Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/23/2004 6:43:53 AM EST
I am trying to pick a CQB scope for a lightweight carbine. However, the only point I am still unsure of is weather or not a CQB scope should have at least a little magnification. Brand aside, what do you think, magnified or unmagnified for work at 100 yards or less?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:55:42 AM EST
Get a Trijicon TA31 with the donut (BAC). Best of both worlds.

But for really close stuff an Aimpoint is great.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:56:37 AM EST
Aimpoint or EOTech, no magnification needed......

Mike
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:05:07 AM EST
EOTech magnification is coming soon in the form of an add-on optic. It'll be nice to have the choice to use the optic with, or without 3.75 zoom.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:06:05 AM EST
ok both of the above posts are biased...

really the optic choices come to 3 optics... aimpoint, ta31 and a compact acog...

the acogs are very very useful optics to military and such... it will allow any not so good shooter to make hits at very impressive ranges... and still have a close quarters ability... but i stress ability... the acogs are just simply not as fast as a eo or aimpoint... if your using two eyes with an acog and you find a target a 50m... good luck hitting it with two eyes... most likely (depending on your amount of phoria) it will be a little up and to the right...(off target)... and you'll end up switching to one eye...

aimpoint is perfect for a civilian who wants to go to the range and have some fun but yet have a time tested reliable optic.... the aimpoint will allow you to make faster hits and closer ranges than the acog... how ever at ranges past 300m it will be a challenge... but then you have to consider that most police engagements are under 25m... and most engagements in iraq were under 100m... aimpoint is perfect....

these long range shots in urban combat just aren't the norm...

at a large price tag differnece of

$450 - Aimpoint w/ mount
$1000 - acog...

the aimpoint made since for me....
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:14:38 AM EST
The EOtech has a faster reticle than the Aimpoint for CQB and is about $300. No mount needed.

Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:19:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:25:33 AM EST
oh crap... here we go...

GO AIMPOINT!
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:28:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:31:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By DOA:
The EOtech has a faster reticle than the Aimpoint for CQB and is about $300. No mount needed.




faster how?



With the larger outer ring it's faster than the Aimpoint as plenty here who are in the business of using these types of sights IRL on a daily basis will attest to, that said I sold my EO and bought another ML2 myself. Personal preferences are a bitch!

Mike
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 8:50:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:19:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 9:24:40 AM EST by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:25:54 AM EST
Magnification isn't needed for a CQB sight, and IMHO gets in the way.

I love my Compact ACOG with BAC - but for CQB it's my EOTech (or even my Reflex) before I pick up the Compact ACOG.

Besides if you get the EOTech - plus the LaRue mount - you'll be set to use the EOTech Magnifier. So you'll have your CQB optic, and the ability to transform it to medium distance optic within seconds.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:42:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 9:44:33 AM EST by MT_Pockets]
Who else here doesn't even notice the sight or remember using the sight when doing close-up work?

I am not saying the sight doesn't need to be there. Just that when making quick close quarter shots with a weapon you are familiar with the muzzle tends to point the right direction on its own.

Sorry I have a hard time putting thoughts into words......my cq maybe closer than your cq...I have a small house.

MT
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 9:59:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 10:30:58 AM EST
While I appreciate the brand recommendations, does 2x or 3x seem distracting or an advantage when using a both eyes open CQB approach?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 1:30:01 PM EST
In my opinion, 'out to 100 yds.' can mean more than one thing. Seeing a target can be a challange at 100yds. for some and 2x can make all the difference. My 2-7 scope on one of my rimfire rifles keeps reminding me of this. I sure wish that 2-7 had a lit reticle, parralax set at 75 or 80, power ring with some leverage.....

Top half of a popper, plenty of grass, 100yds,.... Acog starts to look good. I want to buy a Acog 2x compact with a red chevron, if they would make one.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 1:44:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Midian:
While I appreciate the brand recommendations, does 2x or 3x seem distracting or an advantage when using a both eyes open CQB approach?



For me low magnification is distracting/slower out to about 25 yards then its about even to 50 and a benefit past 50 yards.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 2:08:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 4:37:25 PM EST by inkaybee]
I did some timed drills last weekend with an aim point and a TA31. I used a PACT timer with a random start buzzer. The course of fire was as follows. From the low ready position, when the start buzzer sounds the shooter raises the rifle and shoots one shot at a 12" X12" steel plate 15yards away. This plate, when hit, releases an IPSC target that slides down a 30 ft cable. After hitting the first plate the shooter turns almost 90 degrees and engages another 12"x12" steel plate at 75yards. Then the shooter turns back and fires at the sliding IPSC target before it disappears behind cover. There are a total of three shots fired from buzzer to finish.

My times with each optic were very close. Most times were just under 4 sec. 3.71 sec was the fastest and that happened to be with the ACOG.

This suprised me because I always feel faster with the Aimpoint. With the TA31 it seems like I am struggling to discern the sight picture. But the timer does not lie. It is, for all intents and purposes, just as fast as the aimpoint. (At least for me)

I have always felt like I have trouble with the BAC. Most of the time it seems like my brain wants to switch to the magnified view before I can take the shot. But under the stress of the timer I can distinctly recall seeing that IPSC target sliding down the cable UNMAGNIFIED with a big doughnut right in the middle of it.

I am begining to believe New_ARGuy when he says the TA31 is just as fast as an Aim Point.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 2:09:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By mr_wilson:
With the larger outer ring it's faster than the Aimpoint as plenty here who are in the business of using these types of sights IRL on a daily basis will attest to

Mike



Well, I certainly wouldnt know what thats like. Thanks for clearing that up for me.



Same here.

FWIW, the Aimpoint is way faster and more accurate for me at any range. The EOTech reticle is just to busy for me, and older Rev EOTech reticles were too fuzzy for me to be precise with. Mybe the Rev F will be better for me...

-Cap'n
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:18:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By inkaybee:
I used a PACT timer with a random start buzzer.



How much and where from? I am interested in this and it seems like it would be a good way to go through and scrutinize your technique or abilities.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:47:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:48:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/23/2004 3:50:52 PM EST by Midian]
Wow, it sounds like maybe once you get used to magnification, some people can be just as fast with it. However, others are in the other camp that don't care for magnification. My only intimate experience with a magnified scope used this way is with a Leupold variable dialed down to 4.5x. At 4.5x with my current scope, I have a really hard time sweeping back and forth while maintaining good focus. Maybe the problem is that my scope is really meant for long range precision and not CQB. Has any one here compared the Aimpoint 2X against the standard?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 3:55:18 PM EST
Wow...100 yard CQB?

MT
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:35:52 PM EST
For CQB, no magnification!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 4:39:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By 123whisper:

Originally Posted By inkaybee:
I used a PACT timer with a random start buzzer.



How much and where from? I am interested in this and it seems like it would be a good way to go through and scrutinize your technique or abilities.



midway www.midwayusa.com I forget how much
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:11:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:
Besides if you get the EOTech - plus the LaRue mount - you'll be set to use the EOTech Magnifier. So you'll have your CQB optic, and the ability to transform it to medium distance optic within seconds.



WHOA THERE...could you elaborate on that, and possibly provide links?
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:33:50 PM EST
The more equipment I try and the more guys I shoot with, the more convinced I become that there is a huge individual-to-individual variation in how human eyes pick up data and how human brains process that data. (Bart Roberts; jump in here anytime and help me out.)

I've seen some guys (and not necessarily young guys) go inhumanely fast at close range with ACOG's. I've seen guys make consistent hits with 4 minute Aimpoints on little targets at distances I find to be absurd. I've seen guys who can focus right through the optical clutter of having fixed front and rear iron sights right in the primary sight plane of their red dot optic. The fact that I can't do any of these things doesn't mean that other people can't. And the fact that they can doesn't mean that I can.

I view blanket statements such as "A is faster than B" or "X works better past W yards than Y." to be completely without merit unless subtended with "for me".

In things optic, remember that YM absolutely will V.

SD
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:34:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By CKxx:

WHOA THERE...could you elaborate on that, and possibly provide links?




Just spend two seconds and search this forum, brother. This info had barely moved to the second page...

EOTech Magnifier
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:35:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By CKxx:

Originally Posted By Forest:
Besides if you get the EOTech - plus the LaRue mount - you'll be set to use the EOTech Magnifier. So you'll have your CQB optic, and the ability to transform it to medium distance optic within seconds.



WHOA THERE...could you elaborate on that, and possibly provide links?



We've discussed this several times in the last month - there is a current thread (look on the first or second page in this forum) on the EO Tech magnifier. It's going to be THE slick setup.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 5:46:29 PM EST
One thing I noted when training with my BAC equiped Compact ACOG and the EOTech was there was little difference with COM shots at CQB ranges

However, when required to do headshot drills I consistantly found the non-magnifying optic to be quicker (as BAC was not precise enough for head shots - I had to wait for the 'zoom' effect before I could fire). YMMV
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 6:28:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Friendly_Sponge:

Originally Posted By CKxx:

WHOA THERE...could you elaborate on that, and possibly provide links?




Just spend two seconds and search this forum, brother. This info had barely moved to the second page...

EOTech Magnifier



Immediatly after I posted i looked around the forum. I saw the other thread, but was hoping someone in here had a pic or somthing.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 2:56:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By CKxx:

Originally Posted By The_Friendly_Sponge:

Originally Posted By CKxx:

WHOA THERE...could you elaborate on that, and possibly provide links?




Just spend two seconds and search this forum, brother. This info had barely moved to the second page...

EOTech Magnifier



Immediatly after I posted i looked around the forum. I saw the other thread, but was hoping someone in here had a pic or somthing.



Right now the legend of the EOTech magnifier is on par with Nessie or the Yeti. Yesterday I read wait for the next SHOT show. We'll see.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 3:41:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 4:14:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By SailorDude:
The more equipment I try and the more guys I shoot with, the more convinced I become that there is a huge individual-to-individual variation in how human eyes pick up data and how human brains process that data. (Bart Roberts; jump in here anytime and help me out.)

I've seen some guys (and not necessarily young guys) go inhumanely fast at close range with ACOG's. I've seen guys make consistent hits with 4 minute Aimpoints on little targets at distances I find to be absurd. I've seen guys who can focus right through the optical clutter of having fixed front and rear iron sights right in the primary sight plane of their red dot optic. The fact that I can't do any of these things doesn't mean that other people can't. And the fact that they can doesn't mean that I can.

I view blanket statements such as "A is faster than B" or "X works better past W yards than Y." to be completely without merit unless subtended with "for me".

In things optic, remember that YM absolutely will V.

SD



I will give a great big +1 to this.


Originally Posted by Forrest:
One thing I noted when training with my BAC equiped Compact ACOG and the EOTech was there was little difference with COM shots at CQB ranges

However, when required to do headshot drills I consistantly found the non-magnifying optic to be quicker (as BAC was not precise enough for head shots - I had to wait for the 'zoom' effect before I could fire). YMMV



I will agree with this to a point and add that they say that phoria takes some time to develop and how extreme it is is individual to your eyes.

Which is to basically to say that how far off your POI will be from your POA depends on your individual eyes and how long you pause at the target.

so, YMMV +1
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 4:38:26 AM EST
A big +1 for 123whisper

YMMV


Link Posted: 9/24/2004 4:50:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By KevinB:
A big +1 for 123whisper

YMMV





Awesome. A +1 from KevinB.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 5:03:24 AM EST
I'm with you SailorDude, there are just too many factors involved in individual eyesight and the way your brain processes that information to say with any certainty that optic X is the end-all be-all.

To give just one example, I hate amber reticles. Even though they are supposed to be brighter to the human eye, they always blend into the background for me. The orange Leupold CQT is the worst. For my eyes, the prevalence of bright sun and tan/amber backgrounds in Texas makes the reticle just disappear. However, one day I shot with someone who was red/green colorblind and they were absolutely tearing it up with an amber reticle while complaining about how the red donut on my TA11 washed out too easy.

Or there was the guy on here who expressed his opinion that his IOR scope with an exit pupil half the size of a TA11 was just as bright as an ACOG. At first I thought the guy was crazy/didn't know what he was talking about; but he was just an older guy and part of age is that your pupils no longer dilate as much - so for him, the TA11 wasn't any brighter than his IOR because he couldn't use the extra light.

Those are just a few factors too - start throwing in phoria, astigamatism, quality of eyesight (20/20 or 20/30?), and then add differences in how the brain processes all of this info and you get a lot of variance in what works and what doesn't.

I think there are some concepts that work across a wider range than others - the Aimpoints and EOtechs work because they rely on relatively simple concepts that translate well across a wide variety of eyesight types, though you can still have issues with these if you are red/green colorblind or have astigatism (or like me you just can't see the target to begin with without magnification).

The BAC ACOGS are fantastic if you can use them; but they have even more variables than the red dots and so work at less than optimum level for a wider range of people. This is why I always recommend try before you buy with optics, even though it can be a major pain to try and find all the optics you are interested in and sample them. It took me two years to compare all the optics I wanted to examine before I settled on the TA11.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 5:09:32 AM EST
[box]Aimpoint, acog, eotech[/box]

I like a variable power scope. I went with a 1-4 power scope. at 1 it works great in close and the 4 allows you to go even further out accuretly.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 5:44:49 AM EST
If someone would make a variable power scope with the following features I think it would be the ideal "do everything" optic for an M4 type of carbine.


1-4X Power
Under 8" long
Under 16 oz WITH LaRue mount
24mm or greater objective
Lit reticle bright enough for daytime use
Long battery life (or tritium/fiber optic illumination)
Shock-proof, water-proof, fog-proof, drop-proof
Mounts at same height as iron sights
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:01:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:


Or there was the guy on here who expressed his opinion that his IOR scope with an exit pupil half the size of a TA11 was just as bright as an ACOG. At first I thought the guy was crazy/didn't know what he was talking about; but he was just an older guy and part of age is that your pupils no longer dilate as much - so for him, the TA11 wasn't any brighter than his IOR because he couldn't use the extra light.



Is that why my dad complains that he can't see very well without bright light? I always new that older people needed more light, but I didn't know why. I guess it is just like how you can't focus in as close or as far away sometimes when you get older. Just lose the range.




Those are just a few factors too - start throwing in phoria, astigamatism, quality of eyesight (20/20 or 20/30?), and then add differences in how the brain processes all of this info and you get a lot of variance in what works and what doesn't.

I think there are some concepts that work across a wider range than others - the Aimpoints and EOtechs work because they rely on relatively simple concepts that translate well across a wide variety of eyesight types, though you can still have issues with these if you are red/green colorblind or have astigatism (or like me you just can't see the target to begin with without magnification).

The BAC ACOGS are fantastic if you can use them; but they have even more variables than the red dots and so work at less than optimum level for a wider range of people. This is why I always recommend try before you buy with optics, even though it can be a major pain to try and find all the optics you are interested in and sample them. It took me two years to compare all the optics I wanted to examine before I settled on the TA11.



You get the heralded +5

I don't think I have ever agree more with a post since I have been here.
Top Top