Quoted:
Every person I have ever seen who says they prefer a red dot to a LPVO on a rifle for uses past 50y has low shooting standards for accuracy, poor shooting skills, or they don't understand how difficult it can be to hit a human that does not want to get shot. Basically,  they eithet can't shoot well, don't see any value in shooting well, or lack imagination.

You say a red dot does everything inside of 200 yards.

What standard of accuracy are you looking for?

For me, I want to see and hit a target actively hiding, peeking around or over a barrier. At 200 yards. On the first shot. Every single time.

I need to be able to see and hit a 4" target at 200 yards on the first shot and know I can make the shot. That is just not going to happen with a red dot. Ever. Not for me. Not unless I have an LPVO or at least a magnifier.

A group shot on paper, to zero a weapon, for maximum precision...when all the bullets don't make a single hole... that is a failure to me. With a red dot... I have to live with a 50 yard zero on an AR where all I can do is put all the bullets into a 2" circle. Maybe, if I am lucky, all the bullets at least touching a 1" circle... even if just barely. But with an LPVO, I can put all the rounds inside that 1" circle. Hell, I can put them into one hole if the barrel is up to par, every single time.

I don't shoot at full sized steel torso silhouettes. It is boring and unrealistic. It is WAY too easy. Try having a shooting partner put up 4 clay birds, painted gray, out at 50 to 200 yards, in random places but fully exposed, one in every 50 yard bracket. Then shoot them for time. Then swap. Compete for time. No penalty for misses, but only use a 20 round magazine. Hide your shooting partner's birds in plain sight. Make placing them as as big a part of the competition as hitting them. Like an Easter egg hunt. Do it with a red dot. Then tell me how a red dot is "good enough."

You can only shoot what you can see. Inside of 50 yards, I agree, you don't need anything but a red dot. And a red dot has small advantages over a LPVO. But the LPVO is close enough to a red dot to win out everytime you might shoot at 50y and over except for three factors. Weight, passive night vision use, and speed when only shooting inside of 50 yard range limits, but mostly inside of 25 yards. The LPVO is just heavier and bulkier, it sucks for passive night vision use, even with a stacked red dot. And a red dot is slightly easier to use and has better battery life for close range defensive uses. If you are not hunting small animals, you are probably better served with a red dot inside 50 yards and for sure inside 25 yards.

In my mind, there are only THREE target sizes that have practical value to me. A 1" target is the smallest you will ever shoot at outside of a shooting competition. It is the headshot on a squirrel, rabbit, turkey, rat, etc. It is the smallest I can reliably see at 50 yards without magnification. The second is a 4" target. That is the vital zone of most smaller animals. It is the target I can hit out to 200y with a point blank zeroed optic where I won't need to dial anything and can just hold. That is a coyote, small pig, bobcat, racoon, etc. It is also a headshot on a human looking around or over a barrier. The last is a 6" target. That is the upper torso vitals on a human facing sideways or an unobstructed head shot on a human... a solid hit, not a graze. It is the vital zone you shoot at for vurtually every game animal in North America. There are a few animals with a slightly bigger vital zone, but if you want lungs plus heart or aortic arch, you want to stay in a 6" target area. That is it. At any distance. Bigger targets are just a crutch. Bigger targets are just to see at range better or get onto something to see where your bullet is hitting to me.

So I ask again, what are your standards for a red dot out to 200y?

Quoted:
I just can't get into them at all.

I love the idea of the enhanced versatility offered, but I struggle to find the reality for the capability.  Seems best for very specific uses case (Patrol Officer or 3 gun, maybe rural for varmints) if we are talking about living state side.  Those are about the only occasions where you would possibly need to transition from 1x to 6x and would be taking long shots.

I could see most shots being done during critter hunting, but that seems like just another way of building a varmint gun.  Nothing wrong with that.

I ask myself these two questions:
What would I be justified in shooting beyond 50 yards?
What would I ever choose to shoot beyond 200 yards with 5.56?

Justified civilian self-defense headshots at 200 yards don't exist and I'm curious as to how many non LEO's stateside ACUTALLY use scope rifle to identify if someone else is armed? Are you really picking up a rifle and aiming it at someone too see if they are armed or not?    

Quoted:


What are people actually talking about when they say the shit hits the fan?

In Iraq with the Army we put glass on people all the time.  Usually that happened on outer cordon for a raid.  You can’t ID without seeing they are or aren’t armed. You can’t pull security without being observant.

I guess with a red dot you better have binoculars, to do that part. Its just an extra thing to manage.  The door kickers would be the people who probably don’t need LVPO’s.

I watch some television and a lot of what police do is on video now.  You can see them aiming at people quite commonly during evolving incidents.  Like a barricaded suspect- there may be four people in there against their will and the swat team might have 10 rifles on the house the whole time.  It doesn’t make them wrong- reality of SHTF is just not a pretty place.

Quoted:

Let's look at this another way-
My split times using an exps3 and atacr are exactly the same...

Edit***split times referring to room work split times

Quoted:

Let's look at this another way-
My split times using an exps3 and atacr are exactly the same. I can use the rifle that I'm most familiar with, and spend the most time training with for everything from HD to hunting, to long range shooting for fun. I think intimate familiarity with a single tool is lost with most civilians as they barely train/use/get time behind the several different guns they have and hide behind the "right tool for the job" mantra to make them feel better about the lack of capabilities they have.

Edit***split times referring to room work split times

Quoted:
All other things equal, a competent shooter with an RDS or holographic will easily be much faster at CQB than when using an LPVO. Add in moving targets that shoot back, the margin becomes much more significant.

Quoted:

Lighting is an interesting and fair point. I don't have issues with lpvo's in low light when not in magnification. Adding mag in now creates other optical issues

Most people are slower with lpvo's because the sustainment curve is higher and thus requires more work. Choosing something easier to use isn't always a bad thing

Ahhh the acog. I remember clearing structures with an m16, 203, and an acog. Those where the days... talk about complicated learning curve lol

Quoted:


All that proves is that you are absolutely terrible with the holographic, or a ninja with the LVPO, or some combination of the two.

Quoted:
I dont like LPVOs either, maybe the really good ones are just cost prohibitive for me poor.

I like a real scopes on all Guns with a Bipod and Prisms on everything smaller / lighter. Imho LPVOs are kinda in the middle and i dont like to have the negatives of both.

Quoted:
For 95% of rifle work from 0-250M, I personally think that an EO Tech and a Magnifier are the best option.  YMMV...but I don't think the LPVO really shines until you get out to 100M or so.  The eye box is an issue.  

Quoted:

This is my conclusion after years of 2-gun, cola warrior, classes, etc.

Quoted:


The form factor is the worst of the LPVO.  There are not too many small LVPO's.

I'm with you on at least get a 3X capability.  The ACOG is minimalist, about all there is not to like, is the short eye relief, which they have a few models for, but you have to be more of an ACOG guy to get through the product lines and figure them out.  I would imagine the reason the longer eye relief models popular in 3-gun never made it to the military, is that the Army gear selection process made that like shooting an arrow through 12 axeheads.

The other less optimal issues on the ACOG were the carry handle mount seemed to lose zero if it took a hit, and the Army forced 25M zero was not at a parallax free range so it was difficult to get a good zero that translated well out to 300M and beyond (this is not as big a concern for a consumer or a forward deployed soldier zeroing in country in the field).   It would have been cool if they went to a modified forging with picatinny built in.

Quoted:
I've been through quite a few lpvo's, Trijicon TR24 (sucked, hated it), Leupold VXR 1.5-4x, Leupold VX6HD 1-6x, Vortex Raxor 1-4x & 1-6x, Nightforce NXS 2-10x. The only one that still remains is my NXS 1-4x with FC2 reticle, perfect size, perfect weight, 4x magnification is actually all I need and I can shoot accurately with it at 500 yards. Would more magnification be nice, sure, but I think 4x is perfect for an AR. The market really lacks any new 1-4x LPVO's these days, seems like it's been a battle to crank out the most magnification. I wish someone would make a new 1-4x with the technology we have now in all the new 1-6x, 1-8x, and 1-10x's.

Quoted:


That's because 1-4 hits the same mag range as a ta-31 with a piggyback rds.

I think a compact 2-6 in ffp with a smart reticle designed to be paired with a rds would be really cool.

2-6 ffp with wind holds. Really low profile turrets. Like 15oz in weight. Would pair excellent with a clip on while maximuming most fighting 556 platforms