Has anyone collected data on 1x W/ Magnifier vs. 1-4 Variable?

[TomF]

I have seen a few opinion posts on the pros and cons between a 1x optic with magnifier vs a variable scope in the 1-4 range.

I have both options available to me and a rifle that is set up to be a more-accurate gun, I guess it fits the "Recce Rifle" moniker.

I have bounced back and forth on these two optic options and wonder if anyone has put pen to paper to collect data on how each set up works at given distances. I'm spitballing here, but I could see some useful data markers in:

- Speed to first shot from 5 yards
- Speed on target transitions at close distance
- Speed to first shot at 50 yards
- Accuracy at 1x at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 200 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 300 yards

I think we can probably assume which set up will produce favorable results in some of the categories, but others I'm curious on.

I like the lighter weight and balance of my rifle with the Aimpoint on, but I also like the finer aiming reference of the 1-4 optic when magnification comes into play. I've bounced back and forth on which set up to settle on.

I might try to spend a day on the range playing with this and post my results. Anybody else already have something similar?

[goteron]

In November I shot a VTAC Carbine 1.5 class with two nearly identical carbines.

1. 10.5" With Micro
2. 14.5" with Z6i

I shot a lot of the drills back to back with both guns, while I didnt write down my times they were very close for most of the drills. We ran some "Field" drills invloving 9 hole barricades that I came out slightly ahead with the micro, but I didnt have enough time on the Z6i to make any strong conclusions.

We were shooting steel for most of the field drills, so accuracy was difficult to discern. I was going mainly for time (Getting good hits) and feel. The Z6i is big, its still fairly light, but its big, its a little more difficult to get behind quiclkly when working around barricades, but I think that is a training issue for me. On 6x it works wonders.

Up close I was just as fast on 1x with most of the drills.

I am taking another VTAC class (Streetfighter) in April and plan on doing the same thing, this time with some more experience with the Z6i. I will try to write down some times, something I wish I had done in November.

I did decide to keep the Z6i however, I liked it a lot.

[Alaskapopo]

I have seen a few opinion posts on the pros and cons between a 1x optic with magnifier vs a variable scope in the 1-4 range.

I have both options available to me and a rifle that is set up to be a more-accurate gun, I guess it fits the "Recce Rifle" moniker.

I have bounced back and forth on these two optic options and wonder if anyone has put pen to paper to collect data on how each set up works at given distances. I'm spitballing here, but I could see some useful data markers in:

- Speed to first shot from 5 yards
- Speed on target transitions at close distance
- Speed to first shot at 50 yards
- Accuracy at 1x at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 200 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 300 yards

I think we can probably assume which set up will produce favorable results in some of the categories, but others I'm curious on.

I like the lighter weight and balance of my rifle with the Aimpoint on, but I also like the finer aiming reference of the 1-4 optic when magnification comes into play. I've bounced back and forth on which set up to settle on.

I might try to spend a day on the range playing with this and post my results. Anybody else already have something similar?

I think there are three systems.
1. Low power variable scope
2. Red dot with magnifier
3. Magnified optic with a red dot in a off set mount.

I have come to like 3 the best and 1 the least. The problems I have with the magnifier is as a scope the field of view and eye relief sucks. With few exceptions most red dots don't have hold over marks for longer range shooting. They are not set up to dial in for longer range either. With an off set red dot you can do any thing you could with a standard red dot for the most part and you still have all the advantages of your 1-x power optic. Plus it can also act as a back up sight replacing a BUIS.
While shooting three gun I have found that my side red dot is usefull while shooting targets on the move where your scaning with your head off the rifle and need to bring the rifle up to engage a target. I have found that if your shooting in a stationary position my Z6I is actually faster than my off set red dot because of the superior field of view. I shoot local matches in both open and tac optics and this allows me to compare the off set red dot to using the scope on 1x for close drills and like I said I have found most of the time I just use the scope and not the red dot.
Pat

[aguila327]

This is such a subjective subject, but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

I have two rifles, one with a T-1 and my .300blk with a VX-R patrol 1-4x. I've shot both extensively in class, and in local three gun matches. I've shot the 5.56 w/ the aimpoint a lot more by a long shot. Bothe are 16" barrels. (Just in case your interested)

I shoot the aimpoint much faster, and find that it is my go to and work rifle of choice. The VX-R I find more accurate at distance, but find myself slowing down up close (a common complaint).

Do I operate with the aimpoint better because its a better choice or because I shoot it a lot more? I know my answer. You have to figure that out yourself though.

You can ask all sorts of question like that on this site and have the best minds available give you 24 karat info yet not be happy when you apply it on your own. Then you go the other less recommended way and find that its the cats ass.

Moral of the story: You decide what you want the weapon system to do, mine for good info (like your doing), and then buy the optic you want and hope its what you hoped for. If not buy another and try again.

This is why we are all broke:(

[Failure2Stop]

I think there are three systems.
1. Low power variable scope
2. Red dot with magnifier
3. Magnified optic with a red dot in a off set mount.

I have come to like 3 the best and 1 the least.

You like a red dot with magnifier better than a low powered variable?

[Failure2Stop]

I have bounced back and forth on these two optic options and wonder if anyone has put pen to paper to collect data on how each set up works at given distances. I'm spitballing here, but I could see some useful data markers in:

- Speed to first shot from 5 yards
- Speed on target transitions at close distance
- Speed to first shot at 50 yards
- Accuracy at 1x at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 100 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 200 yards
- Accuracy at highest magnification at 300 yards


I have gathered a significant amount of data on most of these points and more (low/no light, while light, wide/narrow transitions, support side, SOM, positional shooting, non-standard positional work, and target ID/discrimination). Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to it, but I know the result.

I have found that I prefer a specific type of reticle with a certain amount of illumination with as forgiving of an eye-box as possible. I have found that the differences in close-range stuff are more linked to shooter preference than anything else, and that the differences between models could exceed the differences between genre for some shooters.

When it comes to long range, magnification rules the day; once the shooter knows how to shoot long range. Target identification and discrimination are obvious force multipliers with magnification, and a properly designed reticle permits rapid drop and wind compensation, something that no current 1x optics permit with any degree of repeatability under realistic conditions.

[TomF]

Appreciate the information guys. Jack, I'd be curious to see your results if you are inclined to post them.

Some of the replies have already turned into discussions that most threads of this topic do - personal opinion without much hard data. There's nothing wrong with that, and I appreciate the input, but I was looking for something a little more scientific.

I have used Aimpoints extensively, and have dabbled with a TR24 a bit over the last 12 months. I like both of them for certain things, but I've never really sat down to compare hard data in regards to my performance with them. Basically, the question becomes is the TR24 worth the extra weight, because I much prefer the balance and weight of a rifle with a red dot mounted.

I think this is a good excuse to run out to the range this weekend.

[Alaskapopo]

You like a red dot with magnifier better than a low powered variable?

Nope I like a low power variable with an off set red dot the best. Sorry for any confusion.
Pat

[Failure2Stop]

Nope I like a low power variable with an off set red dot the best. Sorry for any confusion.
Pat

Understood, but by your numbering you said that you "liked 1 the least", listing #1 as "low powered variable".
It doesn't hurt my feelings in the least if you don't like what I do, I just found it interesting that as you listed the options you found a preference for magnifier+red dot over low powered variable.
If that's what works for you, groovy, I just wanted to see if that was correct and not a typo, as I tried and reluctantly abandoned the red dot+magnifier as a substitute for a low powered variable.

[Alaskapopo]

Understood, but by your numbering you said that you "liked 1 the least", listing #1 as "low powered variable".
It doesn't hurt my feelings in the least if you don't like what I do, I just found it interesting that as you listed the options you found a preference for magnifier+red dot over low powered variable.
If that's what works for you, groovy, I just wanted to see if that was correct and not a typo, as I tried and reluctantly abandoned the red dot+magnifier as a substitute for a low powered variable.

I guess I am still not clear. It was not in order of preference. In order of preference it would be.
1. low power variable with off set red dot.
2. low power variable alone.
3. Fixed power acog with off set red dot.
4. Aimpoint with magnifier.
Just my opinion.

[Failure2Stop]

I guess I am still not clear. It was not in order of preference. In order of preference it would be.
1. low power variable with off set red dot.
2. low power variable alone.
3. Fixed power acog with off set red dot.
4. Aimpoint with magnifier.
Just my opinion.

Gotcha.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

[aguila327]

Appreciate the information guys. Jack, I'd be curious to see your results if you are inclined to post them.

Some of the replies have already turned into discussions that most threads of this topic do - personal opinion without much hard data. There's nothing wrong with that, and I appreciate the input, but I was looking for something a little more scientific.

I have used Aimpoints extensively, and have dabbled with a TR24 a bit over the last 12 months. I like both of them for certain things, but I've never really sat down to compare hard data in regards to my performance with them. Basically, the question becomes is the TR24 worth the extra weight, because I much prefer the balance and weight of a rifle with a red dot mounted.

I think this is a good excuse to run out to the range this weekend.

I think the problem is that you can't generate hard data on such a subjective subject. Don't get me wrong someone can take you to a range and weigh the optics and time and score you as you use them and see which you perform better with, but that data will be limited in its use.

[Alaskapopo]

I think the problem is that you can't generate hard data on such a subjective subject. Don't get me wrong someone can take you to a range and weigh the optics and time and score you as you use them and see which you perform better with, but that data will be limited in its use.

I have actually done tests with different optics and different shooters. The drills were simple. Just start at low ready and at the buzzer shoot 2 rounds per target on 3 targets at 7 yards. Record time and hits.
I need to do more drills with moving and shooting however.

[chillindrdude]

Instead if an offset red dot hows about offset irons? Prob nitpicking but there is a significant price difference between a 1-4x with offset RDS vs 1-4x with offset irons. Is there enough of a performance difference to justify the cost?

[aguila327]

I have actually done tests with different optics and different shooters. The drills were simple. Just start at low ready and at the buzzer shoot 2 rounds per target on 3 targets at 7 yards. Record time and hits.
I need to do more drills with moving and shooting however.

I have also. Every year when we hire new officers I have them run similar drills out to the 25 yard line with Irons and then with our AimPoint M2's or M3's, and then an 1-4 optic. (unfortunately the department doesn't approve Magnified optics, so I have to run them on my personal rifle and scope)

Most are partial to the red dot, and show a measurable improvement in speed and accuracy. These are all new shooters. All my expierenced shooters prefer the Aimpoint, but the difference is minimal.

[Alaskapopo]

Instead if an offset red dot hows about offset irons? Prob nitpicking but there is a significant price difference between a 1-4x with offset RDS vs 1-4x with offset irons. Is there enough of a performance difference to justify the cost?

Off set irons are ok they are a bit slower than the dot for me. They are good for colder climates where optics fog when you got outside to inside and from inside to outside.
Pat