Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/25/2011 2:33:43 PM EDT
I'm curious, how would either set up compare in a rifle designed to be used in the 25-300 yard range? What would be advantages and disadvantages of each?
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:05:11 PM EDT
In my experience it depends on how much you want to spend. I havent used any budget 1x4s but people seem to like them. I have used EOtech and aimpoint magnifiers behind CompM4s, T1s and various EOtechs. The 3x mag is a decent stopgap if you NEED the ability to use the weapon at room to room ranges and longer as well. Otherwise you are much better suited with a Red-Dot for CQB stuff and an ACOG if everything is out past 25m or so. I used a S&B short dot down range and the glass is excellent and performed superbly however I hate the twist knob available on 1x4s. I am currently using a Specter DR with good results so far. I think the switch 1x4 is definately the way to go especially if some one can pull it off without ARMS mounts.

Rick
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:28:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 3:33:08 PM EDT by Spengo]
25-300yd I'd just go with a red dot and skip the magnifier altogether personally. Red dot works fine for me for anything <400yds. I do have a primary arms knockoff magnifier, but I never actually use it in competition, just for making tiny groups from the bench.

As for advantages/disadvantages...

1-4x scope:
+ lighter/more compact than red dot + magnifier together
- parallax, reticle must be centered
- scope shadow


red dot + magnifier
+ 0 parallax when you want to use 0 power
+ no scope shadow
+ lighter/more compact if you detach the magnifier most of the time

- heavier and kind of in the way if you choose to keep the magnifier on the rifle in a flip to side mount
- if you detach the magnifier when you aren't using it it gives you an additional step you have to perform before you can switch magnification
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:32:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boone:
In my experience it depends on how much you want to spend. I havent used any budget 1x4s but people seem to like them. I have used EOtech and aimpoint magnifiers behind CompM4s, T1s and various EOtechs. The 3x mag is a decent stopgap if you NEED the ability to use the weapon at room to room ranges and longer as well. Otherwise you are much better suited with a Red-Dot for CQB stuff and an ACOG if everything is out past 25m or so. I used a S&B short dot down range and the glass is excellent and performed superbly however I hate the twist knob available on 1x4s. I am currently using a Specter DR with good results so far. I think the switch 1x4 is definately the way to go especially if some one can pull it off without ARMS mounts.

Rick


Doesn't the DR come std with an ARMS throw lever mount?
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:33:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Originally Posted By Boone:
In my experience it depends on how much you want to spend. I havent used any budget 1x4s but people seem to like them. I have used EOtech and aimpoint magnifiers behind CompM4s, T1s and various EOtechs. The 3x mag is a decent stopgap if you NEED the ability to use the weapon at room to room ranges and longer as well. Otherwise you are much better suited with a Red-Dot for CQB stuff and an ACOG if everything is out past 25m or so. I used a S&B short dot down range and the glass is excellent and performed superbly however I hate the twist knob available on 1x4s. I am currently using a Specter DR with good results so far. I think the switch 1x4 is definately the way to go especially if some one can pull it off without ARMS mounts.

Rick


Doesn't the DR come std with an ARMS throw lever mount?


Yeah, I think he means he doesn't like ARMS mounts.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:45:10 PM EDT
I heard the spectre Dr has an issue of the zero being different between 1X and 4x..... any experience with that?
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 4:10:11 AM EDT
I've been looking at a lot of the lower priced red dot scopes and I notice that most of them have a parallex yardage, "No parallex outside of 50 meters," etc. Say what? The whole point of the aimpoint is that there is NO parallex. You can have the red dot at the bottom left side of the tube with your gun aimed diagonal to your fielf of view; so long as the red dot is on your target, the round will hit. This is what makes the aimpoint so fast, ya? You don't have to have it "perfectly" straight before you get a shot off; if the dot is on the target, pull the trigger.

I would think that if you have to get parallex on a red dot, might as well just get the scope...

I might be wrong on this but this is my understanding of the matter. - ?
Link Posted: 1/27/2011 7:40:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spengo:
25-300yd I'd just go with a red dot and skip the magnifier altogether personally. Red dot works fine for me for anything <400yds. I do have a primary arms knockoff magnifier, but I never actually use it in competition, just for making tiny groups from the bench.

As for advantages/disadvantages...

1-4x scope:
+ lighter/more compact than red dot + magnifier together
- parallax, reticle must be centered
- scope shadow


red dot + magnifier
+ 0 parallax when you want to use 0 power
+ no scope shadow
+ lighter/more compact if you detach the magnifier most of the time

- heavier and kind of in the way if you choose to keep the magnifier on the rifle in a flip to side mount
- if you detach the magnifier when you aren't using it it gives you an additional step you have to perform before you can switch magnification


I've been thinking about this a bit lately too.

Actually, the weight difference might not be all that much. A Meopta Meostar R1 weighs 18 oz, a CompM4 weighs 11oz with the mount and 7oz for the Aimpoint magnifier alone. Throw mounts in and it isn't going to be much different.

The Burris Fullfield TAC30 (17oz) is getting some love here for $300, but that's at least $400 with a decent mount. For me, a bit of coin to drop to see if I'm going to like something or not. If I don't, I'm left wondering if I didn't like it because I didn't spend enough money.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=515291&page=1


Another plus for the RDS magnifier combo is the batteries. If I'm spending money for good gear SHTF is a consideration too. Seems all those 1-4x scopes use a CR2032 or other button cell battery with a relatively low run time that I'll never find. There is the Trijicon TR24, but they are gonna be 1K with a good mount. Uncommon batteries are fine for range toys, but if it's something I'm going to count on I want a common battery. I keep going back to wanting magnification, maybe my eyes are getting too old.
Link Posted: 1/27/2011 1:46:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Krater:
I'm curious, how would either set up compare in a rifle designed to be used in the 25-300 yard range?


Red dots suck at 300 Yds and beyond and even at 200 for smallish targets.

Yeah, hits are very doable on larger targets at 300 if identification is not an issue, but try 8 - 10" plates at 300 that may not even be visible to the naked eye. Or 12" gongs at 400 & longer.

At very close range (only), the RD wins in most cases, but even that is now being challenged by the newer 1-4 optics with true 1X at the low end. The Vortex PST 1-4x24 is working very well for me right now at all reasonable distances (5 Yds to 500 Meters), including in poor light. There are others.

I still have and use Aimpoints, but the distance they are useful for shrinks every year as the eyes get older. Still an excellent choice for close to moderate distances assuming eye dominance is correct and astigmatism is not an issue.

Link Posted: 1/27/2011 5:24:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shootist87122:
Originally Posted By Krater:
I'm curious, how would either set up compare in a rifle designed to be used in the 25-300 yard range?


Red dots suck at 300 Yds and beyond and even at 200 for smallish targets.

Yeah, hits are very doable on larger targets at 300 if identification is not an issue, but try 8 - 10" plates at 300 that may not even be visible to the naked eye. Or 12" gongs at 400 & longer.

At very close range (only), the RD wins in most cases, but even that is now being challenged by the newer 1-4 optics with true 1X at the low end. The Vortex PST 1-4x24 is working very well for me right now at all reasonable distances (5 Yds to 500 Meters), including in poor light. There are others.

I still have and use Aimpoints, but the distance they are useful for shrinks every year as the eyes get older. Still an excellent choice for close to moderate distances assuming eye dominance is correct and astigmatism is not an issue.



What about the dot with a magnifier? The furthest I have fired is 200 yards. That's the longest range in my area, too many damn trees.

For a newer 2 MOA dot red dot, the dot is about what a carbine is going to shoot anyways with milsurp ammo. With the magnifier, that means your dot is going to be 6" at 300 yards, still good for a head shot. Maybe I should try one of those 1-4x scopes, sometimes I forget I have enough toys they don't all have to be practical.

Link Posted: 1/27/2011 7:19:14 PM EDT
To be visible in bright sunlight a 2 MOA RD has to be cranked up until it flares *for me*. It's no longer 2 MOA in that case and actually appears as big or bigger than the 3.6 MOA dot on my Micro. Even worse if the sun is in your face.

The availability of a magnifier sounds like a good option for a duty gun where the primary needs to be a RD, IMO. The lack of target turrets or BDC reticle still leaves it lacking for precision, however.
Link Posted: 1/27/2011 11:10:23 PM EDT
Do the Arfcom thing............get both!



1-4x24 for distance and precision, offset dot for close in work. The other thing to remember about close in and looking through even a true 1x scope is restricting your field of view which is not good for close in work, especially if it's dynamic. A small dot like a Docter, Burris Fastfire, RME etc, keeps that to a minimum imho..
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 5:22:27 AM EDT
is it safe to say that there is no "true" 1x on the 1-4x scopes?
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 6:00:51 AM EDT
Honestly this same question is killing me. ATM i run a weaver 1-3x, while is a good scope i fear if i was in a CQB situation it might not be the best situation. Now that will probably NEVER happen, but it "could". I've considered running an EOtech.

I'm just going to run a QD mount so if the situation called for it, strip the scope off the gun and run irons for CQB.

Although at the range i have no problem on 1x switching between multiple targets @ 10yds, since with both eyes open my field of view is large. For hunting applications i think the 1-4x scope are #1.
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 2:23:13 PM EDT
I have considered doing a 1-4x on my next build but since I have a micro now I may do a micro/magnifier combo. That would be pretty light and functional.

I tried a M4s with a magnifier and it was pretty sweet.
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 3:43:32 PM EDT
I currently run a Eotech XPS2-0 with a PA 3X magnifier on a PA flip to the side mount for 3-gun. It works quite well. I prefer shooting it without the magnifier because of eye relief, but it really isn't an issue. Most of the targets at our local 3-gun matches have been 75 yards max. Usually much less. That will be changing this year. We will be shooting 200 yards. We took our rifles out and shot 200, 300 and 400 yards. Several of us had Eotechs. With a 3x magnifier hitting a 12x15 inch plated at 400 yards was doable and repeatable. Smaller popper targets over 200 yards would be difficult to hit in a match environment. So, i am building a new 3-gun 18 inch rifle with a Weaver 1-3x. The 3X is more than enough for the 200 yards we will be shooting. The Weaver is lighter and shorter than all of the 1-4x scopes. All reviews of the Weaver mention great glass and true 1x. The weaver 1-3x (midway has them on sale now) with a PA deluxe AR scope mount and bulter creek caps is just under $250.

Link Posted: 1/28/2011 5:28:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
I heard the spectre Dr has an issue of the zero being different between 1X and 4x..... any experience with that?


That was with the first model, I've personally never had any zeroing issues with mine, and I've had it on and off several times to and from the range.
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 7:43:29 PM EDT
I agree 300 yards doesnt need a magnifier but I run my weapons with a flip mount and magnifier. Forget the DR super expensive scope and stick with an aimpoint M4 annd 3x mag. The aimpoints battery lasts 8 years and its easy to find AA batteries

Originally Posted By Spengo:
25-300yd I'd just go with a red dot and skip the magnifier altogether personally. Red dot works fine for me for anything <400yds. I do have a primary arms knockoff magnifier, but I never actually use it in competition, just for making tiny groups from the bench.

As for advantages/disadvantages...

1-4x scope:
+ lighter/more compact than red dot + magnifier together
- parallax, reticle must be centered
- scope shadow


red dot + magnifier
+ 0 parallax when you want to use 0 power
+ no scope shadow
+ lighter/more compact if you detach the magnifier most of the time

- heavier and kind of in the way if you choose to keep the magnifier on the rifle in a flip to side mount
- if you detach the magnifier when you aren't using it it gives you an additional step you have to perform before you can switch magnification


Link Posted: 1/28/2011 7:45:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2011 7:50:40 PM EDT by CPTK]
Originally Posted By IcarusY625:
Do the Arfcom thing............get both!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e149/icarusy625/DSCF7689.jpg

1-4x24 for distance and precision, offset dot for close in work. The other thing to remember about close in and looking through even a true 1x scope is restricting your field of view which is not good for close in work, especially if it's dynamic. A small dot like a Docter, Burris Fastfire, RME etc, keeps that to a minimum imho..



what every you do dont do this
I went to a match with a guy that did this and he couldnt his crap with his red dot
he was an experienced shooter too
go with AP mag and AP M4 or
Trijicon TR24 if anything else

the last match I shot at had up to 300 yrd metal targets
shot 100, 160, 200 and 300 yrds, running 10 yards between the targets, required to go prone for each shot with the last shot on a spring platform without a magnifier
wasnt hard at all

a magnifier comes in handy if you want head shots at 100+ yrds
Link Posted: 1/28/2011 7:57:48 PM EDT
...

The other thing to remember about close in and looking through even a true 1x scope is restricting your field of view which is not good for close in work, especially if it's dynamic. A small dot like a Docter, Burris Fastfire, RME etc, keeps that to a minimum imho..


Just shoot the 1-4 at 1x with both eyes open. If it's a true 1x it's as fast (for me) as a dot - and I'm left eye dominate, shooting RH.
I can see an offset dot with an ACOG or 2.5-10, but with a 1-4?

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 10:25:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shootist87122:
...

The other thing to remember about close in and looking through even a true 1x scope is restricting your field of view which is not good for close in work, especially if it's dynamic. A small dot like a Docter, Burris Fastfire, RME etc, keeps that to a minimum imho..


Just shoot the 1-4 at 1x with both eyes open. If it's a true 1x it's as fast (for me) as a dot - and I'm left eye dominate, shooting RH.
I can see an offset dot with an ACOG or 2.5-10, but with a 1-4?



The 1-4x (not on the particular setup shown, that's a rimmie) would be zeroed for 100m and primarily used around that, and greater distance. The dot would be zeroed for 50m or even less and for use around those distances, where it is faster and accurate enough. Works well for me..
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 10:43:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 10:47:33 AM EDT by CSTactical]
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:04:10 PM EDT
I've got less than 1k in my beater rifle, so I'm going a little lower on price-point.

I'm leaning heavily toward the GSRC CRS:


http://www.grscinc.com/CRS.html


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:10:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:15:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:19:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 5:29:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 5:32:16 PM EDT by Gator]
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
I’m a big fan of the ELCAN 1x 4x for a CQB optic. Variable copes are nice also but they are slowerthan the flip lever ELCAN. I also likeRED DOT sights for speed but I’m not a fan of the Magnifier System. The Swarovski 1-6x is an outstanding scope buta little pricey.



ELCAN 1x 4x

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xZQ6PyB2zg




Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 5:33:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 6:52:08 PM EDT
I tried it out

for a M4 I will take a plain aimpoint
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 8:53:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.


You get what you pay for.
pat
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 9:03:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.


You get what you pay for.
pat
100% agree, but a blanket statement like that, which is common knowledge, does nothing for the situation.

Sure, a $25 walmart BSA isn't as good as a $500 scope which isn't as good as a $1200 scope which isn't as good as a $2500 scope.....

Duh??!

But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?

Get it?


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 9:31:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 9:32:38 PM EDT by Glockfan]
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.


You get what you pay for.
pat
100% agree, but a blanket statement like that, which is common knowledge, does nothing for the situation.

Sure, a $25 walmart BSA isn't as good as a $500 scope which isn't as good as a $1200 scope which isn't as good as a $2500 scope.....

Duh??!

But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?

Get it?



I see what your saying but after trying good optics I won't ever go back. For example my Swarovski Z6i is crazy expensive but its like invisible glass, the illumination is great it allows me to see things on 6x that cheaper scopes can't do on much higher power. Your better off putting more money into your optic than your gun. I have used the Elcan as my room mate has one and its a great scope well worth the money for what it was intended. Once you try nicer optics you too will have a harder time getting lower end stuff after that.
Pat
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 9:44:36 PM EDT
i can see spending alot if i am looking for a big scope.. but 1-4x? hard to imagine over $1000 for one.. maybe for something like 16 or 18x where clarity really matters.



Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.


You get what you pay for.
pat
100% agree, but a blanket statement like that, which is common knowledge, does nothing for the situation.

Sure, a $25 walmart BSA isn't as good as a $500 scope which isn't as good as a $1200 scope which isn't as good as a $2500 scope.....

Duh??!

But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?

Get it?



I see what your saying but after trying good optics I won't ever go back. For example my Swarovski Z6i is crazy expensive but its like invisible glass, the illumination is great it allows me to see things on 6x that cheaper scopes can't do on much higher power. Your better off putting more money into your optic than your gun. I have used the Elcan as my room mate has one and its a great scope well worth the money for what it was intended. Once you try nicer optics you too will have a harder time getting lower end stuff after that.
Pat


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 9:55:07 PM EDT
I totally disagree. Its actually more important to have a good lower power variable that is clear with good illumination than it is to spend more money on a a higher magnification scope. A good 1-6 scope like the Swarovski will allow you to shoot from 0 to 600 yards with easy. (done it) It has red dot speed up close and precision abilities rivaling the best hunting optics. Scopes at 16 to 22 some power are a dime a dozen. Its hard to find quality low power variables like the Swarovski that have day light visible illumination, a bullet drop reticle, clear glass. The new generation of 1-8's and 1-10's are even more exciting.
Pat

Originally Posted By dogbutter99:
i can see spending alot if i am looking for a big scope.. but 1-4x? hard to imagine over $1000 for one.. maybe for something like 16 or 18x where clarity really matters.



Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Gator:
Originally Posted By CSTactical:
<snip>


Yeesh, at $1900 a scope, maybe you can convince Elcan to put a few bucks into a decent website.

http://specterdr.elcan.com/

I'm not poor, but I'll be a crazy man before I'll drop that kind of cabbage on a scope. I paid $800 for my freaking truck!!! (and it came with a boat!)

I can see it if I was rolling in Afghanistan or Iraq, but I'm not.


You get what you pay for.
pat
100% agree, but a blanket statement like that, which is common knowledge, does nothing for the situation.

Sure, a $25 walmart BSA isn't as good as a $500 scope which isn't as good as a $1200 scope which isn't as good as a $2500 scope.....

Duh??!

But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?

Get it?



I see what your saying but after trying good optics I won't ever go back. For example my Swarovski Z6i is crazy expensive but its like invisible glass, the illumination is great it allows me to see things on 6x that cheaper scopes can't do on much higher power. Your better off putting more money into your optic than your gun. I have used the Elcan as my room mate has one and its a great scope well worth the money for what it was intended. Once you try nicer optics you too will have a harder time getting lower end stuff after that.
Pat




Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:00:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 5:02:23 AM EDT by mousegunner]
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?


I think the real issue is that everyone has different needs and different dollar tradeoffs.

If all you want to do is plink at the range, at no more than 50-100 yards, you can get away cheap. Really cheap. If you need to use the rifle for self-defence, then reliability and performance start becoming real priorities. Short range only, maybe an Eotech or Aimpoint, or a 1-4x with an illuminated dot. Of course, the daylight visible dot scopes tend to cost more. Longer range, then it starts getting even more interesting.

And how well do you shoot? Can you hit a steel target at 300 yards with an Aimpoint? If that's all you need to do, that's all you need. But if you need to identify a target, or need the magnification for more precision, then the options lean toward a scope with at least 4 power, and with decent clarity. A Meopta, at around $800, would fill the bill, but the sky's the limit if you really want even better glass or magnification.

Too many choices...

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 8:14:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
But there is a line, where the optic becomes good enough that it will do everything that 90% of the people want, and do so very well. Is that line at $500 or $2500?


I think the real issue is that everyone has different needs and different dollar tradeoffs.

If all you want to do is plink at the range, at no more than 50-100 yards, you can get away cheap. Really cheap. If you need to use the rifle for self-defence, then reliability and performance start becoming real priorities. Short range only, maybe an Eotech or Aimpoint, or a 1-4x with an illuminated dot. Of course, the daylight visible dot scopes tend to cost more. Longer range, then it starts getting even more interesting.

And how well do you shoot? Can you hit a steel target at 300 yards with an Aimpoint? If that's all you need to do, that's all you need. But if you need to identify a target, or need the magnification for more precision, then the options lean toward a scope with at least 4 power, and with decent clarity. A Meopta, at around $800, would fill the bill, but the sky's the limit if you really want even better glass or magnification.

Too many choices...


this a patrol carbine. And I've never shot the rifle beyond 100 yards, and probably never will.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 11:26:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
this a patrol carbine. And I've never shot the rifle beyond 100 yards, and probably never will.


I run an Aimpoint CompM4s on my SIG556. It's intended for 0-200 yard targets, and it's all I really need for that. I'd suggest a similar setup would work best for you. No, Aimpoints aren't cheap, but they have great battery life (measured in *years*), and are very rugged and reliable. After you swallow the cost, hard to go wrong.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 11:43:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
this a patrol carbine. And I've never shot the rifle beyond 100 yards, and probably never will.


I run an Aimpoint CompM4s on my SIG556. It's intended for 0-200 yard targets, and it's all I really need for that. I'd suggest a similar setup would work best for you. No, Aimpoints aren't cheap, but they have great battery life (measured in *years*), and are very rugged and reliable. After you swallow the cost, hard to go wrong.




Thats how I'm rolling now.

I was thinking about moving to a 1-4x. Not a good idea you say? Because I'm really on the fence about it.


Link Posted: 1/30/2011 12:35:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
Thats how I'm rolling now.

I was thinking about moving to a 1-4x. Not a good idea you say? Because I'm really on the fence about it.


I'd suggest a 1-4x with an illuminated dot for these situations:
- you need to identify a target at 100 yards or more
- you need to shoot at a target beyond 100-200 yards regularly

Other than that, the Aimpoint will work fine. It's simple and rugged. It also has the advantage of not being sensitive to eye position, and therefore easier to use in a CQB role. I'd stay with the KISS principle - if you don't need it, don't do it.

I've used a 1-4x scope in competition set to 1x, and with an illuminated dot, out to 330 meters. Out of 6 steel targets, I only needed to reengage one. Of course, they were of reasonable size, and quite visible to the naked eye. If you're talking about someone peeking out from behind a bush at 200 yards, you may need the 1-4x. Or maybe just a pair of binoculars.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 12:41:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
Thats how I'm rolling now.

I was thinking about moving to a 1-4x. Not a good idea you say? Because I'm really on the fence about it.


I'd suggest a 1-4x with an illuminated dot for these situations:
- you need to identify a target at 100 yards or more
- you need to shoot at a target beyond 100-200 yards regularly

Other than that, the Aimpoint will work fine. It's simple and rugged. It also has the advantage of not being sensitive to eye position, and therefore easier to use in a CQB role. I'd stay with the KISS principle - if you don't need it, don't do it.

I've used a 1-4x scope in competition set to 1x, and with an illuminated dot, out to 330 meters. Out of 6 steel targets, I only needed to reengage one. Of course, they were of reasonable size, and quite visible to the naked eye. If you're talking about someone peeking out from behind a bush at 200 yards, you may need the 1-4x. Or maybe just a pair of binoculars.

Yea, shooting from some oddball positions (very likely in an active shooter scenario) is much easier with an aimpoint. The eye relief issues for a variable has me a little concerned.

Damn I wish there was some way to have both!
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 12:45:39 PM EDT
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 1:42:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat


Nothing to disagree with here, but again, if you don't intend to do anything past 100 yards, the 1-4x is largely a waste. And, the battery life of an illuminated dot scope (except the Trijicon) is far less than that of an Aimpoint. The Trijicon has other issues, like shooting into a bright area, etc., etc., etc.

For a defensive carbine, I use the Aimpoint. For a competition rifle, I go with the S&B 1.1-4x24. Both are superb for their intended applications, but would be less than ideal for other situations. In my experience, the Aimpoint is *marginally* faster than the scope at CQB, but has a far longer battery life, so there's no danger of the dot going dead at an "inconvenient" time.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 1:58:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat


Nothing to disagree with here, but again, if you don't intend to do anything past 100 yards, the 1-4x is largely a waste. And, the battery life of an illuminated dot scope (except the Trijicon) is far less than that of an Aimpoint. The Trijicon has other issues, like shooting into a bright area, etc., etc., etc.

For a defensive carbine, I use the Aimpoint. For a competition rifle, I go with the S&B 1.1-4x24. Both are superb for their intended applications, but would be less than ideal for other situations. In my experience, the Aimpoint is *marginally* faster than the scope at CQB, but has a far longer battery life, so there's no danger of the dot going dead at an "inconvenient" time.


True but who can really count on shooting always inside 100 yards. I used to think that until one day we had a guy popping rounds at people in a National park just outside of our area. We responded to back up the Troopers as they only had one on duty. The range we were at was 200 yards from the bad guy and no one at the time had magnification and most had irons on their patrol rifles. One officer went home and came back with his hunting rifle. Fortunately the incident ended without blood shed. But it opened my eyes. Don't expect things to be average. Also magnification helps you see things you might not see such as looking into windows when you are on the perimeter.

Also as you said most scopes batteries don't last nearly as long but most scopes will work without their illumination on if need be. They still have a visible reticle. I use a Swarovski Z6i 1-6 BRT on my three gun rifle and a Trijicon TR24G on my patrol rifle.
Pat


My back up patrol rifle with a two optic set up that I like as well.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 2:15:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
It depends on if you are on top of them or not.

Many of the past active shooter scenarios involved first responders shooting from behind/around patrol cars. This is why I frequently train shooting laying down, like this:



Not saying it's likely, but if I have to shoot under/around my car, I'll be ready for it.

I'm sure we could debate the possibilities of positions all day, and still both be wrong.

I will say that I have no experience shooting a variable power scope in these positions, so it does worry me a bit.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 2:26:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
It depends on if you are on top of them or not.

Many of the past active shooter scenarios involved first responders shooting from behind/around patrol cars. This is why I frequently train shooting laying down, like this:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_xBzgfLvlm3E/TTs3EaXLkHI/AAAAAAAAGcA/B7VP44GiEn8/s912/Screenshot-VID00057.MP4-1.png

Not saying it's likely, but if I have to shoot under/around my car, I'll be ready for it.

I'm sure we could debate the possibilities of positions all day, and still both be wrong.

I will say that I have no experience shooting a variable power scope in these positions, so it does worry me a bit.


The Aimpoint is a bit more forgiving of eye position, and should be capable of making hits out to 200-300 yards with annoying regularity. It's also harder to break than a scope. If most of your shooting is up close, I'd suggest the Aimpoint. If you regularly need to reach out to 300 or beyond, do the 1-4x scope.

Just an opinion.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:11:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 3:18:22 PM EDT by Glockfan]
Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
It depends on if you are on top of them or not.

Many of the past active shooter scenarios involved first responders shooting from behind/around patrol cars. This is why I frequently train shooting laying down, like this:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_xBzgfLvlm3E/TTs3EaXLkHI/AAAAAAAAGcA/B7VP44GiEn8/s912/Screenshot-VID00057.MP4-1.png

Not saying it's likely, but if I have to shoot under/around my car, I'll be ready for it.

I'm sure we could debate the possibilities of positions all day, and still both be wrong.

I will say that I have no experience shooting a variable power scope in these positions, so it does worry me a bit.


The Aimpoint is a bit more forgiving of eye position, and should be capable of making hits out to 200-300 yards with annoying regularity. It's also harder to break than a scope. If most of your shooting is up close, I'd suggest the Aimpoint. If you regularly need to reach out to 300 or beyond, do the 1-4x scope.

Just an opinion.


It is more forgiving on eye position true but its less of an issue when you have the scope dialed down to 1x. Also I would not say the Aim point is more durable or harder to break. Both are tubes with glass. If you get a durable scope it will be just as hard to break. As for hitting at 200 and 300 yards with an Aimpoint it is easy so long as the target is large (man sized chest) but if the subject is using cover its not so easy. Also you can only see what you can see. The Aimpoint being 1x helps in no way there. I am not saying a Aimpoint sucks but I would not use one without a 3x magnifier option with a flip mount. I had that set up with an M4 for a few years. Not bad but I prefer the scope. Second preferred set up is an ACOG with a off set Aimpoint.

Pat
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:35:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Glockfan:
It is more forgiving on eye position true but its less of an issue when you have the scope dialed down to 1x. Also I would not say the Aim point is more durable or harder to break. Both are tubes with glass. If you get a durable scope it will be just as hard to break. As for hitting at 200 and 300 yards with an Aimpoint it is easy so long as the target is large (man sized chest) but if the subject is using cover its not so easy. Also you can only see what you can see. The Aimpoint being 1x helps in no way there. I am not saying a Aimpoint sucks but I would not use one without a 3x magnifier option with a flip mount. I had that set up with an M4 for a few years. Not bad but I prefer the scope. Second preferred set up is an ACOG with a off set Aimpoint.

Pat


The OP stated that he doesn't need to go beyond 100 yards. Given that, I'd go with the Aimpoint. If that statement is incorrect, then the illuminated scope starts looking better and better. OTOH, I'm not sure I'd want to do daily patrols with the scope with the dot turned on, because it would burn through batteries fairly quickly. If it's used for occasional SWAT deployment, then, again, things are different.

Oh, and I much prefer a 1-4x to an Aimpoint with the 3x. Not as happy with the Aimpoint glass, but that's just me.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:30:33 PM EDT
These 1-4 scopes still do not work very well with night vision, correct?
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:19:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
It depends on if you are on top of them or not.

Many of the past active shooter scenarios involved first responders shooting from behind/around patrol cars. This is why I frequently train shooting laying down, like this:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_xBzgfLvlm3E/TTs3EaXLkHI/AAAAAAAAGcA/B7VP44GiEn8/s912/Screenshot-VID00057.MP4-1.png

Not saying it's likely, but if I have to shoot under/around my car, I'll be ready for it.

I'm sure we could debate the possibilities of positions all day, and still both be wrong.

I will say that I have no experience shooting a variable power scope in these positions, so it does worry me a bit.


The Aimpoint is a bit more forgiving of eye position, and should be capable of making hits out to 200-300 yards with annoying regularity. It's also harder to break than a scope. If most of your shooting is up close, I'd suggest the Aimpoint. If you regularly need to reach out to 300 or beyond, do the 1-4x scope.

Just an opinion.


It is more forgiving on eye position true but its less of an issue when you have the scope dialed down to 1x. Also I would not say the Aim point is more durable or harder to break. Both are tubes with glass. If you get a durable scope it will be just as hard to break. As for hitting at 200 and 300 yards with an Aimpoint it is easy so long as the target is large (man sized chest) but if the subject is using cover its not so easy. Also you can only see what you can see. The Aimpoint being 1x helps in no way there. I am not saying a Aimpoint sucks but I would not use one without a 3x magnifier option with a flip mount. I had that set up with an M4 for a few years. Not bad but I prefer the scope. Second preferred set up is an ACOG with a off set Aimpoint.

Pat

Most active shooters use cover.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:21:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brasidas:
These 1-4 scopes still do not work very well with night vision, correct?


That depends on the scope and on the night vision device used.
pat
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:26:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
Originally Posted By mousegunner:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:

Originally Posted By Glockfan:
In most active shooter scenario you are charging towards the sound of gun fire your not curled up in a ball trying to get a shot off. While shooting from awkward positions is a good skill to have some people make to much out of it. I much prefer a good variable to a Red Dot sight. Not that I hate red dots but a good variable allows you to shoot to the potential of the rifle while a red dot is limited to what your naked eye can see.
Pat
It depends on if you are on top of them or not.

Many of the past active shooter scenarios involved first responders shooting from behind/around patrol cars. This is why I frequently train shooting laying down, like this:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_xBzgfLvlm3E/TTs3EaXLkHI/AAAAAAAAGcA/B7VP44GiEn8/s912/Screenshot-VID00057.MP4-1.png

Not saying it's likely, but if I have to shoot under/around my car, I'll be ready for it.

I'm sure we could debate the possibilities of positions all day, and still both be wrong.

I will say that I have no experience shooting a variable power scope in these positions, so it does worry me a bit.


The Aimpoint is a bit more forgiving of eye position, and should be capable of making hits out to 200-300 yards with annoying regularity. It's also harder to break than a scope. If most of your shooting is up close, I'd suggest the Aimpoint. If you regularly need to reach out to 300 or beyond, do the 1-4x scope.

Just an opinion.


It is more forgiving on eye position true but its less of an issue when you have the scope dialed down to 1x. Also I would not say the Aim point is more durable or harder to break. Both are tubes with glass. If you get a durable scope it will be just as hard to break. As for hitting at 200 and 300 yards with an Aimpoint it is easy so long as the target is large (man sized chest) but if the subject is using cover its not so easy. Also you can only see what you can see. The Aimpoint being 1x helps in no way there. I am not saying a Aimpoint sucks but I would not use one without a 3x magnifier option with a flip mount. I had that set up with an M4 for a few years. Not bad but I prefer the scope. Second preferred set up is an ACOG with a off set Aimpoint.

Pat

Most active shooters use cover.


In an active shooter situation you are literally charging towards the sound of gun fire and screaming. You are not supposed to wait and do a slow methodical search using cover. Its a dymamic event. Such as going down a school hallway briefly looking into class rooms. You are not slicing the pie you are not doing a lot of things we are taught to do. The reason being we need to get to the threat as fast as possible and end it. This means your usually are shooting from a standing position or while moving. Once you find the suspect you can use cover but the first priority is ending the threat. The use of cover that would require Urban prone and other awkward positions is if you are pinned down with little to no cover to use effectively. That is not typical of an active shooter situation where they are focused on klling as many people as possible before you arrive and when you do they generally kill themselves.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top