Magnifiers for use with an RDS

[rob_s]

I don’t know why it’s “obligatory” or even merits a repost. “Alternative” doesn’t necessarily mean “facsimile”.

al·ter·na·tive
/ôlˈtərnədiv/
adjective
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.

fac·sim·i·le
/fakˈsiməlē/
noun
an exact copy, especially of written or printed material.


From what I can tell, nobody is trying to replicate a LPVO. At least in this and other discussions. What, instead, I see is people that have evaluated the LPVO options (either through trial or via reading online, or both) and determined that it’s not for them. Possibly even not for them on a particular rifle while still owning others that may, in fact, have an LPVO on them.

[WobblyPossum]

EOTech has 3x and 5x magnifiers. I don’t have experience with their newer stuff but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by my Vortex micro 3x.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My mistake. You are correct. I had thought the G43 was a 4x magnifier but it seems to be a 3x like the G33, just more modernized.

ETA: Kyle Defoor seems to have good things to say about the Vortex magnifiers he’s been running.

[Default.mp3]

I don’t know why it’s “obligatory” or even merits a repost. “Alternative” doesn’t necessarily mean “facsimile”.

al·ter·na·tive
/ôlˈtərnədiv/
adjective
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.

fac·sim·i·le
/fakˈsiməlē/
noun
an exact copy, especially of written or printed material.


From what I can tell, nobody is trying to replicate a LPVO. At least in this and other discussions. What, instead, I see is people that have evaluated the LPVO options (either through trial or via reading online, or both) and determined that it’s not for them. Possibly even not for them on a particular rifle while still owning others that may, in fact, have an LPVO on them.

I was trying to communicate that I did not see the RDS/HWS/whatever 1x optic paired with a magnifier as being an alternative to the LPVOs, because they cover what I think are fairly different use cases. I generally don't believe it makes much sense to weigh both options on the same gun if you have a well-defined role for your gun.

[23JAZ]

First magnifier for me. So far I really like the weight savings over the Vortex 1-6 I had.
Holosun 515GM & 3X mag. I see some guys have a good amount of space between the magnifier and the RD. I was always told you want them as close as possible. Is there a reason in support of the larger gap?

[Chuck Whitlock]

Obligatory repost:

How does the 3x-4x fixed magnified optic compare and/or contrast to the LPVO and the RDS+magnifier? Particularly if one can use the Bindon Aiming Concept?

This is typified by the ACOG, which is pricey. Seems that the biggest downfall of the RDS+magnifier is zero shift.

[Default.mp3]

How does the 3x-4x fixed magnified optic compare and/or contrast to the LPVO and the RDS+magnifier? Particularly if one can use the Bindon Aiming Concept?

This is typified by the ACOG, which is pricey. Seems that the biggest downfall of the RDS+magnifier is zero shift.

I personally have not any meaningful zero shift when it came to magnifiers. I do believe it exists, just given the basic physics of it all, but most folks seem to agree with me that with a quality optic and magnifier, it is not a meaningful shift for the most part. I think an argument can be made that as long as you zero with the magnifier, you should be fine typically, as if the level of precision is needed where that zero shift would make a difference, you almost certainly have the time to flip up the magnifier. For me, the magnifier arguably makes me have to be much more consistent in my head positioning, thus minimizing any issues with parallax that might occur with a non-magnified optic (claims of being parallax-free always have an asterisk with them).

In terms of the fixed magnified optic, I will have to bow out on that discussion for the most part, due to the fact that I simply have no practical experience with them. I will argue that BAC is likely to be a crutch, though, as you still have the issues of eyebox and eye relief, along with deeply personal issue of phoria; I am reminded of the post @Molon made about his experiences with using his ACOG as an OEG:

The Effects of Phoria When Using the ACOG as an Occluded-Eye Gunsight


Phoria: the visual effect that occurs when one eye is blocked from seeing the same view of a target as the other eye; the blocked eye does not get the same sensory input as the other eye and can begin to wonder off, usually to one side or the other.

In an attempt to make my Trijicon TA-11 ACOG more versatile at engaging close range targets, I installed a Progressive Machine and Tool flip-down front lens cover. With the lens cover in the up position (blocking the view through the scope) the ACOG can function as a nonmagnified occluded-eye gunsight. When the ACOG is functioning as an occluded-eye gunsight, the view of the target for the eye looking into the scope is blocked and the effect of phoria comes into play.













In order to determine just what the effects of phoria would be when using the ACOG TA-11 as an occluded-eye gunsight, I conducted a test comparing the accuracy and points of impact when shooting with the lens cover down (normal sighting) and the lens cover up (occluded-eye sighting.) Testing was conducted at a distance of 25 yards, the farthest distance that I would anticipate using the occluded eye-method of sighting.

Shooting off a sand bag, I zeroed the TA-11 for point of aim equals point of impact at 25 yards using the normal sighting method. I then fired a quick 10-shot group with the normal sighting method that formed a tidy group with an extreme spread of 0.56”.




Next, I placed the lens cover in the up position, transforming the ACOG into an occluded-eye gunsight. The left eye views the target, while the right eye views the reticle in the scope. The right eye is blocked (occluded) from seeing the target due to the lens cover. The impact of the initial shots using this method had such a large horizontal deviation to the left that they were off the targets that I originally was using. I had to change to a 24” wide target and aim at the far right side of the target to capture the impact of the rounds. The aiming point for this portion of the test was the numeral “7” on the target.

Using the occluded-eye method of sighting, I fired a 10-shot group. This group had an extreme spread of over 7” and the center of the group was 14” to the left of the aiming point!


Source: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...d-Eye-Gunsight

Sadly, the pictures are gone, but there was a huge difference in the group sizes. That being said, BAC might work better with phoria than an OEG, due to the fact that BAC still allows you to utilize information downrange in the eye you've got the reticle in, but I'm leery of just how much one's brain would be able to merge the magnified image with the non-magnified image to minimize the effects of phoria. I would cautiously put the fixed magnified optics to be an inferior alternative to LPVOs, at least from a pure performance POV (they can advantages over LPVOs in other fields, such as size, weight, durability, etc.).

[HeavyDuty]

I decided to try a magnifier with RDS instead of a LPVO on my 9” .300, and a Juliet3 just arrived. I started setting it up with a Romeo4T (1 MOA plex version) and so far I’m impressed.