Red Dots, "way of the dinosaur"

[Tokarev]

You want to talk about dinosaur? I'm probably about one of the only guys left who still likes the old Leupold CQT.

I didn't like them when I first played with one because I was using it wrong. I was using it as a 3x scope that could be dialed down if shooting at very close distance. In this application the CQT pretty much sucks. Later, I figured out that the CQT worked pretty well as a 1x "red dot" that can be dialed up to 3x for longer shots and/or target ID. Used this way, the CQT worked pretty well especially with the later CMR-2 reticle.

I liked that the CQT used a AA battery, included a built-in mount, and was rugged and durable. Things I didn't like was fairly short battery life and not a super bright dot.

I'd like to see Leupold come out with a "Gen 2" CQT that addresses the battery and brightness issues but keeps the overall good stuff about the scope. Maybe bump it up to 4x while they're at it and/or drop a little weight off the product. But I don't think the market, as a whole, wants this type of product. Not enough max magnification I'm afraid...

[dontshakepandas]

I watched one of Aaron Cowan's videos last week where he touched on something similar and the way he explained it made a lot of sense to me.

Basically, he prefers an LPVO for anything general purpose or that is likely to ever be used outside. If you have something set up for strictly inside your home or clearing houses, a red dot still has its purpose.

My two 16" guns both have LPVOs, one a Nightforce NX8 and the other a Steiner p4xi. The 11.5" has an Aimpoint.

[breakingtime91]

Defoor is one of the few instructors I still think has a remote clue, and I find myself agreeing with him 99% of the time, but not here. At least not for me.

I see a lot of guys, many of whom have zero application for same, get caught up in "sniper" mode (or DM, or whatever you want to label it these days) when it comes to carbines. Frankly, I don't *care* about making precise hits at distances past where I can use the RDS.

Therefore, I never did find the weight to be worth the trade-off in any LPV.

As soon as they make an LPV that weighs the same as the T2, and costs the same as the Vortex Crossfire, I'm sold.

I also have the experience of spending a year with iron sights, and not being a sniper, I learned alot about what you can actually do with them. Among other things, you can beat the shit out of a lot of LPV-shooting doods in carbine matches. Again, not being sniper.

It is pretty flattering feeling when you out shoot people using an "irrelevant and outdated" system. I find it concerning that most of the people I shoot with have only used their iron sights as back ups in a session of zeroing..

[StraitR]

I'm also in the "it depends" camp. I've used two LPVO's over the years, only one of them extensively. That was a Trijicon TR24 1-4 with red triangle. IMO, it acted like a large red dot, and was relatively lightweight. The other is a Razor Gen II-E, bought last year, and I feel this best represents the latest trend in LPVO's, which is higher magnification and increased weight. I bought the Razor because I was struggling to see the T2 dot while simultaneously struggling to see through it. The Razor solved my vision issue, but carried a stiff weight penalty.

At local carbine matches, there are typically 5-6 stages. One portion of one stage will run out to 300y max, everything else is close and fast. So 5-6 shots out of 80-120 even present the possibility to use anything other than 1x. I feel this is a good microcosm for my needs, and even still, the need is only there because of a match. Outside of that, and shooting extended distances for fun, I have no actual need. My carbine needs are at pistol distances, out to maybe 50y for hunting my area.

I'm back to a red dot on my primary carbine, given my uses.

[Tokarev]

The magnified optic provides information. That's all it does. It can help the shooter determine range and/or holdovers or help with making a positive threat ID.

Too many shooters think it will overcome deficiencies in marksmanship or otherwise improve inherent accuracy that may or may not exist.

[Alpha Sierra]

To those of us with astigmatism and other vision issues a quality 1-4x scope with a well designed reticle and daylight bright center dot is a godsend.

I sold my Aimpoint once I put a Steiner P4Xi on my rifle. It does anything a reflex sight can do, with no loss of speed, and many things a reflex can't.

Done enough time drills with both sights to convince myself there's zero disadvantage to an LPVO, even inside the house.

[NH Shooter]

The magnified optic provides information. That's all it does.

That might be true for someone with excellent eyesight.

At least with my less-than-perfect vision, the fixed 2.5x optic I'm using also provides a sharper aiming point (etched reticle) and clearer view (adjustable diopter) than any RDS. Scope and mount combined weigh no more than an Aimpoint PRO in the factory mount.

If a RDS still works well for you, enjoy it while you can. ;-)

[Darth_Uno]

I see a lot of guys, many of whom have zero application for same, get caught up in "sniper" mode (or DM, or whatever you want to label it these days) when it comes to carbines. Frankly, I don't *care* about making precise hits at distances past where I can use the RDS.

I agree on RDO for defense, but with age and slowly degrading vision, even a 1-3 LPVO makes a HUGE difference for me, much less a quality 1-6 or 1-8. Will I ever need to use it outside of occasionally harvesting a deer with a 30-30 with 1x3? Unlikely.

In my case, my eyes are shit. And while I vastly prefer a red dot to irons, the AR everybody shoots when I whip it out is the scoped (Millett DMS-2) carbine. It's cheating to crank it up at 100 yds...but hitting what you aim at is kinda important. FTR I'm far from the "ItS juSt aS gOoD aS TrIjIcOn" camp but I've been quite pleased. I haven't whaled it against tree trunks but, good so far.

That might be true for someone with excellent eyesight.

For stashing in the bedroom closet, I'll stay with my MRO. Yeah I like it. Prove it sucks. It's still a fuzzy blob (to my eyes) but it's fast. Only way I can see shooting 200 yds down the street is if someone takes off with my kid in the car.

All that said, if I had to keep one AR it'd be the one with the Millett and offset irons. But it's America and I don't have to pick one. I could probably keep working with my 24oz framing hammer which is a little light for some jobs and overkill for others....but I've also got a trim hammer and a sledgehammer.

[Tokarev]

That might be true for someone with excellent eyesight.

At least with my less-than-perfect vision, the fixed 2.5x optic I'm using also provides a sharper aiming point (etched reticle) and clearer view (adjustable diopter) than any RDS. Scope and mount combined weigh no more than an Aimpoint PRO in the factory mount.

If a RDS still works well for you, enjoy it while you can. ;-)

The magnified optic is still providing you with info. Info that you might not see or be able to exploit with the naked eye. I don't have perfect vision so a scope that I can focus to my shooting eye is pretty handy.

The magnified optic will not make your rifle more accurate. It might give you the ability to see a specific point you want to shoot but the optic won't make the bullet go there.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

Chuck P has a good video on this somewhere, along with the already mentioned Sage video. It might make sense to watch all of them before commenting here with your mind already made up. Magnified optics provide a lot more information. It doesn’t need to be 200 yds to be useful. Seeing what someone is carrying at 50 yds can be a hell of a task without magnification. That being said, I’m not sure how anyone can make an argument that it doesn’t increase accuracy. You’re literally getting 4/6/8 times the refinement in your point of aim. That definitely makes it easier to hit whatever you’re trying to hit and maintain that consistent POA through multiple shots. Sure, it doesn’t make the rifle more accurate, but the rifle isn’t typically the problem when it comes to putting rounds on target. The only significant downsides to them are price and weight. An insignificant downside is ease of use, mostly because of eye box considerations, but that really isn’t hard to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk