View Full Version : Having a hard time deciding 1x6 or 2.5x10?
Obscenejesster
04-01-14, 19:55
I'm in the process of building a RECCE and I can't decide whether I want the close quarter abilities of a 1x or the long range ability of a 10x.
I will be starting 3 gun this year and I might end up using this rifle but my main purpose for the build is SHTF. If the S ever does hit the fan, I want a very versatile rifle capable of hunting or stopping threats out to 500 yards or as close as 10. In my thinking however, I do not think there will be a lot of close quarter combat if the S ever does hit the fan. I would imagine you'd want to stop the threats before they get inside of 50 yards especially if you're trying to protect your shelter. I'm also thinking the 2.5x10 will be better for identifying threats while keeping a greater distance between you and them.
I already have the barrel for it and it's a 16" Rainier MEDCON.
I've seen videos of people taking out targets at 10 yards very quickly at 2.5 and I will be running 45 degree irons.
So what you guys think?
teutonicpolymer
04-01-14, 20:06
I would get the 1-6x
500m is still doable at 6x but close in is not fun with magnification
What's your budget?
My personal experience has been that magnifications of 1-3x are somewhat...useless. Unless you are shooting coins off someone's shoulders, there's very little need that I've come across that made me yearn for a low power or no power magnification. Between 20-50m, you should have plenty of time to find your reticle at 3-4x, within 5-10m you're not going to be using your offset irons a whole lot....
The benefits of a higher magnification however, especially in some doomsday scenario, are far greater. Being able to see your enemy, and what he is bringing to the fight, at long distances can be the difference between evading to fight another day or dying from underestimation. Even with some 10x optics I've found myself wishing for more, even at 300-400m distances.
Leaveammoforme
04-02-14, 02:29
The 1-6x would be my choice. Chances are good you will use it in 3G. Chances are slim you will use it in the zombie apocalypse.
I have owned and used both. 1-6 does get the job done, but honestly I did not really see a huge advantage over a 1-4. I currently am running a 2.5-10. On 2.5 I have no problem doing close range. It pretty much resembles an acog on this power. If you have your scope on 10 power, it is not so great at close range but can still be used, but that is why I through a set of offset irons on it. Having the greater magnification is very nice on the longer ranges.
I'd go go with a 1-4 for now. So many good choices these days.
But I think your assumptions about SHTF are backwards unless you are rural and will have sufficient people with you to put out LPs for early warning. In a metro area you will have desperate/ill-intentioned groups sneaking about, using cover until relatively close. Lots of other implications of firing at a distance on a group that are more appropriate to another forum section. Think flanking for one.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 08:01
What's your budget?
My personal experience has been that magnifications of 1-3x are somewhat...useless. Unless you are shooting coins off someone's shoulders, there's very little need that I've come across that made me yearn for a low power or no power magnification. Between 20-50m, you should have plenty of time to find your reticle at 3-4x, within 5-10m you're not going to be using your offset irons a whole lot....
The benefits of a higher magnification however, especially in some doomsday scenario, are far greater. Being able to see your enemy, and what he is bringing to the fight, at long distances can be the difference between evading to fight another day or dying from underestimation. Even with some 10x optics I've found myself wishing for more, even at 300-400m distances.
That's exactly what I was thinking and I've been doing a lot of it. My budget is about $800 which is why I am looking at Vortex's new 2.5x10x32mm. I looked through one a couple days ago and I gotta say, I was impressed. The glass was nice, the build quality and turrets felt amazing and the illumination was easily seen during the middle of the day outside. Granted, it was a partially cloudy day. I like what they did with the FFP in this scope. At 10x the reticle is perfectly sized. Thin enough for precision shots but easily seen. At 2.5, the reticle becomes a nice thick crosshair that can be picked up pretty quick. The only thing I didn't like was the small eye box at 10x but at 8x it was great. I could see myself using 8 power if multiple targets in the distance needs to be engaged and using 10 times if all I need is one precise shot.
I know a lot of us gun guy's are also what some people call "Doomsday Preppers". I am pretty big into prepping and I have been thinking long and hard about what optic is going to sit on top of my SHTF main.
Here's why I am leaning towards the 2.5x10. I am thinking that most engagements during a SHTF is going to be beyond 25 yards. In most situations, you're not going to want a threat to get any closer. The 10 power would really come in handy when holding down your shelter. It will allow you to identify threats further out and if need be, take them out with better accuracy. In a situation where multiple threats are approaching, you're going to want to be able to take them out as far away as possible to give yourself enough time to engage each target without them knowing where the rounds are flying from. I already know that I can be pretty quick with irons inside of 100 yards and I do think the 45 degree irons would be a necessity if I went with the 2.5x10 just in case a threat gets a little closer than I'd like.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 08:05
I'd go go with a 1-4 for now. So many good choices these days.
But I think your assumptions about SHTF are backwards unless you are rural and will have sufficient people with you to put out LPs for early warning. In a metro area you will have desperate/ill-intentioned groups sneaking about, using cover until relatively close. Lots of other implications of firing at a distance on a group that are more appropriate to another forum section. Think flanking for one.
I am in a rural area and would like to stay in a Rural area if the SHTF.
I am in a rural area and would like to stay in a Rural area if the SHTF.
Then it sounds like you are on the right track. My 2-12 VX-6 has great glass and with 2x I think I can skip the offsets. As I am in the city and the armory for five sibs, I also have multiple RDs and a couple TR24 1-4s.
Failure2Stop
04-02-14, 09:29
A 1-6x will cover more practical applications of 5.56 in realistic conditions than a 2.5-10x.
The gap can be closed at the extremes of magnification if the 2.5-10x has a properly selected SFP reticle, however, it will cause you to give up mid-range magnification level applications due to the reticle not giving much usable feedback as far as hard data.
The issue is that most people using optics don't really know what they are doing, how to use a good contemporary reticle, what makes a certain reticle better than another, what it's like to really need to shoot fast without giving up accuracy in less than favorable conditions, and therefore are willing to cede certain aspects of performance that those with advanced knowledge/skill/performance requirements are not. I'm not calling anyone out, simply pointing out that there are a lot of different ways to look at the problem, and that in a dizzying array of responses it is generally better to identify those that are performing at a high level in the critical applications that you want to maximize and listen to them.
The fact of the matter is that all optics are a compromise at this point.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 11:48
A 1-6x will cover more practical applications of 5.56 in realistic conditions than a 2.5-10x.
The gap can be closed at the extremes of magnification if the 2.5-10x has a properly selected SFP reticle, however, it will cause you to give up mid-range magnification level applications due to the reticle not giving much usable feedback as far as hard data.
The issue is that most people using optics don't really know what they are doing, how to use a good contemporary reticle, what makes a certain reticle better than another, what it's like to really need to shoot fast without giving up accuracy in less than favorable conditions, and therefore are willing to cede certain aspects of performance that those with advanced knowledge/skill/performance requirements are not. I'm not calling anyone out, simply pointing out that there are a lot of different ways to look at the problem, and that in a dizzying array of responses it is generally better to identify those that are performing at a high level in the critical applications that you want to maximize and listen to them.
The fact of the matter is that all optics are a compromise at this point.
So according to your expertise, what pro's or con's do you see with the Vortex PST 2.5-10x32?
Also, what pro's or con's do you see with the SWFA 1x6?
Lastly, what scopes and what reticles would you recommend if I wanted to spend less than $1,000?
I'll be honest. I have never used a magnified optic in a tactical application. In fact, the only magnified optics I have sit on rim-fires and bolt guns. Every AR I have or have had has either had an Aimpoint, Eotech or Irons.
When it comes to practical applications of the 5.56 round, I do believe it is underestimated by many. I also know that our Military decided to use a 2.5x10 scope on the MK12 and I'm only going to assume they knew what they were doing. I'm also going to assume that during testing of the MK12, the operators deemed benefit from 10 power magnification. Am I wrong in this thinking?
A 1-6x will cover more practical applications of 5.56 in realistic conditions than a 2.5-10x.
The gap can be closed at the extremes of magnification if the 2.5-10x has a properly selected SFP reticle, however, it will cause you to give up mid-range magnification level applications due to the reticle not giving much usable feedback as far as hard data.
The issue is that most people using optics don't really know what they are doing, how to use a good contemporary reticle, what makes a certain reticle better than another, what it's like to really need to shoot fast without giving up accuracy in less than favorable conditions, and therefore are willing to cede certain aspects of performance that those with advanced knowledge/skill/performance requirements are not. I'm not calling anyone out, simply pointing out that there are a lot of different ways to look at the problem, and that in a dizzying array of responses it is generally better to identify those that are performing at a high level in the critical applications that you want to maximize and listen to them.
The fact of the matter is that all optics are a compromise at this point.
I think your last sentence pretty well sums it up, at least for me. IMHO, there are also pros and cons to mount type, (QD vs fixed) , secondary sights (angled buis vs angled micro RDS),etc. *For me ,* and the way I plan on using my scoped 5.56 rifle, for man sized targets out to 0-500yds I like something like the Kahles 16i, SWAROVSKI Z6i, Vortex Razor HD Gen II ,etc. Yes, I will sacrifice some top end X and practical accuracy out at 500yds to get more fov at 1x within 100 yds. Once past approx 500yds , I would much prefer the 2.5-10x magnification range with an offset secondary sight. Also, if I were doing more shooting at 600yds and longer I would also prefer going to a 7.62/.308 rifle. I know what I like, but get what works for you and the way you plan on using it the most.
... I also know that our Military decided to use a 2.5x10 scope on the MK12 and I'm only going to assume they knew what they were doing. I'm also going to assume that during testing of the MK12, the operators deemed benefit from 10 power magnification. Am I wrong in this thinking?
If I was a designated marksman, as part of a specialized group having some members armed with guns better suited to CQC, then I'd think a 2.5x10 scope would be a viable option - on an appropriately set up SPR.
As a civilian, operating alone or within a smaller less specialized group, I'd want something better suited to close range/low-light encounters - which I'd consider the more likely to occur scenarios.
But that's just me, and YMMV.
If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.
I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.
There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 13:14
If I was a designated marksman, as part of a specialized group having some members armed with guns better suited to CQC, then I'd think a 2.5x10 scope would be a viable option - on an appropriately set up SPR.
As a civilian, operating alone or within a smaller less specialized group, I'd want something better suited to close range/low-light encounters - which I'd consider the more likely to occur scenarios.
But that's just me, and YMMV.
Where you live, those scenarios may be more likely to occur. I would rather not thrust myself into any CQC and I'd much rather identify and eliminate a threat when there 500 yards away rather than when they're 25 yards away.
I've actually figured out what I'm going to do and it just occurred to me.
I'll probably go with the 2.5x10 and if the S ever does hit the fan then I'll grab the Trijicon RMR off of my Buckmark and mount it in the 45 degree. That way, I'll have something capable of CQC in low light.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 13:38
If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.
I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.
There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.
What scope do you have in regards to your 2.5x10? I just want to compare it's reticle to the Vortex.
My purpose of this build is to have a Jack of all Trades....Master of None.
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 13:39
Double tap
Triple Tap
If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.
I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.
There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.
TAZ,
Just curious which brand FFP 2.5-10 are you have using that your unhappy with the reticle size below 5x?
Thanks....
I have one of the first batches of the IOR 2.5-10 FFP scopes. I would not say I'm totally unsatisfied with the scope, just that it has some limits. Used to think it was good enough till I began using an offset red dot. Then I realized how much slower I was with the tube vs the dot.
I made my gun usable in more conditions with the offset dot. Doesn't mean that it's the right path for all though. Maybe the Vortex reticle is better suited.
Failure2Stop
04-02-14, 15:33
So according to your expertise, what pro's or con's do you see with the Vortex PST 2.5-10x32?
Also, what pro's or con's do you see with the SWFA 1x6?
For what application?
Your first stated needs are too broad/vague to really nail down:
-You state that you are building a "Recce" rifle, however, the Recce concept is a precision 16" 5.56 carbine with a mid-range optic (the originals ranged from the TS30A1/A2 to NightForce 2.5-10x24 and even TA01NSNs). It seems to me that you are building a GP (general purpose) carbine that has a bias toward precision at the expense of slightly more weight. In the end, a decent barrel fed good match 5.56/.223 will generally turn in ~1.5 MOA, with plenty that will hover around 1 MOA and better. If 1/2 MOA is a concern to you, then you are looking for a precision carbine, and that performance will only be realized with higher magnification and a stable position (bipod or rest with rear bag).
-If you don't know what's more important, 1x or 10x, you don't have a clear purpose for the carbine. That's not really as negative of a statement as it seems. You can always get two optics and use them as appropriate. There are a few good mounts out there that have a high degree of confidence in return to zero.
-In 3-gun and 2-gun shooting sports, the 1-6 is the dominant single-optic type. However, since these competitions have the same stages/targets for all competitor divisions (which ranges from irons/1x optics to over 10x magnification in some cases in open division), they aren't all that challenging from a target detection standpoint. In the really real world of gunfights the usual conditions of a fight are that the target is immediately threatening and needs to be put down as soon as possible, or you are trying your best to find the dudes that are shooting at you.
-SHTF is a wildly broad condition to use and highly subject to imagination with little to rely on in the historical data section. In places where the S has hit the F in recent history the overwhelming consensus is not that people were running around shooting at each other with rifles; but rather that being inconspicuous and avoiding confrontation is the best plan for survival. That, however, does not necessarily take into account your individual preparedness, environment, support available, water and food availability, duration of arduous conditions, necessity for movement, transportation available, or threat specifics. I like to cover bases starting with the most likely and most dangerous possibility, and descend to the least likely and least threatening possibility. Most likely and most dangerous: lethal threat inside your bedroom while sleeping in the dark. Next: lethal threat inside the home in the dark. Next: lethal threat outside the home in the dark. Way down that list is "multiple lethal threats at 500 meters in daylight with spotter support". Contemporary combat operations kind of reverse the priority list. Being able to effectively engage individual targets in the dark at 500 meters is a real requirement, as is being a lethal threat in someone's bedroom in the wee hours of the morning. I'm not trying to lecture you, simply trying to help you nail down where your dollar is most efficiently spent based on your needs.
In the end, a decent 1-6 will let you effectively fight inside an enclosure in the dark and seamlessly transition to 300 meters in real world conditions, and out past 500 meters with a clearly identifiable target. I have used no 3x or higher magnification optic that I find acceptable for use inside an enclosure in the dark.
Lastly, what scopes and what reticles would you recommend if I wanted to spend less than $1,000?
That's rough.
About the only thing I could recommend is the SWFA 1-6 if that's a hard number. Just remember that you still have to ship it and mount it.
The Leupy VX6 1-6 with firedot is interesting, but the reticle is lacking other than having a good dot.
For the 2.5-10/3-9 area, there really aren't any under 1k that I would recommend for what I think your needs are if you are going with a single optic. I really tend to stay in the over 1k range for precision hard-use, so my experience with lower cost options in this range is very limited and I would not feel comfortable making a recommendation.
When it comes to practical applications of the 5.56 round, I do believe it is underestimated by many. I also know that our Military decided to use a 2.5x10 scope on the MK12 and I'm only going to assume they knew what they were doing. I'm also going to assume that during testing of the MK12, the operators deemed benefit from 10 power magnification. Am I wrong in this thinking?
The 5.56 is both under-appreciated and over-rated. 5.56 does well in its performance envelope, but just because I can plant bullets into a paper target at 1,000 meters on a nice range doesn't mean that the round is going to be consistently terminally effective at that range under realistic conditions. It isn't a death-ray. Keep expectation at 300 meters for terminal effectiveness. If you need to exceed that range, you need to step up in caliber.
A Mk12 is not a "sniper rifle". It's really a sniper support/DM rifle that has a home in the hands of a trained individual that is supported by other dudes with a healthy weapon/capability mix. They are fun/easy guns to shoot, but should not be taken to be the pinnacle of a general purpose carbine.
I am no expert, but If you truly want one 'jack of all trades, master of none' setup with one optic, I would go with a good variable 1-6. This gives you pretty decent short range CQC capability, but also enough magnification to better ID targets at distance, and shoot out to 500+ yards.
Another option would be to run the 2.5-10 but add an offset RDS or irons at 45 degrees.
I personally like having different builds for different applications. I have a 12.5" and 16" setup with Eotech and Aimpoint for CQC/HD situations, and then a 16" setup with match barrel, bipod, and a variable 1-6 scope for the mid-longer range work.
YMMV
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 16:29
Thanks for the response F2S....That's a lot to take in so I'm going to step back and think about it longer.
@B Cart....Yea, if I went with the 2.5x10, I was going to add the off-set irons.
I have both, they do different things. a 1-6 will cover everything 5.56 is capable of, except, as F2s says, precision long range work. but that's a different gun and I would argue a FFP 2.5-10 is not the optic for that either...
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 19:01
I have both, they do different things. a 1-6 will cover everything 5.56 is capable of, except, as F2s says, precision long range work. but that's a different gun and I would argue a FFP 2.5-10 is not the optic for that either...
Yea, I see what you're saying. I gotta ask though. What is the 2.5x10 meant for?
Obscenejesster
04-02-14, 19:04
I think I'm going to go with my original gut instinct and that was the SWFA 1x6. I'll probably wait until I see a used one pop up because I refuse to pay $1,000 for it. From the ones I've seen pop up used, it seems like they drop in value pretty good. I wish I would have jumped on the one I saw last week on TOS. It was the scope and ADM Recon mount for $750. Only mark it had was a light scratch on the turret.
I guess I overlooked the idea that this is your only rifle. In that case, I would recommend an RDS with real irons (not a flip up unless it has windage/elevation) and a flashlight. The SPR/Recce route is a niche rifle setup, and you'd be better served making sure your basic carbine was set up first. With $800 you can cruise through the EE and find a used EOTech and magnifier, if only by a little over your intended budget. The odds of you ever needing to make 500m hits in a self-preservation environment are pretty slim, much more slim than needing a defensive carbine.
And I don't agree with your comment about most shooters being "doomsday preppers". Many of the serious shooters here have been to, or at least studied in depth, the parts of the world where society fails. It's not about doomsday, it's understanding one's personal responsibility to rely as little as possible on a fragile system. I prefer not to associate with the "zombie apocalypse" crowd because they don't do much good for the struggling image of responsible gun owners...
But that's irrelevant to this discussion. Maybe pick a few models you like and google image search the reticles. You'll see various forum posts where folks post pictures through their optic. Find the one that most suits the range you feel you want from an optic.
ETA: The SWFA optics are very impressive for the money. Customer service....not so much. I've also never had a Vortex I didn't like.
Obscenejesster
04-03-14, 11:37
I guess I overlooked the idea that this is your only rifle. In that case, I would recommend an RDS with real irons (not a flip up unless it has windage/elevation) and a flashlight. The SPR/Recce route is a niche rifle setup, and you'd be better served making sure your basic carbine was set up first. With $800 you can cruise through the EE and find a used EOTech and magnifier, if only by a little over your intended budget. The odds of you ever needing to make 500m hits in a self-preservation environment are pretty slim, much more slim than needing a defensive carbine.
And I don't agree with your comment about most shooters being "doomsday preppers". Many of the serious shooters here have been to, or at least studied in depth, the parts of the world where society fails. It's not about doomsday, it's understanding one's personal responsibility to rely as little as possible on a fragile system. I prefer not to associate with the "zombie apocalypse" crowd because they don't do much good for the struggling image of responsible gun owners...
But that's irrelevant to this discussion. Maybe pick a few models you like and google image search the reticles. You'll see various forum posts where folks post pictures through their optic. Find the one that most suits the range you feel you want from an optic.
ETA: The SWFA optics are very impressive for the money. Customer service....not so much. I've also never had a Vortex I didn't like.
I don't know where you got the idea that this was my first rifle but it's not. It will be my 5th AR pattern rifle. Like I said in previous posts, every other AR I have either has an Aimpoint or Irons. This will be my first semi auto rifle with magnified optics.
In regards to the prepper comment I made. I didn't call myself or any of us here "Doomsday Preppers". I was saying that's what the general public likes to refer to us as. I personally don't prep for zombies or aliens but I do prep for other natural and man made disasters.
My bad man I realized that when I was readin your posts in 1/8 twist thread.
2.5-10 is perfect for 5.56
teutonicpolymer
04-03-14, 15:27
Someone mentioned that SWFA has poor customer service- I experienced the opposite. SWFA has great cs in my book...
Obscenejesster
04-03-14, 15:42
Maybe SWFA will put their scopes on sale for their new Grand Opening on Saturday.
Yea, I see what you're saying. I gotta ask though. What is the 2.5x10 meant for?
I don't know what most people think they are for, but in my case, I find it useful in the same applications as any hunting scope. at the upper end, I use magnification for identification and peering through brush. and obviously it's needed for long range.
at the low end, it's useful for snap shooting at game or suddenly appearing targets but those 2.5-10 optics with FFP have shot themselves in the foot, IMO, as the reticle is all but useless at 2.5...
I think I'm going to go with my original gut instinct and that was the SWFA 1x6. I'll probably wait until I see a used one pop up because I refuse to pay $1,000 for it. From the ones I've seen pop up used, it seems like they drop in value pretty good. I wish I would have jumped on the one I saw last week on TOS. It was the scope and ADM Recon mount for $750. Only mark it had was a light scratch on the turret.
it's currently my favorite optic...
I don't know what most people think they are for, but in my case, I find it useful in the same applications as any hunting scope. at the upper end, I use magnification for identification and peering through brush. and obviously it's needed for long range.
at the low end, it's useful for snap shooting at game or suddenly appearing targets but those 2.5-10 optics with FFP have shot themselves in the foot, IMO, as the reticle is all but useless at 2.5...
MY 2.5-10 ffp ON 2.5x is basically a duplex, which seems plenty useful for what you would be doing on 2.5x. I think it is a good scope, but I honestly am not sure if it is the best optic choice for me. If it is a precision gun, they are good to go, if you are going more general purpose, it is debatable.
it's currently my favorite optic...
Do you still have the MTAC from like, 2010 or early 2011? I remember we both were in the thread when the new model came out (MTAC replacing Tac 30?) and were both fairly pleased with the optic.
I've also been beating the shit out of an SWFA 10x, and I'm really impressed with the quality. Clarity of glass, holding zero, turret adjustments are all good. Comparable to the Vortex Viper PST lines, in my opinion.
To stay well within budget, would a Leupy Mk-AR 3-9x be an option?
MY 2.5-10 ffp ON 2.5x is basically a duplex, which seems plenty useful for what you would be doing on 2.5x. I think it is a good scope, but I honestly am not sure if it is the best optic choice for me. If it is a precision gun, they are good to go, if you are going more general purpose, it is debatable.
what model FFP scope do you have? the Vortex 2.5-10 does not do it for me..
Do you still have the MTAC from like, 2010 or early 2011? I remember we both were in the thread when the new model came out (MTAC replacing Tac 30?) and were both fairly pleased with the optic.
I've also been beating the shit out of an SWFA 10x, and I'm really impressed with the quality. Clarity of glass, holding zero, turret adjustments are all good. Comparable to the Vortex Viper PST lines, in my opinion.
To stay well within budget, would a Leupy Mk-AR 3-9x be an option?
no, the MTAC's been gone awhile. it was a good hobby grade of scope and light weight but it had some shortcomings. my needs changed so it moved on..
I don't have any experience with that Leupold to answer your question...
what model FFP scope do you have? the Vortex 2.5-10 does not do it for me..
It is the vortex. I do not know if it does it for me or not, but I do think it is useable. I have been eyeing up the SS1-6, but I am nut sure what I want. I have tried acogs, various 1-4, one 1-6. the vortex 2.5-10. Everything has pros and cons. 1-8x would be nice if it was lightweight and did not break the bank.
Obscenejesster
04-07-14, 13:09
It is the vortex. I do not know if it does it for me or not, but I do think it is useable. I have been eyeing up the SS1-6, but I am nut sure what I want. I have tried acogs, various 1-4, one 1-6. the vortex 2.5-10. Everything has pros and cons. 1-8x would be nice if it was lightweight and did not break the bank.
I looked through the FFP Vortex 2.5x10 and it looks like the reticle was designed well for FFP. When the magnification is taken down to 2.5, the reticle becomes a solid small cross and I picked it up very easily. It seems like it would be pretty quick for close shots.
Boba Fett v2
04-07-14, 13:45
I looked through the FFP Vortex 2.5x10 and it looks like the reticle was designed well for FFP. When the magnification is taken down to 2.5, the reticle becomes a solid small cross and I picked it up very easily. It seems like it would be pretty quick for close shots.
I was checking out the latest incarnation of the HSLR 2.5-10x32 at my LGS the other day. I was impressed with the XLR reticle they're using in that model. I'm going to be buying one.
I looked through the FFP Vortex 2.5x10 and it looks like the reticle was designed well for FFP. When the magnification is taken down to 2.5, the reticle becomes a solid small cross and I picked it up very easily. It seems like it would be pretty quick for close shots.
I was playing with mine a little yesterday since we are finally getting some nice weather here in MI. It is a good scope for 25-50 yrds and out. It is not the scope you want for cqb obviously. I have practiced clearing my house with it just for practice, it can be done, but would much prefer a 1-x or RDS for any close work. I have offset irons which help but if you need to shoulder the rifle on your leftside, the offset irons become mostly useless.. If you plan on doing further distance with the rifle I think the 2.5-10 scopes can offer a great balnce of power, but a 1-6 is probably the best general purpose optic for an AR
Obscenejesster
04-07-14, 17:41
I was playing with mine a little yesterday since we are finally getting some nice weather here in MI. It is a good scope for 25-50 yrds and out. It is not the scope you want for cqb obviously. I have practiced clearing my house with it just for practice, it can be done, but would much prefer a 1-x or RDS for any close work. I have offset irons which help but if you need to shoulder the rifle on your leftside, the offset irons become mostly useless.. If you plan on doing further distance with the rifle I think the 2.5-10 scopes can offer a great balnce of power, but a 1-6 is probably the best general purpose optic for an AR
Yea, Man...I totally agree. I definitely would not be using it on my HD Carbine. Hell, I wouldn't even use a 1x6 on my HD carbine. Like you said, while transitioning to targets sub 10 yards is doable, it's definitely not ideal. I think anything past 25 yards becomes a lot quicker for target acquisition.
For SHTF, I just think having 10 power ill out weigh the benefit of having 1 power. It's just an opinion of mine, but I think too many people put to much stock into CQC. The off-set irons will be plenty quick at close quarter distances.
I do agree that the 1x6 is more balanced but I can't stop thinking to myself that having the top end power will come in handy more often in the scenarios I think of.
By the way. I still haven't decided what I want.
Yea, Man...I totally agree. I definitely would not be using it on my HD Carbine. Hell, I wouldn't even use a 1x6 on my HD carbine. Like you said, while transitioning to targets sub 10 yards is doable, it's definitely not ideal. I think anything past 25 yards becomes a lot quicker for target acquisition.
For SHTF, I just think having 10 power ill out weigh the benefit of having 1 power. It's just an opinion of mine, but I think too many people put to much stock into CQC. The off-set irons will be plenty quick at close quarter distances.
I do agree that the 1x6 is more balanced but I can't stop thinking to myself that having the top end power will come in handy more often in the scenarios I think of.
By the way. I still haven't decided what I want.
You may never decide lol. I have gone through quite a few optics over the past few years and I still cant decide what I like best. I love RDS, but when it comes to magnified their are so many choices and finding the right balance for you can be difficult.
SomeOtherGuy
04-08-14, 20:58
I looked through the FFP Vortex 2.5x10 and it looks like the reticle was designed well for FFP. When the magnification is taken down to 2.5, the reticle becomes a solid small cross and I picked it up very easily. It seems like it would be pretty quick for close shots.
I reached the opposite conclusion with the MRAD flavor of that scope - I found the lines too thin at 2.5x to be useful under any but ideal conditions.
Opinions vary but I think it's very hard to make a good FFP reticle for the low magnification range. I've been happy with the Leupold Mark 6 CMR-W and the "T" reticle in the SWFA SS 1-4x. The circle-cross in the SS 1-6x is OK, but the outer circle blocks the field of view between 5.9x and roughly 4x. Not to beat a dead horse but SFP works just fine in the lower power range where most if not all ranging, holdover and distance use will be done at maximum magnification.
SomeOtherGuy
04-08-14, 21:01
For SHTF, I just think having 10 power ill out weigh the benefit of having 1 power. It's just an opinion of mine, but I think too many people put to much stock into CQC. The off-set irons will be plenty quick at close quarter distances.
I do agree that the 1x6 is more balanced but I can't stop thinking to myself that having the top end power will come in handy more often in the scenarios I think of.
By the way. I still haven't decided what I want.
As others have already said, I really can't foresee realistic SHTF scenarios involving 500M engagements. All I've read about places that have collapsed is that the bad guys do a great job of looking innocent and you don't know they are bad news (at least, know well enough that shooting would be justifiable) until they are very close. I think the ability to be fast on targets 5M away with some capability out to 300M or so would be far more useful. You can always use a pair of binoculars for inspecting people from a distance if that turns out to be useful. It's not as easy to turn your distance-biased carbine into a CQB carbine on a moment's notice. So, my vote would be a 1-4, 1-5 or 1-6x scope.
..(snip)..I think the ability to be fast on targets 5M away with some capability out to 300M or so would be far more useful. You can always use a pair of binoculars for inspecting people from a distance if that turns out to be useful. It's not as easy to turn your distance-biased carbine into a CQB carbine on a moment's notice. So, my vote would be a 1-4, 1-5 or 1-6x scope.
Some things I've read on the internet over the years;
1. Always strike first.
2. If you are hit before you can strike, gain fire superiority with volume of fire.
3. Always engage at max effective range
4. Never get into a fight you can't get yourself out of.
Not that a SHTF scenario is likely, but it's not the ideal time to find yourself coming up short. Presence patrols are actually fundamental to defense, contrary to appearance. So in that regard, being able to clearly assess visually without having to physically cover terrain *could* be a force multiplier for someone trying to stay safe at home. But that's just what I've read on the internet, and we all know how that goes.
As to the idea that it's hard to make an SPR type rifle a CQB rifle....I guess. But not really. Depends on the objective and the distance one assumes to be "Close Quarters". But it's far easier to look over your optics or use offsets than it is to make your RDS start magnifying itself. CQB isn't an abstract concept, the least concern being your your optics. It should be avoided at all costs and will likely be done out of necessity if at all, in which case optics are the last thing to worry about. If the OP already has other rifles, why not keep a separate upper?
Obscenejesster
04-09-14, 09:45
Some things I've read on the internet over the years;
1. Always strike first.
2. If you are hit before you can strike, gain fire superiority with volume of fire.
3. Always engage at max effective range
4. Never get into a fight you can't get yourself out of.
Not that a SHTF scenario is likely, but it's not the ideal time to find yourself coming up short. Presence patrols are actually fundamental to defense, contrary to appearance. So in that regard, being able to clearly assess visually without having to physically cover terrain *could* be a force multiplier for someone trying to stay safe at home. But that's just what I've read on the internet, and we all know how that goes.
As to the idea that it's hard to make an SPR type rifle a CQB rifle....I guess. But not really. Depends on the objective and the distance one assumes to be "Close Quarters". But it's far easier to look over your optics or use offsets than it is to make your RDS start magnifying itself. CQB isn't an abstract concept, the least concern being your your optics. It should be avoided at all costs and will likely be done out of necessity if at all, in which case optics are the last thing to worry about. If the OP already has other rifles, why not keep a separate upper?
I think this post sealed the deal. I'm going to go with the 2.5x10 since I don't have any uppers right now with magnified optics sitting on them. The barrel I have on this current build is pretty accurate so it will be the best upper to use for magnified optics. If the "S" ever does hit the fan, and I need to leave my house with minimal supplies, I'll just have to make the decision whether or not I want long range capabilities with long range threat identification or if I want quicker target acquisition in close quarters. Hell, If the time ever comes, I might just pack away or mount my RMR at 45 degrees in conjunction with the 2.5x10. That way, I'll be ready for any and all engagement scenarios.
Until the "S" hits the fan, I figure I can have some fun at the range with a 10 power scope sitting on an AR. It will give me the ability to get good with long range engagements. I've always thought to myself. Unless I'm attending a class, there's only so much fun I have shooting paper at the range with a RDS. I usually find myself shooting 30 rounds and then shooting a bolt rifle for the rest of the day.
Failure2Stop
04-09-14, 10:22
If the needs statement drifts away from "real use", and you are really just wanting a fun precision gun, the 2.5-10x is going to make you happier.
Not every gun related purchase has to be "serious", especially if you already have tools for the serious side (as you recently mentioned).
Remove the "SHTF" BS and feel good about having something that you will enjoy shooting.
Some things I've read on the internet over the years;
1. Always strike first.
2. If you are hit before you can strike, gain fire superiority with volume of fire.
3. Always engage at max effective range
4. Never get into a fight you can't get yourself out of.
Not that a SHTF scenario is likely, but it's not the ideal time to find yourself coming up short. Presence patrols are actually fundamental to defense, contrary to appearance. So in that regard, being able to clearly assess visually without having to physically cover terrain *could* be a force multiplier for someone trying to stay safe at home. But that's just what I've read on the internet, and we all know how that goes.
As to the idea that it's hard to make an SPR type rifle a CQB rifle....I guess. But not really. Depends on the objective and the distance one assumes to be "Close Quarters". But it's far easier to look over your optics or use offsets than it is to make your RDS start magnifying itself. CQB isn't an abstract concept, the least concern being your your optics. It should be avoided at all costs and will likely be done out of necessity if at all, in which case optics are the last thing to worry about. If the OP already has other rifles, why not keep a separate upper?
OP, note that number 3 can be in conflict with number 4. Say you engage 3 neer-do-wells at "max effective range." What if they are scouting for a larger band of marauders? It is likely that one or two will escape to inform that your family is a juicy target. Now you are in that fight you can't get yourself out of. Understanding the situation is the most important "always" rule.
Failure2Stop
04-09-14, 11:30
OP, note that number 3 can be in conflict with number 4. Say you engage 3 neer-do-wells at "max effective range." What if they are scouting for a larger band of marauders? It is likely that one or two will escape to inform that your family is a juicy target. Now you are in that fight you can't get yourself out of. Understanding the situation is the most important "always" rule.
Let's not get off topic.
Tactics are welcome to be discussed, but warrant a separate thread.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
If the needs statement drifts away from "real use", and you are really just wanting a fun precision gun, the 2.5-10x is going to make you happier.Not every gun related purchase has to be "serious", especially if you already have tools for the serious side (as you recently mentioned).
This part of the statement is definitely spot on. All of it is but this part hits home for me. I've been reading this topic and in the back of my mind I kept on saying to myself," I have 3 serious use AR's that I am very competent out to 200 yards with. They are all topped off with Aimpoint T1's. I also have 2 AR's that are hunting/SPR setups. One is purely hunting and is topped off with a Leupold VR 2x7x33 optic. It has a reticle that could be used up close if need be but the purpose is for hunting. My SPR AR is topped off with a Leupold Mk 4 LR/T 3.5x10x40 with the Ill TMR reticle. It's probably too much for its purpose but I love the scope so far. the 3.5x10 power range seems to hit a sweet spot for me when it comes to short to long range (600yd) hunting and shooting distances.
When considering the SHTF scenarios I can imagine, the weapons I have setup with the T1's cover most of what I can think of. My philosophy in this type of scenario is to disappear and avoid hostile contact as much as possible. I may have to fight my way to be able to disappear but once I do stealth is the word for me. If I'm invested in a fixed position and longe range precision shooting is required then what I have will work for those situations. Their purpose though, at this point is hunting and shooting fun. Yes a 1x6 power scope is very versatile and I gave a 2.5x10 a lot of serious consideration but I ended up with a 3.5x10. I got the Leupold for a steal and couldn't turn it down.
As far as the OP is concerned if F2S's statement hits home then the 2.5X10 will give you more options. The optic I was seriously considering was the NF 2.5x10 with the MOAR reticle. Only reason I didn't hold out for it was I was able to purchase the Leupold at almost half of retail. The NF optic still tugs at me though.
The last comment on that Rule 3 thing is that is in the "if you are going to/have to" sort of situation.
ObsceneJester, I'm sure you will enjoy that 2.5-10x. If you can, I'd like to see a picture of your new setup when you can. Once you learn a good dope layout for your optic/round, it's a blast to shoot an unknown distance set with enough space between firing points to get the heart rate up.
Obscenejesster
04-16-14, 10:54
I made my final decision after trying some low power variables this past weekend.
I realized how much a suck at taking multiple targets out inside of 25 yards with anything over 2 power.
The SWFA tax day sale also had something to do with my decision.
I ended up going with a SWFA SS 1x6 and got it for $799.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Yeh, I might end up there myself, but since I already own the votex, I am going to run it more.
I made my final decision after trying some low power variables this past weekend.
I realized how much a suck at taking multiple targets out inside of 25 yards with anything over 2 power.
I ended up going with a SWFA SS 1x6 and got it for $799.
Great choice. I don't think you'll be disappointed for what you're looking to do
Obscenejesster
04-16-14, 20:06
Can anyone recommend a mount? I currently use ADM mounts for my Aimpoints and I don't have any complaints about them. This will be my first magnified optic on an AR and I know eye relief is more critical than with an Aimpoint. I do not do nose to charging handle. On this particular rifle, I will be using an EMOD that I usually use on the second or 3rd position. I may be wrong but I don't think I need a mount that puts the scope further forward.
I've heard people talk about how good the Bobro's were but in my eyes, I don't think I can go wrong with any of the major 3 (ADM, LaRue and Bobro). I was thinking about going with whichever one I can find used for a good price.
I have my 1-6 in an ADM Recon mount and it has been great, but I agree that you can't go wrong with the three you mentioned
SomeOtherGuy
04-16-14, 21:28
I own several ADM mounts - lost track but it's at least six - and am completely happy with them, especially considering the price. I have owned one Bobro mount, which was very pretty and probably works fine, but I have more confidence in the ADM latch system than in Bobro's very trick self-adjusting latch that seems to use some very small parts.
My SS 1-6x is currently in a Scout-S (no forward extension), BUT it's on a .308 with a lot more rail space than an AR15 receiver. Unless you have a very unusual shooting position you will want a 1" forward extension, which means the standard Scout or Recon mount from ADM. The Scout has a single lever and is plenty adequate for something the size and weight of a 1-6x SS, and it's $20 cheaper and 1 oz lighter than the Recon which has two levers. Both work fine.
If you don't need a quick release mount, look up the Aero Precision lightweight mount. I got one recently and so far I love it. It weighs only 3 ounces, compared to 7.5 for a ADM Scout, but seems plenty sturdy for its purpose.
http://aeroprecisionusa.com/scope-mount.html
I made my final decision after trying some low power variables this past weekend.
I realized how much a suck at taking multiple targets out inside of 25 yards with anything over 2 power.
The SWFA tax day sale also had something to do with my decision.
I ended up going with a SWFA SS 1x6 and got it for $799.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I got that email and immediately thought of you. good job. you're gonna like it...
Can anyone recommend a mount? I currently use ADM mounts for my Aimpoints and I don't have any complaints about them. This will be my first magnified optic on an AR and I know eye relief is more critical than with an Aimpoint. I do not do nose to charging handle. On this particular rifle, I will be using an EMOD that I usually use on the second or 3rd position. I may be wrong but I don't think I need a mount that puts the scope further forward.
I've heard people talk about how good the Bobro's were but in my eyes, I don't think I can go wrong with any of the major 3 (ADM, LaRue and Bobro). I was thinking about going with whichever one I can find used for a good price.
I have my SS1-6 in a Bobro (slightly forward) and Vortex 2.5-10 in ADM Recon. these are my two favorite mounts. I have swapped them back and forth between the mounts and neither needed to be any further forward.
Obscenejesster
04-17-14, 12:39
I have my SS1-6 in a Bobro (slightly forward) and Vortex 2.5-10 in ADM Recon. these are my two favorite mounts. I have swapped them back and forth between the mounts and neither needed to be any further forward.
Awesome...I think I've narrowed my choice down to either one of those two. Do you think the Bobro is worth the extra cash or does it come down to personal opinion?
I'e pretty much decided against any LaRue mount due to the attitude of the owner. I'd rather not give my money to people who act like that.
Yea, Man...I totally agree. I definitely would not be using it on my HD Carbine. Hell, I wouldn't even use a 1x6 on my HD carbine. Like you said, while transitioning to targets sub 10 yards is doable, it's definitely not ideal. I think anything past 25 yards becomes a lot quicker for target acquisition.
For SHTF, I just think having 10 power ill out weigh the benefit of having 1 power. It's just an opinion of mine, but I think too many people put to much stock into CQC. The off-set irons will be plenty quick at close quarter distances.
I do agree that the 1x6 is more balanced but I can't stop thinking to myself that having the top end power will come in handy more often in the scenarios I think of.
By the way. I still haven't decided what I want.
A lot of the reasoning behind the military weapon system weighting the 10x heavily is that those are almost always deployed in a context where everybody else has red dot or low power optics, and the ability to use that higher magnification to spot stuff is often more useful than anything involving pulling the trigger.
[ETA] Binoculars can fill that same role, without adding weight to the weapon system, so unless you need that maximum zoom to engage targets (really unlikely for civilian/SHTF situations, anything that needs 10x is going to be something you probably just want to walk away from, or if need be use a caliber bigger than 22) the 1-6x gives up hardly anything.
If this rifle can be a more niche use setup, then you WILL be happier with the 2.5-10x, so if you're looking at making this rifle part of a quiver of options, that will probably fit your needs best. If you want this to be an answer to more questions (and less of an answer past 500m) then the 1-6x is the better choice: it sounds like either is still a good answer as long as it's decent glass.
If you go with the 2.5-10x, consider spending the money saved by going with a cheaper, lighter, simpler fixed mount on offset iron sights (or making it a dedicated precision rig). Bobro mounts are awesome (as are ADM, GDI, etc.), but if you don't need the overbuilt QD version, don't get it. Even for the 1-6x, running offset sights might be the more attractive option (this is what I'm running on my 16" Recce setup)
[ETA]
With the 1-6x, consider the Aero Precision super-light mount, and fixed offset irons (or the more expensive KAC offsets that fold). You get backup iron sights that work if you need irons for any reason (scope fogged/not working, or more likely you're at a higher zoom and need to engage without the limited field of view), the irons are usable without removing the optic, and mostly if you're saving money on the mount the cost is the same for effectively more capability.
I'm in a similar boat considering a 1-6x and the idea of offset irons seems really good to me. However, all of the ones I have seen are very expensive, I've only seen KAC, and the Dueck/ Surefire, and I think Griffin Armament are coming out with some this year. What are members running and are there more affordable options out there? I am not looking for "cheap" but 250+ for irons is a bit excessive in my opinion. Thanks all.
I'm in a similar boat considering a 1-6x and the idea of offset irons seems really good to me. However, all of the ones I have seen are very expensive, I've only seen KAC, and the Dueck/ Surefire, and I think Griffin Armament are coming out with some this year. What are members running and are there more affordable options out there? I am not looking for "cheap" but 250+ for irons is a bit excessive in my opinion. Thanks all.
IMO, offset irons are best used with fixed or removable higher power magnified optics. the idea of using them with low powered optics designed to be used in CQ seems like it comes from the Department of Redundancy Department.
with a good primary optic in a good QD mount, all you need is a folding rear buis with fixed or folding front...
Obscenejesster
04-21-14, 17:35
My SWFA 1x6 came in the mail today and I am extremely happy with the purchase. It is built like a tank and the glass is crystal clear. I have no doubt that this scope can take some abuse.
This will serve the role nicely sitting on top of my SHTF main.
Now I just need to worry about how I'm going to mount her :D
IMO, offset irons are best used with fixed or removable higher power magnified optics. the idea of using them with low powered optics designed to be used in CQ seems like it comes from the Department of Redundancy Department.
with a good primary optic in a good QD mount, all you need is a folding rear buis with fixed or folding front...
For my uses,I'm assuming I'll be rocking some zoom level in any favorable conditions, so the offset irons are there as an immediate 'I need to shoot something close with reasonable efficiency' option; then at night or other unfavorable conditions, or maybe an optic illumination failure (most likely of these for a low powered variable, dead battery) it's the next best thing to running a cowitnessed optic/iron combination. Since I can't run cowitnessed irons through a variable optic, just revert to the same motion that gets me iron sights when I was previously wanting to come down from 4x-6x zoom without manipulating the optic. In the case of the offset irons, it means being able to run a simpler, lighter, cheaper mount since the need to QD in order to use irons is gone, so the only penalty is the difference in cost between the offset irons and savings on the mount.
All that said, my other very similar carbine runs a Trijicon TR24RT with just MBUS floating under it.
On the cost side, I haven't figured out why Daniel Defense isn't selling Offset 1.5 sights - they make offset mounts, they make fixed iron sights, surely they can machine something cheaper for them to make than a pair of offset mounts and a pair of sights, which would be lighter and simpler.
My SWFA 1x6 came in the mail today and I am extremely happy with the purchase. It is built like a tank and the glass is crystal clear. I have no doubt that this scope can take some abuse.
This will serve the role nicely sitting on top of my SHTF main.
Now I just need to worry about how I'm going to mount her :D
After having an ADM, then getting a Bobro, I will not be going back to the ADM. The locking mechanism is so much better, and the RTZ has been perfect.
Obscenejesster
04-22-14, 08:07
After having an ADM, then getting a Bobro, I will not be going back to the ADM. The locking mechanism is so much better, and the RTZ has been perfect.
Yea... I'm leaning towards Bobro.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Failure2Stop
04-22-14, 08:15
Bobro is what I use for QD 30/34mm mounts, after using a lot of competitors' mounts.
How much gap are you getting in the 30mm Bobro mounts? I've stuck with ADM only because they're the only ones I've found that don't leave a noticeable gap.
I mean, I get that you want them to be a little spaced when you lay the optic in, a 32mm mount on a 30mm tube wouldn't keep anything in place. But I've had too many other rings/mounts that I could fit a penny in between, and they were cinched down tight enough that I was worried I would damage the scope. I just imagine that those big gaps create a weakness in holding zero...?
Failure2Stop
04-22-14, 10:24
How much gap are you getting in the 30mm Bobro mounts? I've stuck with ADM only because they're the only ones I've found that don't leave a noticeable gap.
I mean, I get that you want them to be a little spaced when you lay the optic in, a 32mm mount on a 30mm tube wouldn't keep anything in place. But I've had too many other rings/mounts that I could fit a penny in between, and they were cinched down tight enough that I was worried I would damage the scope. I just imagine that those big gaps create a weakness in holding zero...?
The gap is nothing to worry about, and even so, the Bobro gap is very narrow.
Cool, thank you. One less thing I can blame my shooting on...I'm going to neglect to tell anyone you said that.
I'll be ordering a Bobro this week and giving a shot, now that warm weather is here.
For my uses,I'm assuming I'll be rocking some zoom level in any favorable conditions, so the offset irons are there as an immediate 'I need to shoot something close with reasonable efficiency' option; then at night or other unfavorable conditions, or maybe an optic illumination failure (most likely of these for a low powered variable, dead battery) it's the next best thing to running a cowitnessed optic/iron combination. Since I can't run cowitnessed irons through a variable optic, just revert to the same motion that gets me iron sights when I was previously wanting to come down from 4x-6x zoom without manipulating the optic. In the case of the offset irons, it means being able to run a simpler, lighter, cheaper mount since the need to QD in order to use irons is gone, so the only penalty is the difference in cost between the offset irons and savings on the mount.
All that said, my other very similar carbine runs a Trijicon TR24RT with just MBUS floating under it.
On the cost side, I haven't figured out why Daniel Defense isn't selling Offset 1.5 sights - they make offset mounts, they make fixed iron sights, surely they can machine something cheaper for them to make than a pair of offset mounts and a pair of sights, which would be lighter and simpler.
under what conditions do you have your scope at any power other than minimum? Just like a red dot it's capable of getting hits on targets up to your ability without magnification. I only increase magnification in circumstances where I need it.
I was speaking specifically of a 1-x scope. if you have a 2.5-10, especially a FFP, I can understand the decision to pair it with offsets. and I can see a definite benefit with an ACOG...
under what conditions do you have your scope at any power other than minimum? Just like a red dot it's capable of getting hits on targets up to your ability without magnification. I only increase magnification in circumstances where I need it.
I was speaking specifically of a 1-x scope. if you have a 2.5-10, especially a FFP, I can understand the decision to pair it with offsets. and I can see a definite benefit with an ACOG...
I went with a Mk6 precisely because it can run a lot like an ACOG at distance - if I'm anywhere built up, yes you're right that I'll be at 1x without a doubt, but all my experience combat related has been in similar geography to where I live (outside of city areas) that identification and long range allowed by more zoom is far more prevalent a need from the optic. Huge open expanses, and identification/discrimination of stuff at 400-600m is a requirement The default position for the optic is still being at 1x, where offset irons are merely a 'better than other bad options' choice, but as soon as I crank it to higher zoom, I don't consider it particularly fast to turn the zoom back down, I'd much rather have some unity zoom arrangement to fall back to more immediately. If anything, for any optic more powerful than a 2.5x at the low end I'd argue that the remainder of the setup if tactical use is intended should be an Aimpoint or Deltapoint/RMR sized/type optic ran in conjunction with the primary optic.
Basically, we're in 100% agreement on anything without 1.1x or lower zoom; I'm saying that even if a low powered variable has a 1x option, that offset irons are still a viable and desirable feature if it makes sense with the rest of the rifle, since running cowitnessed irons isn't an option anymore, and all the reasoning behind wanting irons at the ready if you're engaging targets with a 1x optic haven't changed.
For my uses,I'm assuming I'll be rocking some zoom level in any favorable conditions, so the offset irons are there as an immediate 'I need to shoot something close with reasonable efficiency' option; then at night or other unfavorable conditions, or maybe an optic illumination failure (most likely of these for a low powered variable, dead battery) it's the next best thing to running a cowitnessed optic/iron combination. Since I can't run cowitnessed irons through a variable optic, just revert to the same motion that gets me iron sights when I was previously wanting to come down from 4x-6x zoom without manipulating the optic. In the case of the offset irons, it means being able to run a simpler, lighter, cheaper mount since the need to QD in order to use irons is gone, so the only penalty is the difference in cost between the offset irons and savings on the mount.
All that said, my other very similar carbine runs a Trijicon TR24RT with just MBUS floating under it.
On the cost side, I haven't figured out why Daniel Defense isn't selling Offset 1.5 sights - they make offset mounts, they make fixed iron sights, surely they can machine something cheaper for them to make than a pair of offset mounts and a pair of sights, which would be lighter and simpler.
This was my thinking, I also want to run a lighter, non QD mount since I would offset irons. I wish DD made their 1.5's in an offset variety. I might look into buying the 1.5's and putting them on their offset mounts. What offset irons do you use/ recommend? Thanks.
This was my thinking, I also want to run a lighter, non QD mount since I would offset irons. I wish DD made their 1.5's in an offset variety. I might look into buying the 1.5's and putting them on their offset mounts. What offset irons do you use/ recommend? Thanks.
Right now the KAC units are still the gold standard, but if you can afford to wait, do. I ranted in some other thread that if DD made O1.5 sights (the same sight top halves as their A1.5 sights, the bottoms off their 1 o'clock offset mounts) they'd replace all but the KAC offerings, and it seems inevitable that Magpul will roll out with some too... the availability of the KAC Offsets are bad, hence why I can probably sell my used ones for what I paid for it, but if you're able to wait, I'm pretty confident somebody will figure out that a light, simple, durable set of offsets at around $80/sight would make a killing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.