Low power scopes with fixed front sight post

[tevan0707]

So I have a vortex strike eagle 1-6 power on order, and I bought a troy fixed front sight because it was a steal of a deal. I know with a 3 power and higher, it doesn't much matter but I don't have much experience with the low power scopes so hopefully someone can help me out to know if I need to put the sight on a different rifle due to the true 1 power or if it will work. Thanks!

[fullmetalredhead]

I can certainly see the FSP, but for me it's a non-factor.

[tevan0707]

Is it a big blob on low the power, or a slight mist? I figured I would see it I'm not sure how it will look though.

[joedirt199]

Depends on how close to 1x it really is. My weaver tactical 1x5 made for a slightly blurred front sight. My swfa 1x4 is more blurred. I read a review of the burris mtac that it was low enough you could co witness the sights, not completely clear but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

[tevan0707]

Depends on how close to 1x it really is. My weaver tactical 1x5 made for a slightly blurred front sight. My swfa 1x4 is more blurred. I read a review of the burris mtac that it was low enough you could co witness the sights, not completely clear but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.
Vortex claims to have a true 1 power so I guess it's a guessing game until they decide to actually release it to distributors. That would be awesome if I could cowitness the irons.

[GH41]

So I have a vortex strike eagle 1-6 power on order, and I bought a troy fixed front sight because it was a steal of a deal. I know with a 3 power and higher, it doesn't much matter but I don't have much experience with the low power scopes so hopefully someone can help me out to know if I need to put the sight on a different rifle due to the true 1 power or if it will work. Thanks!

It is as simple as taking your sight off and seeing for yourself. Why even ask the question?? Offset sights are the way to go on a scoped rifle.

[tevan0707]

It is as simple as taking your sight off and seeing for yourself. Why even ask the question?? Offset sights are the way to go on a scoped rifle.
I ask because off set irons don't appeal to me, especially when all my scope have QD mounts and I've never had a low powered optic on any of my rifles.

[nimdabew]

I wouldn't worry about it. My accupower is probably going to have a big blob, but nothing worse than a red dot right now anyways.

[samuse]

I use a Leupold 1.5-5X with a FSP and it doesn't bother anything.

I can see a blurry little line of the FSP.

There's nothing to see down there anyway, what does it matter if you can see the FSP in the reticle??

[tevan0707]

I use a Leupold 1.5-5X with a FSP and it doesn't bother anything.

I can see a blurry little line of the FSP.

There's nothing to see down there anyway, what does it matter if you can see the FSP in the reticle??
It doesn't bother or matter to me, I just wanted to know what to expect from it.

[Matt in TN]

Here's the view through my 1-4 (actually 1.4x) Leupold VX-HOG with a fixed base. It's definitely there, but it doesn't bother me at all.

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/mcstennett/1XWeb_zps16bd51db.jpg

[tevan0707]

Here's the view through my 1-4 (actually 1.4x) Leupold VX-HOG with a fixed base. It's definitely there, but it doesn't bother me at all.

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/mcstennett/1XWeb_zps16bd51db.jpg
Thanks for the picture, that helps out alot! Have you tried to co-witness with the irons at all?

[Matt in TN]

Thanks for the picture, that helps out alot! Have you tried to co-witness with the irons at all?

Nope. I could cowitness exactly with lower rings, but it would only block more of the view through the scope so I didn't think it was worth it.

[tevan0707]

Nope. I could cowitness exactly with lower rings, but it would only block more of the view through the scope so I didn't think it was worth it.
Good point. Thanks again, the picture was very helpful. I figured it wouldn't be a huge issue but since I only have 3 and higher powered scopes on my other rifles and no low power I thought I would ask around and see.

[GH41]

Here's the view through my 1-4 (actually 1.4x) Leupold VX-HOG with a fixed base. It's definitely there, but it doesn't bother me at all.

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/mcstennett/1XWeb_zps16bd51db.jpg

That would bother me. If I was stuck with a FSP I'd have to get used to it but the OP isn't.

[WickedWillis]

Here's the view through my 1-4 (actually 1.4x) Leupold VX-HOG with a fixed base. It's definitely there, but it doesn't bother me at all.

http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/mcstennett/1XWeb_zps16bd51db.jpg

Yeah that is very noticeable. I was going to post that it barely bothers me on my 4X32 ACOG with the factory mount, but whats going on in your picture would definitely bug me

[Matt in TN]

Yeah that is very noticeable. I was going to post that it barely bothers me on my 4X32 ACOG with the factory mount, but whats going on in your picture would definitely bug me

Yep - 4x makes a difference. Here's the exact same setup at 4x:
http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac224/mcstennett/4XWeb_zpsf072746a.jpg

[tevan0707]

I guess in the end it's just user preferences. Like I said in the beginning, I bought the front sight due to the deal and thinking I can run it with a low power optic and wanted people's opinions.

[BrigandTwoFour]

This is my TR24G set at 1x behind a rifle length FSP. At first, I really did not like this sight picture. I especially had problems with the way the FSP could drift in and out of alignment with the reticle as my head position changed. However, I got over it after a few range trips to where it is now a non-issue.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/JlH5Ce9mhAe0XjklroxjhFT4ApX8mc9-5WYFZq3E_Vs=w919-h776-no

[tevan0707]

This is my TR24G set at 1x behind a rifle length FSP. At first, I really did not like this sight picture. I especially had problems with the way the FSP could drift in and out of alignment with the reticle as my head position changed. However, I got over it after a few range trips to where it is now a non-issue.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/JlH5Ce9mhAe0XjklroxjhFT4ApX8mc9-5WYFZq3E_Vs=w919-h776-no
Thanks for the pic. Seeing it on a rifle length definitely helps. I got the front sight on tonight, hopefully the scope comes in soon so I can try it out for myself and see the outcome.

[Tigereye]

I have the Vortex PST1-4 and the FSP is just a blur for me. It was a slight distraction the first few rounds but nothing more.

[henschman]

I had a Burris TAC30 1-4x on a 20" rifle with a fixed FSB. It worked OK when I had a one-piece mount that was taller than the plane of the iron sights... the FSP was just a blur in the bottom of the FOV. But when I decided I actually wanted a cheek weld and went to a lower setup, it became a blur in the middle of the crosshairs. No go. When I get that rifle reassembled, it will be with a folding FSB.

[Hochsitz]

I've used several true 1x scopes and in every case at 1x the front sight was crystal clear but about 2-3x bigger than reality. The effect seems to disappear about 3 feet in front of the optic. I'm not going to try to explain the physics behind this because I don't fully understand it myself, it's just something I've observed. If you're picky about rear aperture sizes and the relation to the front sight or relationship to your target then this is a non-starter. Go with offset irons or an offset red dot or both. Another (spendy) option is to run the new folded 6x that looks around your irons and/or red dot so you can still cowitness conventional sights but that's a topic for another thread.

[BrigandTwoFour]

I've used several true 1x scopes and in every case at 1x the front sight was crystal clear but about 2-3x bigger than reality. The effect seems to disappear about 3 feet in front of the optic. I'm not going to try to explain the physics behind this because I don't fully understand it myself, it's just something I've observed. If you're picky about rear aperture sizes and the relation to the front sight or relationship to your target then this is a non-starter. Go with offset irons or an offset red dot or both. Another (spendy) option is to run the new folded 6x that looks around your irons and/or red dot so you can still cowitness conventional sights but that's a topic for another thread.

It's because you have to remember where the image is "taken." You're thinking that it looks 2-3x bigger than it should because the front objective of the scope is quite a bit closer to the front sight than your eye is. At a true 1x, the FSP is still going to appear the size it would be if you put your eye at the front of the scope. That's why everything seems to even out after a few feet to or yards, the ~12" difference between your eye and the objective doesn't make much of a difference at that point.

[Hochsitz]

It's because you have to remember where the image is "taken." You're thinking that it looks 2-3x bigger than it should because the front objective of the scope is quite a bit closer to the front sight than your eye is. At a true 1x, the FSP is still going to appear the size it would be if you put your eye at the front of the scope. That's why everything seems to even out after a few feet to or yards, the ~12" difference between your eye and the objective doesn't make much of a difference at that point.

That certainly makes sense. One would think at true 1x everything would behave like a red dot sight, but a RDS doesn't have focal planes and is much closer to a window than a scope.

[oberstgreup]

I have a Vortex HD Razor II 1-6 and the FSP appears as a blur at 1x. Even at 1x it is too blurry to use irons through the scope, so the scope is on a QD mount in case it breaks (not likely with the Razor) and I need to remove it. In any case most of these types of scopes don't have enough eye relief to fit a fixed rear sight (or flip up a folding one) on the gun without removing the scope.

For other reasons I've moved that scope to a different gun with folding sights, but between that and a 1.5X compact ACOG on a different gun I can say that the FSP looks a lot worse on first impression than it ends up being. After the first few mags you won't even notice it.

[dwhitehorne]

Here are two different shots of my VX-R. I think the camera picks it up more than your eye. I really don't pay any attention to it. No different than the front sight in the view using a red dot. On low power I'm focusing on the target anyway. David

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i260/dwhitehorne/Leupold/Leupold005.jpg (http://s74.photobucket.com/user/dwhitehorne/media/Leupold/Leupold005.jpg.html)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i260/dwhitehorne/Leupold/Leupold017.jpg (http://s74.photobucket.com/user/dwhitehorne/media/Leupold/Leupold017.jpg.html)

[SomeOtherGuy]

That certainly makes sense. One would think at true 1x everything would behave like a red dot sight, but a RDS doesn't have focal planes and is much closer to a window than a scope.

Exactly, and a very important point. An RDS works completely differently from a 1x scope.

I've tried a 1-4x behind a FSB and I find it distracting. But obviously many people find it just fine, and that's great. I'm going to be sawing off a FSB soon to keep the pinned gas block while having a better view.

Also, those who talk about co-witnessing with a 1-4x - I think you would find that the optic introduces parallax that a RDS does not. I also view irons with a RDS as a backup to the battery, and most 1-4x still give you an OK reticle if the illumination fails. However, RDS and 1-4x are both susceptible to being physically broken or blocked with mud, etc. I think a QD mount is an important feature in any event.

[dwhitehorne]

True. I guess co-witnessing is a bad phrase. You definitely can't with an optic. I was just trying to give a relationship to the sight being in the field of view but not overly distracting. Those pictures are my old work rifle. My personal AR's have optics both have Rainier Arms rails and the mbuis. David.