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

[Failure2Stop]

I would not go with a dual optic unless:
The magnified optic had insufficient reticle illumination to be easily picked up in all lighting conditions
-or-
The magnified optic is over 4X at lowest setting or has a restrictive field of view/short eye-relief.

Magnified optics in the 4X area can be very fast at close range IF the reticle easily stands out, negating most needs for a secondary optic as long as you can see what you need to see from all positions. Remember that an offset quality Mini-RDS will alleviate some of the close-range/variable lighting issues with magnified optics, but they also bring in some other issues such as using cover and unconventional positions due to their location.

My advice is generally to go with as much magnification as you can use and are willing to carry if you are going to go down the dual-optic path. Low-powered variables are the way around a dual-optic setup, but the price is that you have to manually adjust the magnification, the illumination battery life is generally poor when compared to good Mini-RDSs, and the ones worth the time are relatively expensive. The gain is in identical sight plane and presentation, and you use the same reticle for both close and far. This requires a properly constructed reticle, of course.

It's all compromise, the question lies in what areas your need will permit compromise.

[Canonshooter]

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.

Thanks for your feedback on this scope! It's great to get advice from users with first-hand experience with the product in question.

Leupold lists the actual magnfication as 2.2x, so your observation is right on the money.

Also, do you shoot your rifles with the stock extended as shown in your photos? I tend to shoot nose-to-charging-handle and am wondering if I should go with an extended mount.

[Canonshooter]

I would not go with a dual optic unless:
The magnified optic had insufficient reticle illumination to be easily picked up in all lighting conditions
-or-
The magnified optic is over 4X at lowest setting or has a restrictive field of view/short eye-relief.

F2S, thanks for your input - you helped verify my thinking.

I concur 100% - every scope, sight or combination of is a compromise. As I think through my normal uses of the rifle (recreational shooting, IDPA carbine matches, etc.) I try to visualize how each optic would work and how I would use it. As tempting it is to look at a 3.5-10x or even a straight 6x42, I keep coming back to the mini RDS and the 2.5, and with the way our carbine courses are usally set up, how I think it would be a good combination. In those cases where barricades or shooting position make using the offset RDS difficult, the 2.5 scope would still be workable where a larger, higher magnification scope with more critical eye positioning may not be.

The final piece of my thinking is that for the relatively low investment in the 2.5x20, I could always set up a higher mag/larger scope in another mount for those occassions where it would be useful.

My thanks again to all for your insight!

[halo2304]

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.

I thought the IOR Pitbull would be an awesome scope and for the most part, it was pretty cool. However, it was HUGE (35mm tube!) It was also rather heavy. There was also a little bit of a fish-eye effect, but I didn't mind it so much. The target knobs are very large and a bit pointless on a scope like this. The rings interfered with reading the markings and the knobs didn't lock. But that's all my opinion.

[Alaskapopo]

Do you find that you use just a few magnification settings on your 1-4x scope? For example, do you find yourself using the lowest setting for the close work but as soon as you want/need more magnification, you just crank it all the way up to 4x?

If not, how do you decide what setting to use? Is it something that you need to think about when running-and-gunning?

Just curious about how much of the in-between zoom range is commonly used...

On my Swarovski 1-6 I use 1x for up close to about 50 yards. At 50 yards out to 200 on full size targets I use 3x. Assuming off hand shooting. I crank it up to 6x if shooting head targets at 100 yards or if I am shooting past 200 yards or if the array of targets is close enough I can seem them all in my field of view from 6x and I am shooting from a supported position (prone barricade etc)>
pat