope.

Your Kahles, with its 36 mm objective has a total input area of abouit 1018 sq mm, and the Simmons, with its 44 mm objective has an input area of about 1521 sq mm. The Kahles lets about 1018 * 100 = 101,800 units of light in, and the Simmons lets about 1521 * 100 = 152,100 units in. Since both transmit 90% of the available light,the light exiting is about 91,600 and 136,800 respectively.

The diameter of the exit pupil for the Kahles would be 36/4 = 9 mm, and since you set the Simmons to 4x, it would be 44/4 = 11 mm. The area of the exit pupils are about 63.6 sq mm and 95 sq mm, respectively. So, the brightness of the exit pupil, what you see, for the Kahles will be about 91,600 divided by 63.6 = 1440. For the Simmons, it will be about 136,800 divided by 95 = 1440. The pupil in your eye will not be as large as even 9 mm, so you will have the same amount of light entering your eye from both scopes.

If you had increased the power setting on your Simmons to about 7.3x, the exit pupil would have been 6 mm in diameter, about the diameter of your pupil. In that case, the light density would have been much higher and the Simmons should have seemed brighter.



Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 04:10
Lurcher View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 37
I have had a S&B 6x42, Bushnell 4200 6-24x42. I still have IOR 16x42, Kahles Helia Super 3-9x42.
 
The best quality Optics for clarity are without doubt the Kahles.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 08:28
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
To continue with the discussion about objective lens diameter using the same criteria, lets look at some potential variable scopes with different objective diameters, all set to 4X:

     power,dia      Set Power       Exit Pupil     Exit Density
A    1.5x6,42          4.0                  10.5          1440
B    2x7,36            4.0                  9.0           1440
C    2x8,42            4.0                  10.5          1440
D    3x9,40            4.0                  10.0          1440
E    3.5x10,44        4.0                  11.0          1440
F    2.5x10,50        4.0                  12.5          1440
G    3x12,56           4.0                  14.0          1440
H    3x12,40           4.0                  10.0          1440

At 4x, all will have the same brightness value. Now, lets change the power setting such that we get a 7 mm exit pupil. When we arrange them from lowest to highest output light density value:

B    2X7,36            5.1                  7.0           2380
D    3X9,40            5.7                  7.0           2939
H    3x12,40           5.7                  7.0           2939
C    2x8,42            6.0                  7.0           3240
A    1.5x6,42          6.0                  7.0           3240
E    3.5x10,44        6.3                  7.0           3556
F    2.5x10,50        7.1                  7.0           4592
G    3x12,56           8.0                  7.0           5760

All other things being equal, as the exit pupil is made smaller to approach the diameter of your eye's pupil in low light, the light density increases as the size of the objective diameter increases.

So, after spending a lot of time on simple arithmetic, we can see that bigger objective lenses are capable of providing a brighter image, if, and only if, everything else is done correctly. And therein lies the problem with inexpensive scopes.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 08:42
sakomato View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Points: 1085
Excellent post Gunshow75!  Thunbs%20Up
 
Where I think the comparison might be tweaked a bit is
 
"Assume that 90% of the light entering the objective lens exits the scope. "
 
as I think the Kahles may lose less light through the superiority of its coatings and glass.  Probably not a huge difference though.
 
Also I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "light density" statement.  Sorta like HD TV?  More pixels per sq inch?  Could you expain that a little further?
 
I have an older Simmons Aetec 3.8x12x44 also and it is my scope that I switch around if I want to put a temporary scope on to work up loads while waiting on another or if I want to check against another scope to see if the scope was the problem.  IMO, they were very good scopes, especially for the money.
 
noluv, I'm with you on the field of view.  The larger the better when it comes to running shots or finding game in a monochromatic background situation.  Used to love the old Aetec 2.8x10x44's with about 34' FOV at the lower power.  My first expensive scope was bought for the specific reason of a 34.5' FOV and that was the Zeiss Diavari 2.5x10x50.
 
The older Aetecs were tough also.  On a West Texas mule deer trip I was making time down a dirt road to go around behind some deer spotted a mile away and had my gun come out of my 4 wheeler gun boot and slide down the road in the dust at about 30 mph.  Needless to say I hunted with my other gun the rest of the trip, but when I got back to town afterwards that scope was still zeroed.
 
I might just look around the auction sites and pick up another pre-meade for a new AR barrel I've got coming.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 09:12
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
My explanation was designed to address objective lens size, and only that. As such, I could use 50% transmission or 100% transmission and we would get the same relative results.

Superior coating are crucial in light transmission. I think top line manufacturers like Zeiss, Kahles, S&B, and so on have transmission values of about 90 to 95%. I don't think the glass itself attenuates much light.

As regards 'light density,' just think of it as the amount of light per unit area. Think of your pixel as a small square. If ten units of light per second enter each pixel, and it takes 100 pixels to cover your pupil, then 10 x 100 = 1,000 units of light per second will be going into your eye.

I don't know anything about Simmons scopes, so I don't have an opinion about them. I will say, however, that any inexpensive scope will have shortcoming. The ones I have seen usually have poor resolution and poor color contrast properties.

I have compared both Zeiss and Kahles to a lot of Bushnell and Leupold scopes while deer hunting in Canada. In low light, low contrast situations, Zeiss and Kahles have always been superior.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 13:05
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Last night, when my brain was dark, I wrote that "... brightness is ... directly proportional to the number of light particles per unit area exiting the scope." What I wanted to get across was that brightness increases as the number of particles per unit area increases. I did not want to imply that the relationship was linear.

For physics, we are interested in the power per unit area coming into or going out of something. Brightness is related to power per unit area, but the psychological perception is logarithmic, not linear.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 13:15
jughead View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/14/2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Last night, when my brain was dark, I wrote that "... brightness is ... directly proportional to the number of light particles per unit area exiting the scope." What I wanted to get across was that brightness increases as the number of particles per unit area increases. I did not want to imply that the relationship was linear.

For physics, we are interested in the power per unit area coming into or going out of something. Brightness is related to power per unit area, but the psychological perception is logarithmic, not linear.
  Thanks for all the info Gun.  I've been running some numbers using the techniques you listed in my own spreadsheet.  I have certainly narrowed my choices down to the Zeiss Conquest line alone based upon their prices and reputation.  So, given the glass should be the same across all the models, which model would you choose for being the "best" at making close range (say under 50 yards) shots at deer sized game at last light in dark woods?  The two main criteria would be 1) simply being able to at least see the silhouette of the deer and the crosshairs so a bullet can be properly placed and 2) being able to at least see the approximate size of the deer's rack (not necessarily count the points etc.) .  Your choices are:
 
1.8-5.5x38
3-9x40
3-9x50
2.5-8x32
 
If you need any of the numbers from my spreadsheet, just let me know.  I have exit pupils (upper and lower range as well as setting the "optimum" at 6 mm to correspond to the size of the approximate size of the human adult pupil in the dark), exit pupil areas, brightness densities, etc. all calculated.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 13:30
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
For the same coatings and same glass, a 50 mm objective will be capable of producing a brighter image than the other smaller objectives. Once your eyes are dark adapted, just increase the power until you maximize the effect. The negative consequence is that your head has to be more precisely aligned with the optical axis of the scope than it does for larger exit pupils, and that the field of view gets smaller.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/25/2008 at 14:39
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Sorry, but I had to leave before completing my response to your inquiry.

I had two of the 3.5x10,44 models for a few years. One was first on a Tikka 695, a 300 Win Mag, and I moved it to Tikka T3 in 30-06. A friend with whom I hunted deer talked me out of the entire package, so I'm down to one. I have never owned a 3x9,40, but several of the members of this forum report them to be very good. I don't know how much different they would be from the 3x9,50. I can only say that, in principle, a 3x9,50 should be brighter.

I reported in another thread that I was once shooting uphill, at about a 30 degree angle, using a rifle belonging to a friend. It was a 30-06 equipped with a Bushnell 4200 elite. I got a nasty cut over my eye. After that, I experimented with uphill and downhill shooting, and found that at about 30 degrees, or more, uphill causes me problems with eye relief of less than 3.5 inches. Now, if a scope doesn't have at least 3.5 inches of eye relief, I won't buy it. That might not be a problem for you, but it is something to consider.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Kahles vs. older Simmons Aetec"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
new aetec or old aetec? shoot4fun Rifle Scopes 5
Simmons Aetec or Mueller Red Dot Acenturian Rimfire / Airgun 11 11/30/2004 3:42:31 PM
Simmons Aetec vs. Whietail classic BOLIO1 Rifle Scopes 3 12/24/2004 8:24:17 PM
Simmons AETEC or 44MAG OneEye Varmint Scopes 3 1/22/2005 12:53:27 PM
Simmons Aetec 2.7X10 44mm radiobreath Rifle Scopes 1 1/27/2005 5:49:15 PM
Simmons Aetec Master series Flahunter Shotgun / BlackPowder Scopes 0 7/12/2005 9:08:10 PM
Simmons Aetec Master series Flahunter Rifle Scopes 1 7/13/2005 8:28:04 AM
Simmons Aetec, Master Series DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 3 10/18/2005 9:39:44 AM
Simmons Aetec Master series? tarboroheel1 Rifle Scopes 4 1/5/2006 7:52:26 AM
simmons aetec vs 44mag ddhotbot Rifle Scopes 1 8/21/2006 10:10:57 AM


This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.