I am now shopping for a good red dot sight for my new flat top carbine.
I’m not looking for a combat sight, just one I can use foir range games. I want to mount it in conjunction with either a Troy or LaRue BUIS.
So far I am considering the Burris FastFire or , as recommended on this board, a S.P.O T.
My hang-up, is I haven’t been able to find out if the MRD’s will co-witness with the irons.
Hope somebody can help me out.
Thanks.
The SPOT would get my vote and will co-witness with just about everything.
I have some in stock if interested.
C4
Thanks,
I’ve only qualified with te Comp M2. Is the SPOT identical in operation? What type battery do they use. Not much info on them so far.
No it isn’t. It has a side illumination nob and lot less run time.
C4
I recently crunched some numbers on this issue primarily for Aimpoint Sights and then only those for military/LE applications that may need Aimpoint Sights for NVD use, thus only CompM series and not CompML series. Retail on CompML series are often $60 less than CompM. Also, these prices are Man Sugg Retail prices, thus higher than what many dealers are selling them. Example is that many dealers are selling the CompM4 for $700 and LaRue Tactical sells CompML2s with their LT-150 Mount for $480. However, to keep things Apples to Apples I used only Manufacturer Suggested Retail prices for CompM series.
CompM4 - $780 w/ Integral QRP II Mount, 2 MOA AA battery 80,000 hours
CompM3 - $556 w/o mount, 2 or 4 MOA dot 1/3N Lithium 50,000 hours
- $660 w/ QRP Mount @ $104
- $675 w/ LaRue Tactical 150 Mount @ $115
- $709 w/ ARMS Mount @ $153
- $721 w/ GG&G Mount @ $165
CompM2 - $490 w/o mount, 4 MOA dot 1/3N Lithium 20,000 hours
- $594 w/ QRP Mount @ $104
- $605 w/ LaRue Tactical 150 Mount @ $115
- $643 w/ ARMS Mount @ $153
- $655 w/ GG&G Mount @ $165
Micro T-1 - $650 w/ Integral Mount, 4 MOA dot CR2032 Lithium 50,000 hours (will require a riser mount for AR/M-4 use - LaRue Tactical and GG&G will be selling them shortly. Do not know the cost at this time.)
Life Cycle Costs
Also, some thing that also needs to be considered when purchasing an optic is durability, reliability, and life cycle costs. As P.R. says “buy cheap, buy twice.” So something that is cheap…well is. Look at what the top tier carbine instructors use on their carbines, again as P.R. says “In police work they call that a clue.” Anyway, my intent below is not to create another EO vs Aimpoint discussion but to demonstrate life cycle costs based on Apples and Apples as best possible (I am unaware of any other red dot optic using AA batteries), thus I used only the data provided by each manufacturer for their optics that are NVD compatible for military use, use AA battery(ies), and manufacturers suggested retail price, as well as an approximate battery cost from a Google search. Again, sale prices of the optics are often less.
EOTech 552A65 AA Batteries 350 Hours MSR price $479
EOTech 557.AR223 AA Batteries 600 Hours w/AA Alkaline (1100 w/AA Lithium) Hours MSR price $569
Aimpoint CompM4 single AA Battery 80,000 Hours MSR Price $780
All have integral mounts thus no additional cost for mounting solutions for any of these optics.
Comparative Life Cycle/Usage Costs:
Figures below are based on the new 7 year shelf life Alkaline AA batteries at 8760 hours/year = 61,320 Hours and not on AA Lithium battery life, which for an Aimpoint is 80,000 hours not sure for EOs whether it is more or not. Thus, kept it AA Alkaline to AA Alkaline.
$780 - Aimpoint CompM4 - one single AA
$654 - EOTech 552.A65 + 350 AA Batteries at $0.50 ea
$672 - EOTech 557.AR223 + 206 AA Batteries at $0.50 ea
You can conduct your own Apple to Orange life cycle comparisons ie. one type red dot vs another using different type batteries. Bottomline is that you need to factor in life cycle costs when determining real value when purchasing an optic. Cheaper is very rarely better.
S/F
P.S. Edited based on updated information on 557 from L3 website.
Cheaper is very rarely better.
Well said Freddie. The numbers are interesting and should be useful for agencies in their decision making process.
Least expensive is giving way to best value, at least in the mil side.
Comparison of Military Combat Optics
Some things that need to be considered when purchasing a combat optic that you’ll trust with your life is durability, reliability, simplicity, and life cycle costs. My intent is not to create a debate about which optic is the best but to compare life cycle costs of military combat optics based on Apples and Apples as best possible, thus I used only the data provided by each manufacturer for their optics that are NVD compatible for military use, manufacturers suggested retail price, as well as an approximate battery cost based on a Google search.
Those optics compared were only those that are in use by the U.S. military and have a 1X to 3X or 4X magnification capability, thus the Trijicon TA01NSN-DOC with 1X Docter Optic, the new M68 CCO Aimpoint CompM4 w/3X Magnifier in a Twist Mount, ELCAN SpecterDR, and the EOTech 552.A65 & 557.AR223 w/ both 3X & 4x Magnifiers used by the Military.
Military Combat Optics – Total Costs
Aimpoint CompM4 w/3XMagnifier & Twist Mount MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1486
Life Cycle Cost - 80,000 Hours w/ AA Lithium Battery
CompM4 MSR $780 + 3X Magnifier MSR $535 + Twist Mount MSR $171
Weight - CompM4 335g + 3X Magnifier w/Twist Mount 300g = 635g
ELCAN SpecterDR MSR + Life Cycle Cost $2100
Life Cycle Cost - 2,000 Hours w/ CR 1/3N Lithium = 40 Batteries X $3.49 ea = $140
SpecterDR $1960 + Life Cycle Costs $140
Weight - 598g
Trijicon TA01NSN-DOC MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1605
Life Cycle Cost – 10 Years Tritium + 17,000 Hours CR2032 Battery = 5 Batteries X $0.97 = $5
TA01NSN-DOC MSR $1600 + Life Cycle Cost $5
Weight – 424g
EOTech 552.A65 w/ 3X & Flip Mount MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1373
Life Cycle Cost – 1100 Hours AA Lithium Battery = 146 Batteries X $2.50 ea = $365
552.A65 MSR $479 + Life Cycle $365 + 3X w/ Flip Mount MSR $529
Weight – 552.A65 326g + 3X w/ Flip Mount 297g = 623g
EOTech 557.AR223 w/ 3X & Flip Mount MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1463
Life Cycle Cost – 1100 Hours AA Lithium Battery = 146 Batteries X $2.50 ea = $365
557.AR223 MSR $569 + Life Cycle $365 + 3X w/ Flip Mount MSR $529
Weight – 557.AR223 326g + 3X w/ Flip Mount 297g = 623g
EOTech 552.A65 w/ 4X & Flip Mount MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1703
Life Cycle Cost – 1100 Hours AA Lithium Battery = 146 Batteries X $2.50 ea = $365
552.A65 MSR $479 + Life Cycle $365 + 4X w/ Flip Mount MSR $859
Weight – 552.A65 326g + 4X w/ Flip Mount 453g = 779g
EOTech 557.AR223 w/ 4X & Flip Mount MSR + Life Cycle Cost $1793
Life Cycle Cost – 1100 Hours AA Lithium Battery = 146 Batteries X $2.50 ea = $365
557.AR223 MSR $569 + Life Cycle $365 + 4X w/ Flip Mount MSR $859
Weight – 557.AR223 326g + 4X w/ Flip Mount 453g = 779g
JMHO, but the battery life analysis only makes sense if your requirement is to keep the unit powered on for hours on end. If I were patrolling over in the sandbox, absolutely, I’d want long battery life. But if my normal routine is to power it up only when needed, and if my mission duration is measured in minutes/a couple of hours, then battery life, even if only a couple hundred hours, isn’t that big of an issue.
Reliability is another issue altogether.
jmart,
Mission profile often does drive your requirements, however as numerous battles have proven the plan rarely survives the first bullet down range. Thus, what was intended to last a few minutes may often last a few days or weeks. Fully appreciating a systems complete costs along with capabilities is essential for proper procurement. Being able to have an optic that you can leave on constantly with minimal concerns about battery life, thus life cycle considerations, so that when you need your firestick it is ready to roll vice worrying about it shutting itself off prior to or during a fire fight or changing its batteries constantly is a good thing.
S/F
I get a real kick out of optics that are either clones of proven systems or the real thing with a stated life of ~1000hrs…that don’t make it through a day on a set of batteries. I’m not interested in lengthy explanations of fault in using a less than premium AA type cell or that 10hr life is acceptable because the unit cost is 40% less than the real deal. I’m not paid to shoot but I do enjoy knowing my optic will run for years on a useful setting, and the battery changes I’ve made consist of casual preventative maintenance and a $6 yearly tithe for a cell. THAT is good enough for me…
For the rest, here you go ^
I understand your point, if you are going to be involved in a protracted situation. As a civilian homeowner, I don’t see that happening to me.
Also, by your definition, the only system that meets your requirements is a tritium-powdered Trijicon product or an Aimpoint. The next best option, EoTechs, automatically shut off (even the AA-models models) at the 4/8 hour mark. Everything else comes in at the couple of hundred hours mark. That includes all the low mag variable scopes (Short Dot, MRT, Meopta, etc.).
Your reasoning is sound, but in the process of establishing your requirements, you’ve eliminated a whole group of useful optics that are pretty well respected.
Lastly, there’s a difference between battery life and reliability. If a mfg specs his optic to run 200 hours on a set of batteries, then it better do so. If there’s a manufacturing flaw that allows the unit to draw the battery down, even when turned off, then that’s a defect. It should be fixed by the mfg. If the mfg chooses a battery source that only meets spec at a specified temperature (but battery life falls off the scale at temp extremes), then that’s a design issue and users should be careful in selecting that optic. But for my needs, several hundred hours of life is more than adequate. I place much higher emphasis on reliability, ruggedness, reticle usability and optics quality than battery life.
BTW, I use a current generation EoTech 512 and so far it has worked fine for me.
jmart,
Not disagreeing with your point based on your needs as a civilian. I and many others with a different experience level based on hard military field training and combat use might disagree with your choice. I could inject not just my opinions on the pros and cons of various optics, but the collective opinions of others that concur with me. However, that discussion has been and continues to be debated, on this and other sites, and I had no desire to resurrect that in this comparison. Thus, the comparison was kept at only those currently in use by the military in order to keep things more apples to apples as a comparison could easily grow enormous. You are welcome to conduct your own comparison of other optics with your own established objective criteria. I tried to keep the comparison to quantifiable numbers, as every one has their own subjective opinion on durability and reliability on various optics based on our own experiences. It isn’t perfect and it is only part of the equation in a overall comparison, but it is an aspect that has been over looked.
S/F
Understood. I was just trying to inject a viewpoint from a different angle. I would never criticize anyone’s decision to go with an Aimpoint if that’s what they feel works best for them.
Cheers.
The Aimpoint made a lot of sense for the Army. The battery life is huge.
My biggest problem with them from the .mil side is that the caps are too easily lost and cross threaded. I also do not like the 4MOA dot. The new CCO with the 2 1/3N batteries and 2MOA dot is much better. Again, huge battery life.
However…
Nearly every combat unit that has a choice is ordering the EOTech 552.A65. Look at the news footage and you will see what I mean. The AA battery is everywhere and it is the same battery that used in your NODs, PEQ-2 and a few other things. You find a AA in the worst third world shit hole. At this point batteries are just treated like fuel, water and ammunition. You just put them on a resupply as a matter of course.
It is worth noting that SOCOM is going the other way and getting the EOTech 553 running on 123N batteries. I don’t know if this is a good move. I believe the thinking is that your optic and tac light will use the same battery. That still leaves the PEQ-2 that uses AA. That will ultimately be replaced the LA-5/PEQ which runs on 123N. However, most NODs still use AA. It is a work in progress.
Personally, I like the EOTech’s reticle. The large 65 MOA circle is much faster to pick up than an single dot (with the possible exception of the 8 MOA dot on the JPoint). You eye then naturally finds and centers the 1 MOA dot right where you need it on the target.
Unfortunately the program managers for the conventional forces and those for SOCOM have a difficult time singing on the same sheet. Mostly because the bureaucracy/decision making process for the conventional forces moves to slowly for SOCOM. There is alot to be said for converting as many battery fed electronics to CR123s. Big reason for AA conversion is availability and price, but if all of DOD had gone to CR123 the price and easy availibility of that battery would quickly follow. IMHO, Lithium batteries are the preferred power source due to its capabilities across wide temperature variations. Fortunately AA Lithium batteries exist.
The new M68 Aimpoint CompM4 which uses a AA battery (alkaline and lithium), which the Army bought 163,000 for issue, is a 2 MOA dot and any issues that some had with the knob and caps have been resolved. Of the over 300,000 older CompM2s fielded to the Army less than 500 per year are returned for repair, which speaks volumes for its durability and reliability. Almost all issues with retention of zero of the CompM2 are improper mounting or the mount rarely the optic. The same zero retention issues can be said for most EOs as well. With the advent of excellent quality mounts like those from LaRue Tactical those issues have been resolved. The new CompM4 has an integral QRP II mount that is proving to be an exceptional mount during extremely hard field training.
Having been to the “kitty litter” box a few times myself not as many units are using EOs as has been stated. Many units that did purchase EOs are finding roughly a 20% failure rate mostly battery box or mounting issues. When EOs work they can work well, but I prefer to eliminate as much chance when I (and those with me) go into harms way as possible. I didn’t want this to slide into another EO vs Aimpoint vs ACOG etc. debate as each side can provide arguments (some valid, some myth) pro and con for each. It has become the new 9mm vs .45, 5.56 vs. 7.62, or isoceles vs Weaver debate that ceaselessly goes around and around.
My prerequiste for an optic that I trust my life too is one that I can repeatedly remove it, drop it on concrete, reinstall it, drop it while on the gun and not only still work but maintain zero. Also, it needs to still work after a minimum of 5 to 6 days of hard live fire training, with at least 2000 rounds going down range during that same time period. While it doesn’t replicate hard combat operations it does provide some objective analysis for a decision. I also prefer to not have to worry about turning it off or changing batteries frequently inorder to reduce logistics/supply chain/life cycle foot print. Based on other mission parameters the prerequiste to sustain both jump and dive operations can be added.
We each may have different prerequistes for a combat optic that we need to trust our life upon based on METT-TSL and it is important to base that decision on as much objective information as possible vice errornet opinions by airsofters that frequent TOS. (Just to be clear, I am not taking any shots at anyone in this thread but errornet comments that I have read on TOS.)
S/F