|Originally Posted By Harv24:
Originally Posted By Blacktide:
If you're only concerned with hitting static large targets at 200 than a red dot should work. If you're taking marksmanship seriously, you might need a scope.
Come on, the guy isn't going to be doing special operations, he wants a scope for his range gun. Why get a red dot if it's not for combat or close up competition? What could be gained aside from feeling like a cool guy?
I agree to a certain point. I find a red dot to be the most useful optic an average shooter can have if you rwant a general purpose carbine.
Easy to use
provides acceptable accuracy (Good if your average, better if your not)
Provides low light capability
As to taking marksmanship seriously.. here's where you and I differ... If you equate a scope to serious marksmanship.. Most shooters equate scopes to skill, and the two could not be farther apart... scopes and magnification don't help you shoot better and have nothing to do with the fundamentals. they just help you see better.
A good shooter with a red dot who has taken marksmanship "Seriously" is going to hand some one their ass who is using a scope and has no skill.
I don't run magnified scopes on my AR's because I do not find them necessary and my experiences have shown me that I am best served with a red dot because they provide me with many more benefits that a magnified optic.
I wouldn't say that it isn't possible to take marksmanship seriously with a red dot, but if it's just a range gun I do believe it will limit your abilities depending on your style of shooting. Don't get me wrong, I love red dots and have owned all of the newer aimpoints including the M4 and T1 and an eotech 553. They're great, but for target shooting at 100+ they're lacking. Especially if you're trying to hit small targets like clay pigeons and not just large sillouetts.