Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Page / 4
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 6:31:56 PM EST
[#1]
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 6:32:08 PM EST
[#2]
This is a trick question.  The answer is get an ACOG with a piggyback or offset dot.

Hands down, this is the best setup you can own.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 6:37:52 PM EST
[#3]
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 6:44:45 PM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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?
View Quote


LOL
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 6:54:24 PM EST
[#5]
Once I started shooting at things that were alive with an AR LPVOs really started to shine.

I still like RDS for a night gun or HD gun but LPVO for a general use and hunting gun.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 7:02:18 PM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?    



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.


Binoculars are underrated.

In many cases, a scope is a poor substitute for binos.

Link Posted: 9/10/2023 7:18:55 PM EST
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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?    

View Quote


Do you think 5.56 is ineffective beyond 200 yards?
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 7:19:59 PM EST
[#8]
Don't sweat it OP.  You need to do what works best for YOU.  Not what the internet says you should be doing.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 8:30:35 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote


We are not in Iraq, that is the point.  And I had specifically caveated Patrol Officers/LEO.

As non-LEO state side civilians, we are not glassing people to see if they are armed.  Nor are we shooting people at distance.   Maybe in some very specific SHTF situations it could possibly make sense, but that circles back to getting or not getting into LVPO's in the first place.  

I still love the idea of them, but I struggle with how I would actually use it today being that I'm not LE.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 8:37:55 PM EST
[#10]
I really prefer magnification but don’t like the weight of an LPVO on an AR.

I’m currently using a TA33 ACOG with the green horseshoe reticle and like it a lot.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 8:41:43 PM EST
[#11]
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 8:44:18 PM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


We are not in Iraq, that is the point.  And I had specifically caveated Patrol Officers/LEO.

As non-LEO state side civilians, we are not glassing people to see if they are armed.  Nor are we shooting people at distance.   Maybe in some very specific SHTF situations it could possibly make sense, but that circles back to getting or not getting into LVPO's in the first place.  

I still love the idea of them, but I struggle with how I would actually use it today being that I'm not LE.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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.


We are not in Iraq, that is the point.  And I had specifically caveated Patrol Officers/LEO.

As non-LEO state side civilians, we are not glassing people to see if they are armed.  Nor are we shooting people at distance.   Maybe in some very specific SHTF situations it could possibly make sense, but that circles back to getting or not getting into LVPO's in the first place.  

I still love the idea of them, but I struggle with how I would actually use it today being that I'm not LE.

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
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 8:56:36 PM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Do you think 5.56 is ineffective beyond 200 yards?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Do you think 5.56 is ineffective beyond 200 yards?


My exact quote was:
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?


I would say that it depends on:
What your target is.
Where your location is at.
What length your barrel is.
What ammunition you are using.

If you are in a situation where you often (or need) to shoot beyond 200 yards, there are far better platforms and calibers to do it with.  If long range capability is that important to your situation or area, then get long range capability.    Outside of small furry critters (or steel or paper), what are you routinely shooting at beyond 200 yards with 5.56 and an LVPO state side?




Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:04:19 PM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote


All that proves is that you are absolutely terrible with the holographic, or a ninja with the LVPO, or some combination of the two.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:11:04 PM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:48:37 PM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.

Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:53:11 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:56:35 PM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:59:21 PM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Bless your heart.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:06:16 PM EST
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote

Yes, the truth is that most civilians (like myself) are not professional soldiers and I don't spend much time working on splits to use a higher learning curve platform to accommodate secondary (long distance) situations that I'm having a really hard time seeing myself involved in.  


I don't feel bad about my lack of capabilities, I'm just being realistic.   And realistic means that most of us civilians are not shooting all that far, unless it is for hunting (or for fun).  And if it is hunting beyond 200 yards, you probably have a specific tool best suited for that type of hunting.  The right tool for the right job is exactly that.  
You have actually commented on what would be a better tool for me, and I responded  that is what I actually have.  (9" 300blk with a Red Dot for HD, and a QD 3x for magnification for just in case).  I always think about putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56, but I can never figure out what exactly I'm going to do with it.  

I've been a gun owner for about 26 years (non LEO, non .mil), and the number of times I've scoped someone to see if they are armed is zero.   Are the non LEO folks here actively scoping people to see if they are armed?  Do you often look through your scope and see someone looking back at you in theirs?  And here I thought Chi-raq was dangerous.

To be honest, I often think about building an 18" 6.5G (instead of just putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56) for enhanced small frame capability, but I know I'm probably not going to be able to utilize it the best of its capabilities and I don't have a use case for it at the moment, so I have managed to save my cash (so far).
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:08:18 PM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yes, the truth is that most civilians (like myself) are not professional soldiers and I don't spend much time working on splits to use a higher learning curve platform to accommodate secondary (long distance) situations that I'm having a really hard time seeing myself involved in.  


I don't feel bad about my lack of capabilities, I'm just being realistic.   And realistic means that most of us civilians are not shooting all that far, unless it is for hunting (or for fun).  And if it is hunting beyond 200 yards, you probably have a specific tool best suited for that type of hunting.  The right tool for the right job is exactly that.  
You have actually commented on what would be a better tool for me, and I responded  that is what I actually have.  (9" 300blk with a Red Dot for HD, and a QD 3x for magnification for just in case).  I always think about putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56, but I can never figure out what exactly I'm going to do with it.  

I've been a gun owner for about 26 years (non LEO, non .mil), and the number of times I've scoped someone to see if they are armed is zero.   Are the non LEO folks here actively scoping people to see if they are armed?  Do you often look through your scope and see someone looking back at you in theirs?  And here I thought Chi-raq was dangerous.

To be honest, I often think about building an 18" 6.5G (instead of just putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56) for enhanced small frame capability, but I know I'm probably not going to be able to utilize it the best of its capabilities and I don't have a use case for it at the moment, so I have managed to save my cash (so far).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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

Yes, the truth is that most civilians (like myself) are not professional soldiers and I don't spend much time working on splits to use a higher learning curve platform to accommodate secondary (long distance) situations that I'm having a really hard time seeing myself involved in.  


I don't feel bad about my lack of capabilities, I'm just being realistic.   And realistic means that most of us civilians are not shooting all that far, unless it is for hunting (or for fun).  And if it is hunting beyond 200 yards, you probably have a specific tool best suited for that type of hunting.  The right tool for the right job is exactly that.  
You have actually commented on what would be a better tool for me, and I responded  that is what I actually have.  (9" 300blk with a Red Dot for HD, and a QD 3x for magnification for just in case).  I always think about putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56, but I can never figure out what exactly I'm going to do with it.  

I've been a gun owner for about 26 years (non LEO, non .mil), and the number of times I've scoped someone to see if they are armed is zero.   Are the non LEO folks here actively scoping people to see if they are armed?  Do you often look through your scope and see someone looking back at you in theirs?  And here I thought Chi-raq was dangerous.

To be honest, I often think about building an 18" 6.5G (instead of just putting an LPVO on my 16" 5.56) for enhanced small frame capability, but I know I'm probably not going to be able to utilize it the best of its capabilities and I don't have a use case for it at the moment, so I have managed to save my cash (so far).

Fair assessment-
In no way knocking or saying you need to feel bad. Simply arguing being in perfect sync with a generic tool usually yields better results than mediocre sync with an awesome tool. Obviously this is an oversimplification
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:11:54 PM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:12:15 PM EST
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote

This ^^^
.
If someone can get as fast an Aimpoint or EoTech while using an LPVO @ 1X then more power to him but an LPVO or an ACOG are not very useful in multiple lighting conditions. An Aimpoint or EoTech is never lacking in any lighting scenario.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:13:16 PM EST
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:14:29 PM EST
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

This ^^^
.
If someone can get as fast an Aimpoint or EoTech while using an LPVO @ 1X then more power to him but an LPVO or an ACOG are not very useful in multiple lighting conditions. An Aimpoint or EoTech is never lacking in any lighting scenario.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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.

This ^^^
.
If someone can get as fast an Aimpoint or EoTech while using an LPVO @ 1X then more power to him but an LPVO or an ACOG are not very useful in multiple lighting conditions. An Aimpoint or EoTech is never lacking in any lighting scenario.

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
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:33:44 PM EST
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:37:34 PM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote



People don’t realize how good they have it. ??????
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:42:21 PM EST
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:43:15 PM EST
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



People don’t realize how good they have it. ??????
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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



People don’t realize how good they have it. ??????

And a fucking iotv lolol
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:49:49 PM EST
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding


Go ahead and explain why they use the offset on all the stages that are limited to 15 yards or closer? Why not just use the 1X?

Judging from what you've posted here, I've got more real world experience in my sock drawer. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your dumb shit and showing your ass.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:53:17 PM EST
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Go ahead and explain why they use the offset on all the stages that are limited to 15 yards or closer? Why not just use the 1X?

Judging from what you've posted here, I've got more real world experience in my sock drawer. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your dumb shit and showing your ass.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding


Go ahead and explain why they use the offset on all the stages that are limited to 15 yards or closer? Why not just use the 1X?

Judging from what you've posted here, I've got more real world experience in my sock drawer. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your dumb shit and showing your ass.

Ahhh your one of those. You don't need to believe the facts-arguing with children like you doesn't help anybody.  Best of luck to you
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 11:04:50 PM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Ahhh your one of those. You don't need to believe the facts-arguing with children like you doesn't help anybody.  Best of luck to you
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding


Go ahead and explain why they use the offset on all the stages that are limited to 15 yards or closer? Why not just use the 1X?

Judging from what you've posted here, I've got more real world experience in my sock drawer. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your dumb shit and showing your ass.

Ahhh your one of those. You don't need to believe the facts-arguing with children like you doesn't help anybody.  Best of luck to you


You haven't posted anything resembling a fact. You have tried to Fauci everyone and tried that military false appeal to authority, logical fallacy. You can dick measure all you like. Maybe you have more time in the military than I did. Maybe you have more than 3 years deployed. Maybe you are a better shooter than me. Plenty of guys are.

The ignorant and illogical bullshit you posted still isn't fooling anyone who has shot much with a variety of optics.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 11:06:48 PM EST
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You haven't posted anything resembling a fact. You have tried to Fauci everyone and tried that military false appeal to authority, logical fallacy. You can dick measure all you like. Maybe you have more time in the military than I did. Maybe you have more than 3 years deployed. Maybe you are a better shooter than me. Plenty of guys are.

The ignorant and illogical bullshit you posted still isn't fooling anyone who has shot much with a variety of optics.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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


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

It proves I've put the work in. Which is the whole point of then entire post. If you think an lpvo vs holo are what are going to make or break your room work then you're doing nothing but hiding behind your gear due to lack of capabilities.

I said this earlier-its perfectly acceptable to just not like something. Don't think for a second that you can't be technically and tactically proficient with things you don't actually like

Edited* to sound less braggy


I'm glad you like your decision, and you're entitled to your opinions. However claiming that an RDS and LPVO are basically the same for CQB is nonsense. Pretending that the difference is just training, is wrong. Implying that simplicity and fractions of seconds don't matter in a close range gunfight is wrong too. 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.


No its not. I'm speaking from years of real world experience. It's ok to prefer certain tools-we all do. But what you've stated simply isn't true. I'm not going to dilute someone else's thread on this any further.


Bless your heart.

This right here is why people think they can hide behind gear to make up for short comings in technical and tactical proficiency.


No one has said any such thing. It's a thread about optics. You posted some wrong shit about optics and got called out on it. And now seem to think that if you pretend that only training exists, that will make you sound smart and the wrong shit you said and doubled down on will go away.

It's not wrong. I just don't argue with those whom don't know. It's called a waste of time. I'll make sure to tell all my team guys that they are wrong too.


First we have to explain to everyone using an offset or piggyback mrds, that they have no clue what the fuck they are doing. The scope is "just as good" if they "get more training." I'd love to hear you explain how millions of people, who are using an LPVO, think an MRDS is better than an LVPO on 1X... But a full sized RDS is not.

So yeah go ahead and tell anyone that rds is better for cqb. Only a team of clowns would argue otherwise. The LPVO is a great all purpose optic. But it still has tradeoffs, especially up close.

The only tradeoff for close work is lack of passive. They aren't using a rds because it's faster at 1x, they are using it so they have two aiming solutions, one magnified and one not. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I wouldn't expect someone who hasn't any real world experience to understand that so I don't blame you for not understanding


Go ahead and explain why they use the offset on all the stages that are limited to 15 yards or closer? Why not just use the 1X?

Judging from what you've posted here, I've got more real world experience in my sock drawer. Go ahead and keep doubling down on your dumb shit and showing your ass.

Ahhh your one of those. You don't need to believe the facts-arguing with children like you doesn't help anybody.  Best of luck to you


You haven't posted anything resembling a fact. You have tried to Fauci everyone and tried that military false appeal to authority, logical fallacy. You can dick measure all you like. Maybe you have more time in the military than I did. Maybe you have more than 3 years deployed. Maybe you are a better shooter than me. Plenty of guys are.

The ignorant and illogical bullshit you posted still isn't fooling anyone who has shot much with a variety of optics.

Lol ??  best of luck to you. I hope you actually learn a thing or two someday. The only illogical thing is thinking that which 1x you choose gives you an actual tactical advantage that translates into real world performance. You aren't worth teaching, much less engaging with anymore. I guess in the end you don't know what you simply don't know.

Sorry @OP that this turned into a shit show. I won't engage this dude anymore
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 11:18:07 PM EST
[#34]
Then get both.   I swap my optics on some of my weapons more often than some people swap underpants.  Some days I like the RDS, some days I like the LPVO. Get both.  I've even been know to put a  high powered scope on an AR every now and then just to see what it will do.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 11:35:52 PM EST
[#35]
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 11:40:27 PM EST
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I don’t even understand what is being argued at this point.  If you do 70% of your work inside a building, the red dot is obviously better.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


You haven't posted anything resembling a fact. You have tried to Fauci everyone and tried that military false appeal to authority, logical fallacy. You can dick measure all you like. Maybe you have more time in the military than I did. Maybe you have more than 3 years deployed. Maybe you are a better shooter than me. Plenty of guys are.

The ignorant and illogical bullshit you posted still isn't fooling anyone who has shot much with a variety of optics.


I don’t even understand what is being argued at this point.  If you do 70% of your work inside a building, the red dot is obviously better.


That was the argument. Apparently it's not obvious to some.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 6:42:15 AM EST
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote


Go to a 3-Gun match and watch guys work a bay stage with a LPVO. That’s literally the entire point of the optic.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 8:17:41 AM EST
[#38]
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.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 8:37:23 AM EST
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote


This is how I’ve come to feel about them.  Like they are trying to do too many things, and don’t end up doing any of them well.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 10:27:27 AM EST
[#40]
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.  


Link Posted: 9/11/2023 11:23:59 AM EST
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.  
View Quote

This is my conclusion after years of 2-gun, cola warrior, classes, etc.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 12:15:19 PM EST
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

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


Since PCSL 2-gun maxes out at 200 yards, I’m seeing more people running dots and magnifier setups vs LPVOs.  They can be competitive there.  You can also run a dot with the Tactical Games since those shoot in bays exclusively.

For major 3 gun matches and run and gun biathlons, the distances are typically longer so LPVOs still dominate there.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 2:01:59 PM EST
[#43]
OP, you may be happier with a dot and magnifier.

The way that I try to explain the niches is, a dot for ~7 yds, add a magnifier for 0-300 yds. A little magnification helps you stretch a CQB gun, acquire and discriminate your targets, and get better hits at moderate distances. And a LPVO for a 100-500yd gun that can stretch a little more, and also do CQB as needed. Maybe not as well as a dot, but better than other options. Please don’t get caught up on the exact numbers, its just a conceptual illustration.

This is exactly how they were developed in a military context. At the time the S&B Short Dot hit the scene, every Operator was issued two setups. A 10.4” with a dot, and a 14.5” with a magnified optic. Deciding between them was based on preference and anticipated role in a given mission. Many shooters perceived that the Short Dot improved the versatility of the longer setup, blurring the lines of what each gun was good for, blending the strengths of both. I personally didn’t really like them, and stuck with ACOGs and dots for a long time.

It took me a long time to come around to LPVOs, revisiting them periodically. I think they are very versatile, and I own a few, but I do not believe that they are the only path to enlightenment. In fact, my LPVO guns mostly have identical twins with Aimpoints on them. But, they can do a lot of things.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 2:55:06 PM EST
[#44]
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 3:02:03 PM EST
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not believe that they are the only path to enlightenment. In fact, my LPVO guns mostly have identical twins with Aimpoints on them. But, they can do a lot of things.


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.

Agreed with the focus being weight. Paging leupold to stop being big gheys and make something good
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 3:51:04 PM EST
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote

Yeah, some of them are huuuuge.

Its always best to confirm an ACOG at 100…..25m zero is conscript grade shit.

The reason the Army and USMC like the models with the short eye relief is the field of view. Its a big win on paper, but I’m not convinced FOV is that much more valuable than eye relief in the real world. Surely there’s a goldilocks zone.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 4:12:35 PM EST
[#47]
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.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 4:20:34 PM EST
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
View Quote


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
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 4:38:36 PM EST
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
View Quote


I'd be down with this.  If it could go to 8 without adding much weight I'd double down.  Just give me some stadia on the post, I will calculate the distances.
Link Posted: 9/11/2023 4:57:12 PM EST
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yeah, some of them are huuuuge.

Its always best to confirm an ACOG at 100…..25m zero is conscript grade shit.

The reason the Army and USMC like the models with the short eye relief is the field of view. Its a big win on paper, but I’m not convinced FOV is that much more valuable than eye relief in the real world. Surely there’s a goldilocks zone.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
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.

Yeah, some of them are huuuuge.

Its always best to confirm an ACOG at 100…..25m zero is conscript grade shit.

The reason the Army and USMC like the models with the short eye relief is the field of view. Its a big win on paper, but I’m not convinced FOV is that much more valuable than eye relief in the real world. Surely there’s a goldilocks zone.


The FOV and simplicity of RDS and ACOG are what make them so superior to LPVO for shorter range infantry combat fire and maneuver things. If you are trying to do DM things at intermediate and longer ranges, or hunting, an LPVO gets you closer to that.
Page / 4
Page AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top