A question for you 1-4X users...

[Canonshooter]

Thanks for your responses!

In a way, this validates the philosophy behind the ELCAN SpecterDR of providing a choice of just 2 magnifications. Not that I have any interest in that sight, but I can understand the reasoning behind the two "set" magnifications it offers.

The reason I ask is that I have a "sighting system" in mind for my BCM 16" SS410 middy. Basically, I'm considering going with a fixed, low power scope mounted on the top receiver rail in combination with an Aimpoint T1 in a DD or LaRue side mount. The scope would provide some magnification, a more precise reticle and "optical clarity" for longer range work and the Aimpoint for the up-close-and-fast work. What attracts me to this is the seemless transition between the two sights - the support hand does not have to leave the weapon to switch between sights (or magnification settings) - simply roll the rifle a bit to move from one to the other.

I think with the correct selection, the scope could be used as the primary sight in all but the closest of work (say 50 yards and under).
For the scope, I am considering the Leupold 2.5X20 Ultralight. Based on my research, this scope offers the following advantages;

1. uber light weight - just 6.5 ounces, or about 13.5 ounces with a QD mount
2. generous/fixed eye relief - 4.9 inches (I have also read that it is extremely forgiving on eye position, a definite big plus)
3. small size, low profile
4. an adjustable eyepiece for (my) crappy eyesight
5. a "wide duplex" reticle with 1 MOA cross hair in the center
6. in combination with a T1 in a side mount, the entire sight package with mounts would weigh about 17 ounces

I'm thinking for the $$ invested and the weight, I would have a pretty useful sighting system for fast close range work and for more precise shooting out to 250 yards or so. Since I don't intend on engaging targets beyond 300 yards - or targets beyond 100 yards in low light conditions - the lack of an illuminated/range-finding recticle in the scope is not a major issue for me (in fact, this is what helps to keep the scope weight down), but I would have the Aimpoint with its "turn it on and forget it" 50,000 hour battery life. Also, I'm already set up with a Troy front/rear folding BUIS so the rifle would have 3 sighting systems.

For the intended use - close to 300 yard work at carbine matches and for defensive purposes - this seems like it would be a good set up. But, before I proceed I thought I would ask for your opinions on this approach.

As always, your input is appreciated!

[rob_s]

I'm not a fan of the dual-optic setups, but if I was going to use one I think I'd look at a 3x Compact ACOG and might even give the Leupold Deltapoint a try as the RDS.

I'm really wanting to spend some time with this one.
http://trijicon.com/user/parts/produ...2&categoryID=3

[rob_s]

Yeah I noticed the same thing. Makes me wonder why more manufacturers haven't made a scope that serves that need. I know the IOR Pitbull does, but it doesn't seem to be all that popular.

http://www.valdada.com/product/6928a...78862cd81.aspx

I've been keeping an eye on that one. I wonder about mounting options, and also would prefer not to see the large "tactical" knobs on a scope like this.

[Canonshooter]

I have used the mini ACOG in the past and was impressed with the sight overall. However, at least for me I had the following issues;

1. Due to my crappy eyesight and the lack of a diopter (eyepiece)adjustment on the ACOG, it was never perfectly in focus. It wasn't out by much, but just enough to be annoying.

2. In bright light I found the fiber optic overpowered the triangle, which to my eye made it look like the Aimpoint bloom. For precision shooting, I had to cover the fiber optic to render the triangle black with sharp edges. That's a good (IMO) feature of the Accupoint - they provide a means of covering the fiber optic.

3. The tritium illumination was very weak - I could only see it in nearly total darkness (at which point I couldn't see the target anyway).

I agree, big target knobs on a low power scope aren't a big benefit, at least in short to midrange applications where bullet trajectory is fairly flat. Also, I am amazed at the heft of some of those low power variables (the one mentioned above weighs nearly 1.5 pounds!) - I'm really trying to keep weight down.

[rob_s]

If you're using an RDS as well the indoor issue is moot IMHO.

There is also a workaround that another member here turned me on to which is running with the front flip cover down indoors.

The bloom issue is real and I have dealt with it in the past. I'd like to see an OEM way of addressing it but a properly cut innertube stretched over the optic and strategically peeled back as needed can help.

Low power variables weigh a lot often due to the illumination.

In this case it's a 1" vs. a 30mm too, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time digging around.
Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T (One-Inch) 9.7 oz.
Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T M2 Illum. Reticle 15 oz.

Doesn't seem like a lot when you think "only 5 oz." but when you realize it's a 50% increase in weight...

I'm not sure how much I trust the Leupold website though as the 2.5-8 is listed at 16oz. for both the illuminated and non.

[Canonshooter]

The VX-3 line looks good too - all of the optical/mechanical upgrades without the tacti-cool stuff. The VX-3 1.5-5x20mm could be a winner at 9.4 inches in length and 9.3 ounces.

But, I keep going back to the 2.5x20....

[MechEng]

It is usually 1 or 4.

Same here. On my AR it's either 1x or 4x. Low magnification for close targets and high for far targets. I can’t really give a distance limit where I switch from low to high. It’s just a subjective thing. Target looks far I crank the adjustment barrel to high (4x) and shoot.

I also have a TR24 w/green triangle on my deer rifle. I keep it on 1x while walking through the woods and adjust it to whatever field of view I need depending on whether I'm in a blind, tree stand, overlooking a field or in deep woods. I really don't use the numbers on the adjustment barrel when hunting.

[MassMark]

All great points...I will say, that static range shooting, I do use the 2-5x on the MR/T - mine is the MR/T 1.5-5 with the old-style SPR reticle. I was on a tight budget and could not swing the extra dough for the newer CMR reticle, but am curious if anyone else has received one lately and could comment on the differences. I have found the eye relief on the MR/T to be more than adequate and using it as a modified RDS came pretty easily when doing threat drills. The real benefit as I stated earlier, was in acquiring targets at longer ranges in difficult positions. Crosshair/donut on target, squeeze, hit...Likewise, hitting the small steel, (strike plate sized) targets at extended ranges, from difficult positions at higher magnifications, gave me the feeling that my purchase was well worth it...

[ra2bach]

Same here. On my AR it's either 1x or 4x. Low magnification for close targets and high for far targets. I can’t really give a distance limit where I switch from low to high. It’s just a subjective thing. Target looks far I crank the adjustment barrel to high (4x) and shoot.

I also have a TR24 w/green triangle on my deer rifle. I keep it on 1x while walking through the woods and adjust it to whatever field of view I need depending on whether I'm in a blind, tree stand, overlooking a field or in deep woods. I really don't use the numbers on the adjustment barrel when hunting.

I didn't realize it but I do exactly the same thing w/ regard to FOV. I typically zoom to the highest power but back it down till I get a sufficient FOV. thanks for the insight...

[SkiDevil]

The VX-3 line looks good too - all of the optical/mechanical upgrades without the tacti-cool stuff. The VX-3 1.5-5x20mm could be a winner at 9.4 inches in length and 9.3 ounces.

But, I keep going back to the 2.5x20....

For as economical as the Leupold FX-II 2.5X20mm scope is priced (well below $300.00). I would give it try.

My uses have included plinking, hunting, and target shooting (mostly steel plates). I am very satisfied with the scope, especially for what I paid for it.

I have been using one for a while now and it is a great little scope. I chose it because of the light weight, simplicity, and the short over-all length. It is the shortest standard compact scope Leupold manufactures (with the greatest amount eye relief, excluding the Scout model).

Also, I have over half-a-dozen different variable scopes on a variety of rifles and I found that at least for myself, I always end-up using the lower magnification setting on these type of scopes. Furthermore, fixed power scopes usually are much more durable because of fewer parts utilized in the construction of the instrument as well.

Although, I do not abuse my guns/ gear, I have dropped the first rifle pictured (FDE colored with 16" barrel) with the scope and it did not break or loose zero (fell in the dirt at a firing range and in my living room from chest height).

I would be first to say that this is not an optic I would purposefully look to for self-defense, but it could certainly be pressed into service for that if required. Between the eye relief and the low power it is fast to acquire a target with a 2.5 powered scope. From my own experience with other scopes and Leupolds tendency to vary from the actual magnification specified on their optics, I would say it is more like a straight 2X.

Finally, If you choose to purchase one then I would recommend the Wide Duplex over the Heavy Duplex, because it covers-up too much of the target at distance. With the first pictured rifle (FDE) I have no trouble at all hitting steel plates painted white the size of a standard sheet of paper (8 1/2"X11") at 300 yards with .223 Fiocchi 55 gr FMJ, firing off-hand.

Good Luck in your choice. Picking a new optic can be very frustrating and time consuming.

SkiDevil

Link: http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-s...mm-ultralight/