I’m trying to decide whats the best optic for my needs on my AR-15. I want something where I can shoot up to 200-300 yards in low light situations but also something for closed quarters/personal defense if needed. Would a Leupold Rifleman 3x9-40 with and offset red dot work for this? Or just a 1x4 scope? With the 1x4 can you see the crosshairs with both eyes open? Thanks for the help guys.
You should be able to hit at 2-300 yards with a red dot fairly easily.
The concept I push is that magnification will not make you more accurate, it will only let you see more.
The primary advantage is with target detection, discrimination, and precise targeting.
I can shoot out to 1k with iron sights, but it requires a clearly contrasted target. In the really real world, when trying to hit stuff that is trying not to get hit, magnification helps a lot in finding them.
Magnification comes with a cost (beyond financial and weight) in that your field of view will be greatly constricted. This can make some things harder when working for rapid acquisition at closer ranges.
I really prefer low powered variables for general purpose work.
Dots work fine for distances at which the shooter doesn’t need to look for targets. 1-4x works well for realistic use out to 500 or so. Bumping up to 6-8x at the top end will add a couple of hundred meters. The 3-9 type optics (2.5-10x, 3-12x, etc) work well for 100 to 1k, depending on environment. A large factor in this is the relative size of the magnified image in relation to the reticle. More magnification makes for easier distance estimation, more precise read of strike of round, and more precise hold-offs for wind or drop. I currently am of the opinion that 1-6x is pretty much perfect for the realistic envelope of 5.56, and 1-8x for carbine 7.62 guns.
If I needed longer range precision, a 3-9x type with an offset sighting system for 0-150 would be my choice. I base primary optic selection on my primary performance expectation envelope and then figure out what needs to be added to fill the gaps, if there are any. For me, there are no gaps with a low-powered variable (if properly selected), except for long range shooting, which I only do for giggles anyway, and in those instances the target is so clearly defined that the lack of top-end magnification doesn’t really hurt.
I’ve seen a lot of 1x4 scopes and the prices are all over the place. What is a good optic, yet economically priced?
Define “economically priced”.
Maybe under $500?
I’d look into the Burris and Vortex 1-4s in that price range.
In my experience, the lowest I would go is the Trijicon TR24, though I am not a fan of the triangle/post for stuff past 250 or so.
ETA: take a look at the SWFA Sample List, can find some good deals there, or for a used higher quality optic. They can usually be found in good condition with a decent mount for less than the optic alone if new.
For the price you pay for the Vortex Viper 1-4, you get what alot of doubly priced optics cost.
I’ve used alot of the top 1-4’s for 3gun and I always find my self coming back to the Vortex line of glass. For its price point and the quality its just damn hard to beat and it lets me accurately get hits out to 450 which is the farthest I’ve ever had to shoot at a match.
Which 1-6x scopes have you used and which would you recommend? I’ve been looking at the VX-6, both with the German 4 and SPR reticle. I’ve also been looking at the Mark 6, but I’m not a fan of the reticle or the illumination. The Vortex 1-6x, the new one, looks good, but is VERY heavy for what it is.
I like the idea of a 2.5-10x with an offset RDS, but in that magnification range I really want a FFP scope which seems hard to find with a good reticle.
My other option i’m looking at is an ACOG or Browe with an offset. I’m a big fan of two optic solutions as there aren’t any levers or changing involved. Just tilt the rifle or move your head to get on the other optic.
I have the most experience with the Swaro Z6i, which is simply phenominal, despite the fact that there are things about it I would like to change.
I am looking forward to getting more time behind the Leupy Mk6. For my use, the VX-6 isn’t quite cutting it. Might be a good option for someone that doesn’t mind certain features and for whom Swaro is not budget friendly.
Both are notably pricey, as is the only currently viable 1-8x (Leupy).
All of the exit pupil specs are very much on the small side for the 1-6x scopes, which keeps steering me toward a two optic setup. The ACOG or Browe are something to the order of 8mm for a 4x scope, which is actually pretty high. The TR24 has always kind of been my baseline for this, and is really more like best in class when it comes to eyebox. Even my Short Dot wasn’t quite as good in that regard.
What didn’t you like about the VX-6?
Like all things cost is a factor in all of this, but buying twice is much harder on the budget thatn buying something expensive.
I’ve found that tech specs do a fairly poor job of representing the actual use of the optic. I default my optic to 1x until I need magnification, and at that point, eye-box isn’t too much of an issue. Then again, I can tell in a few minuted of handling if the optic is going to be something I want to work with or not. There are a lot more optics that don’t meet my preferences than those that do. I feel your pain on not wanting to drop a lot of cash on something that isn’t going to work for you. I invested a significant amount of money into a PR 1.1-8, only to find out that it was not suited for my application.
As far as the VX-6 goes, the reticle is not what I want and reported issues with image turned me off. Much like your position, I did not want to waste my time or money on it.
Unitl I have my own Mk6 to shake out, my current recommendation for a 1-6x is the Z6i.
Sure if all your shooting at is man sized targets. However if you need to target ID or you need to shoot a threat using cover and only exposng his head and shoulders then a red dot at 200 yards is not so good. I have seen tons of new shooters struggle at matches with red dots at 100 yards on 4 moa targets.
Pat
I wonder how many of the 3x9 type scopes hold zero well with rough handling? I am sure that they are mostly fine for hunting rifles. However if I drop mine or it gets banged (currently hunting with a Kahles 3.5 x 10 x 50 American 1" tube in an LT-104 mount) I always check the zero. My NF NXS 1-4 (while the glass and image is not near the Kahles) its also in an LT-104 mount and it holds zero pretty good. I looked thru a TR24 yesterday with the post-triangle thingy my impression was that the image/glass was pretty good, but I dont know how well they hold zero.
Most all quality scopes in quality mounts will hold zero even with rough handling these days.
Pat
Ive had the same experience with Vortex. Honestly I dont see what the trijicon has over the vortex besides the batteryless illumination.
The TR24 is a tough scope. I’ve only dropped and bumped mine a few times, but it hasn’t budged. I know a couple guys that have really abused theirs and also haven’t had a problem, which is why I bought mine.
Still waiting for that 1-6 or 1-8 version…
The Trijicon has daylight visible illumination. The Vortex can’t be seen in bright sunlight a definate downside. But their 1-6 corrects that.
Pat
I have a related question. I have a bit of rds and iron experience, but no long range scope experience.
Im looking at a low power variable, and want to be able to make hits to 600 yards for fun. Would a 1-4 work, if so what kind of reticle? I was thinking a tr24 and just dial it in since Id be proned out for that kind of shooting. Would this work out okay? Or is 4x not really enough magnification at that range?
I also saw the eye box on the vortex 2.5-10(pst) was huge(17mm or so) and was wondering if using it it as an occluded optic would be feasible or if a rds would still be much better.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Note:I have a thread about this but got no replies after a couple days so mods can scrap that if you want.
Exit pupil doesn’t directly equal eye box. Its an indication, but IMO, eye box is a subjective thing. Trijicon attempted to apply a measurement to it, calling it eye volume. But in that case its a proprietary term and they are the only ones using it.
17mm is pretty impressive at 2.5x, but that scope does have a large objective.