Fixed magnification optics at close ranges

[arcfide]

So, here's another idea. You mention training and competition as your two main goals? Is home defense or general defense included in this?

The reason I ask is that, if you're really looking at a budget, I've been really impressed with some of the well thought out iron sights that are around these days. They're tough, rugged, very accurate, and quite usable. I actually find them easier to shoot well both at range and in close than most red dots (part of this is my eyesight and the diopter effect of iron sights). If I were really on a tight budget, I'd pick out a good set of iron sights and put more money into a quality light for the rifle.

In fact, if you learn how to shoot with the front sight only, you can be very precise and very fast in close, and you get a very lightweight, rugged gun. Pick out a sight that has good ranging settings and you'll be able to easily make good hits and groups out to 500m with some practice.

I just wanted to throw out another option. I know that optics are all the rage, but for me, if it were a choice of picking out a high quality, rugged set of iron sights and a good, rugged weapon light, versus spending money on a low-budget scope/RDS and maybe a magnifier or the like, I'd take the irons and light any day of the week over the low-budget scope.

[That Guy]

Sorry it took me this long to reply. I just haven't been able to sit down behind a computer and concentrate long enough to type a (hopefully) coherent response.

All that being said, why are you such a firm believer in an AR needing magnification?

I'm not. I am, however, a firm believer in a general purpose rifle/carbine needing a magnified optic.

At the square range, on a sunny summer day, using high contrast targets, one can manage quite well without magnification. But add variable lightning conditions, a more complicated background, low contrast targets, low contrast targets in unknown locations, and the need to positively identify the target and things change.

To give you an example, in simple range conditions I've had static cardboard targets completely blend into the dirt berm behind them, with as short ranges as 100 meters. All it takes is the right kinds of environmental conditions, like fog or lower light. Or to give you another example, have you ever watched from a distance as people dressed in camouflage uniforms move about? If those people are wearing camouflage that blends into their surroundings reasonably well, they can really disappear, especially when they stop moving, can't they? And that blending into the background can occur at pretty short distances.

Engaging a target one can't properly see is quite difficult to do with any sort of accuracy.

If you're looking to buy a magnified optic and red dot seperately have you considered doing a dot and magnifier?

Yes, I have. Quite a bit in fact. I have a few issues with this route though, which makes me think it may not be for me.

Even with corrected vision, I have had a high quality red dot (Aimpoint H1) "bloom" on me. At closer ranges this is not an issue, as one can make good enough shots quite well. But it does make aiming at longer ranges and more accuracy a bit difficult when one can't make out exactly where the dot is.

The red dot is entirely dependent on its electronics working. All right, with an Aimpoint this may not be much of an issue. But with just about every other red dot or holographic sight, the battery life is short enough that you need to properly manage your batteries. A failure to replace the batteries in time, or replacing the batteries with bad ones, or the electronics just plain failing, can cause you to lose your entire reticle. In other words, red dots do not fail gracefully, and this bothers me. With an etched reticle, you retain at least some sort of an aiming reference.

And finally, a single dot is not much of a reticle when one starts to need to account for bullet drop or wind, or to estimate range to target. Though granted, I am starting to get quite picky now.

[BillSWPA]

So, here's another idea. You mention training and competition as your two main goals? Is home defense or general defense included in this?

The reason I ask is that, if you're really looking at a budget, I've been really impressed with some of the well thought out iron sights that are around these days. They're tough, rugged, very accurate, and quite usable. I actually find them easier to shoot well both at range and in close than most red dots (part of this is my eyesight and the diopter effect of iron sights). If I were really on a tight budget, I'd pick out a good set of iron sights and put more money into a quality light for the rifle.

In fact, if you learn how to shoot with the front sight only, you can be very precise and very fast in close, and you get a very lightweight, rugged gun. Pick out a sight that has good ranging settings and you'll be able to easily make good hits and groups out to 500m with some practice.

I just wanted to throw out another option. I know that optics are all the rage, but for me, if it were a choice of picking out a high quality, rugged set of iron sights and a good, rugged weapon light, versus spending money on a low-budget scope/RDS and maybe a magnifier or the like, I'd take the irons and light any day of the week over the low-budget scope.

Is there a set of iron sights you would like for low light use?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arcfide]

Is there a set of iron sights you would like for low light use?

I'm no master operator or the like, so take what I say with a heavy dose of your own research. There are plenty of others who have had to fight in real life with iron sights and I'm sure they would have some thoughts on whether they would want one thing or the other.

However, for me, the iron sight has two major advantages for my own eyes that make it a good sight for me. The first is that a small aperture provides a great deal of depth of field, which also tends to remove astigmatic aberrations. This means that I can more readily focus on the front sight and get a better and more consistent alignment against a target with irons at certain distances than I can with a red dot (100m - 300m, for example, where astigmatism begins to hamper a clear aiming point). Second, besides reliability, is that they don't use light to create the aiming reference, which means that under most lighting conditions, my eyes see the non-illuminated surfaces more clearly than an illuminated surface, particularly in the dark.

This is why I'll often use a non-illuminated reticle with a Low-power variable when I need to be precise even though I have an excellent illuminated reticle.

Keeping these things in mind, I actually prefer plain, crisp, solid black front sight posts with a rear aperture that allows me the choice of a very small or a relatively large aperture. When paired with a white light, this gives the least visual impairment with my particular eye conditions, because a dark post superimposed on a white light illuminated surface is clearer to me than an illuminated post, for instance.

Incidentally, I do the same with my computer, where I often have a white background with a dark text, rather than a light text on a dark background, which is popular with my field, simply because the black on white is better for my astigmatism than the reverse.

I've found I like a squared off post, but I do like the posts when they are on the skinnier side, simply because I can reference them a little more easily against smaller targets. However, I'd say it's more important to have crisp, clean angles than the strict size of the post.

So, something like the Magpul MBUS PROs work well, as do the DD1.5 type sights, or the KAC 600m adjustables. If there's illumination or extra "stuff" in them, they tend to distract and cause problems with my eyes.

Same goes for my reticles. I keep my reticles as dirt simple as I can, with a single red dot in the middle for illumination and a straight cross hairs and maybe a BDC of some sort going down the southern line, since anything more intense than this is literally unusable for me. Eotechs are the worst, because I basically see two of those reticles at the same time, and they overlap in the worst way, making getting any aiming reference very difficult.

This does mean that I'm relying pretty heavily on a good source of illumination in order to compensate for other things, but it's what I've found to be most effective for me while shooting despite trying all the good red dots and other lightweight optics options.

[arcfide]

I'm not. I am, however, a firm believer in a general purpose rifle/carbine needing a magnified optic.

At the square range, on a sunny summer day, using high contrast targets, one can manage quite well without magnification. But add variable lightning conditions, a more complicated background, low contrast targets, low contrast targets in unknown locations, and the need to positively identify the target and things change.

To give you an example, in simple range conditions I've had static cardboard targets completely blend into the dirt berm behind them, with as short ranges as 100 meters. All it takes is the right kinds of environmental conditions, like fog or lower light. Or to give you another example, have you ever watched from a distance as people dressed in camouflage uniforms move about? If those people are wearing camouflage that blends into their surroundings reasonably well, they can really disappear, especially when they stop moving, can't they? And that blending into the background can occur at pretty short distances.

Engaging a target one can't properly see is quite difficult to do with any sort of accuracy.

And finally, a single dot is not much of a reticle when one starts to need to account for bullet drop or wind, or to estimate range to target. Though granted, I am starting to get quite picky now.

It's true that a magnified optic with good clarity and picture is king of the hill, bar none, when it comes to target acquisition and identification. That's the single defining advantage, really, of the magnified optic. However, I believe you've omitted a few things that are cogent to this particular discussion.

While it's true that you can get all of these neat "features" in a low-power variable optic, most of the advantages states for optics are given with an implicit understanding that you'll be using an optic with clear glass, good contrast, ruggedness, and the right sort of internals. I also think you're over-estimating the "need" for these features and how much of an advantage they really are. Since I'm assuming here by AR-15 you are talking about a 16" carbine length configuration, we have to really consider the situation in which this rifle might reasonably be used, its proper application, and the effect that your budgetary constraints are going to have on your selection.

I think firstly we should admit that we probably won't be needing to go past 800m at the longest, and most people won't even consider anything past 500m. Outside of 300m even seeing anything under less than ideal conditions, even with magnification could be exceptionally difficult. In low light conditions, do you have illumination to go with the gun that will make sure you can see anything at night at those distances where your magnification would actually make a difference?

With a constrained budget, besides the obvious concerns about ruggedness, you have to consider that the glass clarity is really quite poor relative to the higher end stuff. This is a big deal with it comes to the main point of a variable powered optic as a target identification aid. Sure, under ideal conditions you'll get a bigger target, but will it really be clear enough to see what you need to see at the distances where it would make a difference? I don't think the answer is an easy yes.

Furthermore, by spending more on the optic, do you already have a light that will be able to do the work it needs to do? If not, then the light might be worth spending more money on than getting a relatively low-end optic.

And then, if we are considering non-range conditions, you also have to take into consideration that human skill trumps a lot of stuff. If you don't have the skill to leverage your optic to hit a moving, adversarial target at the ranges you're thinking of, maybe it would be better to put the money you might have spent on the optic towards improving your raw skill with a carbine.

And finally, when you talk about the reticle features of an optic, but how valuable are most of these, really, at the engagement ranges for the AR-15 carbine? And again, it's skill that trumps the tech in this case as well. In my experience, things like range estimation, hold overs, and wind calls are almost immaterial for most mid-range carbine shooting. Take a 100, 200, or 300m zero on a 1 power scope, red dot, or iron sights, and you don't need to do anything with respect to wind or hold overs for 200m and in to get good hits on a torso or half torso target. If you have a 100m zero, then you might have to do a bit of holding over once you get out past 200m. But with any of those zeros, the hold overs are so minor all the way out to 400 or 500m that I really think the BDC buys you very, very little. And that's assuming you have the glass clarity necessary to take advantage of the BDC and its range estimation.

Once you get out past 500m, to say, 600m, then you start getting to the point where you have to have a bullet that is capable of doing that reliably, and that, IME, is the biggest factor. The scope won't matter if you're using a bullet that is spreading out to 4 MOA under normal conditions. A good, clear scope will give you a clear advantage in finding your targets at that range, but low-end glass at the low power settings? I'm not so sure that it's worth it. And again, do you have some way to light your way when you're not on a sunny range?

So, I really think that the traditional "sniper" benefits of a scope for most ranges of a carbine are moot, and readily compensated for with training and skill that one should desire to have anyways.

In short, I'd say, with a seriously tightly constrained budget, my priorities would look like:

1. Skills development, far and away above everything else
2. Weapon light capable of doing what I need it to do
3. Solid, rugged, reliable aiming system
4. Fast, clear, unmagnified shooting
5. High-clarity magnification for target identification

And with that, if I didn't have the money for a more quality optic that gave me the good clarity that I wanted, I'd rather spend the limited money on things that give me more bang for the buck.

But what do I know? I'm a nobody, doing nobody's analysis. If you just want a magnified optic because you want a magnified optic to have fun or just because, then by all means, that pretty much trumps everything else. :-)

[NH Shooter]

I too am in the fixed irons mindset. After spending more $$ than I care to remember on Aimpoints (dot is never round making precision difficult), ACOGs (no eyepiece diopter adjustment, never totally clear), LPV scopes (more weight and bulk than I care for), I'm still in search of the perfect optic. As a former High Power shooter, I appreciate a good set of irons so I'm no longer in a hurry to drop more cash on an optic that may not meet my expectations.

I also agree that a good light makes irons quite effective in the dark. :-)

[Failure2Stop]

All black irons at night with a light tends to work ok on uniformly colored stationary targets out to mid-range.
Add in target movement, darker clothing, and a target focus, and they fall apart pretty fast.
A floating dot type reticle might not be the most precise aiming instrument for those with eye issues, but simply being able to focus on the target, its movement, and the peripheral during the shooting part makes them stand head and shoulders above irons of any configuration for every test subject I have seen that is at all familiar with dot optics.

[NH Shooter]

A floating dot type reticle might not be the most precise aiming instrument for those with eye issues, but simply being able to focus on the target, its movement, and the peripheral during the shooting part makes them stand head and shoulders above irons of any configuration for every test subject I have seen that is at all familiar with dot optics.

Thanks, and agreed! If I ever decide to buy another optic for the carbine, it will be a quality micro RDS.

[JM Campbell]

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mat...sts/e/52180000

P&S podcast on optics with Steve F and some dude from Knights (not S2F)

Might be a good resource for all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CS Tactical]

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mat...sts/e/52180000

P&S podcast on optics with Steve F and some dude from Knights (not S2F)

Might be a good resource for all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm hoping that Nightforce releases that 1-8 this year, we will see...