PDA

View Full Version : The importance of owning a precision capable rifle?



ASH556
03-14-12, 14:19
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Blackhawk Down, the "snipers" were using red dots as optics. We all know that a red dot allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put rounds into a target. However, these "snipers" had no magnification, didn't dial dope, or even have wind or elevation hold capability.

All the new hotness seems to be the variable power optics on "recce" type rifles with either BDC or Mil-based reticles.

It seems to me that for an AR, it's still tough to beat a red dot sight for the useful range of the rifle.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a LEO or Mil sniper, what's the point for having a magnified optic on your AR? Long distance paper punching?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing weekend sniper dialing dope and such, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for mil-grade equipment? The benchrest guys do it more accurately with super-fine-dot-reticled, 45X Leupolds. Why try to do it with a 10X or 15X Mil-based reticle and "play" sniper.

I can't think of a single CONUS personal shooting situation that would require a "sniper" type weapon.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a Nightforce on my AR again?

caelumatra
03-14-12, 14:33
Well, I know this is a military application so its not exactly the answer you want, but when we were issued ACOGs in the Marine Corps they told us it was to get a better view of possible IED's.

And you're asking a hard question anyway.

I can't think of a single CONUS personal shooting situation that would require a "sniper" type weapon.

Which shooting situations occur that a regular schmo (who cant carry an ar15 everyday) would need his AR15?

These things we do are for hobby. I know you're not criticizing and I'm not criticizing in return. But hopefully, I'll never use my ar15 in CONUS. Seriously. If I need to...the country is in a bad place. So having an ar15 is just like having a NIghtforce on it.
Whats the point? (self defense not withstanding of course)

Well, whats the point of golf?
Why titanium drivers instead of cheap walmart kind? You're never going to be a pro...why bother? You're just playing at being a pro anyway.

Because its fun and we can. That's why :)


Edit:
Oh and some people hunt for food. I hope to do that this year for the first time :)

ggp2jz
03-14-12, 14:39
Why does it matter what someone else does with their money?

caelumatra
03-14-12, 14:42
Why does it matter what someone else does with their money?

I dont think thats the point he's trying to get across

I think he's more trying to ask what a precision optic brings to the table over a RDS in an every day shooting situation in CONUS

B Cart
03-14-12, 14:50
Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a LEO or Mil sniper, what's the point for having a magnified optic on your AR? Long distance paper punching?

I've wondered the same thing. Outside of hunting or paper punching, I can't think of many civilian "self defense" scenarios that would require a long range scope. There are a couple scenarios where it could be helpful to have magnificaion (getting caught in a "Texas tower shooting" type situation), but a good red dot should be sufficient for civilian AR use I would think.

In my opinion, the ideal mix between a red dot and a scope is having a red dot with a flip-to-side magnifier. This allows you to use your red dot like normal, but have the option of quick magnification if a longer precision shot is necessary.

ASH556
03-14-12, 14:58
I dont think thats the point he's trying to get across

I think he's more trying to ask what a precision optic brings to the table over a RDS in an every day shooting situation in CONUS

Exactly!:D

ggp2jz
03-14-12, 14:58
I dont think thats the point he's trying to get across

I think he's more trying to ask what a precision optic brings to the table over a RDS in an every day shooting situation in CONUS

Ah ok. I completely misread what he was saying then.

ASH556
03-14-12, 15:02
I've wondered the same thing. Outside of hunting or paper punching, I can't think of many civilian "self defense" scenarios that would require a long range scope. There are a couple scenarios where it could be helpful to have magnificaion (getting caught in a "Texas tower shooting" type situation), but a good red dot should be sufficient for civilian AR use I would think.

In my opinion, the ideal mix between a red dot and a scope is having a red dot with a flip-to-side magnifier. This allows you to use your red dot like normal, but have the option of quick magnification if a longer precision shot is necessary.

See, I ran that setup too, but I think you have to be careful when describing the capabilities of the magnifier. "Longer Range" isn't really a capability of the magnifier. "Greater Precision" is. The .223/556 round is pretty flat out to 250, but then it starts dropping quite fast. Also, I know you can walk yourself into a target with a holdover using the RDS/magnifier combo, but I think first round hits are paramount in any practical shooting scenario.

ASH556
03-14-12, 15:04
Well, I know this is a military application so its not exactly the answer you want, but when we were issued ACOGs in the Marine Corps they told us it was to get a better view of possible IED's.

And you're asking a hard question anyway.


Which shooting situations occur that a regular schmo (who cant carry an ar15 everyday) would need his AR15?

These things we do are for hobby. I know you're not criticizing and I'm not criticizing in return. But hopefully, I'll never use my ar15 in CONUS. Seriously. If I need to...the country is in a bad place. So having an ar15 is just like having a NIghtforce on it.
Whats the point? (self defense not withstanding of course)

Well, whats the point of golf?
Why titanium drivers instead of cheap walmart kind? You're never going to be a pro...why bother? You're just playing at being a pro anyway.

Because its fun and we can. That's why :)


Edit:
Oh and some people hunt for food. I hope to do that this year for the first time :)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. This is really "the answer." I just wonder sometimes how much we (me included) "need" the Nightforce, S&B, etc for our paper punching safe queens.;)

Moltke
03-14-12, 15:12
The importance of owning a precision AR is hitting where you're aiming on the target instead of just hitting the target. You don't necessarily have to be very far away to take advantage of this capability, but might not feel comfortable taking the same shot with a regular red dot sight at whatever distance. Additionally, with magnification you will likely be able to better see your target, the surrounding area, and therefore be able to better assess a situation before engaging a threat.

As far as cookie cutter fantasy situations to throw out for discussion, I have none.

caelumatra
03-14-12, 15:16
I've been mulling it over recently as well.

(the golf reference...I actually thought of that this morning hearing some DJ's talking sports talk about...something I don't care about. But people drone on and on about at work and they think I'm the oddball for not giving a shit about people I have nothing to do with)

I finished my AR308 build sans the optic and got it back from having the barrel dimpled the same day I got a 20% furlough @ work. I have been going over my needs/wants realistically with the bank statements and, its been almost a year, I think, and don't have an optic for it yet.
I do have a Dylan 550 coming though and am trading a 45 for a 9mm so that I can continue to train affordably.

Personally, I feel ammo for guns I have at their full functional capacity is more important than taking on the entirely new field of precision work just for fun.
Don't get me wrong. I still WANT a Razor HD, but its not high on the list because realistically I know I'm not going to use it other than to take classes, and eventually compete. While those would be fun, they're not NEEDS.

rob_s
03-14-12, 15:55
Hobbies like Golf, fishing, running, camping, etc. are strictly that, hobbies (although the last two also get appropriated by the "prepper" community as being more than they are, unfortunately too much camping and not enough running...). Shooting on the other hand attracts people for a whole host of reasons, from professional need, to simple mindless fun, to collectors, to defense-minded people. So reasons vary, and often some or all of those are wrapped into one person.

What gets confusing is when they seem to get confused themselves....
1) I need a 1.x-Y optic
2) what situation do you envision where this may help you or be needed given your role?
1) oh man, when the zombies attack I'd much rather take them out at distance
2) how likely do you think that will be to happen?
1) well, I live on a large suburban lot and have like a 200' driveway, and that extra magnification has really helped me ID targets at the mailbox.
2) how often do you find the need to ID targets at the mailbox, and have you tried this new hotness indoors where you're more likely to need to engage a threat?
1) why does everything have to be about some tactical need? why can't I just have fun with it? I happen to like shooting at distance and who are you to tell me how to spend my money?

Had (1) simply said from the get-go what he says at the end, the whole exchange could have been avoided and (2) might even have had a good suggestion for an optic for him to use. Or if he simply said he was going to shoot 3-gun and his local club had a lot of targets out to 200 yards and beyond. But instead he leads with "need" and then when confronted with it he comes full circle to accuse (2) of being the needy one.

Apparently shooting at distance is fun. I personally find it ungodly boring but I'm also the guy that has the radio and the TV on and is typing on the internet and talking on the phone, so maybe I just don't have the patience/focus for it. It does seem to be the newest/latest trend and for that I have no explanation, but I can tell you that prior to the sunset of the ban the "SPR" made a huge jump in popularity over on barfcom probably mostly due to the fact that it didn't require any of the banned items (flash hider, bayonet lug, threaded barrel, collapsible stock). Stick around the tactical shooting world long enough and you'll see that all this shit just goes in cycles.

TAZ
03-14-12, 16:29
I can't speak for all, but for me it's mostly because I can and I like to shoot stuff as far away as possible and when I'm on a short range I like to try to shoot teeny groups (as teeny as my ineptitude allows). For me it's relaxing. I do have 2 guns one with a RDS and another with a magnified optic and offset red dot. I'd like to replace this with a 1.x-Y scope eventually when funds clear up. Why? Again cause I can.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with setting up a purpose built gun, so long as you understand the limitations of it. I also like the idea of a 1.x-Y scope or an offset RDS with another magnified optic because they allow for a wider application range. Simply put, its better to have the ability to reach out to 500m, and not need it than to need to reach out and not have it. This assumes that your set up hasn't placed you into the need to shoot inside a room and not have it category.

The other thing that I have noted is that practicing the skills needed to engage at longer ranges rarely hurts short range shooting ability, but the inverse is not always true.

Plus my eyes suck, so I'm in definite need for some magnification for a clear target ID.

C-grunt
03-14-12, 17:13
As a LEO I have come across one incident I can remember where a magnified optic on an AR would have been useful. A guy woke up one night hearing a scream outside. He looked out his bedroom window and saw his teenage/20 something daughter being attacked by her boyfriend in the street. He opened the window and yelled for him to stop and the guy started to choke her with both hands.

The guy grabs his .357 and jumps out the second floor window onto the hood of his truck. He runs up to the attacker as the daughter is passing out. He then pistol whips the attacker who is still strangling the unconscious girl. After the pistol whip he shoots the attacker in the torso which finally makes him stop.

Many will say that an AR with irons would work in that situation but I wouldnt mind the extra precision of a RECCE with a 1-5x on it.

RD62
03-14-12, 20:30
Thanks for taking the time to write this. This is really "the answer." I just wonder sometimes how much we (me included) "need" the Nightforce, S&B, etc for our paper punching safe queens.;)

We also don't "NEED" sport bikes or sports cars capable of speeds in excess of the highest posted limit. Most of us don't "NEED" a timepiece capable of great accuracy, shock resistance, and water resistance down to multiple atmospheres. I don't "NEED" a custom 1911, a fine Bourbon, Scotch, or cigar. But I can still appreciate, use, and enjoy them....

I also take assurance in knowing that however remote the possibility may be, that if called upon for use, the equipment I have is capable and I am proficient enough, to effectively use them for their intended purpose and therefore attempt to equip my weapons in such a way as to minimize (as much as possible) mechanical failure or equipment limitation as much as possible.

Sgt_Gold
03-14-12, 21:57
I think he's more trying to ask what a precision optic brings to the table over a RDS in an every day shooting situation in CONUS

If someone can tell me what an 'every day' shooting situation is, I'd be better able to answer the question. Short answer is in the event of an active shooter situation, you have no idea what you're going to need. I'll take some magnification over straight irons or a CCO.

ColtJ
03-14-12, 22:10
First thing, importance is relative. Really depends on the situation and the individual. So the question is wide open imho. Keep in mind it's easy to justify our wants by calling then needs.

In civilian life, hunting seems to be the only thing that comes to mind that will be easily/openly accepted.

True, it would be hard to claim self defense if you can see trouble coming from ~200+ yards... Although you would technically be well prepared for it... :laugh:

Personally i enjoy the marksmanship side of it; although, the skill set required to do so with a rifle might not be much use outside of battle/hunting.

In conclusion i guess it's not a necessity and I am okay with it. Plan to add a few more of those useless things to my collection in the near future and happily accepting donations. :jester:

Mjolnir
03-16-12, 05:41
Thanks for taking the time to write this. This is really "the answer." I just wonder sometimes how much we (me included) "need" the Nightforce, S&B, etc for our paper punching safe queens.;)

Hey, quit talking about me!

I agree with his response as well. It's nothing more than a hobby for the vast majority of us. There is more than a bit of fantasy with many and that's okay. Ultimately, it's all about (or should be) about the defense of liberty - though I believe the battle lies OUTSIDE of our "peculiar hobby".

rob_s
03-16-12, 05:55
I also take assurance in knowing that however remote the possibility may be, that if called upon for use, the equipment I have is capable and I am proficient enough, to effectively use them for their intended purpose and therefore attempt to equip my weapons in such a way as to minimize (as much as possible) mechanical failure or equipment limitation as much as possible.

Counterpoint would be that if you're not proficient with your CCW, or are in poor physical health, excluding the "fun" aspect, spending time at the 600 yard range is probably not a good use of your time and financial resources. If that's all guns are to someone, "fun", then that's a different thing altogether. Preparing for a 0.01% probability event to the exclusion of a 1% (mugging or other interpersonal violent crime) or 50% (health-related issues) probability event just doesn't make any sense. If it's "fun" say "it's fun" and be done with it.

I am seriously jealous of the guys that are at a proficiency level they find acceptable, in good physical health, and have the financial means to not only collect a bunch of guns but get to the range and enjoy them in some way*. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the funds to do those things, so for me I have to prioritize my range time and shooting budget, and there is no money or time for distance shooting for me. Between a real job, working out, and spending one night a week and two Saturdays a month working on pistol skills I just don't have any time left over for "fun" with guns.


*and I don't know many of them, at all.

QuietShootr
03-16-12, 07:34
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Wedding Crashers, the "snipers" were using hot bridesmaid sluts as semen receptacles. We all know that a hot chick at a wedding allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put "rounds" into a "target". However, these "snipers" had no game, didn't have dope, or even have a nice car or a vacation house.

All the new hotness seems to be fit chicks with a good BMI and WHR.

It seems to me that for a woman, it's still tough to beat a regular fat chick for just regular ****ing.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a movie star or a rich guy, what's the point for having a thin, attractive wife? Having fun ****ing her?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing real man banging hot chicks, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for a good-looking woman? The regular blue-collar guys do it more often with a chick with an ass that's two axe-handles wide but is a good cook. Why try to do it with a 10 and "play" man?

I can't think of a single CONUS busting a nut situation that would require a "hot" type woman.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a sense of failure when I look at my big-butt wife again?

FIFY.... sounds like classic sour grapes to me.

And then, of course, there's the whole "handguns are tactical, rifles are strategic" that some folks seem to forget. You may not want one, but it's a good thing that there are people out there who DO and are good with them. It's good for everyone.

ASH556
03-16-12, 09:07
Well, I guess I'm all in now:

http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/IMG_7931.jpg

Scoby
03-16-12, 12:04
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASH556
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Wedding Crashers, the "snipers" were using hot bridesmaid sluts as semen receptacles. We all know that a hot chick at a wedding allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put "rounds" into a "target". However, these "snipers" had no game, didn't have dope, or even have a nice car or a vacation house.

All the new hotness seems to be fit chicks with a good BMI and WHR.

It seems to me that for a woman, it's still tough to beat a regular fat chick for just regular ****ing.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a movie star or a rich guy, what's the point for having a thin, attractive wife? Having fun ****ing her?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing real man banging hot chicks, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for a good-looking woman? The regular blue-collar guys do it more often with a chick with an ass that's two axe-handles wide but is a good cook. Why try to do it with a 10 and "play" man?

I can't think of a single CONUS busting a nut situation that would require a "hot" type woman.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a sense of failure when I look at my big-butt wife again?



FIFY.... sounds like classic sour grapes to me.

And then, of course, there's the whole "handguns are tactical, rifles are strategic" that some folks seem to forget. You may not want one, but it's a good thing that there are people out there who DO and are good with them. It's good for everyone.


Dude you're nuts.......and that is funny as hell. :D

I enjoy long range shooting with a magnified optic. 1.5x5 Leupold.
Don't do much paper punching long range unless I'm calculating dope on different ammo. Steel is where the fun's at for me.
Bench shooting or prone does get boring after a while. The challange comes in different shooting positions.
Standing offhand, kneeling, squating, etc....

The chances of me ever having to fire at a person at 400yds is very, very slim. So is the chance that I will ever have to fire at someone in my house. Not as slim....but slim nevertheless.

I can do both decently and enjoy both at the same time.

Scoby
03-16-12, 12:05
Well, I guess I'm all in now:

http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/IMG_7931.jpg

Really, really nice man.

Hope you enjoy it.

NWPilgrim
03-16-12, 13:02
I have one 16" AR set up with an Aimpoint PRO for practice and would be used for self defense at presumably close range.

I also have a 20" AR that I plan to someday use in CMP shooting which goes out to 600 yds. I have a removable carry handle for CMP shooting but a Zeiss 3-9x40 for sighting in various loads and to do reality checks at the 200, 300 and 600 yd line before I switch to irons.

I agree with Rob that you should invest time in likely scenarios, but even though revolution as the Second Amendment envisions is extremely low probability, if you do not train for it now even somewhat, then how will your descendents ever do so? I guess I subscribe to the Appleseed philosophy that we all have a civilian duty to train some of our time in becoming a rifleman that can hit at more than self defense distance in order to propagate that skill through the generations. At some point that skill may be needed and if we don't do it in our generation, then why will the next ones do so?

This isn't to say punching paper at 200, 300 or more yds is all the skill you need to be a combat rifleman. But it lays the foundation for longer range engagements. If some generation ever finds itself in a "kick the tyrants" out engagement I suspect they will not want to go toe to toe with trained soldiers within their 200 yds expertise.

I also do not believe I need to train to the level of an "operator" to defend myself in 99% of likely scenarios. What percentage of situations in real life are going to involve multiple mag changes? There is a point in self defense where you are training for the .001% situation as well.

So to me shooting practice is for multiple purposes: self defense out to 100 yds and mostly within 50 yds; basic rifleman training at longer distances, and fun which can be plinking, varmint hunting, friendly competition, and punching paper at various distances.

The thing is, the more you shoot in varied situations the better you know your rifle and ammunition, which makes you more able to adapt to different situations. I just read A Rifleman Went to War and the author was a competition long range rifleman before WWI. While that does not directly correlate to the machinegun crew, urban and trench warfare, and scouting no man's land that he was involved in, he proclaims it did prepare him better than someone with little rifle experience.

Be as realistic about the probability of some of the self defense scenarios as you are about other uses. 99% of the time in self defense with a firearm the firearm is not even fired. So any practice shooting is nominally for just 1% of self defense scenarios. Of that 1% of situations, the majority is resolved with 3 or less shots. So training to shoot more than 3 rounds is for the .3% of defense scenarios. I am not saying don't train for more than this, but keep it in perspective, too. You can spend thousands of dollars and hours to train for shoot and scoot, mag changes, team tactics, multiple targets, etc. But keep in mind that is for a tiny fraction of likely defense scenarios unless you are LEO or military.

a0cake
03-16-12, 20:47
There's the obvious benefit of concurrent / crossover training between off time shooting and professional training obligations (for those that actually have such obligations).

But I know that's not what you're talking about.

Clearly, you will likely not need magnification for any home defense scenario. Obviously, the vast majority of self defense scenarios occur at contact range to a few meters and usually involve handguns. So if self/home defense is all you're concerned about, then no, you probably don't need magnification.

But is that the only environment that matters?

Rob asked how often person (1) has "needed" to ID a target at the end of the driveway. Rob, how many times have you personally "needed" a firearm, at all? How many aggressors have you shot? I'm guessing zero. But that doesn't mean you don't "need" a firearm. So this argument does not stand up to criticism in my opinion.

My point is that we don't make defensive choices solely based on past events. We make them based off of a combination of what has happened, what is likely to happen, and what can possibly happen, with the same order of precedence.

I choose to own and be highly proficient with long range platforms with high magnification optics A) because I used them for work and like the crossover training and B) because I want full spectrum capability, even on the civilian side...I choose to be able to dominate any fight, not just close range defense type home invasion scenarios. I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

I believe that common crime related self defense shoots are not the only time I may conceivably need to affect change in the world around me with a rifle. Even in a civilian role, I choose to be able to do so on my terms, at any range, not just what the law says is a justifiable defense distance. The benefit of magnification in a real world gunfight, not some one way range where targets are standing in the open and painted white cannot be overstated, even at ranges as close as 75M. Magnification is as much about identifying short-medium range targets behind cover and concealment as it is about extending range. It's also about shooting through small loopholes / slits in the enemy's cover. I've never seen this skill adequately taught or given enough attention in any class. People just love running from cover to cover (usually not looking at anything or presenting their rifles) and blasting huge targets. That's not what most firefights look like.

It's always funny to listen to self proclaimed experts who've never heard a shot fired in anger in their entire lives talk about "tactical shooting" like they have their finger on the pulse of how an actual gunfight develops and unfolds. Maybe it's just about feeling cool while not ponying up and assuming any of the risk. But it's not funny when those self proclaimed experts (read: have nots) take on a condescending tone and attempt to make the "haves" justify their choices.

Disclaimer: I have no problem learning from an outstanding civilian shooter who has no background. I'll listen to such a person teach weapons manipulation with an open mind and learn whatever I can. But the second that person starts talking "well in a firefight" this, or "there's no tactical need" for that, I stop listening.

QuietShootr
03-16-12, 21:13
There's the obvious benefit of concurrent / crossover training between off time shooting and professional training obligations (for those that actually have such obligations).

But I know that's not what you're talking about.

Clearly, you will likely not need magnification for any home defense scenario. Obviously, the vast majority of self defense scenarios occur at contact range to a few meters and usually involve handguns. So if self/home defense is all you're concerned about, then no, you probably don't need magnification.

But is that the only environment that matters?

Rob asked how often person (1) has "needed" to ID a target at the end of the driveway. Rob, how many times have you personally "needed" a firearm, at all? How many aggressors have you shot? I'm guessing zero. But that doesn't mean you don't "need" a firearm. So this argument does not stand up to criticism in my opinion.

My point is that we don't make defensive choices solely based on past events. We make them based off of a combination of what has happened, what is likely to happen, and what can possibly happen, with the same order of precedence.

I choose to own long range platforms with high magnification optics A) because I used them for work and like the crossover training and B) because I want full spectrum capability, even on the civilian side...I choose to be able to dominate any fight, not just close range defense type home invasion scenarios. I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

I believe that common crime related self defense shoots are not the only time I may conceivably need to affect change in the world around me with a rifle. Even in a civilian role, I choose to be able to do so on my terms, at any range, not just what the law says is a justifiable defense distance. The benefit of magnification in a real world gunfight, not some one way range where targets are standing in the open and painted white cannot be overstated, even at ranges as close as 75M. Magnification is as much about identifying short-medium range targets behind cover and concealment as it is about extending range. It's also about shooting through small loopholes / slits in cover. I've never seen this skill adequately taught or given enough attention in any class. People just love running from cover to cover (usually not looking at anything or presenting their rifles) and blasting huge targets. That's not what most firefights look like.

It's always funny to listen to self proclaimed experts who've never heard a shot fired in anger in their entire lives talk about "tactical shooting" like they have their finger on the pulse of how an actual gunfight develops and unfolds. Maybe it's just about feeling cool while not ponying up and assuming any of the risk. But it's not funny when those self proclaimed experts (read: have nots) take on a condescending tone and attempt to make the "haves" justify their choices.

Disclaimer: I have no problem learning from an outstanding civilian shooter who has no background. I'll listen to such a person teach weapons manipulation with an open mind and learn whatever I can. But the second that person starts talking "well in a firefight" this, or "there's no tactical need" for that, I stop listening.

http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart/food/beveragesdrinks/foamy-mug-of-beer.png?iact=hc&vpx=102&vpy=105&dur=317&hovh=253&hovw=199&tx=81&ty=257&sig=112021206535582701906&ei=BvNjT5CjB-O-2AW_xbjhCA&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=114&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0

ASH556
03-16-12, 21:40
Excellent post, a0cake! As always I appreciate your input.

I guess this thread was mostly about me justifying to myself why I have a Nightforce on my AR. (Or need to own a precision-based rifle in general). Great point made about justifying a future need based on past experiences (or lack thereof).

I also appreciate the LEO's comment earlier in the thread about saving his daughter's life and how that could've perhaps been easier with a precision gun.

I'd love to see and would pay good money to take, basically an urban precision course. Not so much focusing on long range shooting, but perhaps closer-range low-percentage shots involving awkward positions, barrier penetration (glass, etc). Cake, you taking applications?

Quietshootr,
I pulled your quote in from your thread about finding a precision rifle that would shoot and did some very creative editing on it along the same lines as what you did to my OP, however, I determined that I'd rather not be banned. I'll admit that I got pissed at first, then re-read your colourful editing and had a good chuckle.

Jack-O
03-16-12, 22:18
short answer to the OP... to aid in target identification.

the other significant advantage is that magnified optics (within reasonable/useable limits, which benchrest is far outside of) dramatically improve shooter accuracy at ranges where target ID enhancement is beneficial

thats pretty much it.

a1fabweld
03-16-12, 22:43
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Blackhawk Down, the "snipers" were using red dots as optics. We all know that a red dot allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put rounds into a target. However, these "snipers" had no magnification, didn't dial dope, or even have wind or elevation hold capability.

All the new hotness seems to be the variable power optics on "recce" type rifles with either BDC or Mil-based reticles.

It seems to me that for an AR, it's still tough to beat a red dot sight for the useful range of the rifle.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a LEO or Mil sniper, what's the point for having a magnified optic on your AR? Long distance paper punching?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing weekend sniper dialing dope and such, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for mil-grade equipment? The benchrest guys do it more accurately with super-fine-dot-reticled, 45X Leupolds. Why try to do it with a 10X or 15X Mil-based reticle and "play" sniper.

I can't think of a single CONUS personal shooting situation that would require a "sniper" type weapon.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a Nightforce on my AR again?

What if you want to poke the eyeball out of the bad guy at 300 yds? Red dot most likely isn't gonna cut it. Red dots have their place & so do magnified scopes IMO.

NWPilgrim
03-17-12, 04:10
I recall a defensive shooting that happened about 20 miles from me back in the 1980s I believe that might have benefited from a scoped rifle. That was the gang attack on a SF sargent in Tacoma who had given them a hard time for messing up his neighborhood. Several of them started threatening him so a buddy went home to get a pistol. When the gang started shooting at the BBQ party from houses across the street the two SF sargents returned fire with their 1911s. Nobody was hit on either side, but the gang angers were held at ay until police arrived some time later. Might have been handy to have scoped rifle to shoot at gang shooters 50 yds or more away hiding behind window frames.

That is highly unusual circumstance, but even in some "normal" times magnified optics could be justified. And that was in a suburban area. Who knows what it would have been like if the SF guy stood up to them downtown and they followed him out to a farm house or something.

The main point is one may not want to be training for too specialized a scenario and might want to add some other ranges or situations into one's practice.

ryr8828
03-17-12, 06:40
Hell I just like rifles. I have several that are set up in different configurations. I pull out and shoot whatever suits my fancy that day.

Don't really need any of it. My wife didn't need that thousand dollar dishwasher either, we have a sink.

John_Burns
03-17-12, 09:31
Even Rob runs a scope when it comes time to get serious.


Boom! Head shot.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425095_303163139746272_100001577645328_869138_276024053_n.jpg

Nice shot.:D

El Cid
03-17-12, 12:22
I recall a defensive shooting that happened about 20 miles from me back in the 1980s I believe that might have benefited from a scoped rifle. That was the gang attack on a SF sargent in Tacoma who had given them a hard time for messing up his neighborhood. Several of them started threatening him so a buddy went home to get a pistol. When the gang started shooting at the BBQ party from houses across the street the two SF sargents returned fire with their 1911s. Nobody was hit on either side, but the gang angers were held at ay until police arrived some time later. Might have been handy to have scoped rifle to shoot at gang shooters 50 yds or more away hiding behind window frames.

That is highly unusual circumstance, but even in some "normal" times magnified optics could be justified. And that was in a suburban area. Who knows what it would have been like if the SF guy stood up to them downtown and they followed him out to a farm house or something.

The main point is one may not want to be training for too specialized a scenario and might want to add some other ranges or situations into one's practice.
My recollection is that they were Rangers, not SF and shotguns, not 1911's. Either way, I don't see needing magnified optics to shoot across the street.

That said, I fall in the camp of enjoying having the 1-6 glass on my rifle. I look at it like having hi-cap mags. I'd rather have it and not need it than the reverse. I am under no illusion that I will need to take a long shot for "real" but I see no harm in having that skill set so long as I don't neglect my others.

Luckily I enjoy distance shooting on the rare occasion I get to do it so I can justify the cost to myself. But I was very careful to get a scope that was as close to an Aimpoint as possible at 1x since that's where I'm most likely to need it.

titus7
03-17-12, 12:29
Hell I just like rifles. I have several that are set up in different configurations. I pull out and shoot whatever suits my fancy that day.

Don't really need any of it. My wife didn't need that thousand dollar dishwasher either, we have a sink.

Lmfao if ya don't mind I'm gonna steal that last line...will definitely come in handy in the future...several times

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

FromMyColdDeadHand
03-17-12, 16:55
Why not? Most any AR with decent ammo is a 1.5moa gun- some better, why not take advantage of that accuracy? Some people can do it with a red dot, my eyes aren't that good. Purpose? I don't know- hunting and gun games comes to mind. I like to be able to see my long range hits? It's fun hitting steel at 500m. I hope it is a skill I never have to be glad I have.

NWPilgrim
03-17-12, 18:04
My recollection is that they were Rangers, not SF and shotguns, not 1911's. Either way, I don't see needing magnified optics to shoot across the street.

That said, I fall in the camp of enjoying having the 1-6 glass on my rifle. I look at it like having hi-cap mags. I'd rather have it and not need it than the reverse. I am under no illusion that I will need to take a long shot for "real" but I see no harm in having that skill set so long as I don't neglect my others.

Luckily I enjoy distance shooting on the rare occasion I get to do it so I can justify the cost to myself. But I was very careful to get a scope that was as close to an Aimpoint as possible at 1x since that's where I'm most likely to need it.

Found this link for a 20th anniversary article in a local paper at TOS: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/09/27/895048/ash-street-shootout-the-night.html

That is one of the best recountings of the shoot out I've read. You are right, they were rangers, but no mention of shotguns, mostly 9mm, .357, .38. It was after dark so optics may not have helped unless it was night vision. This was back in 1989 so probably not many off duty military would have access to NV at their home.

Jack-O
03-17-12, 18:51
I'm kinda stunned that there is even a question of the usefulness of magnified optics. why is this even a question? hasn't this been settled already?

it's not as if every situation one can use a rifle is a defensive shoot of a person at less than 50 yards. Pretty much everything else the magnified optics are great for.

hydro556
03-17-12, 21:52
I am in the process of putting together a proper RECCE right now and I definitely want a magnified optic. (but really want a T1 as well, badly enough that I may actually do something I never thought I would and mount the T1 on an offset, beside the magnified optic. If weight doesnt prove too much).

I do enjoy playing weekend sniper as you call it. I just call it practice on steel at 500+. It is my favorite type of shooting.

I wish I'd have held onto my NF 2.5-10x24 since they arent making them anymore.

Winnerkd
03-17-12, 22:44
I believe it really depends upon location and exactly what you plan on using your rifle for. I'm in Pennsylvania and I have access to large tracts of land to shoot on. Having a magnified optic is a benefit in my case because it allows me see and identify targets at a longer range. If that long range was not an option, I'd most likely have a red dot.

Nmate
03-18-12, 07:23
Those guys were shooting out of a moving helicopter, at least to begin with. Any magnified optic is definitely not the best choice for that sort of shooting.

The movie was not particularly good, but the book was excellent. Mark Bowden did a lot of research and cross referencing. Shughart was using an M14 (maybe an M21) with an Aimpoint (model wasn't specified). As far as I can remember, the book never states what Gordon was carrying.

EDIT. Apparently Gordon was using a CAR-15. Optics are not specified.

FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-12, 12:40
One of those Sniper contest specials at Benning(?) on Discovery covered the basics of shooting from a helicopter, including negative lead and how important FOV and getting on target was

lebowski
03-27-12, 19:07
Per the thread title, I'm not sure I'd call it "important".

I recently built my first longer range AR, 16" BCM SS410 and night force 2.5-10x. Took it to the Magpul DMR/SPR class earlier this month, and had a blast. I learned a lot about shooting that applies at all ranges, and shot to about 600m for the first time (had never shot beyond 200m before), and I did it on a platform that I'm familiar with.

It won't replace my other ARs, it won't take the place at my bedside in place of my ddm4 with an aimpoint, and it will almost certainly never see action in a defensive or other real world role. Who cares?

Shooting for me is, first and foremost, a hobby. Yeah I have a CCW and I own guns for HD, but I wouldn't shoot as much as I do if it wasn't fun.

Why spend on mil grade gear? Because I can and the enjoyment I get out of shooting far exceeds the cost. I have friends and peers with country club memberships costing tens of thousands vs my local gun range costing $300/yr. I can go into any local store and buy fresh fish, yet I've got a buddy with a sportfisher that cost more than my house. I have a good job and I enjoy shooting so I don't mind spending money on quality gear.

taliv
03-27-12, 20:22
don't forget that the civilian/military relationship is symbiotic.
civilian competition has contributed quite a lot to the state of the art in pistol and carbine shooting. the recent popularity of 'sniper' type matches is now doing the same in terms of both improvements to gear and techniques.

I host some of these matches in TN (www.precisionmultigun.com) and our Spring Team Match in May sold out in about 2 minutes at 90 shooters, but we reserved 10 spots for active duty mil, and got 10 Army snipers register.

Except for the AMU team, the mil guys haven't really been "competitive" shooting against civilians, but they are getting better lately. I'm seeing more of them come in top ten in matches now, which I think is great. I think the tiny targets we use and the tight time limits have been a little eye-opening for the .mil guys. and I suspect some of them have taken their performance as a point of professional pride, as they usually seem pretty dang motivated at their second match :) Because of this, we tend to keep the gamey, gimmicky stuff to a minimum and ask for feedback that keeps our match course of fire practical for these guys.

So while the OP's question was answered with the "because I want to" responses, I personally feel that as a civilian playing a sport, we are helping our guys get better,

and not just in competitions... think about the civilian market for precision rifles. the civilian demand permits a LOT more people to go into the gunsmithing career, and they learn a lot cranking out a couple hundred custom civilian rifles per year. that builds quality into an ecosystem that supports our military guys. Imagine what mil contract manufacturers would be in business today if there were no civilian gun market. The economics wouldn't be there. The prices and quality and features would flat out suck.

just my opinion,

a0cake
03-27-12, 20:26
I host some of these matches in TN (www.precisionmultigun.com) and our Spring Team Match in May sold out in about 2 minutes at 90 shooters, but we reserved 10 spots for active duty mil, and got 10 Army snipers register.


I can't believe I wasn't aware of this organization when I was at Ft. Campbell. Would have been great. I'll pass this URL along to some of my old "sniper-buddies" who are still there. Thanks.

taliv
03-27-12, 21:03
hey no prob, a0cake. wherever you are now (in the US), there is probably a match near you. feel free to email (my pm box is always full) my email is the contact link on the website. One of my partners (former Ranger sniper) is handling registration, so I'm not sure, but I think he said some of the guys coming are from Campbell. In any event, let them know we've got a match coming up in august.

feedramp
03-27-12, 23:50
Thanks to a0cake and QuietShootr for two of the best posts in this thread:

So much awesome in such a small space:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1258925&postcount=20
So much wisdom in such a small space:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1259411&postcount=25

QuietShootr
03-28-12, 08:02
One of those Sniper contest specials at Benning(?) on Discovery covered the basics of shooting from a helicopter, including negative lead and how important FOV and getting on target was

It is a LOT harder than it looks. I have shot .300WM from a helicopter and it was all I could do to stay on a B27 at 300 yards.

QuietShootr
03-28-12, 08:09
Those guys were shooting out of a moving helicopter, at least to begin with. Any magnified optic is definitely not the best choice for that sort of shooting.

The movie was not particularly good, but the book was excellent. Mark Bowden did a lot of research and cross referencing. Shughart was using an M14 (maybe an M21) with an Aimpoint (model wasn't specified). As far as I can remember, the book never states what Gordon was carrying.

EDIT. Apparently Gordon was using a CAR-15. Optics are not specified.

Oh, yeah. I didn't realize we were talking about that. That's where you want some kind of a red dot and a semi-auto, or an ACOG with BAC.

This is the heat, as far as I'm concerned. I won't try it with a bolt gun again unless I had no other choice.

http://tacticalbrassrecovery.com/image/cache/data/scar/SCAR2-a-500x375.jpg

SuperiorDG
03-28-12, 08:23
Aim small hit small. I have an AR setup that I use for long range steel matches. I think it helps me work on the fine details of my technique. Low recoil and magnification allows me to see my hits and thus I get better feedback. Other then that, I don't think I will ever use it for anything else.

fixit69
03-28-12, 16:30
Someone might have said somthing like this already, but for me it's a combination of factors. The most important being that I have astigmatism, and this makes the red dot bloom. Just tried the new 2MOA dot on a T1 and it still does it. So it's trijicon for me or any magnified scope.

Do I need it? Well, if you saw me shooting past 100 yards with irons, you would start a fund to buy me a scope my vision sucks so bad. So for me it is a need, to get anything that resembles acceptable accuracy at a distance.

The other main point woud be that I am lucky enough to be able to shoot at a variety of distances with a wide variety of weapons. The why goes past all the normal answers you usually hear. It is fun and I can.

Quietshooter, I haven't laughed that hard in a while. Thanks.

TehLlama
03-28-12, 23:09
I'm drifting towards the idiot boat of being able to afford a reliable carbine, and then spend added money for added capability - trigger, barrel and ammunition that reduces that cone of fire to make up for user error more, M300 and DBAL added capability.
The argument I guess I'm working towards is that there may be an argument to be mad for a carbine that 'does everything' fairly well, and for hunting, competition shooting, or just the ability to have magnification is something I'm quite seriously looking at having, despite the relatively high cost.

I know my lowly DDV5 with micro aimpoint will do everything I realistically need out of a defensive carbine, but 'probably good enough' won't sell sexy hardware.

I do concur with the potential requirement to hit a smaller, only partially exposed target instead of something as silly as a fully exposed face-on E-type torso.

Nmate
03-29-12, 00:47
The most important being that I have astigmatism, and this makes the red dot bloom. Just tried the new 2MOA dot on a T1 and it still does it. So it's trijicon for me or any magnified scope.



Astigmatism can be corrected. I've started wearing toric contact lenses. It used to be you couldn't get them in disposables, that changed years ago. I don't have any problem with red dot bloom. That said, my astigmatism is much less severe in my dominant eye vs. my non-dominant eye, I don't know if that plays a role.

They are significantly more expensive than non-toric contact lenses, but it's not as bad as it used to be. If it's a problem you can always wear regular contacts the majority of the time and switch when you go shooting.

fixit69
03-29-12, 11:59
That's good to know. I will try that out. But I've had to stop wearing contacts a few years ago, scratching the eyeball is not a good thing. But I'm sure they are healed by now.

But I don't know if they will help when I shoot so badly anyway. Worth a try, I guess.

ETA: are you near sighted? I wonder if a combo of the two is anothe factor in blooming. Need to research more...

Alaskapopo
04-06-12, 23:31
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Blackhawk Down, the "snipers" were using red dots as optics. We all know that a red dot allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put rounds into a target. However, these "snipers" had no magnification, didn't dial dope, or even have wind or elevation hold capability.

All the new hotness seems to be the variable power optics on "recce" type rifles with either BDC or Mil-based reticles.

It seems to me that for an AR, it's still tough to beat a red dot sight for the useful range of the rifle.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a LEO or Mil sniper, what's the point for having a magnified optic on your AR? Long distance paper punching?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing weekend sniper dialing dope and such, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for mil-grade equipment? The benchrest guys do it more accurately with super-fine-dot-reticled, 45X Leupolds. Why try to do it with a 10X or 15X Mil-based reticle and "play" sniper.

I can't think of a single CONUS personal shooting situation that would require a "sniper" type weapon.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a Nightforce on my AR again?

An Ar can still put the hurt on someone with good ammunition out to 500 yards fairly easily with the right optics. Red dots are fine for CQB but for general purposes I would not want that to be my only optic choice. A good 1-4 or 1-6 power scope can let you do a lot of things well. No reason to limit yourself. Three gun is an example of what these rifles are capable of and what optics do good in all around situations. Most shooters there are using low power variables and its the iron sight and red dot shooters in the limited division that complain about not being able to see the long targets.
Pat

Multi-G
04-08-12, 06:59
For me it is my quest to be a better all around shooter. Over the years I have been blessed and able to take many classes in handgun, tactical rifle and shotgun. I enjoy them all but moving to precision rifle just seemed like a natural next step.

If you do one thing long enough, it will get a bit boring. Long range rifle keeps me interested and learning at this point.

Jellybean
04-08-12, 14:42
Well, if I don't really "NEED" any of this gun stuff, why do I really need anything?

Why spend more on a car when I could use a bicycle?
Why buy property and/or a house when one can live in a tent in the park?
Why have a job? People used to live off the land just fine.
Why have pets? Pointless waste of money if I ever saw one.
Why shop for better stuff online when you can just go to walmart?
Why spend years learning to play a musical instrument? I'm never going to be a "rock star".
Why learn any medical skills? The ambulance is just a phone call away.
Why own more than one gun? Screw all that "two is one" crap.
Why have more than one magazine of ammo? Since I'm probably never going to need to fire more than a handfull of rounds anyway, I might as well buy a revolver and own only six bullets for the thing because that's all I'll ever need.
Why practice shooting? Can't really miss at point blank.
Why bother putting out money for an expensive high quality gun? The cheap shitty one will work just fine at the range where we all do 99% of our shooting. The odds therefore are in your favor that it'll work just fine during that once in a lifetime event we'll probably never need them for.
Hell, why bother owning any guns at all? Next firearm, magazine, or ammo ban that comes through, let's just let them have at it and ban everything. Let the "Professionals" handle things from then on.

:rolleyes:

Like what some others have said, here's the way I see it:

1) Shooting is fun. There's different types of shooting that you need different gear for. It's also a usefull skill because....
2)Stupid shit happens. I'd like to be able to shoot back, and do it well. If a x-zillion magnification optic helps me do that, then yay me.
3)I'm not really sure how to say this, but imo, the Constitution may define freedom, but shooting is the spirit of it. You know- those warm fuzzies you get smelling the burnt powder at the range, or walking into a gun shop? The longer that spirit stays alive, the longer we get to keep the rest of it, even though things are already pretty much screwed. Even if things never get to "kick out the tyrants" mode, it's always nice to know there's a few milion relatively skilled riflemen out there. I'm, sure that's all terribly naive, but you know what I mean.
4)Speaking of skilled riflemen, I think the curent long range shooting scene is perfectly legitimate and important because it's how we got here (long story WAY shortened.:p).
Q:Americans are famous for....?
A:Skilled long range marksmen.
Imho, long range shooting is keeping the original skills/traditions alive, while modernizing and evolving them.

wetidlerjr
04-09-12, 06:06
Well, if I don't really "NEED" any of this gun stuff, why do I really need anything?
Why spend more on a car when I could use a bicycle?...
...I think the curent long range shooting scene is perfectly legitimate and important because it's how we got here (long story WAY shortened.:p).
Q:Americans are famous for....?
A:Skilled long range marksmen.
Imho, long range shooting is keeping the original skills/traditions alive, while modernizing and evolving them.

Excellent post! I agree with everything you said. It needs to be a "Sticky" as some people just don't get it. :thank_you2:

Bacon Six Actual
04-09-12, 14:32
To make a distinction between a military sniper in an aerial shooting environment, and one on the ground, is definitely a necessity considering it's one of the first points brought up. Shooting from a helo, on the move, with a magnified optic, is a recipe for vomit and gross ineffectiveness. The whole Black Hawk Down situation is a pretty bad example to draw from, but that's just my opinion.

Moving on to precision, magnification, and the need for them.

Precision and magnification are not mutually exclusive, you can put rounds on target without ceremony with nothing more than irons and solid fundamentals, assuming you're driving a stick capable of it in the first place. Does this mean that you should be chucking lead at something you can't identify? Hell no. This is where magnification comes into play.

Let's talk semantics, and iron sights.

To play devil's advocate, let's say that a guy were to carry his super match rifle, right off the line from Camp Perry, and his spotting scope. Hombre can put rounds where he wants them at 600m with boring regularity, and can identify his target with his spotting scope. Tacticool? Nope, but it gets the job done doesn't it?

This will be a bit of a reach, but look at Simo Häyhä. Finnish sniper in the Winter War with Russia, 505 confirmed with a bolt gun and iron sights. "We're talking about autoloaders here..." Yeah, we are. We're also drawing comparisons between magnification and no magnification. Since I've assumed the role of devil's advocate for the moment, this example has merit. If a 5' 3" Finnish man with iron sights can be that effective, what's saying that Joe American can't? This just shows that optics in general are not required for precision and effectiveness.

Now, to be reasonable and realistic.

We don't live in 1940 anymore. We have a nauseating array of quality magnified and non-magnified optics at our disposal, at varying price points. While it's glaringly possible to be effective without them, it's also unnecessary to be without them.

Some of the most pragmatic solutions are things that have been discussed already. Slap a 3x magnifier in a LaRue mount behind an Aimpoint. It provides enough magnification to positively ID that you're throwing Pb candy at a scumbag and not the neighborhood punk with an air rifle, pretty important if you ask me. Throw the magnifier to the side and you're immediately back to an optic that is fast and efficient close up. This is just one example of numerous viable options available, from the disgustingly expensive yet incredible offerings from March and S&B, to the aforementioned Aimpoint + magnifier option, to ACOG's with DR's and RMR's, to Elcans, etc etc.

On the subject of the precision rifle.

A 16" Recce can make hits at 1k+, that's been done and proven. An 18" Mk12 can do it to 1200m, also documented and proven. Good idea? Probably not, the retained energy of a 77gr slug at 1200m isn't worth the liability. But it can be done.

A 14.5" barrel from a solid maker like FN, the numerous excellent examples of stainless barrels, etc, is MORE than adequately accurate for a "precision capable" rifle. It's not going to stack rounds through the same hole as a Mk12 will, but then again, a Mk12 is a purpose built precision rifle that will outshoot a lot of factory bolt rifles with regularity. That's fact, not opinion.

The question isn't about having a rifle that is purpose built for precision, or even whether or not it's necessary to have a tack driver. The question is do you want to take pride in the things you own, and build them right, with the capability to do what you have to out to a reasonable distance?

Take the HCS Recce for example. If you haven't read the range reports on them, you probably should. It's a 16" gun that's light enough to compare to your standard offering from the usual suspects, and it will stack rounds like it's got something to prove. You're going to pay for that capability, but the option is out there.

I suppose what I'm saying is use a solid rifle, with good ammo, quality sight systems (read that as irons and/or optics), and most importantly, TRAINING. In the end, it's your choice regarding what you want to use, and what you want to shoot. You can go through every possible scenario you can think of, and no set up is going to work in all of them.

YMMV, that's all I got.

wilco423
04-09-12, 16:56
Excellent summation, Bacon. Good to see you over here.

Bacon Six Actual
04-09-12, 19:25
Thanks for the welcome Wilco, glad to be here!

doriwoogie
04-10-12, 12:16
You know- those warm fuzzies you get smelling the burnt powder at the range, or walking into a gun shop?

You Sir, are a poet. Love that, I think that sums it all up so well. To add to that, the smell of something like Hoppes. I don't use that anymore but I still remember that from when I first got into shooting, and that always brings back the "warm fuzzies".

williamTkilla
04-10-12, 22:27
I think its all dependent on where you live. In my area there is vast openness and having a little magnification helps with target ID. Technically I use my "sniper" weapon as a varmint gun and for matches. I prefer the styling of my "MK12 MOD 0" over a wood and blued varmint gun.

wild_wild_wes
04-11-12, 11:44
I prefer the styling of my "MK12 MOD 0" over a wood and blued varmint gun.


Many would consider your statement to be heresy, but I fully agree with it. Me too!

Shoulderthinggoesup
04-11-12, 14:31
So, with the better 1-4/6x scopes you really dont loose anything (personally anyways) at close ranges and have a serious advantage if range ever came into play. Unless you find yourself slower with one.... I can't imagine not having one. At the most recent class I attended, the magnification let me smoke the rds users when the shooting exceeded 50 yards. Would this translate real world? dunno.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

feedramp
04-11-12, 15:45
I suppose what I'm saying is use a solid rifle, with good ammo, quality sight systems (read that as irons and/or optics), and most importantly, TRAINING. In the end, it's your choice regarding what you want to use, and what you want to shoot. You can go through every possible scenario you can think of, and no set up is going to work in all of them.

YMMV, that's all I got.

This. Well said.

One Shot
04-12-12, 23:11
Many years ago, in Viet Nam, I was a sniper in a rifle platoon. One night an enemy sniper started shooting at us. I was able to locate his position, sight in on him with my scoped rifle and fire at him. He fired a round and I fired right back at him. A number of us heard my bullet hit home. No more rifle fire came from that guy or his position. Later on, about 2 weeks later, the intelligence guys reported that my round had hit the enemy sniper in the head and ended his days "as a glorious communist soldier." If I remember right, I estimated the distance of my shot to be under 200 meters to the target but it was done in low light as the sun was setting behind some mountains. I learned that evening that one well-placed round, one precise shot that strikes home is a very good thing. That is one of the reasons I always encourage people to consider getting some sort of scope or red dot sight mounted on their rifles. It can save a life in the proper situation. Maybe even yours.

Multi-G
04-15-12, 20:45
Thanks for sharing your experience. It's straight forward experience like this that is sometimes necessary to remind us of certain things.

Fetep
04-30-12, 10:16
Well, I know this is a military application so its not exactly the answer you want, but when we were issued ACOGs in the Marine Corps they told us it was to get a better view of possible IED's.

And you're asking a hard question anyway.


Which shooting situations occur that a regular schmo (who cant carry an ar15 everyday) would need his AR15?

These things we do are for hobby. I know you're not criticizing and I'm not criticizing in return. But hopefully, I'll never use my ar15 in CONUS. Seriously. If I need to...the country is in a bad place. So having an ar15 is just like having a NIghtforce on it.
Whats the point? (self defense not withstanding of course)

Well, whats the point of golf?
Why titanium drivers instead of cheap walmart kind? You're never going to be a pro...why bother? You're just playing at being a pro anyway.

Because its fun and we can. That's why :)

Edit:
Oh and some people hunt for food. I hope to do that this year for the first time :)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THAT!

Jack-O
05-01-12, 18:51
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

Dunedain
05-05-12, 13:57
I think it's rather naive, given the disgraceful situation the country is already in and getting more so each year, to think that there will always be no practical use for quality rifles of whatever type. And, of course, that's exactly what the Second Amendment is there for in the first place.

mxvet747
05-10-12, 21:37
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

AMEN brother...

SRT-M4
05-10-12, 23:19
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

Your logic is fantastic! Very well said.

QuietShootr
05-11-12, 11:39
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2422/3777084698_a7ef4bf328_z.jpg

Fetep
05-11-12, 12:16
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

Well Said Sir!

ABN
05-17-12, 19:44
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Blackhawk Down, the "snipers" were using red dots as optics. We all know that a red dot allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put rounds into a target. However, these "snipers" had no magnification, didn't dial dope, or even have wind or elevation hold capability.

Of course it's just a movie...

The snipers were originally tasked to provide overwatch from a helicopter platform, many prefer a red dot for that application especially in an urban environment and the associated short range engagements.

geohans
05-18-12, 08:08
Magnification on a moving platform (helicopter) is not useful.

The question is not the distance of the shot, but the practicality of the platform.

KevinB
05-22-12, 11:24
As was pointed out already the CAG guys in the helo's where doing aerial overwatch - so the Aimpoint was much more helpful than a magnified optic would have been.

Keep in mind that this very deployment led that unit to go out and get the S&B Short Dot - due to target discrimination issues in the crowds - the 1-X variable where not around in any useful form prior to this.

I've shot Short Dot's from helo's both CONUS (LE and MIL demo shoots) and in Iraq and Afghan -- even at 1x its not idea, but you can crank up to look at a potential target - and so in some circumstances its a viable tool in the tool box.


Now I have a 1.1-8x Leupold CQBSS H27D on my 16" SR-25, as for that gun, I think its the best option available to maximize the guns potential from 0-800m

Would it be my first choice for a Home Defense weapon -- NO -- but IF/WHEN the zombies rise I will be ready :jester:

Frankly my 1911 with CT grips and X300 are better suited for my circumstances with kids and dogs - as even my M4gery or SBR dont give me the manuverability that I may need to pick up the kids or move/retain a dog.

I enjoy shooting longer range stuff - and thank god I don't need to justify that to anyone here in this country at this moment in time.

ASH556
05-23-12, 10:58
Thanks for the input Kevin!

I didn't pose this thread in order to justify to others the need for a precision rifle. More for myself. I too choose a pistol for a primary HD weapon, and I have a carbine as well. The issue I continue to struggle with is the fact that I'm missing 2 key components to become proficient with a long range precision rifle:

1) A long range within close enough proximity to make training with it viable.
2) Funds to afford match ammo to train with said rifle

This has lead to me owning 2 high quality precision .308 bolt rifles (at different times) that each had about 20 rounds fired through them and then just sat in the safe.

It's difficult for me to justify having $2K+ tied up in a dust collector.

However, I don't want to be missing a skillset that is important. I guess there's probably some balance in there somewhere that has to be achieved.

KevinB
05-23-12, 12:53
ASH,

Reloading can make 7.62 Match ammo affordable once you have the initial brass.

The range -- there is the rub, I'm lucky as we have a 1k within 45min from my house, so I can shoot LR matches easily.

Frankly like pistol shooting, Long Range shooting can keep really tighten up your close carbine shooting, as the fundementals transfer to making closer precision shots.

I doubt (and hope) I will never need to make a medium range (300-800m) shot CONUS (frankly I doubt I will even need to make any rifle shot CONUS). I shoot cause I enjoy it.

Dirtyboy333
05-25-12, 12:42
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

For the WIN!!!

Same with Ao-cake and Quietshooter's posts.

When/if tyranny shows it's ugly head, good luck surviving more than a day using your "CQB" skills you've amassed over the years. I know im in the minority but i see long range shots to have a much higher probability of becoming MY reality then running, rolling and shooting from your back etc. at gigantic targets from 5 yards with your rifle. I'll most likely be using a pistol for anything in the house.

This point has already been made but It's interesting to see some here say that due to the low probability of LR engagements that it's a "waste" or it's not a "need" like CQB skills but yet they spend countless time perfecting mag changes. :confused:

In contrast, I find paper punching from CQB distances to be extremely boring and wasteful. It's also extremely easy:eek:. With a small amount of CQB training I will be much more proficient then the "likely" thugs robbing my house. Whats "unlikely" is the thought that the said thug will be some high-speed operator.


The only way to project fear into the tyrants is from LR.

yellowfin
05-29-12, 21:57
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

There are SO many people I know who need to understand this concept who at present clearly do not.

VegasKyle
06-17-12, 18:55
For me first and for most it's for fun. I stumbled across a thread on the MK12 and thought the Mod 0 was the coolest looking AR I'd ever seen. After some research I thought the Mk12 and Mk262 ammo represented the pinnacle of what could be done with the AR/5.56 (at least for our military). At the time a full blown Mod 0 clone wasn't doable so I put this together. http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww232/Kyle_OA/39f52875.jpg
This is the first scoped rifle I'd owned since a 10/22 with a 4x I had as a kid.

The first trip out to 500yds had me hooked. I had it on paper in no time and the first shot at a piece of 6"x6" steel resulted in PING! Benchrest doesn't do it for me, I'm more interested in honing my skills as a shooter. To me benchrest is more "how good of a wind call can I make" with a 100lb rifle covered in sandbags. One thing there is no shortage of in S. Nevada is .gov land. I have a good time driving out in the desert setting up some targets, taking a walk, throwing down an old blanket and getting to it.

a0cake and Jack-O hit on some great points.

I think people generally dismiss ultra low probability events without much thought. Furthermore, humans are plagued by results orientated thinking "nothing bad has happen so nothing bad will happen" is a common and deadly way of thinking.

Do I think I'll need precision capable rifle in the CONUS? No way. However, that doesn't mean I'll never need it.

1984:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2009/12/01/sp-1984-sarajevo.jpg

8 years later:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg/300px-Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg
http://www.bosniak.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/siege-of-sarajevo.jpg

okie john
06-18-12, 11:21
There's the obvious benefit of concurrent / crossover training between off time shooting and professional training obligations (for those that actually have such obligations).

But I know that's not what you're talking about.

Clearly, you will likely not need magnification for any home defense scenario. Obviously, the vast majority of self defense scenarios occur at contact range to a few meters and usually involve handguns. So if self/home defense is all you're concerned about, then no, you probably don't need magnification.

But is that the only environment that matters?

Rob asked how often person (1) has "needed" to ID a target at the end of the driveway. Rob, how many times have you personally "needed" a firearm, at all? How many aggressors have you shot? I'm guessing zero. But that doesn't mean you don't "need" a firearm. So this argument does not stand up to criticism in my opinion.

My point is that we don't make defensive choices solely based on past events. We make them based off of a combination of what has happened, what is likely to happen, and what can possibly happen, with the same order of precedence.

I choose to own and be highly proficient with long range platforms with high magnification optics A) because I used them for work and like the crossover training and B) because I want full spectrum capability, even on the civilian side...I choose to be able to dominate any fight, not just close range defense type home invasion scenarios. I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

I believe that common crime related self defense shoots are not the only time I may conceivably need to affect change in the world around me with a rifle. Even in a civilian role, I choose to be able to do so on my terms, at any range, not just what the law says is a justifiable defense distance. The benefit of magnification in a real world gunfight, not some one way range where targets are standing in the open and painted white cannot be overstated, even at ranges as close as 75M. Magnification is as much about identifying short-medium range targets behind cover and concealment as it is about extending range. It's also about shooting through small loopholes / slits in the enemy's cover. I've never seen this skill adequately taught or given enough attention in any class. People just love running from cover to cover (usually not looking at anything or presenting their rifles) and blasting huge targets. That's not what most firefights look like.

It's always funny to listen to self proclaimed experts who've never heard a shot fired in anger in their entire lives talk about "tactical shooting" like they have their finger on the pulse of how an actual gunfight develops and unfolds. Maybe it's just about feeling cool while not ponying up and assuming any of the risk. But it's not funny when those self proclaimed experts (read: have nots) take on a condescending tone and attempt to make the "haves" justify their choices.

Disclaimer: I have no problem learning from an outstanding civilian shooter who has no background. I'll listen to such a person teach weapons manipulation with an open mind and learn whatever I can. But the second that person starts talking "well in a firefight" this, or "there's no tactical need" for that, I stop listening.

This may be one of the best posts I've ever read.


Okie John

okie john
06-18-12, 11:55
Turning the M-4 into a precision platform redefines what it can do. That's a good thing, and the more people do it, the better it gets. Private citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights on their own dime by tweaking the M-4 into a precision platform (or turning them into SBRs or shooting in practical rifle matches or suppressing them or shooting hogs or whatever) are a massive part of the Pentagon's R&D component. Just look at how many individual techniques and how much of the gear that American soldiers use in combat today have been influenced by practical shooters and prairie-dog hunters and you'll see what I mean.

It's rare that one shooter, or even a small group of us, makes a great breakthrough. But when thousands of practical shooters cross-pollinate with thousands of precision shooters, and we start building rifles and loading ammo to test our crazy ideas, then we progress as a nation. Rifling twist rates start to change and rifles get more accurate. Bullets get heavier, resist wind better, and become more lethal. Scopes get tougher and clearer. Hell, even slings start to work better. And all of that adds up to more cops and soldiers going home to their wives and kids, and more bad guys taking the dirt nap.

So while your glass-sighted AR (and mine) may not seem significant individually, the whole thing is a win-win when you look at the bigger picture.


Okie John

tostado22
06-18-12, 12:24
This may be one of the best posts I've ever read.


Okie John

+1


I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

People need to understand the difference. There's nothing wrong with being prepared. It doesn't make you a militia member/nut-job/serial killer/tacticool gear queer or any of that. I hate the acronym SHTF just as much as a0cake but those scenarios have happened in several other countries, it can happen in ours just as easily.

okie john
06-18-12, 12:38
I hate the acronym SHTF just as much as a0cake but those scenarios have happened in several other countries, it can happen in ours just as easily.

Somehow, the word "Katrina" comes to mind.


Okie John

yellowfin
06-20-12, 08:01
Somehow, the word "Katrina" comes to mind.


Okie JohnAnd LA riots.

Moose-Knuckle
06-27-12, 20:41
Charles Whitman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) comes to mind. On 01 August 1966 Whitman (qualified USMC rifleman) became (at that time) America's most notorious mass murderer. When he started sniping his victims from the 28th floor of the tower there were several citizens who returned fire at him with their deer rifles forcing Whitman to take cover on numerous occasions. This undoubtedly kept him busy while two APD officers made their way up to the top of the tower and ended the murder spree.

Some good reading/vids of the citizens laying down some suppresive fire on Whitman.

http://republicofaustin.com/44-years-after-the-ut-tower-massacre-is-charles-whitman-still-a-bad-guy-graphic-pics/

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/tower_6.html


Now just imagine had Mark LaRue been around back then with his OBR? :p

wild_wild_wes
07-01-12, 01:14
Somehow, the word "Katrina" comes to mind.



Or, possibly...what might happen in certain communities after the November election...

duece71
07-03-12, 19:37
For me first and for most it's for fun. I stumbled across a thread on the MK12 and thought the Mod 0 was the coolest looking AR I'd ever seen. After some research I thought the Mk12 and Mk262 ammo represented the pinnacle of what could be done with the AR/5.56 (at least for our military). At the time a full blown Mod 0 clone wasn't doable so I put this together. http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww232/Kyle_OA/39f52875.jpg
This is the first scoped rifle I'd owned since a 10/22 with a 4x I had as a kid.

The first trip out to 500yds had me hooked. I had it on paper in no time and the first shot at a piece of 6"x6" steel resulted in PING! Benchrest doesn't do it for me, I'm more interested in honing my skills as a shooter. To me benchrest is more "how good of a wind call can I make" with a 100lb rifle covered in sandbags. One thing there is no shortage of in S. Nevada is .gov land. I have a good time driving out in the desert setting up some targets, taking a walk, throwing down an old blanket and getting to it.

a0cake and Jack-O hit on some great points.

I think people generally dismiss ultra low probability events without much thought. Furthermore, humans are plagued by results orientated thinking "nothing bad has happen so nothing bad will happen" is a common and deadly way of thinking.
Do I think I'll need precision capable rifle in the CONUS? No way. However, that doesn't mean I'll never need it.

1984:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2009/12/01/sp-1984-sarajevo.jpg

8 years later:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg/300px-Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg
http://www.bosniak.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/siege-of-sarajevo.jpg

Let the light shine through.......excellent description of the thought, thank you for the insight.

duece71
07-03-12, 21:41
funny discussion.

a long range rifle is plain and simple an offensive weapon. I make NO apologies for it and treat is and train with it as such. I wont pretend it's some defensive personal protection weapon any more than I pretend my carbine or battle rifles are such.

Our ability to project force over distance is a MAJOR part of our tool kit that protects us against tyranny. Creating fear in those who would take from you IS a valid and required part of being an American. If you lack the means and ability to project force, then you are not doing your part standing on the line being "the consequence" of bad behavior.

So, YES... a long range precision rig IS a needed part of your arsenal, as is the training and knowledge to use it effectively. If you are not a threat to tyrants then that just places a larger burden on those of us who are.

Very well said.

Magic_Salad0892
07-04-12, 06:20
You're all ****ing stupid for owning precision rifles. There is no possible reason to ever own one, because you're never going to need to use it. Pistols, and carbines are much more realistic.

Precision guns, semi, and bolt are totally useless.

I'll PM you guys later with my address so you can send the guns to me, so I can get rid of them for you.

Six Feet Under
07-14-12, 19:44
I like the extra challenge of shooting at distance, but barring that... I don't really have a legitimate "reason" for owning an AR with a scope on it.

At least that sounds legitimate and reasonable to people who don't "get it", anyways.

The_War_Wagon
07-14-12, 20:25
Because I live on a ridgeline. And should the need EVER arise, I want to CONTROL the high ground.

One Shot
07-21-12, 04:25
Basically, it is a personal decision as to whether or not you mount or use a scope on a rifle.

The idea behind using scopes on rifles has been repeatedly justified by both the British and American military forces. The British started it off by going to the SUSAT. We brought scopes to bear with our ACOG. Scopes do more than just help make a long distance shot. A tactical scope enhances overall accuracy for shots also done at close range. A tactical scope like a Millett DMS-1 really isn't for long range more than it is for increasing speed of engagement and increasing accuracy. EOTech scopes get used like the Millett DMS-1 scope as does the Aimpoint. So if you opt to use a scope, it is your decision. You can select one for close range combat, long range precision or to be used to offset low light conditions like nighttime and dark areas in buildings.