Seems like there's a new crop of smaller, variable power scopes out now that are starting to get lots of attention.  The two that come to mind are the US Optics SN-4, which has been discussed here before, and the Schmidt Bender CQB Police Marksman, link here: http://www.schmidtbender.com/scopes_policemarksman.shtml

I'm curious to learn what folks see as the advantages to these scopes (affordability is not one!) over "older" scopes like the ACOG TA01 NSN and others?  

I was also surprised to see that the US military seems to be getting in on the action.  The US Optics site says that the SN-4 is currently used by US military forces, including the SEALs.  And I've recently seen a couple pics from the sandbox showing US SOFs or contractors with similar-looking optics (at least one was from Lightfighter.com).   Is this the new trend?

Thanks for any info/feedback.

Will  

these scopes are super clear.  I would say unnecessarily clear.  Most people don’t have perfect vision so buying a scope like this would not help them much.  Most folks can do just as good with a Leupold or (gulp) tasco scope so why spend the extra money for quality you can’t use?

A distinction ought to be made between field-elevation-adjustable scopes such as you'd see on a mid-range or SPR, vs. those without any external adjustments such as the ACOG.

-z

The variable does something that most want - excellent CQB red dot and magnification and BDC at longer ranges.

NF has the 1-4,
USO has another scope in the works too.  A fewof us where at SHOT last year and listening/discussing it and the S&B scope with the companies - the idea was for a Red Dot at 1x then a reticle to be visible at magnification (I am not a techy so no idea if it even possible)




These are all enduser driven for not everyone seems to think the TA31 E-COS is the way to go.

Agree on variable for versatility.  

A couple things I think Trijicon got right with the ACOG:

1. compact size due to roof prism design.  Both the TA31 and TA11's are much more compact than conventional designs like Leupold, S&B, and NF.   The USO's are large and heavy.

2. used ambient light to "power" the lit reticle.   We don't have to depend on batteries (still a good option to have), and it "self-adjusts" for brightness

-z

Zak,

Thanks.  Actually, you helped answer one of my questions in a round-about way.  The fact that these newer models have "field-adjustability" is clearly a major difference that likely contributes to their increasing popularity (and their higher prices).

The pics I saw of these scopes showed them all mounted on M4s type carbines, one of which was on a contractor's SBR (maybe 8-inch?) upper, which seemed like a poor choice to me.  

However, I suspect that the claim of "SEAL usage" on the US Optics
site means that the SEALs are using the SN-4 on their mid-length "recce rifles"?

Anyone know more?

Will

Quoted: Thanks.  Actually, you helped answer one of my questions in a round-about way.  The fact that these newer models have "field-adjustability" is clearly a major difference that likely contributes to their increasing popularity (and their higher prices).

The way I see it, there are two applications that these two types meet.

1. ACOG-type, general purpose, good for full size silhouettes to 500 yards, 10" squares to about 400.  Hold-over is accomplished with built-in BDC and windage hold-off is done kentucky-style.   The zero cannot be "bumped" accidentally because the adjustment screws are covered all the time.

2. medium-range/SPR, a "precision" optic with externally adjustable windage & elevation knobs.  good for as much precision as your rifle can shoot.  hold-over for large targets can be done using the mildots, hold-over for small targets done using elevation knob.  windage can be done using either.   these generally have no "BAC" capability (see TA31/TA11 ACOG) because their lit reticles are not bright enough, and there is always the change the adjustment knobs will be bumped off your zero when moving.

I see a place for both types, until something revolutionary comes out.  I think the TA11 ACOG is the best of the first type.  It is out of its element, however, at precise targets 200m or further, and at ranges closer than 20-40m.   I'm not really satisfied with the current SPR/medium range optics either, see this thread for more discussion: AR15.Com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=199656&page=1


-z

The SN4 is in no way a "new" scope.  Its been around for several years.  Its also not in use in any large number by our military.  I guess its just new to you.

The SOPMOD 2 magnified optic is suppused to be a variable 1-4X scope with bright lit reticle with long battery life (or tritium/fiber optic), waterproof, shock proof etc.  This is the right direction to me for a universal optic.

Any general purpose magnified optic needs to be under 16oz and preferably under 14oz.  I know there are AT LEAST 3 different bodies for the SN4 so the weight and size issue mat not be as bad as many have believed.  However I just can justify a scope costing in excess of  $1500 for any purpose.

DevL,

Fair enough about the "new"part, but I think it's clear that this category of optic is attracting greater attention than they were before.  So, maybe it's just the "buzz" that's relatively new--not the optic.

I'm still interested to hear more about pros/cons, as well as any info on US military usage?

Thanks.  

Will

SOPMOD II shit the bed on the E-COS downselect  - TA31 ACOG (w/ M4/M855 reticle) XM-145 ELCAN (YUCK) and the EOTECH 554 w/ Magnifier.

As far as the 1-4 variable is it a desired not require item of E-COS - but some units( that can) are buying the variable systems.

Basicload [from LF] has a pic of his curent IRAQI blaster up with the S&B 1.1-4 on it in a custom made for him LaRue mount...

I don't understand it.  The AR really wants eye relief of 2 - 2.5", not 3+" like most of these conventional scopes have.

-z

Zak - I cant figure it out either.

I shoot NTCH if I can - and in trying some of the variable offerings they just dont work well with the AR IMHO

Quoted: Zak - I cant figure it out either. I shoot NTCH if I can - and in trying some of the variable offerings they just dont work well with the AR IMHO

That's one of my big complaints with the 2.5-10 NXS (the other is you can't tell what revolution the elevation knob is on and there's no zero-stop), and even the M/RT.

I wouldn't mind the eye relief issue so much if the scopes could be no more than about 5" long.  But a 17-21oz scope mounted way over the fore-end screws up the weapon's balance and requires more complex mounting options.

-z