I’ve never seen anyone mount a i.e.r./scout scope on an AR15. I was thinking a 1-4 power 6"-9" eye relief scope would be perfect for point blank to 300 yards and faster than a normal eye relief scope.
Is this a dumb idea? If so why?
It does not sound dumb to me. That is the way most of us use our red dot sights.
What scope did you have in mind?
That’s part of the reason I thought it must be a dumb idea. I can only find a couple variable power scopes with an eye relief that isn’t way short or Just a bit to long. Bushnell make a 1.75-4 power shotgun scope that has 6" of eye relief. It could be perfect if it was illuminated, But I have a hard time thinking a $80 scope is gonna be worth a poop.
I figured if someone would make them if it was a viable idea. I’m sure someone else has thought of this and ther is a reason these scopes aren’t common.
You have any thoughts?
Leupold VX-2 1-4x20, plenty of eye relief, would really be awesome if they illuminated the reticle.
I know Col. Jeff Cooper was a huge driving force behind the scout rifle and IER scopes.
+1 on Leupold they make great scopes. Id start there. You can probabaly get one at your local gun shop.
I like they idea. Let us know how it works for you.
The leupold only has 4" of eye relief. It falls into the same place as every other 1-4.
I was thinking about the 2.5 x 28 fixed power IER. LEUPOLD Scout. I just looked them up Midway listed the eye relief as 9" to 17"
Check out scoutrifle.org
I looked their quickly there might be some folks there who have done what you’re looking to do,
I have the Leupold Scout on my 45/70, great scope, tough, but sucks in low light. I believe they are conservative on the 1x4’s eye relief , check one out in you local gun shop.
what advantages would a scout scope have over a conventionally mounted one, on an AR?
Having using scout scopes on guide guns and AKs; why would you want to use one on purpose on an AR. The scout scope seems to be an ok option if mounting an optic in a traditional place isn’t available
I was thinking faster close range target acquisition, and better area awareness.
Well you could run a quick release larue high mount and use a fix buis instead of a folding one.
You’d be better served with a low power variable IMO.
The majority of the ‘Scout type Scopes’ are typically of the fixed magnification model.
Below is a Leupold Ultra-Light FX 2.5X20 mm. I more or less had the same idea as yourself. Although it is not a true Scout Scope, of all of the compact Leupold models I could locate it has (according to their specifications and product information) the longest eye relief of their compact line of scopes, except for the actual Scout Scope (listed at 9.3").
The Leupold website lists the eye relief for this particular scope at 4.9". I can tell you that is very generous. I have used the Mark AR 1.5X4, Var- II 1-4X, and it is my opinion that the eye relief is greater with the FX 2.5X20mm model.
The scope is also very fast on moving targets and lends itself well to shooting with both eyes open too.
Not the same thing (platform), but I fired a Springfield M1A with a Scout Scope on it. It was nice, but not my cup of tea.
Keep in mind that there are other Manufacturers who also produce similar scopes such a Burris, Weaver, and Nikon to name just a few.
The only way you will know if it is for you is to buy one a give it a try. I really like the set-up myself. I will acknowledge that in the dark the scope does work with a light, but is not anywhere near an Aimpont or Eotech for effectiveness at close to medium ranges. The lack of illumination is definitely a disadvantage for low-light scenarios.
On the other-hand, if you are simply looking for a general purpose sight to be used for off-hand shooting at a variety of targets like steel plates, varmints, etc. then this type of sight may be of use to you.
I use mine for shooting steel plates, jack rabbits, coyotes, and other things. Just as an example, I do not have any trouble hitting 8-10" steel plates at 300 yards off-hand with this scope/ set-up.
Links:
FX-II 2.5X20mm
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/ultralight-riflescopes/fx-ii-2-5x20mm-ultralight/
Var-II 1-4X
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/vx-ii-riflescopes/vx-ii-1-4x20mm/
Mark AR 1.5-4X
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/mark-AR-riflescopes/mark-ar-1-5-4x20mm/
FX Scout Scope
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/fx-ii-riflescopes/fx-ii-2-5x28mm-ier-scout/
P.S. I would stay clear of the cheaper Shotgun type scopes because most of those costing less than $100 scopes are not of very high quality. In example (of one), I used to own a Simmons Shotgun scope years ago and it broke (internals/ reticle) after being fired several houndred times on a Ruger Mini-30. Stick with one of the better quality brand scopes.
Also, I picked-up the Leupold for around $250-260 a while back less shipping. Shop around you may find a good deal. Natchez Shooters had a similar scope made by Burris on sale recently for less than $200.
Why not a low power variable with intermediate eye relief? Sorry for all the questions.
I’m not trying to be difficult I just don’t realy see the down side.
Thank you SkiDevil that ultralight might be just the ticket. Are you a nose to charging handle shooter?
No. I am not. I have my stocks pulled-back.
I am 6’ tall (plus) and have long arms.
Sweet. Thanks again.
Take a look at where you would have to mount the optic.
Most low-powered variable optics require a mount that pushes the center of the optic over the gap between the HG and the upper reveiver rail. With more eye relief that would require the optic to be mounted on the HG rail, and frankly, HG mounts of precision optics is not a very good idea. Free-floated HGs will still slightly bend when pressure is applied to the HG, through use of a supported position, loading a rail mounted bipod, sling tension, or an aggressive grip. These will all result in POI shift.
Bulking up the HG also makes the gun handle less than optimally. It will not allow a thumb wrap over the top of the HG- which will reduce forward hand grip options, will make port-shooting more cumbersome than normal since the HG won’t fit through narrow openings- reducing the ability to support the front-end.
It will make an upright front sight more obvious when looking through the optic since the objective lense will be so much closer to the front sight than normal. It reduces the ability to use a 10:30 to 2:30 mounted light bilaterally.
The current crop of low powered optics put more variables in balance with established mounting options. If you just want to be different, rock on, but if you want to pull the most from your gear, it’s the wrong tree to be barking up.