PDA

View Full Version : ACOG recommendations



RobG
09-08-2012, 12:54 AM
If one wanted to upgrade a stock, iron sight, m4 with an ACOG for the purpose of jumping out of a vehicle and engaging BG's at an unknown distance in an urban/high desert environment, which would be the best choice. Right now I am looking at the TA01NSN and the TA31F. Does BAC really work?

DocGKR
09-08-2012, 01:22 AM
If I was forced to have an ACOG, one of the TA11's is the best option--I'm not a fan of the 4x ACOG's.

But ACOG would not be my first choice; I'd rather have a variable power scope like a 1-4/6/8x. I'd even rather have an Aimpoint with a 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT649 flip mount....

RobG
09-08-2012, 01:31 AM
If I was forced to have an ACOG, one of the TA11's is the best option--I'm not a fan of the 4x ACOG's.

But ACOG would not be my first choice; I'd rather have a variable power scope like a 1-4/6/8x. I'd even rather have an Aimpoint with a 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT649 flip mount....

Why are you not a fan of the ACOG? Will the Aimpoint/Magnifier stand up to the abuse of banging around in a vehicle? This will be a hard use application in a holstile environment.

jstyer
09-08-2012, 07:11 AM
Will the Aimpoint/Magnifier stand up to the abuse of banging around in a vehicle?

Yes... the Aimpoint will definitely take the beating. In all likelihood, better than or at least equal to the ACOG.

While I'm not trying to speak for Doc, in my experience many prefer a magnified dot or variable powered scope over an ACOG due to their greater speed and versatility when used against mixed distance targets.

Also, having shot an unknown distance and natural terrain carbine match a few months ago where targets ranged from 75-300 yards, I saw that the guys that had variable optics straight up trashed those who were shooting ACOGs. In that match, with unknown target size, unknown distances, and lots of vegetation obscuring the targets, the variable optic stood out as a clear winner. Even though many of the variables used had glass that was definitely inferior to that on the ACOG. That being said, variable scope + decent QD mount = another pound and a half on your gun. Which is kind of a bummer.

So to sum it up, I too am sold on the variable optics. They offer so much and give up so little...

jstyer
09-08-2012, 07:17 AM
Will the Aimpoint/Magnifier stand up to the abuse of banging around in a vehicle?

Yes... the Aimpoint will definitely take the beating. In all likelihood, better than or at least equal to the ACOG.

While I'm not trying to speak for Doc, in my experience many prefer a magnified dot or variable powered scope over an ACOG due to their greater speed and versatility when used against mixed distance targets.

Also, having shot an unknown distance and natural terrain carbine match a few months ago where targets ranged from 75-300 yards, I saw that the guys that had variable optics straight up trashed those who were shooting ACOGs. In that match, with unknown target size, unknown distances, and lots of vegetation obscuring the targets, the variable optic stood out as a clear winner. Even though many of the variables that were used had glass that was definitely inferior to that on the ACOG. That being said, variable scope + decent QD mount = another pound and a half on your gun. Which is kind of a bummer.

As far as the close stuff (like 50 yards and in) I've always "felt" slower when using a variable optic over something like an Aimpoint. However, the first time I clocked myself with an Aimpoint and a variable side by side on the same day I found that my time to first shot and my splits were virtually identical. The few times that I actually was slower with the variable optic, it was by a few hundredths of a second. I'll gladly give up a max of .06 seconds up close to gain target engagement all the way out to 500 yards...

So to sum it up, I too am sold on the variable optics. They offer so much and give up so little.

F-Trooper05
09-08-2012, 11:23 AM
A buddy of mine is looking at the Leupold VX-R Patrol (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/scopes/vx-r-patrol/vx-r-patrol-1-25x20mm-30mm/) for a similar purpose. How does it compare to the ACOG and/or other options in terms of robustness/durability?

YVK
09-08-2012, 11:55 AM
So to sum it up, I too am sold on the variable optics. They offer so much and give up so little.

Do you adjust the magnification on a variable as you shoot a match or go through a class, or you stay on one mag level? You said the class had targets from 75 to 300, so I assume that people were on some intermediate level of magnification. I wonder how people handle the time-pressured situations were targets are, say, from 25 to 300, although I presume that this would mostly apply to matches.

I have a variable Nightforce (although the lower end is not 1x but 2.5x), a number of red dots [and a magnifier] and an ACOG. Just like DocGKR suggested, mine is a 3.5 as I prefer the eye relief of 3.5s, combined with a pretty good field of view. I ran all of them through the classes, with majority of those classes favoring reddots by never going farther out than 50 yards. Obviously, all of them have their own theoretical advantages depending on the intended use, and everybody's eyesight is different. Having said that, if I were to forced to keep one optic only, I'd probably take ACOG over other options I have. Although I have no personal experience with 1x8 variables.

Josh Runkle
09-08-2012, 12:06 PM
I would not choose an ACOG. I would choose something without magnification, or something with a variable 1-4x as well. Another minus for the ACOG is the incredibly short eye relief. Even if you did an ACOG with a red dot on top, think of how many MOA that red dot is sitting above the bore. It's gonna start being "off" really quickly. Plus, you'll probably practice holding your head rearward for the red dot, and forward with an ACOG if you get a combo unit. The ACOG shines on a square range with newbie soldiers who are used to playing call of duty, and the BDC is great for those without experience with distances. I don't know where you're training for, but I'd be much more concerned about a hallway distance, or a reaction to an ambush from 50 yards, than I would 3-400 yards. A variable will do all of that, and can be left on "1x" and turned up for those longer engagements (where you'll have a little more time).

TGS
09-08-2012, 04:03 PM
Disclaimer: I have limited experience with combat optics. TA31 on an issued M16A4, and a EoTech with a FTS magnifier. So, here's my opinion but I totally get I'm not an expert and am willing to learn.

I'm kind of surprised to see endorsements for red dots with a magnifier. Perhaps it was a problem specific to the EoTech/magnifier combo I was using, but my accuracy suffered with it compared to using just the red dot or aperture sights. Under magnification the red dot went all squirrely/refracted looking instead of being well defined, and it definitely effected my accuracy at 100 yards.

Someone asked about the efficacy of bindon aiming concept. I'm still on the fence with it, personally. It certainly wasn't an effectively employed technique by most of the Marines I knew. Fortunately I've always had a good ability to shoot with both eyes open, and the BAC seemed to work for me in training between 15 and 75 yards. Definitely not appropriate for room clearing, IMO.

I'd hardly consider the BDC to be training wheels for new soldiers....IIRC, the birth of the ACOG was marked by the use of our nations best warfighters, not the worst. In Afghanistan, 50% of engagements are occurring past 300 yards. A BDC and stadiametric rangefinder (especially) is most certainly an advantage in that threat environment but does not hurt your ability to respond to a 50 yard engagement, either. An ACOG certainly might not be the best tool for a SWAT team or anyone in a close range threat environment, but it certainly had its place. Lets not forget that a magnified optic isn't just useful for shooting at long ranges.....searching/observing with a magnified optic can be a lot more productive than using your naked eye, even at distances of only 100 yards.

In short, mission drives the gear. Just because an ACOG isn't useful to someone only planning to use their M4 for home defense or clearing rooms does not mean the tool should be blanketed as useless/gimmicky/only for noobs.

re: my comment "had its place": the development and employment of these variable power scopes is exciting.

I look forward to reading more SME input.

JHC
09-08-2012, 08:05 PM
As DocGKR noted, the 4x ACOGs are not as all around useful as the TA11. The TA33 has the longer eye relief like the 11 too.

If spending ACOG money I think I'd have to go with the low powered variable 9 times out of 10. The $600 range Vortex 1.4 is superb and the TR24 with German #4 recticle is just outstanding too (I've used those). Few of them are going to be as "bullet proof" as the ACOGs but then how many people have a high quality scope crap out on them these days?

But I like ACOGs a lot; I'd go TA11 if it was to be an ACOG.

Josh Runkle
09-08-2012, 08:34 PM
I'd hardly consider the BDC to be training wheels for new soldiers....IIRC, the birth of the ACOG was marked by the use of our nations best warfighters, not the worst. In Afghanistan, 50% of engagements are occurring past 300 yards. A BDC and stadiametric rangefinder (especially) is most certainly an advantage in that threat environment but does not hurt your ability to respond to a 50 yard engagement, either.

True BDCs are built for one specific ammo type, twist rate and barrel length. To put a BDC on issued scopes would either assume that the military only uses one singular type of ammo (weight, manufacturer, bullet type, burn rate, etc), twist rate and barrel length on all weapons...

...or...it would assume that things are "relative", "close", or "good enough", that no one will really know the difference. Or if they do notice the difference, they assume their "gun" shoots a certain way on the range, and then they'll translate that to combat. Even if they use a similar (but different) ammo in combat. They either don't know any better, don't much care, or aren't good enough that it makes much of a difference.

BDCs for soldiers ARE training wheels.

I do agree that magnifiers on red dots or holographic sights are crap, though.

RobG
09-08-2012, 09:33 PM
OK, let us abandon the ACOG requirement and I will rephrase the question. If you were to upgrade the iron sight M-4 that you will be issued for a trip to Afghanistan with a set of optics, what scope would you choose? This rifle will accompany you on daily drives in Kabul and weekly trips to FOB’s. This is not a 3 gun match application and will be used everyday for 9 months on a bidirectional shooting range.

It must:

1. Be compliant with any regulations regarding modifications to issued gear.
2. Be robust enough to withstand getting jarred around in a vehicle and other hard daily use in a harsh environment.
3. Improve the speed and accuracy of the platform at all ranges from “danger close” to “I think I see him way over there.”

It should:

4. Provide magnification to assist with threat identification at a distance.
5. Not cost so much more than $1250 (price of ACOG).

I am not opposed to a T-1 and magnifier set up, if it is robust enough for the intended application, and accurate enough at long distances.

Kyle Reese
09-08-2012, 09:41 PM
OK, let us abandon the ACOG requirement and I will rephrase the question. If you were to upgrade the iron sight M-4 that you will be issued for a trip to Afghanistan with a set of optics, what scope would you choose? This rifle will accompany you on daily drives in Kabul and weekly trips to FOB’s. This is not a 3 gun match application and will be used everyday for 9 months on a bidirectional shooting range.

It must:

1. Be compliant with any regulations regarding modifications to issued gear.
2. Be robust enough to withstand getting jarred around in a vehicle and other hard daily use in a harsh environment.
3. Improve the speed and accuracy of the platform at all ranges from “danger close” to “I think I see him way over there.”

It should:

4. Provide magnification to assist with threat identification at a distance.
5. Not cost so much more than $1250 (price of ACOG).

I am not opposed to a T-1 and magnifier set up, if it is robust enough for the intended application, and accurate enough at long distances.

A Nightforce 1-4x24 with LaRue SPR mount appears to fit the bill, if one can get command approval.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Josh Runkle
09-08-2012, 11:00 PM
A Nightforce 1-4x24 with LaRue SPR mount appears to fit the bill, if one can get command approval.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

+1. The LaRue mounts are pretty nice too.

NickDrak
09-08-2012, 11:35 PM
For the mission you describe a low power variable (either 1-4x or 1-6x max) would be ideal. I was able to check out the new 1-6x Vortex. It is built like a tank and the reticle illumination is awesome.

SecondsCount
09-08-2012, 11:43 PM
I second the variable scope idea, currently running a Burris 1-4x TAC30 on a Larue SPR mount. While I have never jumped out of a vehicle to shoot at a threat, I have shot 3 Gun matches with distances varying between 10 feet and 300 yards. For me the variable power works better than a magnifier in that role.

While the glass in the Burris is very good and meets my needs, it is probably not something I would take into battle. The Nightforce, Trijicon, and Vortex products look much sturdier.

JHC
09-09-2012, 11:41 AM
Now I think we're talking about the new Leu 1-8x Mark 8 http://swfa.com/Leupold-11-8x24-Mark-8-CQBSS-34mm-Riflescope-P48095.aspx

YVK
09-09-2012, 03:56 PM
Best of my knowledge is that most variables have battery life similar to Eotech, and battery life isn't exactly a selling point for eo. Changing battery in variable is harder than on a red dot, at least, on my NF it is a PITA to wrestle the cover off. And then you need to make sure you have the right batteries readily available, otherwise you'll find yourself without illum option. Obviously, NF optics have been used in the theater extensively, but you need to consider you chain of supply.
Re aimpoint/mag combo: every time I shoot it, I feel I am looking through a toilet paper roll tube. And my zero changes depending on whether I zero with or without mag. I also learned that with red dot my zero changes depending on lighting conditions. For my eyes, dot/mag plainly sucks.
You probably better of trying to borrow somebody's for a test run.

DVCPrepper
09-09-2012, 06:29 PM
UD shooting... Just means you need to determine the distance before you are able to make hits. I would assume you don't have time to read a MD reticle or laser range your target so that leaves "walking" your rounds in or using a BDC reticle and walking in from the most appropriate line.

The NSN is the scope I chose for an all around 16" AR because it has a clean ranging reticle, is tough, good glass, and has trit for low light. The 4x is perfect for IDs on 100-500m and it super compact and light.

The bad is that 4x sucks for 0-50 and while the BAC does work, it slow and falls apart on this model on moving targets under 100m compared to a T1 dot.

Answer is the NSN with a T1 in a Larue offset mount. Best of both worlds.

I ran a TR24 post in 3gun and you are good out to 300m without a BDC or ranging reticle but thy are big and heavier than the NSN and T1 combined.

It's pricey, but if you are looking for the fastest Minute of Man setup for 0-600m I doubt you will find anything faster.

If you need headbox shots at those ranges then I would look at an offset T1 and a 2.5-10x mildot scope that is compact to use with it.

The 11'S are a great compromise scope but the dual setup described above has no weakness that I can find and holds up to 1-6x scopes in 3gun on 12" plates out to 400m no problem, but its sweet spot is MOM hits out to 600m at speed.

You can get a used NSN for $700 and a T1/H1 for $500 pretty quickly if you search the forums via riverofguns.com

JHC
09-09-2012, 06:42 PM
I don't know if BDC is for lazy shooters or not but I like it. I used the "6" on a TA01 at 600 yards pretty effectively the one time I tried it on our club's 600 range.

Interesting somewhat related info from Kyle Defoor here: http://kyledefoor.tumblr.com/

RobG
09-09-2012, 09:01 PM
I don't know if BDC is for lazy shooters or not but I like it. I used the "6" on a TA01 at 600 yards pretty effectively the one time I tried it on our club's 600 range.

Interesting somewhat related info from Kyle Defoor here: http://kyledefoor.tumblr.com/

Great article. "In my experience, the benefit of magnification comes into play on targets that are outside the naked eye range of target identification. " Bottom line is, I can hold 6 inches at 200 yards with my Aimpoint. The Aimpoint is fast, familiar and keeps my rifle light. I am going to press with what I already have, and upgrade to the Nightforce if this proves inadequate once down range. Thanks for working through this problem with me.

Rob

YVK
09-09-2012, 09:30 PM
Answer is the NSN with a T1 in a Larue offset mount. Best of both worlds.



I have run T1 in offset mount coupled with a variable "set and forgot", so effectively same functional setup. Honestly, I thought it created more problems than it gave solutions. YMMV.

NickDrak
09-09-2012, 11:38 PM
In all of the carbine classes I have attended that focus on the entire effective range of the 5.56 carbine, shooters who came equipped with the ACOG/off-set or piggy-backed MRD combo struggled inside of 50yds with their set-up. Most of them to the point that they ditched their current set-up for either a variable power scope or a red dot.

Im a huge proponent of the low powered variable, but Kyle Defoor's latest entry on too much magnification is on-point.

I cant comment on how the 1-4x Trijicon TR24G Accupoint would handle to OP's mission requirements, but mine has been banged around in the trunk of my squad car over the past two years, been thru multiple carbine courses, competitions, and frequent training days without a hiccup. It may not be the latest & greatest variable out there, but it is a solid optic that I will have a hard time finding something "better" to replace it with. The eye relief of the TR24G and the eye box are so forgiving that it can be run like a red dot on 1x without issue for me.

TGS
09-09-2012, 11:53 PM
In all of the carbine classes I have attended that focus on the entire effective range of the 5.56 carbine, shooters who came equipped with the ACOG/off-set or piggy-backed MRD combo struggled inside of 50yds with their set-up. Most of them to the point that they ditched their current set-up for either a variable power scope or a red dot.

How did the guys with red dots do at the end of the 5.56 carbine performance envelope, say 400-500 yards?

NickDrak
09-10-2012, 12:05 AM
How did the guys with red dots do at the end of the 5.56 carbine performance envelope, say 400-500 yards?

Very few fighting carbine courses go beyond 300yds with the 16" carbine AR platform. Most reputable guys out there teaching carbine consider the 5.56 AR a 300yd max weapon system from what I have seen. While getting combat accurate hits with a 16" carbine out past 400yds is do-able with or with magnification, it ain't the best tool for that job.

Failure2Stop
09-10-2012, 12:19 AM
How did the guys with red dots do at the end of the 5.56 carbine performance envelope, say 400-500 yards?

It's entirely possible to get hits at 500 once you get your hold down and can apply wind hold-off. However, practically, it's pretty hard to identify targets at distances past 300 unless they are in distinct contrast with their background.

Magnification is a huge capability multiplier for target identification and discrimination, especially for the kind of targets that don't want to get shot.

As said before, the practical performance envelope of 5.56, and specifically those intended to perform well in the most critical areas, is from 0 to 300, and really that upper limit is usually closer to 200 meters. That isn't to say that one cannot reach out to double that distance, just that it works a lot better in the given envelope.

I have quite a bit of experience on different optics that are intended for my application, and I greatly prefer a low powered variable or 1x optic over anything at a fixed 3.5 or greater magnification.

Change the application, and my preferences change.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

TGS
09-10-2012, 12:19 AM
Very few fighting carbine courses go beyond 300yds with the 16" carbine AR platform. Most reputable guys out there teaching carbine consider the 5.56 AR a 300yd max weapon system from what I haveseen. While getting combat accurate hits with a 16" carbine out past 400yds is do-able with or with magnification, it ain't the best tool for that job.

Well, you said entire effective range, and past 300m is certainly within the effective range of a 16" 5.56 carbine (whether or not it's the best tool for the job is not the point). Take out the longer half of the range and its no wonder one sight performs better than the other.

NickDrak
09-10-2012, 12:29 AM
400-500yds is beyond the effective ballistic range of the 5.56 carbine. As F2S stated, you can hit targets beyond 300 all day long with a 5.56 carbine if you do your job, but the round is not going to perform to it's potential beyond 250-300yds max.

TGS
09-10-2012, 07:51 AM
400-500yds is beyond the effective ballistic range of the 5.56 carbine. As F2S stated, you can hit targets beyond 300 all day long with a 5.56 carbine if you do your job, but the round is not going to perform to it's potential beyond 250-300yds max.

Thanks for clarifying for me. When you said effective range, I was thinking effective range as in the official book definition. I didn't think you were referring to terminal ballistics because as I understood it even the best projectiles at M4 velocities only perform to ~175yds.......well short of 300yds. I guess what bullets perform out to 300 is a different discussion though.

DVCPrepper
09-10-2012, 12:02 PM
I have run T1 in offset mount coupled with a variable "set and forgot", so effectively same functional setup. Honestly, I thought it created more problems than it gave solutions. YMMV.


Care to elaborate?





As for effective range = 300m?

I guess if your definition of effective range is doesn't include first round hits at known 400-600m with the NSN then it would be in effective but I don't want to be hit effectively or in effectively at that range.

Would I prefer a .308 for the job? Sure, but the OP is talking about a jack of all trades gun concerning his optic setup.

JHC
09-10-2012, 12:34 PM
Generally I think many ACOG models go overboard with a large chevron or donut of death as the prominent center of the recticle. I suppose to create the idea that it can be used as a RDS or something. The TA11 with the illum red or green crosshair is IMO about perfect. If you've got the light to use the thing at all, the illum recticle is damned prominent and shouldn't be that hard to use fast. Crosshairs are pretty intuitive. And at least "cleaner" when trying to use the rest of the scopes features.

Dave J
09-10-2012, 12:37 PM
FWIW, I've spent a fair amount of time using ACOG-equipped M4s. I still keep a 4X (TA-01B for shooting MK-262) around for sentimental reasons, but there's no way I'd pick one for serious puropses given the other options out there. The 3.5X (TA-11's) are way more capable, or if weight is a priority consideration, the compact 3X (TA-33) versions are a whole lot lighter. Both have far superior eye relief, and in my experience are considerably faster than the 4X models, as well as being more tolerant of improvised firing positions where you have to contort yourself into whatever's available.

Even as much as I like my TA-11H, if were to deploy again in a role that required it (which at my age, isn't all that likely) I would quickly plunk down the cash for one of the newer variables instead, for the same reasons that others have already mentioned.

Just my .02, and keeping in mind that skill with the rifle is far more important than what optic it carries.

Josh Runkle
09-10-2012, 03:39 PM
Just my .02, and keeping in mind that skill with the rifle is far more important than what optic it carries.

Amen to that!

YVK
09-10-2012, 04:40 PM
Care to elaborate?.

First, there is a confusion as to what optic to go to when the distance is neither too long for red dot nor too short for a magnified. Additional option often led to paralysis by analysis.

Second, the red dot is your up close option where you often times need multiple quick follow up shots. Offset mount takes you out of optimal cheek weld, takes your stock out of your chest/shoulder pocket, if you use vfg for weapon control - it is rotated out now is useless, if you're wearing IBA then stabilizing the rotated stock is harder, and if your forend is not slim or tubular then holding it sideways makes it a lot harder to get a good purchase on it (try doing it with SCAR). In short, here is your fast optic, but it is mounted in a way that compromises multiple components of a fast shooting technique.

Third, mounting the controls becomes a nightmare. You start with a premise that you should be able to activate everything whether shooting strong or support side. Now you need to do it both with normal hold or canted. Just the white light placement becomes tough, add laser and it becomes a joke.

DVCPrepper
09-10-2012, 05:32 PM
I guess it's a YMMV then. I am already decided that 100m and in is the dot not NSN and have not had any confusion.

I run a banshee PC and the gun Sits in the shoulder pocket better with a 1:30 cant for me as it clears the swimmer cut better than vertical.

Light is thumb operated at 11:00 an I use a stub VFG with no issues.

Lasers, SCARs, NV considerations and other items outside of the OP requirement and usage were not taken into consideration.

Thanks for the clarification. How long did you run the setup? Maybe you didn't give it a fair shake?

Oh, double taps to heads on targets out to 25m or multi COM shots saw no time difference or accuracy at a canted stance. The cheek weld with the Larue an NSN is the same unlike the dd offset. You never lift or have to search for the dot or adjust your cheek.

I get it isn't for everyone though just as a huge heavy 1-4 with no BDC isn't for me. :)

JRas
09-11-2012, 09:49 AM
Elcan SpecterDR 1-4x or ElcanSpecterDR 1.5-6x

1X
http://eightzero.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/rdvariation.gif

4X
http://eightzero.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/elcn4x.jpg


http://www.elcansightingsystems.com/products/dual_role_sights.php

DVCPrepper
09-14-2012, 12:28 PM
Redacted... Would add fuel to the twin sight offset argument which is not the core topic of the post.

SGT_Calle
09-15-2012, 06:56 AM
Elcan SpecterDR 1-4x or ElcanSpecterDR 1.5-6x

http://www.elcansightingsystems.com/products/dual_role_sights.php

I was going to ask if anyone had experience with the Elcan stuff. They are pretty popular on another forum I visit and I think they look great. Unfortunately, they're wildly expensive.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

NickDrak
09-15-2012, 12:57 PM
The only thoing I dislike about the Elcan Specter line is that they lack any range of magnification between the minimum and the max magnification. It's either 1x or 4x. No options in-between. This is a non-starter for me as I use the middle magnification range on my Trijicon TR24G for most of my shooting at ranges from 40yd to about 75yds.

Jay
09-15-2012, 01:26 PM
Yesterday I picked up a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5 X 24 from Larue in there LT-104 SPR mount. I actually called in planning to buy the Nightforce 1-4 X 24 "which was out of stock with no ETA" they guys highly recommended I consider the Bushnell. So far I am very pleased with the build quality and reticle (BTR-2 First Focal Plane) the battery life is apparently only about 40 hours but I decided the extra reach was worth the trade off. It will make it to the range to be sighted in sometime in the next 10 days or so, if anyone has any questions on it or would like to see photos please let me know, as there doesn't appear to be much online about this model, and if need be I will create a separate thread. Be warned however this is my first magnified optic so I will be able to offer no practical comparisons to either other scopes or experiences.

JHC
09-15-2012, 01:54 PM
Yesterday I picked up a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5 X 24 from Larue in there LT-104 SPR mount. I actually called in planning to buy the Nightforce 1-4 X 24 "which was out of stock with no ETA" they guys highly recommended I consider the Bushnell. So far I am very pleased with the build quality and reticle (BTR-2 First Focal Plane) the battery life is apparently only about 40 hours but I decided the extra reach was worth the trade off. It will make it to the range to be sighted in sometime in the next 10 days or so, if anyone has any questions on it or would like to see photos please let me know, as there doesn't appear to be much online about this model, and if need be I will create a separate thread. Be warned however this is my first magnified optic so I will be able to offer no practical comparisons to either other scopes or experiences.

Nice. This new crop of 1-6x in the $1K-1.5K range sound like pretty sweet scopes.

NickDrak
09-15-2012, 06:31 PM
Yesterday I picked up a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5 X 24 from Larue in there LT-104 SPR mount. I actually called in planning to buy the Nightforce 1-4 X 24 "which was out of stock with no ETA" they guys highly recommended I consider the Bushnell. So far I am very pleased with the build quality and reticle (BTR-2 First Focal Plane) the battery life is apparently only about 40 hours but I decided the extra reach was worth the trade off. It will make it to the range to be sighted in sometime in the next 10 days or so, if anyone has any questions on it or would like to see photos please let me know, as there doesn't appear to be much online about this model, and if need be I will create a separate thread. Be warned however this is my first magnified optic so I will be able to offer no practical comparisons to either other scopes or experiences.

Awesome. I should have a 2nd focal plane version in-hand in another week or two to T&E.

Jay
09-15-2012, 08:26 PM
Awesome. I should have a 2nd focal plane version in-hand in another week or two to T&E.

As I stated previously I am new to magnified optics, but my understanding is the reticle doesn't change size on the SFP version, is this correct?

After playing around with it today the 'red dot' the reticle becomes at 1-2X is TINY 'less then 1/4 MOA I would guess'. And I knew target acquisition would be slower then my Aimpoint but I had no idea how much slower. I imagine it will get better once the new cheek weld is programmed in and more consistently repeatable, but as it sits right now I would take irons over this optic for any close quarters work where the target was any more dangerous than paper or steel.

Suvorov
09-16-2012, 04:29 PM
A buddy of mine is looking at the Leupold VX-R Patrol (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/scopes/vx-r-patrol/vx-r-patrol-1-25x20mm-30mm/) for a similar purpose. How does it compare to the ACOG and/or other options in terms of robustness/durability?

While my experience with ACOGs is limited, I can give you my impressions of the VX-R. I purchased my VX-R last year and have had it on my BCM SPR in a Leupold SPR-E mount. Overall I have been very pleased with it. The glass is good and it is fairly robust. I like the firedot reticle, although the dot is just slightly off center in my cross hairs which is something I have noted on many firedot scopes. It hasn't proven to make any difference on the range however. The scope is typical Leopold quality, returned to zero quite well with the "box test" and for $600 - offers a lot for the money. That said, it is not as rugged as an ACOG or the Elcan, but probably on par with a Trijicon Accupoint. The other gripe is that the turrets do not have locks on them so any rugged use can cause them to rotate on you so that could be something to watch for. I'm sure Leupold can put better turrets on, but at that point it may be more cost effective to go with a different scope.

At low power with the dot on bright it certainly does well for close in work. I have run Paul Howe's TRI standards with it and it is possible for me to keep up. It feels a little slower than my carbine with an Aimpoint, but there are a lot of other differences between the rifles so it isn't an exact comparison. I've only had it out to 300 yards, but at that range it completely outclasses the Aimpoint.

With the few gripes in mind, as a budget minded optic I say it is definitely worth a close look but if your buddy can spring for a $1600 Mk IV, I'd spend the extra coin.

1.25X
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f32/wyorca/Firearms/IMG_3033.jpg

4X - you might be able to notice the firedot being slightly off center
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f32/wyorca/Firearms/IMG_3039.jpg

F-Trooper05
09-16-2012, 09:29 PM
While my experience with ACOGs is limited, I can give you my impressions of the VX-R. I purchased my VX-R last year and have had it on my BCM SPR in a Leupold SPR-E mount. Overall I have been very pleased with it. The glass is good and it is fairly robust. I like the firedot reticle, although the dot is just slightly off center in my cross hairs which is something I have noted on many firedot scopes. It hasn't proven to make any difference on the range however. The scope is typical Leopold quality, returned to zero quite well with the "box test" and for $600 - offers a lot for the money. That said, it is not as rugged as an ACOG or the Elcan, but probably on par with a Trijicon Accupoint. The other gripe is that the turrets do not have locks on them so any rugged use can cause them to rotate on you so that could be something to watch for. I'm sure Leupold can put better turrets on, but at that point it may be more cost effective to go with a different scope.

At low power with the dot on bright it certainly does well for close in work. I have run Paul Howe's TRI standards with it and it is possible for me to keep up. It feels a little slower than my carbine with an Aimpoint, but there are a lot of other differences between the rifles so it isn't an exact comparison. I've only had it out to 300 yards, but at that range it completely outclasses the Aimpoint.

With the few gripes in mind, as a budget minded optic I say it is definitely worth a close look but if your buddy can spring for a $1600 Mk IV, I'd spend the extra coin.

1.25X
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f32/wyorca/Firearms/IMG_3033.jpg

4X - you might be able to notice the firedot being slightly off center
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f32/wyorca/Firearms/IMG_3039.jpg


Thanks, brother! I think the $1,600 is a bit out of his range. I have an opportunity to get one magnified optic and one non-magnified optic from Trijicon for 55% off retail, so I was looking at the Accupoint 1-4x24, which would cost me about $500. You say that's not on par with the ACOG in terms of durability? Would you mid elaborating on that a bit?

Odin Bravo One
09-16-2012, 09:57 PM
I've seen the Elcan SpectreDR referenced in this thread.....

Unequivocal piece of shit.

I wouldn't take one as a gift, except to sell it on the internet, and buy a real optic.

As for ACOG's, I've really only ever cared for the 3x. Good eye relief, and enough magnification for target ID at combat ranges, and fast enough for target engagement at CQC ranges. Also built like a tank. I suppose all ACOG's are tough, they really are, but I never cared much for the 4x or 3.5x power models.

That said, I think F2S, and others have it figured it out with a low variable powered scope. I am getting a Leupold 1-8 for T&E at some point in the near future and will get some thoughts on it jotted down when the time comes.

Suvorov
09-16-2012, 11:39 PM
Thanks, brother! I think the $1,600 is a bit out of his range. I have an opportunity to get one magnified optic and one non-magnified optic from Trijicon for 55% off retail, so I was looking at the Accupoint 1-4x24, which would cost me about $500. You say that's not on par with the ACOG in terms of durability? Would you mid elaborating on that a bit?

The ACOG is a heavy forged aluminum housing with relatively small objective and eye piece. The adjustment turrets are also smaller and have caps to prevent them from getting damaged. While some may not like the ACOG, I haven't heard a lot of people complain about its ruggedness. The VX-R on the other hand is a scope. The 30mm tube gives it a little more strength and it looks fairly durable but it just doesn't have the tank like construction of the ACOG. I think Kyle Lamb's carbine book has a picture of an ACOG with a bullet hole in it that still worked, I don't think my VX-R would fair as well (and I don't want to try). I don't want to give you the idea that they are flimsy, and just haven't put it through any hard use and am looking what could go wrong. I'd put it on par with the Accupoints I have looked at (but never actually used), but the Accupoints do have an advantage of smaller turrets that are not as prone to getting knocked around or damaged. Also, the battery power on the VX-R *might* be more prone to problems up in your neck of the woods while the Accupoint's illumination system should be less temperature dependent. What I liked about the VX-R over the Accupoint is that the reticle on the VX-R had ranging and hold off capability while none of the available reticles on the 1-4X Accupoints do to my knowledge.

Oh and as far as unmagnified Trijicon optics go, in the event you want to take them up on the offer - I would tend to stay away from the TriPower. It was the best optic ever on paper, but it never did live up to my expectations. I replaced mine with a PRO and couldn't be happier.

F-Trooper05
09-17-2012, 02:51 AM
The ACOG is a heavy forged aluminum housing with relatively small objective and eye piece. The adjustment turrets are also smaller and have caps to prevent them from getting damaged. While some may not like the ACOG, I haven't heard a lot of people complain about its ruggedness. The VX-R on the other hand is a scope. The 30mm tube gives it a little more strength and it looks fairly durable but it just doesn't have the tank like construction of the ACOG. I think Kyle Lamb's carbine book has a picture of an ACOG with a bullet hole in it that still worked, I don't think my VX-R would fair as well (and I don't want to try). I don't want to give you the idea that they are flimsy, and just haven't put it through any hard use and am looking what could go wrong. I'd put it on par with the Accupoints I have looked at (but never actually used), but the Accupoints do have an advantage of smaller turrets that are not as prone to getting knocked around or damaged. Also, the battery power on the VX-R *might* be more prone to problems up in your neck of the woods while the Accupoint's illumination system should be less temperature dependent. What I liked about the VX-R over the Accupoint is that the reticle on the VX-R had ranging and hold off capability while none of the available reticles on the 1-4X Accupoints do to my knowledge.

Oh and as far as unmagnified Trijicon optics go, in the event you want to take them up on the offer - I would tend to stay away from the TriPower. It was the best optic ever on paper, but it never did live up to my expectations. I replaced mine with a PRO and couldn't be happier.

Excellent information. Gracias!

JRas
09-17-2012, 10:40 AM
I've seen the Elcan SpectreDR referenced in this thread.....

Unequivocal piece of shit.

I wouldn't take one as a gift, except to sell it on the internet, and buy a real optic.


Please elaborate
http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/gutermung911/Picture2.png

JMS
09-17-2012, 12:14 PM
CONs: Expensive, very heavy, prone to POI shifts, choices are 1x or 4x (no in-between), ARMS mounts.

ARMS mounts approach requiring that one shim rails with a layer or tinfoil or two, but that's not a big deal.

The mechanism that provides the variable magnification accounts for the POI shifts that may occur. These shifts are like those with use of cans; repeatable, so that can also be mitigated. Caveat -- there's also tons of halfwits simply don't zero it properly: instead of RTFMing, and zeroing it at 100 meters on 4x, they'll slap it to 1x and zero at some randomly-generated distance, then have no qualms about having the nerve to wonder aloud why they're all over the map.

PROs: Probably the single toughest optic on the market. Weight means it could fulfill a melee-weapon role, once dismounted from the firearm.

It's actually a good device, but on a CBA matrix, there's better performers for less money available on the market. Being chosen as part of any SOPMOD block is not an automatic "thumbs-up" for any one piece of gear, outside of the parameters for which it was selected (which probably don't fit the role of the everyday user...), and bearing in mind that those cats that use the SOPMOD kits have maintenance/sustainment capabilities in place that Joe Citizen simply cannot match.

DocGKR
09-17-2012, 12:20 PM
JRas--While I know a couple of guys that like the Elcan, like most folks I know, I fully concur with what SeanM has written about the ELCAN Specter DR aka the ECOS SU230. Just because it is in the SOPMOD kit does not mean it is the best choice. The Elcan is heavy. It breaks. It goes out of adjustment and does not hold zero. Battery life is relatively short. Mounts suck. FOV is less than ideal. Eye relief is on the short side.

Here is what a well known SOF NCO wrote about the Specter DR:


"You know whats funny, I had 50% of my Specter DRs come from the factory unusable due to bad mounts, all of them had to go back to Crane before they could go on a gun. That's pretty much a moot point as nobody puts them on their guns anyway, but I knew that in 2005 when I tested the first ones."

S&B SD 1-4, Trijicon 1-4x24, a Leupold 1.5-5 (Vari X III), NF NXS 1-4 are all better options. Heck a Vortex 1-4x is probably better. For the money, weight, and size, I'd much rather have one of the newer 1-6x or 1-8x optics than an Elcan.

I would much rather use ab Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT-649 mount behind a red-dot optic offers (preferably a micro-Aimpoint T1) asi this is a very versatile set-up:

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/postimages/48437-LaRue_Pivot.jpg

JRas
09-18-2012, 11:12 AM
JRas--While I know a couple of guys that like the Elcan, like most folks I know, I fully concur with what SeanM has written about the ELCAN Specter DR aka the ECOS SU230. Just because it is in the SOPMOD kit does not mean it is the best choice. The Elcan is heavy. It breaks. It goes out of adjustment and does not hold zero. Battery life is relatively short. Mounts suck. FOV is less than ideal. Eye relief is on the short side.

Here is what a well known SOF NCO wrote about the Specter DR:



S&B SD, Trijicon 1-4x24, a Leupold 1.5-4 (Vari X III), NF NXS 1-4 are all better options. Heck a Vortex 1-4x is probably better. For the money, weight, and size, I'd much rather have one of the newer 1-6x or 1-8x optics than an Elcan.

I would much rather use ab Aimpoint 3x magnifier in a LaRue LT-649 mount behind a red-dot optic offers (preferably a micro-Aimpoint T1) asi this is a very versatile set-up:


I've heard the earlier models had issues but the problems have been resolved.

That's the first I've heard about them breaking. If it was a real issue wouldn't the testing for selection uncover it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xZQ6PyB2zg

Odin Bravo One
09-18-2012, 12:14 PM
Doesnt always work like that. If we applied that theory, no one in the military would have the SCAR either........

LittleLebowski
09-18-2012, 12:26 PM
I've heard the earlier models had issues but the problems have been resolved.

That's the first I've heard about them breaking. If it was a real issue wouldn't the testing for selection uncover it?



There's any number of products that worked great in testing and did not work out as well in real world use.

Crow Hunter
09-20-2012, 09:19 AM
There's any number of products that worked great in testing and did not work out as well in real world use.

I can vouch for that with personal experience from the non-firearms side of the fence.

Unfortunately part of the requirements for testing to evaluate a design and especially competing designs is repeatability and control of variables so that each test is the same so the results can be evaluated effectively.

That is s two-edged sword because the "real world" doesn't have controlled variables and they may stack up in a way that wasn't anticipated and cause problems that weren't foreseen in the original concept or DFMEA. (Design Failure Mode Effects Analysis)

Another problem is if you get the same people/entity testing it that designed it or wrote the specifications (This happens A LOT). They may, unintentionally, focus the testing on those factors that the product or improvements were designed to combat while neglecting other things that could cause a failure. (Sometimes, unfortunately, it can be done intentionally)

On the weapon side of things, that is one of the advantages that I see with something that has been used in combat in several theatres and has been proven reliables and durable, even if it might not be the "best" in "testing".

Lost River
12-10-2012, 12:06 AM
For the OP,

Here is something that may be of interest. I wrote this a few years back (2009) when I was working overseas. It was essentially "Why" I chose to roll with a low power variable instead of an issued Red Dot Optic(EOtech) or ACOG.


I am very much a practical realist. I like gear that is simple to use under stress and can be operated at the level of unconcious competence.

CQB is often an interesting subject, since almost everyone believes they are some sort of CQB God. For example,you should see some of the arguements between former SEALs vs former SF guys on the "right" way to do it. It is highly entertaining to watch. Guys get very heated.

I would like to point out a couple of things that have influenced my optics selection.

A close range situation can very quickly become an extended range situation. For example, you may kick in a door to snatch some guy on a warrant or something. Classic CQB right? If the bad guy reads the script and stays inside, then yes. However if he jumps out a window, gets around the one guy covering that side of the house/structure and takes off through the neighborhood, then things just got interesting and ranges extended substantially.

Similar situations happen overseas. An intial coordinated attack may involve people up close and personal, with additional bad guys at distance with long guns/belt feds in commanding positions.

Many often associate "Urban" fights with CQB. That is simply not the case. You can get some very long shots in urban areas.

On that note, I would much rather have a fight at a distance than a close range fight. EVERYONE shoots good enough at close range. Proximity negates skill.

I have been issued red dot type optics such as EOTECHs and they are best for me at very close range. However they are not flexible. They only do one thing well and offer no target discrimination.

Fixed power optics such as the ACOG are great too as they allow me to discriminate my targets. I can look down the block and see if Haji is looking at us intently, with a cell phone in his hand getting ready to command detonate an IED on us. It also allows the user to make a better determination as to if a suspicious person is a threat or not. Perhaps (often the case) he is merely an interested observer.

Magnified optics also allow a shooter have a better chance of hitting a bad guy who only pokes part of his body around the corner down the block or at a window or dirt berm.

With all that said, the fixed power magnified optic such as a 4x ACOG is slower to get hits with at very close range such as in a meeting hall or courtyard. However I am still a fan of the 4x ACOG and prefer it over an EOTECH.

These are the reasons I finally settled on a low powered variable with illumination as an option for low light.

They are not as fast as a true red dot holographic type sight (EOTECH) for very close shooting. However with practice they are very close. Another advantage the Eotech has is head position. As long as the red dot is on the target, no matter where the dot is in relationship to the optical picture, you can get a hit. A magnified optic require a more consistant sight picture. With practice however that has not really presented a problem.

I keep my 1.5x5 optic on 1.5 power so I have the ability to shoot with both eyes open very quickly at close range.

When needed, I have the flexibilty to dial the optic up to take a more precise shot at greater distances.

BTW, in reference to my Leupold, I actually chose the VXIII over the MKIV. The reason is I did not like the exposed turrets on the MKIV. Turrets are great if you are dialing shots with a precision rifle, but I have found that shoving rifles between seats and piling kit on top of them is not conducive to keeping turrets on zero. In my line of work, guns and gear are always getting shoved where they can and the VXIII with caps covering the adjustment knobs was a better choice.

Another point. I use the same optic when at home on my Colt that I use for coyote hunting and as a general purpose truck/house gun.

It has proven to be ideal as a calling rifle for song dogs. The coyotes can come in at a dead run and be shot at extremely close ranges, or they may hang up out there 100 or 200 yards while trying to locate the source of the noise. The low powered variable has proven to be ideal. Practicing on jackrabbits is also a good and practical skill builder.

Using the same platform in a variety of sporting and work scenarios builds unconcious competence with the system.


That particular illuminated 30mm 1.5-5 Leupold VX III in a Larue mount held up extremely well and never lost zero in spite if getting banged around a lot multiple times a week. Other than finish wear, it is completely G2G and proved to be a smart choice for the type of environment I was in.

It also made for a great general purpose scope at home, as I stated above. More than a couple of 'yotes have been in its crosshairs.

It may be something to consider as an all around choice.

Odin Bravo One
12-10-2012, 01:32 AM
Since this thread has been resurrected, and because I forgot it existed, or that I participated in it.................

I have been testing the Leupold VX-6 FireDot for a few weeks. I plan on having something more profound to say about it by mid-winter. I simply prefer to wait until I have been able to run it through an established protocol before piping up about how awesome it is this second, and after it has run the distance of 5k or so rounds.

TGS
12-10-2012, 02:50 PM
Since I like magnification at the range, but also plan on keeping my new AR around has a home defense weapon, I ended up getting a low power variable. Plus, I've never played with a low power variable so it's a learning experience for me.

My Burris MTAC 1-4x24mm came in today. I would have liked to buy something more rugged, but after the AR, 1200 rounds of ammo and white light (I prioritized those higher than an optic) I didn't have much room to spend on an optic. I liked everything I read about the MTAC's reticle, and it seems to have a reputation of being reliable enough for a civilian. There's certainly no way I would want to take this if I was going to Afghanistan tomorrow.......I can't remember how many times I banged around, sometimes even fell, with my issue M16A4/RCO and don't think the Burris would be a good choice for that environment.

I decided to go ahead and mount it with the infamous, loved and maligned Burris PEPR mount. The mount itself actually doesn't seem too shabby, but the screws are pieces of crap and very soft. I don't plan on taking it off and on constantly, so hopefully it will last until I can upgrade to a higher grade mount and SWFA/insert-fav-optic-here/Leupold variable. Before I do that, I want to get in a carbine class with either Jack Leuba, Travis Haley or TigerSwan...so it could be a good year before I upgrade (unless it breaks).

We'll see. This should be fun!

JHC
12-10-2012, 03:08 PM
I concur that the low range vaiable is all around most useful and I have a $279 Nikon African 1-4x on my N4 Recce I use for deer hunting. It's been fine for a few seasons. Back to ACOGs; after training with Frank Proctor and running a bunch of drills with irons because my other AR a BCM lightweight middie is just set up with DD irons and a white light - I realized what the SMEs had been preaching for years applied to me too. ;) Irons were a lot of work.

But the electronic dots from Aimpoints and RMRs just look like spilt red ink running across my target to my right eye. About when I thought it would be EOTech I scored a TA44 1.5x mini-ACOG with a Larue QD mount for $650 so I just went that route. It suffers the compromises of bright light washout with just a black recticle showing etc but I think it'll do seeing that I'm not the hardest user doing CQB etc.

JRas
01-30-2013, 12:03 PM
I'm resurrecting this thread, want more good info ;-P

Found these pictures on another forum and had me thinking. At 100yd, 200yd, and lets say 300yd how effective is an RDS without a magnifier? Shooting at setup targets is one thing but what about in a combat environment?

100 yard steel popper
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s22/dudeimaginethis/MainTactical/AimPointMagWithout100.jpg
with 3X magnifier
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s22/dudeimaginethis/MainTactical/AimPointMagWith100.jpg
200 yard steel popper
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s22/dudeimaginethis/MainTactical/AimPointMagWithout200.jpg
with 3X magnifier
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s22/dudeimaginethis/MainTactical/AimPointMagWith200.jpg

JMS
01-30-2013, 02:22 PM
I can hit 16x16 gongs with a stand-alone RDS from the standing at 400m, with a 50yd zero (POA/POI @ 205m), regardless of the size of the dot, because I know my zero and my offsets, and can see the target. It's also slow-fire (let's be realistic...! :p ), but the fact remains that it's not a question of whether the optic/gun combo is capable or effective....quality machinery is always capable.

Awful metaphor: Reality TV sucks goat nuts. An 80" HD TV allows one to have the most crisp, clear view of crapy TV programming one can get. It doesn't make the show more or less of a steaming turd.

As has been stated before, magnification allows the shooter a better chance of seeing a target, discriminating it from the background, identifying it to decide whether or not it's to be engaged. It aids a competent shooter in getting hits because that shooter can now SEE further, and perhaps shoot more rapidly at distance because he's not constantly searching to re-align sights with target. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the gun/ammo one iota, and the wild-card always ends up being the dope behind the optic, not the dope ON the optic.

-Put a garbage shooter behind 3x magnification, he's gonna see the same jitterbugging he sees with irons or at 1x, only ALSO magnified, so that he Jedi mind-tricks himself into forgetting he's still inside his wobble-zone (IF he was ever taught or if he ever assimilated that lesson). It's possible to see that shooter's errors magnified by 3x because that dude's gonna be ambushing the dog snot out of the trigger. Less than desirable...

-Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.

I think in the end, a competent shooter that's gonna be shooting at distance is always gonna prefer to use magnification because of what it allows him to see. I've used both the RCO and 1x w/3x magnifier in combat, along the Euphrates River from Ramadi to Al Quaim (and other garden spots), where we'd go from urban-ish building setups, to flat terrain, hilly terrain, and 80m cliffs...but only on days that ended in "Y". Magnification did ZERO to add Jesus Juice to the gun or my ability to hit what I was shooting at, but it allowed ME to observe/discriminate, and therefore reduce targets. Close-up, magnification can slow you down, but not significantly if you train your way through it.....and 3x magnifiers are usually in a QD or wing-aside mount of some sort, as in the above photos.

A less experienced shooter might think that they can effectively buy skill by slapping something magnified on-board. They get frustrated when they STILL can't hit, and end up blaming the gun/optic/ammo/moon is in the 7th house, etc.....

3x magnifiers also allow one to "burn through" concealment, see into shadowed areas, fish-eye through small holes in walls (dismounted magnifier); there's more to a combat environment than just shooting. They do absolutely nothing to aid or detract from the "effectiveness" of whatever RDS mounted in front of it, but being able to see better is unquestionably helpful, whether it's on a flat range or not.

JRas
01-30-2013, 09:25 PM
I can hit 16x16 gongs with a stand-alone RDS from the standing at 400m, with a 50yd zero (POA/POI @ 205m), regardless of the size of the dot, because I know my zero and my offsets, and can see the target. It's also slow-fire (let's be realistic...! :p ), but the fact remains that it's not a question of whether the optic/gun combo is capable or effective....quality machinery is always capable.

Awful metaphor: Reality TV sucks goat nuts. An 80" HD TV allows one to have the most crisp, clear view of crapy TV programming one can get. It doesn't make the show more or less of a steaming turd.

As has been stated before, magnification allows the shooter a better chance of seeing a target, discriminating it from the background, identifying it to decide whether or not it's to be engaged. It aids a competent shooter in getting hits because that shooter can now SEE further, and perhaps shoot more rapidly at distance because he's not constantly searching to re-align sights with target. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the gun/ammo one iota, and the wild-card always ends up being the dope behind the optic, not the dope ON the optic.

-Put a garbage shooter behind 3x magnification, he's gonna see the same jitterbugging he sees with irons or at 1x, only ALSO magnified, so that he Jedi mind-tricks himself into forgetting he's still inside his wobble-zone (IF he was ever taught or if he ever assimilated that lesson). It's possible to see that shooter's errors magnified by 3x because that dude's gonna be ambushing the dog snot out of the trigger. Less than desirable...

-Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.

I think in the end, a competent shooter that's gonna be shooting at distance is always gonna prefer to use magnification because of what it allows him to see. I've used both the RCO and 1x w/3x magnifier in combat, along the Euphrates River from Ramadi to Al Quaim (and other garden spots), where we'd go from urban-ish building setups, to flat terrain, hilly terrain, and 80m cliffs...but only on days that ended in "Y". Magnification did ZERO to add Jesus Juice to the gun or my ability to hit what I was shooting at, but it allowed ME to observe/discriminate, and therefore reduce targets. Close-up, magnification can slow you down, but not significantly if you train your way through it.....and 3x magnifiers are usually in a QD or wing-aside mount of some sort, as in the above photos.

A less experienced shooter might think that they can effectively buy skill by slapping something magnified on-board. They get frustrated when they STILL can't hit, and end up blaming the gun/optic/ammo/moon is in the 7th house, etc.....

3x magnifiers also allow one to "burn through" concealment, see into shadowed areas, fish-eye through small holes in walls (dismounted magnifier); there's more to a combat environment than just shooting. They do absolutely nothing to aid or detract from the "effectiveness" of whatever RDS mounted in front of it, but being able to see better is unquestionably helpful, whether it's on a flat range or not.

I hear the same type of situation, people can effectively make hits with an RDS 200M+. What am I gaining when I can do that with irons?

The problem I'm having.. is it realistic? Could you determine if that was a good guy or bad guy to engage in the first place?

Realistically the average joe isn't going to be shooting his carbine further than his hallway... RDS would be ideal for that situation. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't own a carbine for close range alone.. I'd like to have the full potential of my rifle effectively (300M?).

Confuse myself more writing it :o

ezthumper
01-31-2013, 03:20 PM
-Hand a gun to Milky from Me, Myself and Irene without his specs, and it'll be a miracle if he can hit Oprah in the ass at 5 paces, with or withough magnification.



Hahaha, Thank you for that.

JMS
02-01-2013, 01:28 PM
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't own a carbine for close range alone.. I'd like to have the full potential of my rifle effectively (300M?).

That's among the reasons why the magnifiers can make sense. The flexibility is hard to argue with, and I felt that the two key detractors for that arrangement tend to come down to whether the user is willing to put up with the weight and the footprint on top of the receiver, and even the latter only affected using other optics of use with NVGs; pretty much a MIL consideration, sometimes LE. That's why I prefer the twist-mount for those things, when I used them; if I didn't need to be carting the thing on the gun, it was in a pouch on my armor until I needed it.

That said, and bearing in mind that I'm now a noncombatant that lives in the 'burbs, 400m is the extreme edge of my envisioned envelope, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in to a 1.1-6x when the opportunity arises. I really liked ACOGs once I genuinely figured out how to wring them out, but still think that the low-power variables represent the best of all possible worlds for 5.56.

TGS
02-01-2013, 02:53 PM
That's among the reasons why the magnifiers can make sense. The flexibility is hard to argue with, and I felt that the two key detractors for that arrangement tend to come down to whether the user is willing to put up with the weight and the footprint on top of the receiver, and even the latter only affected using other optics of use with NVGs; pretty much a MIL consideration, sometimes LE. That's why I prefer the twist-mount for those things, when I used them; if I didn't need to be carting the thing on the gun, it was in a pouch on my armor until I needed it.

That said, and bearing in mind that I'm now a noncombatant that lives in the 'burbs, 400m is the extreme edge of my envisioned envelope, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in to a 1.1-6x when the opportunity arises. I really liked ACOGs once I genuinely figured out how to wring them out, but still think that the low-power variables represent the best of all possible worlds for 5.56.

This is how I feel.

The thing I'm not liking is that the market seems to be advancing towards more 1-6x. Rather than go towards 1-6x, I want the market to invest in making a 1-4x that only weighs 10oz (or at least noticeably lighter than currently available).

JRas
02-08-2013, 01:52 PM
I'm never going to decide on an optic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnWXjnXPuLU