What exactly is the role of 1-4X type optics on an AR? Are they a niche optic, for a specialized need? They do not seem to be too common judging by the pic threads, and can be quite expensive. So, who uses them, and why?
I use one on my do everything rifle. They do a lot but nothing perfectly.
At close range you are slightly slower on target and have a bit of parallax. At long range you only have 4x mag and depending on the reticle you won’t be able to gauge holdover as well.
But you get long and short range in one optic.
All that being said, I love my TR24.
I run a 1-4 on my Recce upper right now as I use that as my 3gun rifle as well. I also run a 1-4 on my 12.5in SBR as thats my General Purpose gun.
Burris XTR 1-4x24 is a very good optic. The reticle is very good for all ranges. Thats what I use on both my guns. After 3gun season Im going to be putting a 3-9x40 on my Recce and building a 18in upper for 3gun.
I also use the Burris XTR14 1-4X. As stated above, it does the job well, but not perfectly, there is no “do it all well” optic that I am aware of, everything is a compromise. I must say though, the Burris reticle is great in the holdover department but I wish the illuminated horseshoe was better in the daylight visible realm. I find using the Fastfire II as a close in optic on an angle bracket has some utility, the “mounted on the top of the 1-4X”, as Burris markets it makes it too high to be practical.
I have a Nightforce 1-4 on a Larue SPR mount and love it. Its not a true 1 power, more like a 1.1…nice scope though
I ran a Millett DMS 1-4x in a PEPR mount for a while on a 16" build, and loved it for what it was…
But decided I could use some cash quick and sold it to a fellow member on this forum…
Here was my old setup:
On to bigger and better things, I suppose! I was very happy wih this scope’s performance, especially for the price. They are considerably less expensive than other choices for similar performance, and as stated, it served it’s purpose well. I really liked the illuminated “donut-dot” reticle, it seemed to be fairly quick on-target with both eyes open… and didn’t cover TOO much when shooting anything within about 140-150 yards.
No problems with the Burris PEPR mount either, but I know people will scold because I didn’t just save some extra $$ for the LT mount instead.
My two cents…lol
~Bobby
Elitists, fanboys and shitheads might “scold” you for your choices, (those are the people I ignore) - some can’t help themselves, as this is the internet after all. I think however, people with experience combined with knowledge may disagree with your choice and guide you as to the reasons why. I tend to learn from experience, mistakes and guidance - some of it from right here.
It occurs to me after seeing your set-up that I had posted about my own experience with choosing the exact optic/mount combo you did. I really need to update it, (not that anyone really cares), but perhaps if my experience can save someone else the trouble, then it will be a contribution.
I will ask you one question though. Did you ever run your rifle with the Millet beyond a static range? For example, a carbine course? I’m curious to your experience, because here was mine:
Initially, I thought I had reached a sort of nirvana between my desire to have a 1-4 optic on my carbine, coupled with situationally being on a tight budget. The Millet out of the box was everything I could have hoped for. On the range sighting it in was a grin festival. I was drilling quarters at 50-yards and doing some pre-course drills, I was accurately smacking mini IDPA targets from 10-200 yards, curled up underneath the benches - even laying on my back. The donut reticle was bright and easy to acquire. I had hit optic pay dirt…I thought.
The first weekend I ran the Millet was confirmation of my experience on the range the week prior. My times on the barricade shrunk, target identification/acquisition was easier than with my Trijicon Tripower and certainly better than irons - the steel was ringing that wonderful ring. My rifle bit it hard the next week and I had to bite the bullet so to speak and make some tough financial choices and bought an LMT 16". The Millet on deck of this sweet LMT would certainly be the icing on the preverbal M4 cake. Nope.
The third week of medium-hard use, my Millet went tits-up. I was unpacking my rifle after sighting it in on the LMT the prior day and handed it to one of my buddies. He looked through the lens and said "Wow! this is awesome, but you seem to be canted a bit. He’s a lefty, so I dismissed it and got my gear ready. During warm ups I visibly watched my reticle go from level to 8 o’clock in 20-rounds. I thought the scope was loose in the PEPR - it wasn’t. The reticle itself was running wild and free inside the scope. To say I was dispirited would be an understatement. I had to continue on with the training, so I found another weakness with this set-up. If you LocTite this unit to your gun, you had better prepare your kit with a wrench to get this off, as the mounting nuts have a hugely wide slot, (beyond my SOG multi tool and a gun tool in my range bag). The posts also when tightened to the nut, protrude slightly into the slot anyway, making a secure grip with a blade tricky. We had to use a box wrench to get this thing off. In the field, that would suck a bit… I continued on with the class, but did not do well - it got into my brain that day. I sent the scope back and chose not to replace it with another. Did I have a lemon? An anomaly? I’ll never know. I put the Tripower back on deck, pressed on and saved for the Leupold MR/T.
Some here would even disagree with that choice. I think I read in another thread that someone called the reticle “useless”. I have found the opposite to be true. I am very happy with this scope. Like another poster said it does not do anything perfectly, but it does everything I need it to do pretty damned well. From threat drills, to barricades, obstacles, static range, CQB and beyond, I’m pretty stoked with my choice and glad I bided my time and put the best optic I could afford on my rifle. the mount is next, (LaRue) and for me anyway, my go-to rifle puzzle is complete…
They allow a shooter to rapidly and effectively transition from CQB distange shooting, and it’s requisite priorities of speed and accuracy, to mid-range (200 to 400 meters) engagements with its priorities of detection, identification, and precision.
There have been lots of attempts at this, from piggy-backing MRDs on top of ACOGs, attaching MRDs to magnified optics, sticking magnifiers behind 1X optics, and even some that try to pretend that there are do-it-all fixed magnification optics. The low-powered variable is theoretically the best way to achieve effectiveness in both worlds, the problem is that noone had made one yet that is perfect. There has always been some compromise.
Now that there are three new and improved 1-8X optics hitting the streets this year, we are getting closer to perfection.
I think by the nature of their design, a “tube scope” will never be as durable as something like an ACOG or Aimpoint. Just take a look at where the typical mount places rings on the tube - if the rifle falls and lands full-weight on either end of the tube, bad things will no doubt happen.
There are some very robust scopes available that would no doubt fair better to this kind abuse, but they are (unfortunately and IMO) “stupid heavy.” Some will grin and bear it, but attaching an optic/mount that weighs 2 pounds or more is not the most economical use of one’s carrying capacity.
So, while we’ll gain multiple focal lengths and illuminated reticles from the typical variable-power scope, we also gain some vulnerability (and/or excessive weight) with this sighting system. Installed on a true QR mount, at least there is the ability to easily detach a failed/damaged scope to bring the irons quickly into play.
Like mentioned above, every sighting system is a compromise. For many, the 1-4X is the best one for their uses.
Personally, I consider the 1-4x to be the ideal solution for 99% of typical carbine engagement scenarios – though this does assume something of a “general purpose” operational focus. The problem is that this kind of capability comes at a cost: greater weight, a higher price of admission, and the technical limitations associated with things like true 1x fidelity, illuminated reticle performance, eye relief limitations and the effects of things like parallax and distortion.
The RDS may well rule inside of 100m, but I would probably still prefer a 2x or 3x capability inside of that range if it didn’t so often come with an associated weight penalty. Reaching much beyond this range really makes one grateful for a 4x or better solution. What you gain with a 1-4x, then, is tremendous versatility, and I think that point sometimes gets lost in an age of role specialization. Once upon a time, versatility was considered perhaps THE key to defining real capability. It’s not so much that way anymore.
We spend so much time and money kitting up for CQB engagements that we forget that a 100m shot is both easier (to see) and safer (to engage in terms of target discrimination) with a magnified optic. I would go so far as to suggest that the average shooter would probably be better served by a 1-4x than he is by an RDS, but since most of our training and emphasis is upon the latter, we learn to “make it work” and discount the need to look elsewhere. Trouble is, the conventional RDS is itself something of a compromise: try to make a shoot/no-shoot decision in crappy visibility at 200m, and you’re likely to find that the RDS isn’t quite as magical as you thought (or were hoping) that it might be.
Where does this lead us? Right back to the beginning, of course, since (a) you have to know your own environment, and (b) you have to be willing to deal with the added weight and expense to get a best-in-class 1-4x. Since most of us are generally looking to master the close fight, and we probably don’t have a $1,500, $2,500 or more to spend on an optic that may or may not meet our needs quite as well, the RDS emerges as a near-ideal solution.
The counterpoint? If you don’t necessarily need to carry the weapon for long distances/extended periods of time, and money is less of an overtly-limiting factor, then there are 1-4x solutions on the market that will match an RDS in its environment and positively blow it away in the distance fight. It all begins with a realistic assessment of need, which is something that I suspect most of us still do relatively poorly when we are getting ready to reach for the credit card.
AC
^^^Excellent summation^^^
This is why you need three uppers…
one with a big scope for looong shots
one with a 1-4x for “most everything”
and one with an eotech or aimpoint and a flashlight for home def
A very well put summation of the pros and cons.
Army chief is right on. Hopefully the choice for a 1X4 is not a cool GQ I want one motive. A very good read here. I guess for me the Aimpoint M4 is a fine choice. I like the Trijicon TR-21 and heard the 1X8 Leupold is hot. I better save my pennies. Be safe all.
Yes, that sounds like a plan!
Wes, you guys are the death of my checkbook!
I have pretty much gone this route.
I’ve built a BCM middy with a Trijicon TR-24G for the “all-around, general purpose” AR.
I have another BCM middy lightweight with a Aimpoint H-1 and a Larue twist-off 3X I can quickly add or remove. That’s the “what the hell was that noise” AR.
Both have Vicker’s VCAS slings and Surefire X300’s.
And I’m in the process of building an SPR clone.
I’ll probably add a Noveske 12.5" Switchblock SBR with a can, just “because”. 
Yeah, the safe is getting pretty full.
Been using my SpecterDR for a while now and Im really liking this 1 and 4 power stuff…
S&B Short dot on my Noveske 3 groove Crusader build. Love the set up. A bit heavy but the barrel is amazingly accurate so the 1.1x- 4x Short Dot really makes the upper shine.
I wasn’t just joking either:
