drawbacks of using a 1-4x as an RDS substitute [Archive]

View Full Version : drawbacks of using a 1-4x as an RDS substitute

pilotguyo540

11-22-10, 13:08

glockshooter

11-22-10, 13:57

I have both optics you are considering. I have extensive experience with the Aimpoint. I have also used it with my 3x magnifier extensively. I have only been shooting my TR24R for about 2 months now, so I have limited experience with it. I do however really like it.

The TR24 is not parallax free as you pointed out, but I have not noticed a huge parallax problem in unconventional positions like rollover prove and the like. There is a slight magnification at close distances on 1x, but not really a problem.

If I could only have one I would let my intended use make the decision. If it is only a short range gun, then I would go Aimpoint all the way. If I was going to be shooting at any distance over 100 then the TR24 would be my choice.

In my mind the only real down side of the TR24 scope with the triangle reticle is targets over 300. It is a little hard to judge holdover because the reticle is so think.

Matt

jasonhgross

11-22-10, 14:48

For me, the added weight was unacceptable compared to the T-1. If you are coming from a heavier RDS, you may be ok.

Crow Hunter

11-22-10, 15:38

I am hell bent on getting a TR-24G but I keep lusting over an aimpoint. :rolleyes: The related threads over the last day or so really have me thinking.

Part of my intended use for this rifle is HD. People and animals are on the possible list of bad guy's. I am positive that the trijicon is the best compromise, BUT.....

Are there any major drawbacks to using the TR-24 as an RDS? My main concerns being cheek wield and parallax.

Any other thoughts are appreciated too (except anything related to the search function)

I had a TR24 with the Green Triangle. I didn't like it. I sold it to my brother and I got a M4S and a 3x magnifier. I just couldn't get used to the triangle as an aiming point. Something that I am sure I could have overcome eventually but I gave up on it anyway.:laugh:

The only other issue that I had was related to the mounting. I went with a Larue 1.93 height mount to start with (That reminds me, I need to put it on the EE) and it was just too tall and I couldn't get a comfortable cheek weld. I changed it to the 1.54 mount and I got a good cheekweld but then the FSB was at just the perfect height that at 4X when a bright light hit the front sight post it would look like a hair had gotten between my eye and the occular lense. I could still use it but it was really aggravating.

The M4s that I got from Larue came with the high mount that (I think) is a 1.73 tall and it is the perfect height. I don't see the reflection off of the front sight with the magnifier at all.

I did a write up of my experiences here somewhere. But you would have to s***ch for it.:secret:

I didn't say it.:D

JodyH

11-22-10, 21:55

The drawbacks will be weight and having to get a good cheek weld to hit your eye relief.
On my house gun I run a Aimpoint M2.
On my truck gun I run a Meopta K-dot.

Belmont31R

11-22-10, 22:21

A 1-4X is not a subsitute for an RDS. Its an improvisation between having no magnification (RDS) and magnification only (ACOG).

At least with the Short-Dot its about 90% as good as having an RDS. Shooting both eyes open on 1.1X you get the same round red illuminated dot. Its 1.1X so there is a very slight distortion that you get used to. An RDS is better for close in work.

With an ACOG its really less than ideal for shooting close in but works well for moderate ranges. The Short-Dot is 100% as good at shooting out to moderate ranges...maybe even better because the reticle is a little bit more precise, and with the external adjustable turrets I can get a dope for any round I want with any barrel length I want. Im not stuck with a fixed BDC and internal adjustments.

The RDS with magnifier is not as good for shooting at range because you are taking a 4 MOA dot for instance, and magnifying it 3X. So if you want to shoot at 500 yards your dot is going to cover a significant amount of target. With the Short-Dot I can shoot pretty accurately out to 750 yards. Not to shoot tiny groups or anything but I can make consistent hits on a LaRue target.

Downside is the weight, bulk, and price. However until they make a 1-4X in an Aimpoint size and weight everything is going to be a compromise to something else. Pick what you want based on your needs, and learn to use it. If all you are ever going to shoot out to is 200 yards then a T1 would work fine. If you want to make accurate hits out to 500/600 whatever then an ACOG or variable would work best. If you want to do both the variable is the best choice.

Some people like the Accupoints, and some people don't. Personally I think the Short-Dot is the best Ive seen in the class, and chances are if you can put one to good use you'll see why.

bp7178

11-22-10, 22:55

I agree with the above except....

So if you want to shoot at 500 yards your dot is going to cover a significant amount of target.

At 500 yards, you would be holding the dot over the target, it wouldn't cover anything.

Its hard to place an Accupoint and a Short Dot in the same place. One is $700, the other $2700.

Love the S&B, if I could afford one, trust me, I would have one.

Belmont31R

11-22-10, 23:05

I agree with the above except....

At 500 yards, you would be holding the dot over the target, it wouldn't cover anything.

Its hard to place an Accupoint and a Short Dot in the same place. One is $700, the other $2700.

Love the S&B, if I could afford one, trust me, I would have one.

Retail is 2500, and if you are mil or LEO you can get them a lot cheaper. Or you can buy an excellent condition used one for ~$1800. I bought my first used one for 1900 which came with a LaRue mount. After I had put a lot of use in it I sold it for 1400 without the mount. I now have a Gen II for the larger locking turrets.

Quality optics are not cheap...but if you want to realize the most in a variable you can't skimp on it.

Obviously not in everyones budget but just comparing the merits of each setup.

ucrt

11-22-10, 23:10

.

Personally, I'd rather hold over with a T-1 than a 24G. That "telephone pole" under the 24G would cover about 36" at 300 yards versus nothing for the T-1.

I'm not sure but I think I read that the 24G's triangle is 16" MOA across the bottom. If it had a fine crosshair with a few hash marks, the 24G would be nice but just can't live with the "telephone pole"..

But maybe it's just me...

.

Alaskapopo

11-22-10, 23:54

I am hell bent on getting a TR-24G but I keep lusting over an aimpoint. :rolleyes: The related threads over the last day or so really have me thinking.

Part of my intended use for this rifle is HD. People and animals are on the possible list of bad guy's. I am positive that the trijicon is the best compromise, BUT.....

Are there any major drawbacks to using the TR-24 as an RDS? My main concerns being cheek wield and parallax.

Any other thoughts are appreciated too (except anything related to the search function)
Just two draw backs.
1. Eye relief is more critical. You have to mount the gun with a cheek weld its much less forgiving than a RDS in unconventional positions.
2. Weight. It weighs more.

But in my opinion a good variable's advantages outweigh the negatives.
My new favorite optic is the Swarovski Z6i BRT. I would take it over any other optic including the short dot.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeRogueHunter.jpg
I still have a standard Z6i Circle dot on my N4.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeDesc.jpg
I run a T1 on my Colt
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/Colt1copy.jpg

Here is my precision rig.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/Laruedesc.jpg

Pat

Alaskapopo

11-22-10, 23:58

nickdrak

11-22-10, 23:58

I run a 100yd zero. At 300yds I place the tip of the triangle just above eye-level to get good high chest area hits. The drop @ 300yds is about 13-15" with my zero/barrel/ammo combo.

bp7178

11-23-10, 00:00

Retail is 2500, and if you are mil or LEO you can get them a lot cheaper.

Called them, spoke with a rep and have the LEO price list. It isn't that much cheaper. Figure about 10% depending on model. Generous still, but its not the fabled uber discount.

Is very easy to dial the TR24 in for range since its turrets are well marked.

True, provided you know your drop in MOA. I found this was pretty easy to do, the turrents are very nice.

Zhurdan

11-23-10, 10:04

The TR24R and I have had a pretty decent run of fun and training as of late atop my Para FAL.

It is indeed NOT paralax free nor a true 1x at anything closer than 8-10 feet. Outside of that 8-10 feet, it's nearly indecernable from a 1x.

Here's a close up pic I did when I first got the TR24R at the 1x setting.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r127/Zhurdan/IMG_0455.jpg
You can see there's a bit of magnification, but like I mentioned, it's only noticeable up close.

As far as the triangle being too big, it's like any other sight, it has a learning curve. I've been able to ring a 12" chunk of steel pretty regularly at 275-300 yards. It just takes some getting used to in my opinion.

pilotguyo540

11-23-10, 14:34

Thank you all for your replies! I knew you guys would come through for me.

One last question, I probably should have asked before. Is the TR-24 series acceptable for a carbine course?

Crow Hunter

11-23-10, 15:31

Thank you all for your replies! I knew you guys would come through for me.

One last question, I probably should have asked before. Is the TR-24 series acceptable for a carbine course?

When I was researching getting mine I read an AAR on a Pat Roger's Carbine course where a guy used one. I PM'd him and asked him some questions on it. He said it worked pretty good but he wasn't sure he liked it more than he did the T1. The offset was higher since he was using a 1.93 mount.

Belmont31R

11-23-10, 15:36

Short-Dot:

1.1X

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/338169b3.jpg

4X

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/c03cbb8f.jpg

The Short-Dot has a much more precise reticle for longer distance shots...

kwelz

11-23-10, 20:33

Don't forget you can get the TR24 with the alternate cross-hair reticle.

Tomahawk_Ghost

11-24-10, 13:13

I run a 1-4. The main use of the rifle is a on the ranch gun for coytes. Target identification is essential because I don't want to accidentally shoot a calf or my neighbor's dog.

RDS are easier to hit a moving target with and are devastating at close ranges. If your rifle is mainly for home defense, get the aimpoint.

kmrtnsn

11-24-10, 13:32

Here is the Burris XTR-14 1-4X reticle

http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/burris/burris_xtr_reticle_2.jpg

payj

11-24-10, 14:06

Just weight. That said if you ever did want to add a magnifier to the AP it would weight just as much or more. Go for either. You will be happy either way imo.