Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide to Picking The Right Optic

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide to Picking The Right Optic (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 10/16/2007 12:30:02 PM EDT

I recently put together an article which breaks down carbine optic capability into three main types and describes the strengths, weaknesses, and choices of each type.
Full article here:

article | Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide

This is a shorter version of Fighting Optics for the AR-15, which was in the 4 FEB 2008 Shotgun News.

ETA Full Article:

article | Fighting Carbine Optics

Overview and key points:

With optics ubiquitous on fighting rifles, the old rule that long barrels - with their longer sight radius - are needed for accuracy and longer-range capability is turned on its head. It's possible to get one-moa mechanical accuracy from 18, 16, 14.5, 12.5, and even 10.5-inch barrels, perhaps at a higher cost. Thus, with even short-barreled CQB uppers able to provide pinpoint accuracy to the limit of the 5.56 cartridge's capability- the role differentiation is determined by what optic is mounted on the rail. Put another way- carbine capability is determined by its sights.

...

I break down optics in basically three types for fighting carbines: Type I, Type II, and Type III. Type I is basically CQB. Type II is basically DMR. Type III is SPR.

...

Type I: 1x or non-magnified red-dot optics, optimized for close-range engagements and effective to the carbine's point-blank range (250-300 yards for a M4/M16 with a 50-yard zero). Type I optics are heads-up, not sensitive to eye position, most are parallax-free. The most common Type I fighting optics are the Aimpoint M2-M4 and the EOTech. No magnification and heads-up binocular sighting provides the fastest sight-picture acquisition and the easiest to maintain while on the move. They are also the easiest to use from weird shoot positions. The downfall of the Type I optic is no magnification which hampers target ID (threat / no-threat). Iron sights still have a place due to bomb-proof mechanical simplicity, and fit in as a Type I sight.

...

Type II: low-power magnified optics with reticle features for bullet-drop compensation when engaging targets outside of the cartridge's point-blank range. External and non-capped target knobs/turrets should be avoided to ensure the zero is not lost when the knobs get bumped, hit, or rub on other gear. Type II optics are designed for quickly engaging targets from about 75 yards out to about 400 yards. Many Type II optics are fixed magnification at 3.5x or 4x, however, several variable power 1 - 4x scopes are also in use. The most common is the Trijicon ACOG: 4x (TA31, TA01) or 3.5x (TA11). The US Military realizes many of these needs in the Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) and Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (SDM-R).

...

Type III- the SPR scope. This type of optic has the capability to take the 5.56 cartridge to its ballistic limit and to engage small targets at extended distances. The 18-inch Mk12 Mod 1 SPR uses the Leupold 3-9x36mm M/RT, which was the first scope specifically designed for this role on the M4/M16 platform. The 5.56 cartridge is ballistically limited to 600 - 800 yards at sea level, so the Type III optic needs to be able to engage small targets at this distance. 5.56 has very little energy at this distance, however, 77-grain Mk262 has been used to make kills a over 600 yards. Besides long-range, the Type III optic has the ability to engage very small targets at intermediate ranges, which is a downfall of the Type II optic. When shooting at adversaries who are partially behind cover or wearing armor, being able to place a head-shot several hundred yards away can be key.

...

In conclusion- think carefully about your mission and likely engagement requirements, and then pick the type of optic that solves those problems best. The Type I one-power red dot sight is the right choice for the vast majority of fighting with a carbine. The Type II is more specialized yet brings some useful capabilities to the table, whereas the Type III is really a very specialized application. Whatever you choose for your mission- get one of the solid battle-proven optics mentioned here. There's a lot of junk out there that will let you down sooner or later.

Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide

............... Larger version of above photo.

............... Larger version of above photo.

Link again:

article | Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide

Posted: 10/18/2007 6:01:05 PM EDT

[#1]

Excellent article.

Posted: 10/20/2007 5:25:22 PM EDT

[#2]

Good read!

Posted: 10/26/2007 11:06:46 PM EDT

[#3]

enjoyed the article. and nice pics.

Posted: 11/2/2007 12:29:27 PM EDT

[#4]

+1 GOOD READ
For a M4 I think Aimpoint/Eotech is the only way to go
But thats me
I will never shoot past 300 M any hoot

Posted: 11/2/2007 12:37:21 PM EDT

[#5]

The Aimpoint/EOTech is the right choice for the vast majority of fighting carbines because most fighting is close.

Other thoughts--

Being able to make accurate hits at a distance is a force multiplier. For the LEOs-- Even if you think you'll only ever employ your carbine at "entry" distance, consider this for a moment: How far is it from the center of the parking lot at the Super-Walmart to its entrance, or from inside its entrace to the "back door"? As an experiment, I paced off from just inside the front door to the furthest visible wall inside a Super-Walmart. It was over 300 yards. Having the magnification to ID threads even at close ranges is important in modern ROEs: LEO and military.

-z

Posted: 11/2/2007 12:43:26 PM EDT

[#6]

Very nice. Thanks!

Posted: 11/2/2007 10:18:44 PM EDT

[#7]

Zak

Very good pics and write up. I found it very interesting and totally agree with your observations and conclusions. I would like to add that we may be on the verge of a fourth class. I talked to people at Swarovski recently and I was told that one version of their Z6 models is a true 1x6. I feel that with the proper illuminated reticle this could be a true GPC (general purpose combat) optic. If the 1x6 proved to be very close to a type one optic (@1x) then I think @ 6x it would be adequate to 800m. Current 1.5x6 or the Valdada 1.1x8 might also serve well in this role but will probably give up some CQB speed compared to a true 1x6 optic.
I've talked to many combat vets who feel this may be the optimum all around optic. One of the points made is that if a member of your fire team is equipped with DMR/SPR type rifle/optic combo he will probably not be that effective in the fast and furious up close urban environment. A 3x9 optic with a mill dot reticle is not the best choice for this type of combat. As one vet told me it's almost like losing one of your shooters. The same rifleman with a 1x6 optic that has good GPC reticle would still be a a asset to your fire team plus still have that 800m capability.
Just a thought.

GOOD SHOOTING

Ed
GRSC INC

Posted: 11/2/2007 10:30:33 PM EDT

[#8]

Ed,

I've been thinking along those same lines, although an optic that successfully bridges the II-III (DMR-SPR) gap or even the I-III (CQB-DMR-SPR) gap does not yet exist. The first two (I-II, CQB-DMR) have been bridged by the TA31DR and the Short Dot.

If something could be designed that was no worse than a TA11 ACOG at close-quarters, but as good as an M/RT (or preferrably a S&B 3-12x50) at longer ranges, it would be ideal. I know what specific features I'd want to make that successful on an AR, and I hope to make some progress negotiating for it at the SHOT Show.

Posted: 11/2/2007 10:54:15 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Ed,

I've been thinking along those same lines, although an optic that successfully bridges the II-III (DMR-SPR) gap or even the I-III (CQB-DMR-SPR) gap does not yet exist. The first two (I-II, CQB-DMR) have been bridged by the TA31DR and the Short Dot.

If something could be designed that was no worse than a TA11 ACOG at close-quarters, but as good as an M/RT (or preferrably a S&B 3-12x50) at longer ranges, it would be ideal. I know what specific features I'd want to make that successful on an AR, and I hope to make some progress negotiating for it at the SHOT Show.

ZAK
BEST of luck in your negotiations, I believe it's a project worth the effort being that if successful it may help bring home more of our war fighters alive.

Ed

GRSC INC

Posted: 11/3/2007 4:03:42 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Zak

Very good pics and write up. I found it very interesting and totally agree with your observations and conclusions. I would like to add that we may be on the verge of a fourth class. I talked to people at Swarovski recently and I was told that one version of their Z6 models is a true 1x6. I feel that with the proper illuminated reticle this could be a true GPC (general purpose combat) optic. If the 1x6 proved to be very close to a type one optic (@1x) then I think @ 6x it would be adequate to 800m. Current 1.5x6 or the Valdada 1.1x8 might also serve well in this role but will probably give up some CQB speed compared to a true 1x6 optic.
I've talked to many combat vets who feel this may be the optimum all around optic. One of the points made is that if a member of your fire team is equipped with DMR/SPR type rifle/optic combo he will probably not be that effective in the fast and furious up close urban environment. A 3x9 optic with a mill dot reticle is not the best choice for this type of combat. As one vet told me it's almost like losing one of your shooters. The same rifleman with a 1x6 optic that has good GPC reticle would still be a a asset to your fire team plus still have that 800m capability.
Just a thought.

GOOD SHOOTING

Ed
GRSC INC

Ed can you clarify this? Are you saying that one of the three models in the Z6 line, the 1-6x24 is a true 1x, or are you saying there is only one model of the many Z6 1-6x24 available that is true 1x?

Posted: 11/3/2007 7:37:19 PM EDT

[#11]

Ed can you clarify this? Are you saying that one of the three models in the Z6 line, the 1-6x24 is a true 1x, or are you saying there is only one model of the many Z6 1-6x24 available that is true 1x?

UPSguy

I talked with a couple of different people at Swarovski and I was told that the Z6 1-6x24 was a true 1x at the 1x setting. I tried to get them to take a look at my reticle designs but they were absolutely not interested. If you would like more details, e-mail me your phone# and I will call you.

Ed
GRSC INC

Posted: 11/6/2007 1:16:33 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The Aimpoint/EOTech is the right choice for the vast majority of fighting carbines because most fighting is close.

Other thoughts--

Being able to make accurate hits at a distance is a force multiplier. For the LEOs-- Even if you think you'll only ever employ your carbine at "entry" distance, consider this for a moment: How far is it from the center of the parking lot at the Super-Walmart to its entrance, or from inside its entrace to the "back door"? As an experiment, I paced off from just inside the front door to the furthest visible wall inside a Super-Walmart. It was over 300 yards. Having the magnification to ID threads even at close ranges is important in modern ROEs: LEO and military.

-z

+1
BTW
Liked your ARMALITE ARTICLE

Posted: 11/8/2007 9:58:28 PM EDT

[#13]

maybe something like the millet 1-4 dms,i think its a great idea ,have heard bad and good things about them.i have the eotech 552 and had also thought about adding a flip away magnifier.Have no experience with either but just thinking maybe these options could bridge the gaps until something better comes along.

Posted: 11/14/2007 3:18:13 PM EDT

[#14]

There are a number of optics that attempt both the I/CQB role and the II/DMR role. The best is the Short Dot. Others include the CQT, the various 1-4's, and the TA11/TA31 ACOG. All of these have some drawbacks and some unique benefits. I'm sticking with the TA11 for this use for now.

There are not currently many optics which address the II-III gap.

-z

Posted: 11/15/2007 7:52:20 AM EDT

[#15]

Zak, the Swarovski Z61 1x6-24 scope is indeed a true power scope and it definitely would fit the TypeI-TypeIII role. If only te turrets were better.

Posted: 11/15/2007 11:52:37 AM EDT

[#16]

I haven't shot one, but looking at the specs:

1 no useful elevation knob (type III needs something functionally equivalent to a Leupold M3's or the Short Dot's elevation knob - locking is ideal)

2 reticle does not have useful elevation and windage marks (type II engagement needs to be done with reticle only for speed and reliability) Type III optics should have at least mildots, or something better for both holding wind and correcting misses (when all else fails). Also ranging.

3 eye relief is super long for typical AR mounting. For NTCH shooting, the shooter's eye is typically 1.4 - 1.5" rear of the charging handle, putting the rest of the eye relief forward of the CH. For a 2.4" eye relief scope, this puts it about 1" forward of the CH, eg, a TA11 mounted as far forward on a regular receiver as it can go. For the Swaro, this would put it approx 2.7" forward of the CH which starts to screw up the balance of the carbine and can conflict with stuff mounted on the rail (if any).

Also, 6x is kind of minimal for a Type III scope.

-z

Posted: 11/15/2007 1:35:52 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I haven't shot one, but looking at the specs:

1 no useful elevation knob (type III needs something functionally equivalent to a Leupold M3's or the Short Dot's elevation knob - locking is ideal)
I agree that the turrets could be better, they are still useable. You just have to dial in the elevation. At least they are easy to re-set.

2 reticle does not have useful elevation and windage marks (type II engagement needs to be done with reticle only for speed and reliability) Type III optics should have at least mildots, or something better for both holding wind and correcting misses (when all else fails). Also ranging.
To use it in a Type II or Type III role, zero it at 100 yards and if you have time dial in the range or just learn your holdovers if you don't have time. I guess ranging is going to be an issue.

3 eye relief is super long for typical AR mounting. For NTCH shooting, the shooter's eye is typically 1.4 - 1.5" rear of the charging handle, putting the rest of the eye relief forward of the CH. For a 2.4" eye relief scope, this puts it about 1" forward of the CH, eg, a TA11 mounted as far forward on a regular receiver as it can go. For the Swaro, this would put it approx 2.7" forward of the CH which starts to screw up the balance of the carbine and can conflict with stuff mounted on the rail (if any).
The eye relief is actually perect IMHO. I have it mounted on a Larue SPR mount and it works great with an A2 stock. For NTCH, just use a Larue SPR-E mount.

Also, 6x is kind of minimal for a Type III scope.
For me I like 1x for every 100 yards so at 600 yard sthe 6x is good enough. This scope makes up for lack of magnification with the excellent glass, so a scope like this at 6x, may actually be more clear than a cheaper scope at 8x.
-z

Zak, if you ever get a chance to use one of these scopes, you will see how nice it is.

Posted: 11/16/2007 12:10:14 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't shot one, but looking at the specs:

1 no useful elevation knob (type III needs something functionally equivalent to a Leupold M3's or the Short Dot's elevation knob - locking is ideal)
I agree that the turrets could be better, they are still useable. You just have to dial in the elevation. At least they are easy to re-set.

2 reticle does not have useful elevation and windage marks (type II engagement needs to be done with reticle only for speed and reliability) Type III optics should have at least mildots, or something better for both holding wind and correcting misses (when all else fails). Also ranging.
To use it in a Type II or Type III role, zero it at 100 yards and if you have time dial in the range or just learn your holdovers if you don't have time. I guess ranging is going to be an issue.

3 eye relief is super long for typical AR mounting. For NTCH shooting, the shooter's eye is typically 1.4 - 1.5" rear of the charging handle, putting the rest of the eye relief forward of the CH. For a 2.4" eye relief scope, this puts it about 1" forward of the CH, eg, a TA11 mounted as far forward on a regular receiver as it can go. For the Swaro, this would put it approx 2.7" forward of the CH which starts to screw up the balance of the carbine and can conflict with stuff mounted on the rail (if any).
The eye relief is actually perect IMHO. I have it mounted on a Larue SPR mount and it works great with an A2 stock. For NTCH, just use a Larue SPR-E mount.

Also, 6x is kind of minimal for a Type III scope.
For me I like 1x for every 100 yards so at 600 yard sthe 6x is good enough. This scope makes up for lack of magnification with the excellent glass, so a scope like this at 6x, may actually be more clear than a cheaper scope at 8x.
-z

Zak, if you ever get a chance to use one of these scopes, you will see how nice it is.

I like FIXED 6x scopes on my Hunting rifles

Posted: 11/16/2007 12:38:39 PM EDT

[#19]

To use it in a Type II or Type III role, zero it at 100 yards and if you have time dial in the range or just learn your holdovers if you don't have time. I guess ranging is going to be an issue.

Finally, Type III sighting systems have the capability to take the rifle to its ballistic limit and to engage very small target at extended ranges.
[...]
The Type III optic is basically a long-range rifle scope with the features required for tactical or practical engagements, so it is no surprise that a lot of scopes more often seen on long-range bolt-action sniper rifles turn up on AR-15s in this role. The geometry of the AR-15 platform, however, complicates the choice.

It's a "real rifle scope" that happens to be on a carbine/AR. Compared against scopes that canonically work well in this role, a coarse BDC or a somewhat deficient knob don't really solve the problem well.

-z

Posted: 12/11/2007 2:16:31 PM EDT

[#20]

So you dont think the Elcan Spectre DR bridges the I-II gap? Nor the Dot sight plus magnifiers?

Posted: 12/11/2007 2:29:20 PM EDT

[#21]

The Spectre DR has a couple problems that are deal-breakers for me:

1. On the 1x setting, the lever is held in place only by mild spring pressure. If the lever gets moved or it cannot "seat" with the spring pressure due to gunk in the mechanism, your zero moves a HUGE amount-- like YARDS left/right at 15-35 yards distance.

2. ARMS levers.

Between historical knowledge, what they heard at SHOT 2006, and feedback since then, Elcan has all they need to know to make the Spectre DR the dominant I-II optic. (Virtually the same could be said for Trijicon, S&B, etc.)

Most of the dot + magnifier systems lack any sort of reticle BDC, which is critical to making hits outside of the cartridges point-blank distance. The magnifier systems have a much narrower field of view than a native magnified optic, also. That said, the ability to see more detail within the normal "Type I" range or cartridge PBR is valuable, but doesn't meet all the necessary capabilities for a Type II.

-z

Posted: 12/21/2007 7:09:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Very good.

This is what I relate to people about optics.

Forward mounted scope -

If you wear glasses, a helmet, a bulky hat, a gas mask, want to make running shots, then select a forward mounted scope. They are available in no tap, no drill configurations for M1As, T26s, Garands, Mini14s, m1 carbines.

I use either Burris or Leupold scout scopes. Some people use variable pistol scopes.

If you have a rear mounted scope, the Leupold 2x7 variable (standard or compact) is a good choice.

Yes. I have eotechs. However, I broke one under recoil on a .308 semi auto rifle with a roller action. They do fine on everything else.

Note: You can have a forward scope mount put on a Ruger 10/22 .22 win mag or lr. barrel.

Posted: 12/21/2007 9:07:43 PM EDT

[#23]

I have an AimPoint. I want a longer "look" capability so a 1x4 would be a good choice but if I already have the AimPoint, why wouldn't I skip Type II and go straight to a Leupold Ultralight 3x9 with an LR reticle?

Too many choices, not enough $$$

Posted: 12/21/2007 9:17:11 PM EDT

[#24]

A BDC reticle will probably not provide the precision that characterizes the Type III role.

Posted: 1/3/2008 11:15:02 AM EDT

[#25]

Zak,

Just to generate a little more discussion on the subject (great read btw)....

Re: the several 1-4X optics that attempt to bridge your designated type I & II scenarios, are you suggesting that an illuminated reticule is a key advantage? Since a 1-4X scope isn't holographic, is such a feature even necessary? With any scope the operator is required to maintain a decent cheek weld to retain a competent sight picture.

To that end, wouldn't reticule design outweigh illumination?

I'm thinking specifically about the Nightforce 1-4NXS with the FC-2 or NP-1 reticule. In my limited experience behind ACOG's (I've used TA31s, TA11s, and a TA33) I found the ACOG's reticule to bloom under bright light to a distracting level. Beyond that I find the contrast of the NF's black reticule superimposed over my FOV to be preferable. At dawn or dusk, sure - crank the illumination. When shouldered, I find that at 1X magnification my face is glued to the stock because it has to be. No matter how much I want to convince myself otherwise - the scope is not an Aimpoint! On this particular AR15 of mine (accurized 16" midlength) I like the flexibility gained from a low power variable optic.

I understand we all have preferences, but I'm really interested to hear your take on the benefits of a daytime illuminated reticule in a variable low power optic. I hadn't given this much thought before I read your thread, but from my time behind all the optics mentioned in this thread (excluding the short dot & Elcan) I'm not so sure a daytime illuminated reticule in a variable scope is truly necessary. Seems to be all the rage though, yet it doesn't compute for me. Is my perspective missing something? I hope I explained myself well enough.

As for my wish list ... I'd love see NF put a BDC on their 1-4X NXS line. That or have Trijicon mesh the ACOG with their Accupoint scope.

Thanks for your time Zak, you definitely know your shit.

Posted: 1/3/2008 11:30:18 AM EDT

[#26]

Not Zak, but the visible in daylight illuminated reticle (particulary in red for me) aids in the BAC when doing up-close, both eyes open, multiple taget engagement shooting with the lower power variable scopes on their lowest magnification setting.

Posted: 1/3/2008 11:43:33 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Not Zak, but the visible in daylight illuminated reticle (particulary in red for me) aids in the BAC when doing up-close, both eyes open, multiple taget engagement shooting with the lower power variable scopes on their lowest magnification setting.

10-4, and I want to agree with you. I won't deny the obvious benefits of an illuminated red dot in a reflex sight or an optic with a fixed magnificaton, just questioning their advantages when viewed through a variable power scope.

On one hand I can argue against myself in that a fixed ACOG-esque optic views the same as a variable power scope. On the other hand, a scope's eye relief is further back so you don't get that 1.5"-2" BAC experience with a variable scope like you do with an ACOG. You almost have to retain a proper sight picture, and in doing so - at 1X magnification, I would think a reticule's design would be more important that daytime illumination. When shooting your POI is a natural & practiced effort. A good cheek weld & centered aiming point would be key.

Maybe instead of asking a question I should just add that reticule contrast is just as important as reticule design.

That contrast's relevance doesn't seem as critical to me when viewed 3.5" back from a low powered variable optic. Still, I reckognize the overlapping of roles between Zak's Type I "reflex" and Type II DMR optics.

So yeah, Trijicon needs to perform a little alchemy and breed a "Accu-COG."

Posted: 1/3/2008 11:44:12 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The Spectre DR has a couple problems that are deal-breakers for me:

1. On the 1x setting, the lever is held in place only by mild spring pressure. If the lever gets moved or it cannot "seat" with the spring pressure due to gunk in the mechanism, your zero moves a HUGE amount-- like YARDS left/right at 15-35 yards distance.

I noticed that at SHOT last year right away... and was thinking "WTF"... it's a very poor design element especially for something intended as a combat optic. Just some dirt or debris on the sight would change zero because the external position of the adjustment lever determines zero.

2. ARMS levers.

Between historical knowledge, what they heard at SHOT 2006, and feedback since then, Elcan has all they need to know to make the Spectre DR the dominant I-II optic. (Virtually the same could be said for Trijicon, S&B, etc.)

Most of the dot + magnifier systems lack any sort of reticle BDC, which is critical to making hits outside of the cartridges point-blank distance. The magnifier systems have a much narrower field of view than a native magnified optic, also. That said, the ability to see more detail within the normal "Type I" range or cartridge PBR is valuable, but doesn't meet all the necessary capabilities for a Type II.

-z

Optics companies stand out as the most resistant to customer desires and feedback of anyone in the firearms business and that's saying something. One need only look at the CQ/B as a shining example of willful disregard of user input.

Posted: 1/3/2008 12:14:30 PM EDT

[#29]

Hi,

A reticle that can be made super-bright even in strong daylight is key to both a 1x red dot (anyone who has had an Aimpoint go dim due to dying batteries knows this), and a low-power magnified optic. The super-bright part should be visually small (ie, no larger than about the 4 MOA TA11 donut-- not a big portion of the reticle), and should be more or less on the aiming point. I think it goes beyond reticle contrast, the brain will be able to "visually locate" a super-bright spot against the background (which includes the target) way faster than a black reticle.

[ETA: this is the KEY feature that differentiates the Short Dot and TR21 from the other low-power magnified scopes such as the Leupold and Nightforce.]

To test, simply work some close and mid-range drills, shooting on the move, etc, with a TA11 and a timer. And then re-run those same drills with masking or duct tape completely covering up the fiber-optic pipe. The super-bright reticle is key (for me) to shooting on the move with BAC with a TA11, TR21, or Short Dot.

You do make a good point about POI, NPOA, etc. All these things contribute to shooting fast at close range, and they apply to any sighting system. However, the more aiming inputs available, the better.

-z

Posted: 1/3/2008 12:21:25 PM EDT

[#30]

However, the more aiming inputs available, the better.

That statement filled in the blank for me. I'm in full cahoots with you now. Good stuff Zak.

Posted: 1/3/2008 12:24:57 PM EDT

[#31]

Also-- when I know I'll be shooting a TA11 primarily at 150-500 yards, instead of up close, I do cover the fiber pipe partially (usually to make it a dull red). Super-bright reticle features appear larger and the brightness can actually be distracting when trying to define a sight picture against a low-contrast target/background environment, and a dimmer reticle is better for precision. (When sighting in an Aimpoint, it's common to turn it down a click or two to "reduce" the apparent size of the dot.)

Posted: 1/3/2008 12:25:36 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not Zak, but the visible in daylight illuminated reticle (particulary in red for me) aids in the BAC when doing up-close, both eyes open, multiple taget engagement shooting with the lower power variable scopes on their lowest magnification setting.

10-4, and I want to agree with you. I won't deny the obvious benefits of an illuminated red dot in a reflex sight or an optic with a fixed magnificaton, just questioning their advantages when viewed through a variable power scope.

On one hand I can argue against myself in that a fixed ACOG-esque optic views the same as a variable power scope. On the other hand, a scope's eye relief is further back so you don't get that 1.5"-2" BAC experience with a variable scope like you do with an ACOG. You almost have to retain a proper sight picture, and in doing so - at 1X magnification, I would think a reticule's design would be more important that daytime illumination. When shooting your POI is a natural & practiced effort. A good cheek weld & centered aiming point would be key.

Maybe instead of asking a question I should just add that reticule contrast is just as important as reticule design.

That contrast's relevance doesn't seem as critical to me when viewed 3.5" back from a low powered variable optic. Still, I reckognize the overlapping of roles between Zak's Type I "reflex" and Type II DMR optics.

So yeah, Trijicon needs to perform a little alchemy and breed a "Accu-COG."

I don't particularly disagree with anything you've just said, other than I haven't found eye relief per se to be an issue in the use of the BAC. Now, when using the BAC with a low variable power scope, cheek weld/consistent eye relief is necessary, just as it is when not using the BAC and just as it is when using the BAC with an ACOG since in all those applications you are still using a "scope" and not a reflex sight (where eye relief is not an issue.) The eye-relief for the Leupold 1.5-5x20mm MR/T is about 3" on it's lowest magnification setting and for my Trijicon TA-11 ACOG it seems to be about 2.5". Also, the illuminated reticle is certainly not needed, to use the BAC, rather it just seems to "aid" the process for my eyes.

Having owned EoTechs, Trijicon Reflexes, Trijicon Tripowers, Aimpoints (with and without the magnifier), Trijicon ACOGs and Compact ACOGs, the Leupold CQ/T, low powered variables and a wide range of high magnification scopes I have yet to find the perfect "one scope does it all" optic. To bridge the CQB/short range and medium range classifications, the closest I've found has been an Aimpoint with the 3X magnifier or the Leupold 1.5-5X20mm MR/T. My next purchase in search of the Holey Grail of optics will problably be the S&B Short Dot.

Posted: 2/11/2008 6:11:19 AM EDT

[#33]

Question: Why are people putting Dr. Optic mini-holographic sights on top of TA31 series Trijicon's? Is that not redundant?

Posted: 2/11/2008 12:02:37 PM EDT

[#34]

Because a 1x dot is faster than a TA31/11 for very close to close-range targets.

Posted: 2/15/2008 11:02:39 AM EDT

[#35]

Zac,

Can you compare the Leupold Mark 4 MR/T scopes with top end S&B small dot and Trijicon Accupoint TR21? I haven't included the NF scopes or US Optics which I would like to see also, but not sure if you have any time with these.

I guess my primary goal is a scope I can use for hunting mostly, but also in a pinch, CQB/mid range if needed. I limit my shooting to less than 250yds unless I have an extremely rock steady rest and can take all the time I need. If I had the chance to practice more, I would. Just trying to be honest to myself, then to you...

I know I want my cake and eat it too scenario, but like I said, mostly hunting/target practice.

Also, what is your opinion about which color retical Trijicon red or amber would you choose and why?

Thanks,

Kelly (Cohibra45)

Posted: 2/15/2008 12:00:07 PM EDT

[#36]

I did include the MR/T in the full version of this article which is out now in the 4 FEB 2008 issue of Shotgun News.

Schmidt and Bender's 1.1-4x20 mm Short Dot provides almost true unity magnification at the low end, and useful four power magnification at the top end. Its first focal-plane reticle has hash marks every one-half mil, and a center illumination dot which is quite bright at the 11 brightness setting. The Short Dot retails for about $2200, and almost perfectly bridges the gap between Type I and II applications.

Trijicon's 1.25-4x24 mm AccuPoint (TR21) shares the same fiber-optic and tritium reticle illumination as the ACOG, but can be dialed down in magnification to help speed at close range. Its reticle has no BDC features so shooting past the carbine's point-blank range will be difficult without a way to specify elevation holdover. The TR21 is a good deal at about $575.

Leupold's Mark 4 1-3x14 mm CQ/T has close to unity magnification at the low end, but only 3x at the top, less than the Short Dot, TR21, TA31, and TA11. The reticle has no BDC features and its illumination is not bright enough to stand out in daylight. The CQ/T is criticized for bulky size and narrow field of view. Market price on the CQ/T is about $700. The Leupold Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T is similar in concept to the Trijicon TR21 and the Short Dot, though its low end magnification is higher than either. It does have a reticle-based BDC for longer shots. The 1.5-5x20mm MR/T sells for about $850.

The Elcan SpecterDR is a 1x or 4x optic, switchable with a cam lever on the left-hand side of the optic. Like the older Elcan, elevation and windage adjustments are external to the optic itself. The reticle is essentially identical to a TA01 ACOG, with an illuminated center. The SpecterDR is a promising concept, however, the built-in ARMS mount makes it a no-go for many would-be customers because the throw levers are known for eventually coming loose. Market price is about $1600.

Trijicon color: RED.

Posted: 2/15/2008 12:12:44 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't shot one, but looking at the specs:

1 no useful elevation knob (type III needs something functionally equivalent to a Leupold M3's or the Short Dot's elevation knob - locking is ideal)
I agree that the turrets could be better, they are still useable. You just have to dial in the elevation. At least they are easy to re-set.

2 reticle does not have useful elevation and windage marks (type II engagement needs to be done with reticle only for speed and reliability) Type III optics should have at least mildots, or something better for both holding wind and correcting misses (when all else fails). Also ranging.
To use it in a Type II or Type III role, zero it at 100 yards and if you have time dial in the range or just learn your holdovers if you don't have time. I guess ranging is going to be an issue.

3 eye relief is super long for typical AR mounting. For NTCH shooting, the shooter's eye is typically 1.4 - 1.5" rear of the charging handle, putting the rest of the eye relief forward of the CH. For a 2.4" eye relief scope, this puts it about 1" forward of the CH, eg, a TA11 mounted as far forward on a regular receiver as it can go. For the Swaro, this would put it approx 2.7" forward of the CH which starts to screw up the balance of the carbine and can conflict with stuff mounted on the rail (if any).
The eye relief is actually perect IMHO. I have it mounted on a Larue SPR mount and it works great with an A2 stock. For NTCH, just use a Larue SPR-E mount.

Also, 6x is kind of minimal for a Type III scope.
For me I like 1x for every 100 yards so at 600 yard sthe 6x is good enough. This scope makes up for lack of magnification with the excellent glass, so a scope like this at 6x, may actually be more clear than a cheaper scope at 8x.
-z

Zak, if you ever get a chance to use one of these scopes, you will see how nice it is.

I was very impressed with these scopes that I looked at at the shot show (admittedly, haven't shot with one). The 1x performance was excellent, I really liked the illumination system controls, and the glass looked very good. Without trying it outside it's hard to tell but the maximum illumination seemed very bright, it's also amber instead of red. With a better reticle design it would be an outstanding choice that would almost make the type I-III range.

I spoke to a Swarovski representative at some length about this optic and it's applicability to other markets than their original design market. They did seem interested, but I'm not sure that would extend to an alternate reticle or not.

ETA: The first thing I evaluate in all 1-something power scopes is the parallax at 1x. Needs to not be obtrusive at CQB ranges or the whole point of a 1x optic is moot IMO. Athough not the best I've ever seen, this optic did very well indeed.

Posted: 2/17/2008 6:28:00 PM EDT

[#38]

Very good info here. Thanks for taking the time to post it!

Posted: 2/17/2008 10:01:33 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I did include the MR/T in the full version of this article which is out now in the 4 FEB 2008 issue of Shotgun News.

Just got done reading that article. Very good reading.

Posted: 2/20/2008 11:37:52 PM EDT

[#40]

Gamma 762

I spoke on the phone with people from Swarovski months ago and again face to face at the Shot Show about the possibility of getting one of my General Purpose Combat reticles into the Z6 1x6 scope. I believe it would be a great combo!!! The Reps from Swarovski politely declined my offer. It pretty much boils down to this, if it is going to be used to shoot people they're not interested.

Ed
GRSC INC

Posted: 2/20/2008 11:40:48 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
It pretty much boils down to this, if it is going to be used to shoot people they're not interested.

Then F--- Them.

-z

Posted: 2/21/2008 12:16:41 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Gamma 762

I spoke on the phone with people from Swarovski months ago and again face to face at the Shot Show about the possibility of getting one of my General Purpose Combat reticles into the Z6 1x6 scope. I believe it would be a great combo!!! The Reps from Swarovski politely declined my offer. It pretty much boils down to this, if it is going to be used to shoot people they're not interested.

Ed
GRSC INC

The 1.5X scope on the Steyr AUG is made by Swarovski so I don't think that statement is completely accurate.

Posted: 2/21/2008 12:24:01 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gamma 762

I spoke on the phone with people from Swarovski months ago and again face to face at the Shot Show about the possibility of getting one of my General Purpose Combat reticles into the Z6 1x6 scope. I believe it would be a great combo!!! The Reps from Swarovski politely declined my offer. It pretty much boils down to this, if it is going to be used to shoot people they're not interested.

Ed
GRSC INC

The 1.5X scope on the Steyr AUG is made by Swarovski so I don't think that statement is completely accurate.

Here is their phone # 800 426 3089 . Try to talk with Dean x2957 . Good Luck, I really would like to see my reticle in their Z6 1x6 scope.

Ed
GRSC INC

Posted: 2/21/2008 12:40:47 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gamma 762

I spoke on the phone with people from Swarovski months ago and again face to face at the Shot Show about the possibility of getting one of my General Purpose Combat reticles into the Z6 1x6 scope. I believe it would be a great combo!!! The Reps from Swarovski politely declined my offer. It pretty much boils down to this, if it is going to be used to shoot people they're not interested.

Ed
GRSC INC

The 1.5X scope on the Steyr AUG is made by Swarovski so I don't think that statement is completely accurate.

Molon, that optic doesn't have their name on it does it? They might think that not everybody knows they made that optic and don't want to make a "killing people scope" with their name on it.

Posted: 2/21/2008 3:27:06 PM EDT

[#45]

Is the Swarovski even capable of doing a FFP reticle in the Z6i scopes? With the illumination unit in the rear housing how would they get an illuminated FFP reticle?

Posted: 2/24/2008 3:02:03 PM EDT

[#46]

Something I consider important is the dot size, if you have a sub MOA rifle why on earth would you want a 4 or 6 MOA dot? When selecting a red dot optic match your rifle MOA with your optic MOA or your going to short change yourself.

I just can't afford to invest in an Aimpoint or Eotech so I'm ordering a PK-AS-W shortly the black/red dot thing is what sold me this way I don't have to buy flip ups for my AR

Posted: 2/24/2008 5:43:19 PM EDT

[#47]

Dot size does not determine accuracy-- repeatability of sight picture does.

Posted: 3/8/2008 1:52:32 PM EDT

[#48]

So what class would an SPR with a sight doc or J-point piggy backed be? That would give you quick class 1 entry capabilties on a class 3 scope. I think this would be optimul. Especially if your SPR has 4+ zoom which would cover all 3 classes...

Posted: 3/8/2008 6:04:44 PM EDT

[#49]

Well, you'd have a Type III with some Type I capabilities....

Personally, I do not consider the M/RT to be an excellent Type III scope. Take a S&B 3-12x50mm and shrink it by 30% and that's close to what I imagine.

-z

Posted: 3/9/2008 11:30:48 PM EDT

[#50]

height=8

Quoted:
Well, you'd have a Type III with some Type I capabilities....

Personally, I do not consider the M/RT to be an excellent Type III scope. Take a S&B 3-12x50mm and shrink it by 30% and that's close to what I imagine.

-z

Newbie here. I just bought a Eotech 557, but am considering returning for a 552. I dont think I would ever use the 223 drop compensator, and Like the fact the 552 is not raised 7mm. My 557 looks above the front site and would like it co witnessed. Is this good logic, or is the 557 vastly superior? Thanks for educating a knob.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fighting Carbine Optics - A Short Guide to Picking The Right Optic (Page 1 of 7)

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us