I am going to buy a 1-4x, and I was considering a Meopta K-dot, a Valdada 1-4x26, or a Trijicon Accupoint 1.25-4x.
I wanted an optic with a 1x red-dot that’s visible in bright daylight, and that will hold its zero.
I previously tried a Nightforce 1-4x, however I returned it because the reticle wasn’t visible in daylight.
I would suggest a Meopta K-Dot. It is very much visible during the daylight.
A question to consider … what distances are you shooting out to?
Out to 400M
I also thought about the Elcan Specter DR or the IOR Valdada Pitbull (which looks a a little heavy, although it has a good FOV).
The meopta might be the optic for you, I am a huge fan. I however, do not have a ton of experience on the accupoint from Trijicon.
I wrote quite a bit about the meopta on another thread check out out if you are interested.
There are also other opinions from people on this forum on this thread.
Trijicon TR24 (G-I prefer the green triangle) 1-4x.
Super clear and bright in sunlight, tritium for darkness.
Elcan Spector DR, I am a Huge fan. Im trying to get the pics to up load with this. It shows the zero shift at 300 meters from 4X to 1X. There is no BDC that is truely accurate, you will always get some shift.
The pics I told yall id provide.
The Target with 5 shots in the circle are at 300 meters in 4X
The Target with 3 shots below the circle aretaa 300 meters in 1X
I do think there is some benefit in going back and asking what one intends to do with the glass. I say this because many shooters take an interest in variable optics, and then express disappointment when their 1-4x – and the Nightforce NXS is an excellent example – doesn’t give them the same functionality that they grown accustomed to with conventional RDS units.
If RDS-like illumination is a primary consideration, then we are probably talking about a weapon that is being optimized for the close fight/CQB, since illuminated aiming points tend to be much less of a factor at intermediate distances. If so, then a variable is usually going to be the wrong choice simply because of the added weight and size. I’m not suggesting that bright illumination is of no value in a variable optic; simply that it tends to be much less of a factor than one might think in actual usage.
I own comparable variables from S&B and NF, and both represent what I would call “best in class” examples of the breed. The S&B’s FlashDot is unquestionably brighter than the NF’s FC-2, but the German glass is also signficiantly heavier – to the point where the advantage is negated by the fact that I prefer not to use it on a close-in carbine. The NF is lighter, and the reticle is clear and crisp even without illumination, so in some ways it is the more flexible of the two when working at varied distances on the move.
Everything is a tradeoff, and I think the AccuPoint, in particular, has a lot going for it; that said, we just need to be realistic about how and where these optics are most often going to be used, as no variable is going to be the equal of a T-1 at “I can see that you aren’t smiling” distances.
AC
I still cannot believe you sold a baby nxs and now are looking at tr 24s and k dots…both great optics, but no where close to the NF. This whole daylight vis in bonkers to me, but that is just my 2cents.
I’ve been contemplating a 1-4X for a month or so.
I’ve looked through several TR24’s, NF’s, and Meopta’s. They all had great glass.
Here’s my take so far:
If I had to get one right now, I’d think I’d get a Meopta.
But this is just my opinion…
Not defending Nightforce’s honor here or anything, but the NXS does have daylight-visible illumination. The complaint isn’t that it fails to work under normal daylight conditions, but rather, that in full (i.e. extremely bright) sunlight, the illum washes out and the reticle appears black. True statement. In most other daytime scenarios, the illum is more than adequate.
On the other hand, I can turn up the Schmidt & Bender’s FlashDot up so brightly that I can see it at any light level short of an atomic blast. The tradeoff here is that when illum levels are turned up that high, you invariably end up with pretty signficant blooming – and that isn’t unique to the S&B, nor to variables, nor even to the typical 4 MOA RDS. If you want a brightly lit aiming point at High Noon, then you’re going to have to live with losing a degree of precision.
Now, if you don’t mind losing a degree of precision, then perhaps you’re close-enough-in that the variable wasn’t the best tool for the job anyway. On the other hand, if you are at such a distance as to prefer the sharpest possible aiming point, then you may well be switching the illum off no matter what the ambient light levels.
One could argue the finer points of this all night, but I think optic selection is a highly individual thing, and it is admittedly tough to go on the recommendation of another. We put a lot of emphasis in the community on the CQB role, because that is where most tactical training takes place; that said I dare say that a majority of our members would probably be best served by buying an ACOG and never looking back. From time to time, I still wonder if I might even be one of them.
There is a good rule of thumb for quality optics acquisition that goes something like this: if your glass is worth more than the base rifle it is mounted on, then you’ve probably made an excellent purchase decision. There are some good sub-$1k optics out there for the AR, but if you’re looking for truly great optics, then you need to be prepared for an outlay more in the neighborhood of $1,500+. It’s worth the stretch for me, in part because I’m a one of those 40-something guys, but there isn’t a thing in the world wrong with “good” glass for most of us. It all comes back to why you’re buying it to begin with, and what you hope to be able to do with it.
AC
That is TWO highly in depth replies that are SPOT ON CORRECT…the portion in bold is FACT, the nxs and s&b are the two that you want on a precision type gun…where accuracy is stressed over the more faster, MORE DAYLIGHT visible ret’s like the TR 24 or k dot…where a quicker target acquisition might be more important.
I’m running 2 NF’s w/ FC-2 RET (1X4 & 2.5X10X32) & 2 Elcan DR 1X 4X (3rd Gen.)
I’m completely satisfied w/ both.
While there are different nuances between them & how they accomplish their mission, they are both excellent glass and efficacious for me.
No issues w/ ARMs mounts or ZERO shift on the Elcan DR’s.
HTH
YMMV.
I’m a big fan of the TR24; I have the red triangle, I like the green as well and if I bought another would probably try one out. I’m also a proponent of the 1-4x variables in general. I think they are a great option for a multi-use rifle that needs the versatility to handle multiple roles. As with any choice though, they have their own set of compromises, and the context of usage really makes a big difference in which one might be the best choice.
The Accupoint works well for me, but it spends most of its time at 1x and acts much like an RDS. It’s very fast and clear, and the ability to crank it up to 4x lets me get fast hits on targets out to 300 that I couldn’t see well enough to shoot quickly at 1x. The triangle reticle is not made for shooting small groups on paper at long range, and if that was my primary use I’d be disappointed with it. Conversely some of the other options would probably leave me disappointed in the role of 1x speed shooting at 15 yards.
What do you want to see, the reticle or the dot? They are different. The S&B Short Dot reticle almost disappears at 1x(really1.1X) and that is by design. The dot is very visible in bright daylight and the reticle is not really noticeable at the low setting. The reticle begins to “appear” as the power is increased to the point that it becomes an optic that allows very precice shooting. The red dot can be turned down to a pin point, or not used at all, depending on conditions and preferences.
At 200 yards, nobody with a 1X RDS in the carbine class where I shot my 16" LMT with Short Dot could get on target and make accurate hits as quickly as the gun with the 4X optic. Some will argue that the 1X optics are better at CQB distances; that is their opinion and preference. I’m good with that.
The drawback I found with the S&B was in a low light exercise in Randy Cain’s class. I believe the distance was 75 yards. Randy has the class get on target from the prone just as it starts getting dark. He gives the “fire” command and has the students stay on target. Without telling you what’s coming, he gives the fire command every five minutes as it continues getting dark. It seems like forever between shots.
The object is to keep shooting the target on the fire command, but only if you can still ID the target. The drawback to the S&B is you can’t turn the dot down low enough at 4X in near darkness. At 1X, the dot is not overwhelming, but you loose the ability to recognize the target as readily as you can at 4X. Not really an issue for me as this was an exercise that may not replicate real world. Then again, real world for me doesn’t involve human targets that shoot back.
The Short Dot does such a great job of allowing target recognition at 4X, while the 1X optics did not, that Randy had all the students get behind my gun just to see the difference.
Anyway, the Short Dot is my favorite, but it certainly is not cheap. I a have Comp M4 on my other carbine, a 10.5" LMT. The SBR is specific for CQB while the 16" with Short Dot can do it all. The SBR would be the carbine of choice at my house for home defense, IF a carbine were the gun of choice. That duty usually falls to an 870 Remington.
I wanted to find an less expensive optic similar to the S&B PM2 Short Dot w/CQB reticle.
I really liked the Nightforce NXS, however I really noticed the reticle washing out in bright daylight.
I’m reluctant to spend an additional $1,000 for a S&B (over a NF) just to get the flash dot, as I could spend that on another rifle.
I thought you could turn the flash dot off on 4x? If turning the dot off is possible, then the S&B w/ the CQB reticle seems like the best of both worlds: A bright red dot on 1x, and the ability to use the first focal plane reticle w/o the dot on 4x.
I don’t understand why other manufacturers can’t make a red dot that is visible in bright daylight combined with a useable reticle at 4x. The Nightforce would be great if it had a red dot with additional brightness settings. It seems like the only other choice is to drop down to a $700 Meopta Meostar R1 or Trijicon Accupoint.
You can turn it off. At it’s lowest power setting, the dot is too bright at 4X under the conditions I described. Under those same conditions, you would not see the reticle at all. Dialing down the magnification helps control the dot. Under most conditions, on 4X, the dot is a big help. In very low light it is not. In bright light, the dot works very well on the S&B.
You can spend less and still get a decent optic, but you will not get the Short Dot performance, in my opinion. The S&B is expensive for a reason. It is pretty common for a top quality optic to cost as much or more than the rifle it is mounted on.
If seeing the dot in bright conditions is one of your requirements, then I would identify optics that meet the goal, and then look at price, rather than the other way around. A less expensive optic that does not meet your needs is a waste of $$$$ more so than spending additional cash for something that works.
I’d love to buy the NF 1 X 4(I am a NF fan) and have it perform like the Short Dot. I’d love to buy the Short Dot at the NF price. Nice ideas, but not realistic.
I agree about the daytime illumination, its frustrating that other optics can do it for $500 less. I’m not sure if it is necessary however.
That is something each shooter needs to define for themselves…