User Panel
How far away from the scopes is the ruler? It's been my experience that the 1x setting on 1-4x scopes like the NXS and Short Dot does magnify the image a bit, but this becomes almost unnoticeable with targets that are more than 5 yards away.
It'd also be cool to see a video of a 1-4x scope at 1x sweeping left to right. This will show any distortion in the lens setup, which at least for me can induce a mild case of motion sickness. Better glass = less distortion. Finally, the big, big issues with 1-4x scopes vs red dot scopes like the Aimpoint and Eotech are eye relief and exit pupil. A true 1x RDS does not care where your head is in relation to the scope (for all practical purposes). If you can see the dot and the target, you can take your shot. You can be lying on your back with the rifle at arms length, you can be wearing a gas mask that puts your face at the very end of the stock –– it doesn't matter. If you're shooting a 1-4x scope at 1x, you still need to build some semblance of a traditional cheekweld to see the reticle and the target, and the "box" for your head is only a few inches in any direction until the scope becomes useless. So far, out of all the 1-4x scopes I have any experience with, the Elcan Specter DR does the best job of allowing head movement due to its huge exit pupil at 1x. The DR's reticle illumination is also quite unique; turn the illum knob one way, and a center red dot lights up with enough intensity to see in full sunlight against a very bright target. Turn the knob the other way, and the fine crosshair reticle lights up for precision shooting in low light. The DR isn't a perfect scope (the mount is crying for an upgrade), but there's no arguing with its optical qualities. |
|
Thanks for the excellent post.
I am trying to decide which 1-4 scope to get for an AR, and this is very helpful. I can't wait until you post the continuation. |
|
Great post.
My primary concern for an optic is its usability in competition. Many of the illuminated 1-4x scopes have issues with the illumination washing out in even moderate sunlight. Of the scopes I have experience with I have found that the Short Dot and the Accupoint are the only ones that do not have this washout issue. The Short Dot is almost as good as an aimpoint or eotech, except that the dot in the Short Dot is pretty small (looks like about 2MOA on 1.1x), and the Short Dot does not have the essentially unlimited eye relief that aimpoint has. The Short Dot is also a much longer tube, so when moving around you can get scope shadowing issues. |
|
Yes this is a very good write up. Nice pictures also. I know I've been trying to decide on a scope for my AR15 and been really looking at the Burris 1-4 XTR. Got any pictures of that scope and retical?
|
|
Dang Molon, your doing your part to help our economy recover. Good taste in optics.
|
|
Molon in your opinion, do you have a prefference on the accupoint colors, red or green triangle? I was really diggin the green till I saw the red......hmmmmmm The ruler of truth really answered all of my questions about the 1x being true. Thank you for this post.
|
|
Quoted:
Molon in your opinion, do you have a prefference on the accupoint colors, red or green triangle? I was really diggin the green till I saw the red......hmmmmmm The ruler of truth really answered all of my questions about the 1x being true. Thank you for this post. As stated above, the 1X will show some magnification at point blank range. From a few feet and out the AccuPoint is as true to 1X as they come. The ruler of truth as you call it really isn't a realistic way to measure the capability of the scope. |
|
Quoted:
Yes this is a very good write up. Nice pictures also. I know I've been trying to decide on a scope for my AR15 and been really looking at the Burris 1-4 XTR. Got any pictures of that scope and retical? I too would like to see the Burris XTR 1-4 tested. That price point is very popular. I only wish I could afford the Short Dot. |
|
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes this is a very good write up. Nice pictures also. I know I've been trying to decide on a scope for my AR15 and been really looking at the Burris 1-4 XTR. Got any pictures of that scope and retical? I too would like to see the Burris XTR 1-4 tested. That price point is very popular. I only wish I could afford the Short Dot. +1 |
|
Can you post details on how you did the "ruler-o-truth"? I'd like to see how the Elcan stands up...
|
|
In my opinion the Elcans don't really belong in the category of variable powered scopes. I think they could more accurately be described as "switchable." It's sort of like having two different scopes inside the same housing. However, for the Ruler of Truth test, simply pin a ruler to a foam poster-board at such an angle that the ruler can be visualized both inside and outside of the optics field of view and then take your picture.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one. In person, the red and green triangle reticles appear equally sharp to my eyes. I haven't yet decided which color reticle will be best suited for my shooting needs. Here's a slightly better pic of the red triangle reticle. http://www.box.net/shared/static/a31iu8kb4m.jpg Ah,thats much better thanks. I'm still on the fence as well. I want to use it for competition and "tactical" use, classes and such. On one hand Im so use to picking up red dots from using aimpoints for years. On the other green is supposedly the color the human eye is the most sensitive to. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one. In person, the red and green triangle reticles appear equally sharp to my eyes. I haven't yet decided which color reticle will be best suited for my shooting needs. Here's a slightly better pic of the red triangle reticle. http://www.box.net/shared/static/a31iu8kb4m.jpg Ah,thats much better thanks. I'm still on the fence as well. I want to use it for competition and "tactical" use, classes and such. On one hand Im so use to picking up red dots from using aimpoints for years. On the other green is supposedly the color the human eye is the most sensitive to. It's definately personal preference but I prefer the Green. I have all three (Amber, Red and Green) and the Green is the best IMO. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one. In person, the red and green triangle reticles appear equally sharp to my eyes. I haven't yet decided which color reticle will be best suited for my shooting needs. Here's a slightly better pic of the red triangle reticle. http://www.box.net/shared/static/a31iu8kb4m.jpg Ah,thats much better thanks. I'm still on the fence as well. I want to use it for competition and "tactical" use, classes and such. On one hand Im so use to picking up red dots from using aimpoints for years. On the other hand green is supposedly the color the human eye is the most sensitive to. Maybe, maybe not. Years ago, Trijicon reprtedly commissioned a study from a major university (I want to say the University of Michigan, but don't recall for sure) on the subject. The study concluded that amber was the color that the human eye was most sensitive to and this is supposedly why the original Trijicon Reflex sights had amber colored reticles. I owned both a Reflex and a Reflex II and ending up selling both of them because my eyes didn't pick up the amber dots as readily as the red dots in Aimpoint sights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one. In person, the red and green triangle reticles appear equally sharp to my eyes. I haven't yet decided which color reticle will be best suited for my shooting needs. Here's a slightly better pic of the red triangle reticle. http://www.box.net/shared/static/a31iu8kb4m.jpg Ah,thats much better thanks. I'm still on the fence as well. I want to use it for competition and "tactical" use, classes and such. On one hand Im so use to picking up red dots from using aimpoints for years. On the other hand green is supposedly the color the human eye is the most sensitive to. Maybe, maybe not. Years ago, Trijicon reprtedly commissioned a study from a major university (I want to say the University of Michigan, but don't recall for sure) on the subject. The study concluded that amber was the color that the human eye was most sensitive to and this is supposedly why the original Trijicon Reflex sights had amber colored reticles. I owned both a Reflex and a Reflex II and ending up selling both of them because my eyes didn't pick up the amber dots as readily as the red dots in Aimpoint sights. So much for academic studies Maybe it varies from person to person. I guess the only way would be to run each color for a while and see what you prefer. Unfortunately TR24s are pretty rare with the green versions even more so and I dont have the cash to get both. |
|
I'm jealous. I wish that I could afford more than one scope. I am interested to see how the Meopta would stack up against the rest, since I have one enroute.
|
|
The Ruler of Truth test does not tell the truth. A 1X scope produces a TRUE 1X image and you are not going to see that with the ruler test because it is as TRUE 1X image as seen from the objective lens' perspective. The objective lens is always closer than the camera or human eye. This means there is always around a good 6-10" diference in the position of your right eye's image and left eyes image. The difference at 20' is not noticable but at just over a foot its a 2X image. Its all realtive to the % differenc in range of th objective to the non dominant eye(or camera in this case). Noone aims at things that close with the optic... the Ruler of Truth test does not tell the truth. It lies and distorts the actual amount of shift in size relative to the posiotn of the objectve vs the position of the shooter. Do a 20' test and noone will be able to see a difference. Do a 100' test and it would become IMPOSSIBLE to measure a difference. The key is the deterimine if you can set up on a 20' target and mess with the diopter and get a CLEAR image with no visible trasition or jump as it crosses the FOV but also not have very distant targets not appear to be in a state of negative magnification.
As has been stated a True 1X should be judged on its ability to produce true 1X images at a distance, amount of curvature of field, etc. Knocking the entire concept of a 1X scope because of curvature of field is also ridiculous. A Dr Optic has SEVERAL TIMES more curvature of field IMO than many 1X scopes. The easiest way for people to understand how a 1X optic works is to imagine there is a minature 1X video camera right at the objective lens and the occular lens is a video screen. Imagine all the lenes dont exist and there is just wires going form the front to the back of the scope. Its not that the video camera is not producing a 1X image, just that its in a different position than your other eye. You CAN correct for that differnce at ONE distance by introducing a negative magnification shift, however; everything past that distance would become negatively magnified and everything closer will still appear positively magnified. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I too am wondering what your preference for the accupoint reticle color is. From your pics the red triangle looks more blurred. It may be an issue of the camera as I was considering getting a red one. In person, the red and green triangle reticles appear equally sharp to my eyes. I haven't yet decided which color reticle will be best suited for my shooting needs. Here's a slightly better pic of the red triangle reticle. http://www.box.net/shared/static/a31iu8kb4m.jpg Ah,thats much better thanks. I'm still on the fence as well. I want to use it for competition and "tactical" use, classes and such. On one hand Im so use to picking up red dots from using aimpoints for years. On the other hand green is supposedly the color the human eye is the most sensitive to. Maybe, maybe not. Years ago, Trijicon reprtedly commissioned a study from a major university (I want to say the University of Michigan, but don't recall for sure) on the subject. The study concluded that amber was the color that the human eye was most sensitive to and this is supposedly why the original Trijicon Reflex sights had amber colored reticles. I owned both a Reflex and a Reflex II and ending up selling both of them because my eyes didn't pick up the amber dots as readily as the red dots in Aimpoint sights. So much for academic studies Maybe it varies from person to person. I guess the only way would be to run each color for a while and see what you prefer. Unfortunately TR24s are pretty rare with the green versions even more so and I dont have the cash to get both. . . . and from situation/lighting to situation/lighting. |
|
Quoted:
. . . that the dot in the Short Dot is pretty small (looks like about 2MOA on 1.1x) At 4X magnification the dot is 1.57 MOA, but I can't recall off the top of my head the exact MOA of the dot at 1.1X. The nice thing about it is that just like an Aimpoint, you can turn up the intensity and "bloom" the dot under most lighting conditions. Is your Short Dot a 3rd gen that is SFP? Mine is a second generation that is FFP so the dot size grows as the power is increased. At 1.1x it's a bit smaller than I would like. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
. . . that the dot in the Short Dot is pretty small (looks like about 2MOA on 1.1x) At 4X magnification the dot is 1.57 MOA, but I can't recall off the top of my head the exact MOA of the dot at 1.1X. The nice thing about it is that just like an Aimpoint, you can turn up the intensity and "bloom" the dot under most lighting conditions. Is your Short Dot a 3rd gen that is SFP? Mine is a second generation that is FFP so the dot size grows as the power is increased. At 1.1x it's a bit smaller than I would like. Short Dot LE, SFP, so the dot is going to get bigger relative to the target as the magnification gets lower; which is how I think it should be on a scope of this type. |
|
Short Dot LE, SFP, so the dot is going to get bigger relative to the target as the magnification gets lower; which is how I think it should be on a scope of this type.
I haven't used one of the SFP Short Dots. But for my competition needs I only use the dot on low magniifcation anyways. Even if it weren't so huge on 4x I still wouldn't use it I don't think. But I can see how the SFP one would be helpful for other uses. |
|
TAG
Mike @ CS TACTICAL.com CS Gunworks is now CS TACTICAL.com www.cstactical.com [email protected] Here’s some testimonials about CS GunWorks / CS Tactical FEEDBACK about CSGUNWORKS / CS Tactical on AR15.com FEEDBACK about CSGUNWORKS / CS Tactical on Snipersparadise FEEDBACK about CSGUNWORKS / CS Tactical on the HIDE |
|
Quoted:
Dang Molon, your doing your part to help our economy recover. Good taste in optics. Guessing he's got good taste in cameras too and/or the ability to use them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dang Molon, your doing your part to help our economy recover. Good taste in optics. Guessing he's got good taste in cameras too and/or the ability to use them. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. |
|
|
Quoted:
Can you post details on how you did the "ruler-o-truth"? I'd like to see how the Elcan stands up... Have you tried it yet? I'd be interested in seeing pics of your results. |
|
Quoted:
The Ruler of Truth test does not tell the truth. A 1X scope produces a TRUE 1X image and you are not going to see that with the ruler test because it is as TRUE 1X image as seen from the objective lens' perspective. The objective lens is always closer than the camera or human eye. This means there is always around a good 6-10" diference in the position of your right eye's image and left eyes image. The difference at 20' is not noticable but at just over a foot its a 2X image. Its all realtive to the % differenc in range of th objective to the non dominant eye(or camera in this case). Noone aims at things that close with the optic... the Ruler of Truth test does not tell the truth. It lies and distorts the actual amount of shift in size relative to the posiotn of the objectve vs the position of the shooter. Do a 20' test and noone will be able to see a difference. Do a 100' test and it would become IMPOSSIBLE to measure a difference. The key is the deterimine if you can set up on a 20' target and mess with the diopter and get a CLEAR image with no visible trasition or jump as it crosses the FOV but also not have very distant targets not appear to be in a state of negative magnification. As has been stated a True 1X should be judged on its ability to produce true 1X images at a distance, amount of curvature of field, etc. Knocking the entire concept of a 1X scope because of curvature of field is also ridiculous. A Dr Optic has SEVERAL TIMES more curvature of field IMO than many 1X scopes. If true 1x is measured at the objective lense, wouldn't that mean every scope is 1x at the objective lens? The easiest way for people to understand how a 1X optic works is to imagine there is a minature 1X video camera right at the objective lens and the occular lens is a video screen. Imagine all the lenes dont exist and there is just wires going form the front to the back of the scope. Its not that the video camera is not producing a 1X image, just that its in a different position than your other eye. You CAN correct for that differnce at ONE distance by introducing a negative magnification shift, however; everything past that distance would become negatively magnified and everything closer will still appear positively magnified. If true 1x is measured at the objective lense, wouldn't that mean every scope is 1x? |
|
Great thread! Would love to see the TR24 with the German #4 crosshair (green or red).
|
|
Quoted:
Great thread! Would love to see the TR24 with the German #4 crosshair (green or red). I sold mine, but other members have posted pics of that reticle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great thread! Would love to see the TR24 with the German #4 crosshair (green or red). I sold mine, but other members have posted pics of that reticle. Molon, May I ask what you found lacking in the TR24 with German #4 Crosshair that caused you to sell it? I was thinking about getting one someday and wonder what was wrong with it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great thread! Would love to see the TR24 with the German #4 crosshair (green or red). I sold mine, but other members have posted pics of that reticle. Molon, May I ask what you found lacking in the TR24 with German #4 Crosshair that caused you to sell it? I was thinking about getting one someday and wonder what was wrong with it. Nothing "wrong" with it. I have an S&B Short Dot LE that outperforms it and I didn't need both. |
|
This scope has me all psyched up and warm in the trousers:
Vortex Viper PST 1-4X24 Get a load of the specs and features..... |
|
Quoted: This scope has me all psyched up and warm in the trousers: Vortex Viper PST 1-4X24 Get a load of the specs and features..... I'm thinking the 2.5x10 for my Grendel... |
|
Sorry if I miss it ––But is the Viper PST 1-4x24 Riflescope available yet ?
|
|
Quoted:
Sorry if I miss it ––But is the Viper PST 1-4x24 Riflescope available yet ? Not yet. A few folks (myself included) are backordered through SWFA. Supposed to be released after SHOT. Not sure of how fast they'll be available thereafter. |
|
Quoted: Sorry if I miss it ––But is the Viper PST 1-4x24 Riflescope available yet ? No, they will be available in the spring. I don't have a more definite date yet, but we are trying to get them finished ASAP. -Sam |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry if I miss it ––But is the Viper PST 1-4x24 Riflescope available yet ? No, they will be available in the spring. I don't have a more definite date yet, but we are trying to get them finished ASAP. -Sam Just because the first thing I notice is the details, I have to ask... The reticle looks amazing and I'm very interested in seeing how well they do (and hope that they do), but why put non-zero stop target-style turrets on a CQ optic? With non-locked turrets and the seeming lack of zero stop, the knobs can be bumped and de-zero'd quite easily. It seems counter-productive. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.