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
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 1:28:34 PM EST
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
People trying to use lpvo's to shoot groups at distance baffle me.
View Quote

Not at long distance but tight groups within the humane kill limitations of a 5.56 round ( 200 - hog, 300 - coyote ).
VP
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 4:42:20 PM EST
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo.

In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot.

This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances.

This guy is slightly annoying, but the first 15 minutes of this seem like a pretty fair assessment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PtvTkxcUw
View Quote



My biggest problem with the gun games I have been to is that we all get to walk the field of fire prior to starting.  Guys mentally determine before the first round is fired what targets they will dial up magnification and in what order they will engage.  

In my opinion, this is a very poor representation of reality.  LPVOs may work in this environment.  But, the logical leap that they work in a force on force environment is a stretch.  

Link Posted: 9/16/2023 4:45:45 PM EST
[#3]
"the military has a horrible record of providing conventional forces good training. "

Those are some very accurate words.  Most of my son's Marines shoot once a year.  When he was in OCS, 5 out of 120 of them had ever fired an AR15.  

It is bad.  

P.S.  My son shot a 340 out of 350 just last week on his qualifications.  I started him at 5 years old on a Chipmunk .22 single shot rifle.  Wait.  Actually, he shot nerf guns and b-b guns before that.  So, he basically started shooting at the age of 1.5 years.
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 5:49:29 PM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

My biggest problem with the gun games I have been to is that we all get to walk the field of fire prior to starting.  Guys mentally determine before the first round is fired what targets they will dial up magnification and in what order they will engage.  

In my opinion, this is a very poor representation of reality.  LPVOs may work in this environment.  But, the logical leap that they work in a force on force environment is a stretch.  

View Quote


Have you shot any blind stages at local or major matches?
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 6:09:30 PM EST
[#5]
No.  Our local 3 gun does not do blind stages.  

But, I have coyote hunted for 15 years.  Coyote hunting is one big blind stage that starts by surprise.   I have had coyotes show up at 3 yards to 400 yards.  My AR15 has a TA11J-G with an offset T2 on a Larue mount.  

There are 3 situations:  

1.  Up close.  Here things happen quick.  You get surprised.  The coyote is always on the run.  When that happens, I roll to my T2 and make the shot.  I would never have time to dial an LPVO down if it were on anything but 1x.  Things happen too fast.  .    

2.  Long distance with a stationary target - I use the ACOG.  

3.  Long distance when they are on a run - I watch them in the ACOG.  If they stop at a distance, I shoot them with the ACOG.  Many times, they keep coming in on the run and it ends up being a close shot.   When that happens, I instantly transition to my T2 and hit them on the run.  This would be much harder with an LPVO that I would have to dial down to 1X.  I am busy watching the animal and his body language instead of fiddling with my gun.  

I believe coyote hunting has more in common with a tactical situation than 3 gun because you never know when, where, or how fast the target will be moving.  

Instant transition between 1x and magnification is key for unknown situations.    

Link Posted: 9/16/2023 6:23:59 PM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Not at long distance but tight groups within the humane kill limitations of a 5.56 round ( 200 - hog, 300 - coyote ).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
People trying to use lpvo's to shoot groups at distance baffle me.

Not at long distance but tight groups within the humane kill limitations of a 5.56 round ( 200 - hog, 300 - coyote ).

My issue isn'tt hat it isn't capable of getting someone accurate long shots, but with using it for long shots more than short. It defeats the lpvo's purpose as far as I'm concerned.

Hell, I just banged away at gongs out to 400 yards yesterday with a 1-5x on a 450 bushmaster. But I'm under no delusion that that's what the lpvo's made for, rather than capable of.
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 6:28:48 PM EST
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.  Our local 3 gun does not do blind stages.  

But, I have coyote hunted for 15 years.  Coyote hunting is one big blind stage that starts by surprise.   I have had coyotes show up at 3 yards to 400 yards.  My AR15 has a TA11J-G with an offset T2 on a Larue mount.  

There are 3 situations:  

1.  Up close.  Here things happen quick.  You get surprised.  The coyote is always on the run.  When that happens, I roll to my T2 and make the shot.  I would never have time to dial an LPVO down if it were on anything but 1x.  Things happen too fast.  .    

2.  Long distance with a stationary target - I use the ACOG.  

3.  Long distance when they are on a run - I watch them in the ACOG.  If they stop at a distance, I shoot them with the ACOG.  Many times, they keep coming in on the run and it ends up being a close shot.   When that happens, I instantly transition to my T2 and hit them on the run.  This would be much harder with an LPVO that I would have to dial down to 1X.  I am busy watching the animal and his body language instead of fiddling with my gun.  

I believe coyote hunting has more in common with a tactical situation than 3 gun because you never know when, where, or how fast the target will be moving.  

Instant transition between 1x and magnification is key for unknown situations.    

View Quote


Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 6:49:47 PM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
No.  Our local 3 gun does not do blind stages.  

But, I have coyote hunted for 15 years.  Coyote hunting is one big blind stage that starts by surprise.   I have had coyotes show up at 3 yards to 400 yards.  My AR15 has a TA11J-G with an offset T2 on a Larue mount.  

There are 3 situations:  

1.  Up close.  Here things happen quick.  You get surprised.  The coyote is always on the run.  When that happens, I roll to my T2 and make the shot.  I would never have time to dial an LPVO down if it were on anything but 1x.  Things happen too fast.  .    

2.  Long distance with a stationary target - I use the ACOG.  

3.  Long distance when they are on a run - I watch them in the ACOG.  If they stop at a distance, I shoot them with the ACOG.  Many times, they keep coming in on the run and it ends up being a close shot.   When that happens, I instantly transition to my T2 and hit them on the run.  This would be much harder with an LPVO that I would have to dial down to 1X.  I am busy watching the animal and his body language instead of fiddling with my gun.  

I believe coyote hunting has more in common with a tactical situation than 3 gun because you never know when, where, or how fast the target will be moving.  

Instant transition between 1x and magnification is key for unknown situations.    



Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?

Some people aren't great at snap shooting magnified optics. There's nothing wrong with snap shooting or using a secondary aiming solutions as long as you get hits on target as needed
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 7:32:30 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?
View Quote



Yes.  I know you don't have to dial down an optic to make a close range shot.  But, a close range shot on a moving target under time pressure that surprised you will be a higher hit probability on 1x than 4x.

This is why hunting is better training for a tactical situation than a gun game that you walk in advance and shoot stationary targets.
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 9:33:49 PM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Yes.  I know you don't have to dial down an optic to make a close range shot.  But, a close range shot on a moving target under time pressure that surprised you will be a higher hit probability on 1x than 4x.

This is why hunting is better training for a tactical situation than a gun game that you walk in advance and shoot stationary targets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?



Yes.  I know you don't have to dial down an optic to make a close range shot.  But, a close range shot on a moving target under time pressure that surprised you will be a higher hit probability on 1x than 4x.

This is why hunting is better training for a tactical situation than a gun game that you walk in advance and shoot stationary targets.


I agree with you that effectiveness against moving targets is harder than most people think. And most people probably don't have much experience with it. Too much magnification for moving targets, is usually worse than none at AR distances. That's why ACOGs and RDS are great combat optics, they are simple, large FOV, and won't have too much magnification.

The key is anticipating the engagement distances, regardless of optic. In my opinion, variable power scopes are the best for hunting. But I prioritize accuracy for non moving targets for hunting, because that's more common for me. YMMV.
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 9:41:45 PM EST
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I agree with you that effectiveness against moving targets is harder than most people think. And most people probably don't have much experience with it. Too much magnification for moving targets, is usually worse than none at AR distances. That's why ACOGs and RDS are great combat optics, they are simple, large FOV, and won't have too much magnification.

The key is anticipating the engagement distances, regardless of optic. In my opinion, variable power scopes are the best for hunting. But I prioritize accuracy for non moving targets for hunting, because that's more common for me. YMMV.
View Quote

That bolded part. 'Snap shooting' is definitely a challenging skill and needs to be practiced regularly if you intend to use it
Link Posted: 9/16/2023 10:38:37 PM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This is why hunting is better training for a tactical situation than a gun game that you walk in advance and shoot stationary targets.
View Quote


You mentioned force on force training earlier. Is this based on your first hand experience?

I ask because virtually all the shots that you fire in any training class are at stationary targets. Why do you think they do that?  When you dry fire, do you do that against stationary or moving targets?
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 1:32:09 AM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
virtually all the shots that you fire in any training class are at stationary targets. Why do you think they do that?  
View Quote


Because the equipment required is usually one or more of the following: expensive, hard to find, difficult to setup and / or reset.

It can also be much more challenging from a safety perspective.

And it's an advanced skill that the vast majority of shooters aren't ready for or capable of. It would be a waste of time and money for a lot of folks. But generally speaking, it's not too tough to get people hitting stationary targets, regardless of skill level.
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 6:47:49 AM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You mentioned force on force training earlier. Is this based on your first hand experience?

I ask because virtually all the shots that you fire in any training class are at stationary targets. Why do you think they do that?  When you dry fire, do you do that against stationary or moving targets?
View Quote


The reason why you fire at stationary targets in shooting schools is because it is an easier environment to teach.  Plus, moving targets are hard to simulate.  

I am not saying that dry fire or stationary target shooting is bad.  It is part of the crawl, walk, run progression of training.  But, ultimately, to really understand what gear is required, you have to go beyond this.  If all you do is shoot stationary targets, at known distances, that you can pre plan, then it is easy to adopt the wrong ideas about what will work when your environment is not so heavily controlled.

One of the biggest lesson I learned hunting with a magnified optic was - when you need 1X, you usually need it IMMEDIATELY.   Flipping magnifiers out of the way or dialing scopes is too slow.  I agree that snap shooting an optic is a great skill to practice.  But, it will always be inferior to a red dot up close.  And, snap shooting a magnified optic in low light up close will not give you a good sight picture.  (I hunt at night too)

(Haha.  I just read Missile Geeks response after I wrote this.  He said much of the same thing.)
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 8:16:39 AM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The reason why you fire at stationary targets in shooting schools is because it is an easier environment to teach.  Plus, moving targets are hard to simulate.  

I am not saying that dry fire or stationary target shooting is bad.  It is part of the crawl, walk, run progression of training.  But, ultimately, to really understand what gear is required, you have to go beyond this.  If all you do is shoot stationary targets, at known distances, that you can pre plan, then it is easy to adopt the wrong ideas about what will work when your environment is not so heavily controlled.

One of the biggest lesson I learned hunting with a magnified optic was - when you need 1X, you usually need it IMMEDIATELY.   Flipping magnifiers out of the way or dialing scopes is too slow.  I agree that snap shooting an optic is a great skill to practice.  But, it will always be inferior to a red dot up close.  And, snap shooting a magnified optic in low light up close will not give you a good sight picture.  (I hunt at night too)

(Haha.  I just read Missile Geeks response after I wrote this.  He said much of the same thing.)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


You mentioned force on force training earlier. Is this based on your first hand experience?

I ask because virtually all the shots that you fire in any training class are at stationary targets. Why do you think they do that?  When you dry fire, do you do that against stationary or moving targets?


The reason why you fire at stationary targets in shooting schools is because it is an easier environment to teach.  Plus, moving targets are hard to simulate.  

I am not saying that dry fire or stationary target shooting is bad.  It is part of the crawl, walk, run progression of training.  But, ultimately, to really understand what gear is required, you have to go beyond this.  If all you do is shoot stationary targets, at known distances, that you can pre plan, then it is easy to adopt the wrong ideas about what will work when your environment is not so heavily controlled.

One of the biggest lesson I learned hunting with a magnified optic was - when you need 1X, you usually need it IMMEDIATELY.   Flipping magnifiers out of the way or dialing scopes is too slow.  I agree that snap shooting an optic is a great skill to practice.  But, it will always be inferior to a red dot up close.  And, snap shooting a magnified optic in low light up close will not give you a good sight picture.  (I hunt at night too)

(Haha.  I just read Missile Geeks response after I wrote this.  He said much of the same thing.)

I would like it to be known that I'm not suggesting snap shooting is as fast as a secondary 1x aiming solution. I've never had a problem doing it on boars or coyotes though
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 9:56:43 AM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I just banged away at gongs out to 400 yards yesterday with a 1-5x on a 450 bushmaster
.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People trying to use lpvo's to shoot groups at distance baffle me.

Not at long distance but tight groups within the humane kill limitations of a 5.56 round ( 200 - hog, 300 - coyote ).

I just banged away at gongs out to 400 yards yesterday with a 1-5x on a 450 bushmaster
.


.
Not an easy shot with that round.
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 2:12:44 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I would like it to be known that I'm not suggesting snap shooting is as fast as a secondary 1x aiming solution. I've never had a problem doing it on boars or coyotes though
View Quote



Understood.  You are right.  Snap shooting is a valuable skill.
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 5:58:41 PM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I would like it to be known that I'm not suggesting snap shooting is as fast as a secondary 1x aiming solution. I've never had a problem doing it on boars or coyotes though
View Quote


As a youngster, when you were finally old enough to get to go deer hunting you didn't give 2 shitz about what was gonna be pressed up against your shoulder.  Mine was a Savage 99 with a 4x scope.  I killed a lot of whitetails from 15 yards out to over 300.  When the variables started to become reliable my first investment was a 3-9x, because I didn't feel handicapped on the low end.  I find it a bit funny to see how so many people seem to put so much emphasis on 1x for close in encounters.  You have two eyes, if you have illumination you shouldn't have a problem even with 3x
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 6:18:22 PM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


As a youngster, when you were finally old enough to get to go deer hunting you didn't give 2 shitz about what was gonna be pressed up against your shoulder.  Mine was a Savage 99 with a 4x scope.  I killed a lot of whitetails from 15 yards out to over 300.  When the variables started to become reliable my first investment was a 3-9x, because I didn't feel handicapped on the low end.  I find it a bit funny to see how so many people seem to put so much emphasis on 1x for close in encounters.  You have two eyes, if you have illumination you shouldn't have a problem even with 3x
View Quote

Edit*** nvm
Link Posted: 9/17/2023 7:00:56 PM EST
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


As a youngster, when you were finally old enough to get to go deer hunting you didn't give 2 shitz about what was gonna be pressed up against your shoulder.  Mine was a Savage 99 with a 4x scope.  I killed a lot of whitetails from 15 yards out to over 300.  When the variables started to become reliable my first investment was a 3-9x, because I didn't feel handicapped on the low end.  I find it a bit funny to see how so many people seem to put so much emphasis on 1x for close in encounters.  You have two eyes, if you have illumination you shouldn't have a problem even with 3x
View Quote



I had a 3x9 Accupoint with the green dot and .mils. That thing was a fuckin banger and I'm sad I ever sold it. Thing was stupid light, and though rudimentary in terms of reticles, the thing just worked. I had it on a 16" gun and I miss it alot.
Link Posted: 9/22/2023 1:46:23 PM EST
[#21]
I haven't watched much of these guys, but the youtube algorithm machine pushed this on me today. This pretty much nails how I feel.
Red Dot vs LPVO - We Really Want to Like LPVO's
Link Posted: 9/22/2023 4:45:49 PM EST
[#22]
Their final thoughts are pretty much spot on about dedicated training. Also agree with lpvo's making you work harder. I wish at the 175 they would have only cranked to what ever magnification they ran the rds magnifiers on-i think it would have helped with the eye box comparison and been more apples to apples. Good video though!

A few more thoughts...
-watching the first dude bring up with magnifier with his shooting hand to stay on target is something I teach my dudes a lot regardless of using an lpvo or rds/magnifier.
-I wonder if the larger dude would have had an easier time with a higher mounted lpvo since he was used to a higher mounted rds
-it was interesting to see how close the splits where with admitting very little training time on lpvo's. They both seemed to improve a bit after getting more comfortable with them
Link Posted: 9/22/2023 7:34:17 PM EST
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

What do you consider a bad shot? At 100yds shooting a regular CL barrel with an unmagnified RDS using M193 or ADI 69Gr SMK I can consistently hold 3" groups in the prone and sitting position using either the magazine(prone)or my knees for support. At 200yds with the same setup I open up to around 8" groups with the ADI and slightly larger with the cheaper M193, I can't see a 3" target that far away so I'm sort of guessing where it's at on the sheet of paper. With magnification the groups are inside of 4" out to 200yds.

I guess if this makes me a bad shot then it's my funeral. At least I'm not bragging about being a sniper that can shoot 1/2 MOA at 1000yds.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Tell us you’re a bad shot without saying you’re a bad shot.

What do you consider a bad shot? At 100yds shooting a regular CL barrel with an unmagnified RDS using M193 or ADI 69Gr SMK I can consistently hold 3" groups in the prone and sitting position using either the magazine(prone)or my knees for support. At 200yds with the same setup I open up to around 8" groups with the ADI and slightly larger with the cheaper M193, I can't see a 3" target that far away so I'm sort of guessing where it's at on the sheet of paper. With magnification the groups are inside of 4" out to 200yds.

I guess if this makes me a bad shot then it's my funeral. At least I'm not bragging about being a sniper that can shoot 1/2 MOA at 1000yds.


Arf Warriors shoot rounds through the last rounds' holes
Link Posted: 9/23/2023 5:01:49 PM EST
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo.

In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot.

This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances.

This guy is slightly annoying, but the first 15 minutes of this seem like a pretty fair assessment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PtvTkxcUw
View Quote


The TREX arms guys are great at 25y and in speed shooting. It's most of what they do. They would smoke me.

They are pretty crappy at precision shooting though if you watch any of their long range stuff. For example, if you watch their recent magnified vs.red dot video, shot at 100m , they determine that a magnifier is just slower to 100m with no better accuracy. You can see how inexperienced they are under the magnifier in the video moving back and forth to find eye relief. Of course they are shooting full sized silhouette targets. The shooting was in their estimation, pretty good, with 80% A zone hits for both. But to me, it was a shit show of misses. If they shot at a 6" box, they would be missing most of the shots fired, one of them would have missed every shot at one stage. They did not have a good idea of even the elevation to hold at 100m. There was a shift of magnified to unmagnified of like a foot for one guy at just 100m. This is the type of difference in perspective I was talking about earlier. Low standards, low expectations, and huge targets make for overconfident shooters that dont grasp their limitations. To them, a red dot is all you need to 110 yards and beyond. They proved themselves wrong, but just don't see it because of their standards taken from close range pistol competition shooting.

I know some guys will laugh this off and call my perspective ridiculous,  but usually, those are the same guys with low standards for accuracy. And to the guys saying that scopes only help at 200m or more or they would use 6x out to 600m... you must either have the best 20/10 eyesight in the world or be living in a dream. I would love to see a guy put 5 out of 10 on a 6" steel swinger at 600 yards with a 6× LPVO on an AR15. I certainly can't see well enough to do it but would love to see you do it. Please post a video!
Link Posted: 9/23/2023 6:09:43 PM EST
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I haven't watched much of these guys, but the youtube algorithm machine pushed this on me today. This pretty much nails how I feel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHs-lN1vRcs
View Quote


These guys remind me of the exact sentiments of guys that hate red dots on pistols and advocate sticking with iron sights. And they are equally wrong.

Comments like... my aiming point is moving all over the place and I hate it! Are just people not liking their poor aim being made apparent. It is the same on your irons on pistol you just don't see it without the dot. Your aim is just as shit and wiggly with a red dot on a rifle... you just can't see it like you can with more magnification on an LPVO.

And I can virtually guarantee you these guys shot big ass targets. They are pistol guys that are used to full sized silhouettes and getting "hits" or " A zone" on ridiculously giant targets. I mean off hand at 175 yards? I can think of no scenario I would take an offhand, unsupported 175 yard shot with no cover. But this is a realist scenario for comparison?

These dudes are also so clueless they think the windage and elevation on a magnifier is to move your POI around lol!

Yes, it takes training to use an LPVO, but it offers advantages in more scenarios than it offers disadvantages if you train around them. You can't train around not being able to see, no matter how hard you train. And being able to see tbe the key advantage to the LPVO.
Link Posted: 9/23/2023 11:05:31 PM EST
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The TREX arms guys are great at 25y and in speed shooting. It's most of what they do. They would smoke me.

They are pretty crappy at precision shooting though if you watch any of their long range stuff. For example, if you watch their recent magnified vs.red dot video, shot at 100m , they determine that a magnifier is just slower to 100m with no better accuracy. You can see how inexperienced they are under the magnifier in the video moving back and forth to find eye relief. Of course they are shooting full sized silhouette targets. The shooting was in their estimation, pretty good, with 80% A zone hits for both. But to me, it was a shit show of misses. If they shot at a 6" box, they would be missing most of the shots fired, one of them would have missed every shot at one stage. They did not have a good idea of even the elevation to hold at 100m. There was a shift of magnified to unmagnified of like a foot for one guy at just 100m. This is the type of difference in perspective I was talking about earlier. Low standards, low expectations, and huge targets make for overconfident shooters that dont grasp their limitations. To them, a red dot is all you need to 110 yards and beyond. They proved themselves wrong, but just don't see it because of their standards taken from close range pistol competition shooting.

I know some guys will laugh this off and call my perspective ridiculous,  but usually, those are the same guys with low standards for accuracy. And to the guys saying that scopes only help at 200m or more or they would use 6x out to 600m... you must either have the best 20/10 eyesight in the world or be living in a dream. I would love to see a guy put 5 out of 10 on a 6" steel swinger at 600 yards with a 6× LPVO on an AR15. I certainly can't see well enough to do it but would love to see you do it. Please post a video!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo.

In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot.

This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances.

This guy is slightly annoying, but the first 15 minutes of this seem like a pretty fair assessment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8PtvTkxcUw


The TREX arms guys are great at 25y and in speed shooting. It's most of what they do. They would smoke me.

They are pretty crappy at precision shooting though if you watch any of their long range stuff. For example, if you watch their recent magnified vs.red dot video, shot at 100m , they determine that a magnifier is just slower to 100m with no better accuracy. You can see how inexperienced they are under the magnifier in the video moving back and forth to find eye relief. Of course they are shooting full sized silhouette targets. The shooting was in their estimation, pretty good, with 80% A zone hits for both. But to me, it was a shit show of misses. If they shot at a 6" box, they would be missing most of the shots fired, one of them would have missed every shot at one stage. They did not have a good idea of even the elevation to hold at 100m. There was a shift of magnified to unmagnified of like a foot for one guy at just 100m. This is the type of difference in perspective I was talking about earlier. Low standards, low expectations, and huge targets make for overconfident shooters that dont grasp their limitations. To them, a red dot is all you need to 110 yards and beyond. They proved themselves wrong, but just don't see it because of their standards taken from close range pistol competition shooting.

I know some guys will laugh this off and call my perspective ridiculous,  but usually, those are the same guys with low standards for accuracy. And to the guys saying that scopes only help at 200m or more or they would use 6x out to 600m... you must either have the best 20/10 eyesight in the world or be living in a dream. I would love to see a guy put 5 out of 10 on a 6" steel swinger at 600 yards with a 6× LPVO on an AR15. I certainly can't see well enough to do it but would love to see you do it. Please post a video!


From what I can tell the TREX focus is tactical self defense type of stuff. If that's what you care about, it makes sense to focus on shorter ranges, speed and generally be ok with 5-10 MOA. For better or worse, a lot of people and organizations consider any hit on a silhouette success. My take on that is, any hit on an enemy is success. Close misses likely have a temporary effect his ability to shoot, move or communicate.
Link Posted: 9/24/2023 3:15:30 AM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

These guys remind me of the exact sentiments of guys that hate red dots on pistols and advocate sticking with iron sights. And they are equally wrong.

Comments like... my aiming point is moving all over the place and I hate it! Are just people not liking their poor aim being made apparent. It is the same on your irons on pistol you just don't see it without the dot. Your aim is just as shit and wiggly with a red dot on a rifle... you just can't see it like you can with more magnification on an LPVO.

And I can virtually guarantee you these guys shot big ass targets. They are pistol guys that are used to full sized silhouettes and getting "hits" or " A zone" on ridiculously giant targets. I mean off hand at 175 yards? I can think of no scenario I would take an offhand, unsupported 175 yard shot with no cover. But this is a realist scenario for comparison?

These dudes are also so clueless they think the windage and elevation on a magnifier is to move your POI around lol!

Yes, it takes training to use an LPVO, but it offers advantages in more scenarios than it offers disadvantages if you train around them. You can't train around not being able to see, no matter how hard you train. And being able to see tbe the key advantage to the LPVO.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I haven't watched much of these guys, but the youtube algorithm machine pushed this on me today. This pretty much nails how I feel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHs-lN1vRcs

These guys remind me of the exact sentiments of guys that hate red dots on pistols and advocate sticking with iron sights. And they are equally wrong.

Comments like... my aiming point is moving all over the place and I hate it! Are just people not liking their poor aim being made apparent. It is the same on your irons on pistol you just don't see it without the dot. Your aim is just as shit and wiggly with a red dot on a rifle... you just can't see it like you can with more magnification on an LPVO.

And I can virtually guarantee you these guys shot big ass targets. They are pistol guys that are used to full sized silhouettes and getting "hits" or " A zone" on ridiculously giant targets. I mean off hand at 175 yards? I can think of no scenario I would take an offhand, unsupported 175 yard shot with no cover. But this is a realist scenario for comparison?

These dudes are also so clueless they think the windage and elevation on a magnifier is to move your POI around lol!

Yes, it takes training to use an LPVO, but it offers advantages in more scenarios than it offers disadvantages if you train around them. You can't train around not being able to see, no matter how hard you train. And being able to see tbe the key advantage to the LPVO.

I generally disregard anyone with an ocular behind the charging handle, unless it's on a supported prone rifle.

I don't know of a scenario either, but...
That little white dot at the far right is a rigidly fixed 6 MOA steel plate at 200yds. I was having a slightly better than average day. A *beep* wouldn't add much stress. Some gusts would make Offhand sporting.


In Chris' defense though, the Accufire Atro-8 has an awful reticle.

Link Posted: 9/24/2023 2:08:22 PM EST
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:I generally disregard anyone with an ocular behind the charging handle, unless it's on a supported prone rifle.
View Quote

Huh?

I would agree that the big guy had his lpvo mounted impressively rearward, but i've never heard of that company and have no idea what that lpvo's eye relief is, so chalked it up as crappy original acog short.

But the ocular lens matching or overhanging the charging handle a rail or two is completely normal and within the majority of scopes' eye relief.
Link Posted: 9/24/2023 4:20:23 PM EST
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Huh?

I would agree that the big guy had his lpvo mounted impressively rearward, but i've never heard of that company and have no idea what that lpvo's eye relief is, so chalked it up as crappy original acog short.

But the ocular lens matching or overhanging the charging handle a rail or two is completely normal and within the majority of scopes' eye relief.
View Quote
Same listed ER as my TR24.

If Jake is an average dude, Chris is probably not much bigger than me, but he is depending on his shoulder mass and mostly brake for recoil mitigation. The stock is fully extended and scope is far enough back for only squared up shooting, but his grip is at the forend making him blade. Ahhh! Lol
Link Posted: 9/24/2023 6:25:57 PM EST
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Same listed ER as my TR24.

If Jake is an average dude, Chris is probably not much bigger than me, but he is depending on his shoulder mass and mostly brake for recoil mitigation. The stock is fully extended and scope is far enough back for only squared up shooting, but his grip is at the forend making him blade. Ahhh! Lol
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Huh?

I would agree that the big guy had his lpvo mounted impressively rearward, but i've never heard of that company and have no idea what that lpvo's eye relief is, so chalked it up as crappy original acog short.

But the ocular lens matching or overhanging the charging handle a rail or two is completely normal and within the majority of scopes' eye relief.
Same listed ER as my TR24.

If Jake is an average dude, Chris is probably not much bigger than me, but he is depending on his shoulder mass and mostly brake for recoil mitigation. The stock is fully extended and scope is far enough back for only squared up shooting, but his grip is at the forend making him blade. Ahhh! Lol

Ah, yeah, gotcha, thought the same with how far back it was and his stance.
Page / 4
Next Page Arrow Left
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