View Full Version : 1-4 vs Red Dot? What am I missing?
manderson2228
07-06-11, 23:02
I feel like I am missing something. From a usability standpoint I dont see a reason to use a red dot, either aimpoint or eotech over an illuminated 1-4 scope. In 1x mode it runs like a red dot and gives you the ability to zoom out to 4x when you need it. I still keep seeing a ton of well known instructors and shooters using the red dot. I feel like they know something I don't.. To me the 1-4 scope options have basically made the red dot obsolete. What am I missing? Are there advantages to a red dot over a 1-4??
I feel like I am missing something. From a usability standpoint I dont see a reason to use a red dot, either aimpoint or eotech over an illuminated 1-4 scope. In 1x mode it runs like a red dot and gives you the ability to zoom out to 4x when you need it. I still keep seeing a ton of well known instructors and shooters using the red dot. I feel like they know something I don't.. To me the 1-4 scope options have basically made the red dot obsolete. What am I missing? Are there advantages to a red dot over a 1-4??
Larger tube with increased field of view...less likely to tunnel and greater peripheral awareness?
No eye relief & exit pupil issues and zero parallax past 50 yards.
Much better battery life, and much less weight.
Easier to use with a gasmask.
A good quality variable like the CQB Short Dot is a great choice.
Use what you feel most comfortable with. Some of us are a bit uncomfortable with the price, size, and weight of a high quality variable. If you look at an Aimpoint T1, the light weight, decent price, tiny size, and extreme durability may outweigh zoom capability for many shooters. Additionally, co-witnessing irons can be an important option as well.
Alaskapopo
07-07-11, 00:19
Larger tube with increased field of view...less likely to tunnel and greater peripheral awareness?
No. If you are shooting properly meaning with both eyes open your field of view is the same. The Eotech guys used the same argument against Aimpoints and its wrong. You only get the tunnel effect if you close your other eye.
To the OP there is really very little reason to use a red dot over a good low power variable. One is weight savings with a T1 or a compact RDS. Another is they are more forgiving in less than ideal firing positions. But given the choice I take the lower power variable over the RDS because they are more versatile. One added benefit if your batteries do go dead you can still use the scope. With an RDS if the batteries do go dead you have a clear tube. Some 1-4's don't use batteries like the TR24.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskewithTR24.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeN4withAimpoint.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeRogueHunter.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/LarueStealth.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/Spikes22longrifle.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AK%2047/SL21AK47.jpg
As for gas masks that maybe a good argument for a visible laser.
Pat
theoretically, a RDS will be faster on close targets than a magnified optic due to many factors but mostly the need for relatively precise head positioning. however good a 1-4 may be, there is an undeniable speed advantage with a good RDS.
if you find that you can shoot both equally as fast in ALL conditions, it's probable that you are not using the RDS to it's full potential.
--- an analogy to this is that there is a local who rides a Honda Goldwing at Deal's Gap (Tail of the Dragon) so well that he embarrasses most of the visitors to the area on full blown sport bikes. what is not known is that on the same type of bike as them, he is even faster...
one of the places where a 1-4 is almost unusable is in non-conventional shooting positions. at a Dynamic Fighting Rifle class, where we were required to shoot from our backs (simulating a fall or being knocked down), a RDS or even irons allowed quick COM hits but those with a 1-4 were not happy...
there are advantages and compromises with both choices. these "margins" of performance are where the RDS shows it's advantage. the 1-4 shows advantages in other areas.
nonetheless, for a defensive/immediate response rifle, having a sight that is already on is a significant advantage over one that has to be turned on...
[QUOTE=ra2bach;1041211one of the places where a 1-4 is almost unusable is in non-conventional shooting positions. at a Dynamic Fighting Rifle class, where we were required to shoot from our backs (simulating a fall or being knocked down), a RDS or even irons allowed quick COM hits but those with a 1-4 were not happy...
there are advantages and compromises with both choices. these "margins" of performance are where the RDS shows it's advantage. the 1-4 shows advantages in other areas.
nonetheless, for a defensive/immediate response rifle, having a sight that is already on is a significant advantage over one that has to be turned on...[/QUOTE]
Which is why I run a MRDS on top of my 1-4. The few added ounces ad a metric sh*t ton of capability in unconventional positions.
Rick
I just did not like the 1-4 I ran. I could put it on one power and it worked. Just didn't love it. Everybody's eyes and training lead them to where they are comfortable.
I prefer a RDS OR 3.5 ACOG. My 4x ACOG with doctor atop is quite sweet, and the price tag is gut wrenching. But there are issues with a RDS that high atop an ACOG. As always, it comes down to training.
Alaskapopo
07-07-11, 13:25
I just did not like the 1-4 I ran. I could put it on one power and it worked. Just didn't love it. Everybody's eyes and training lead them to where they are comfortable.
I prefer a RDS OR 3.5 ACOG. My 4x ACOG with doctor atop is quite sweet, and the price tag is gut wrenching. But there are issues with a RDS that high atop an ACOG. As always, it comes down to training.
Training to deal with a fundamental design flaw will not bring the best results. If you want to use two optics the off set RDS is a better solution.
Pat
Crow Hunter
07-07-11, 17:45
I feel like I am missing something. From a usability standpoint I dont see a reason to use a red dot, either aimpoint or eotech over an illuminated 1-4 scope. In 1x mode it runs like a red dot and gives you the ability to zoom out to 4x when you need it. I still keep seeing a ton of well known instructors and shooters using the red dot. I feel like they know something I don't.. To me the 1-4 scope options have basically made the red dot obsolete. What am I missing? Are there advantages to a red dot over a 1-4??
Advantages I have found of a RDS over a 1-4 in my opinion. (M4s vs TR24, the only point of reference that I have)
1. Consistent eye positioning behind the optic. At 1x, I had about 75% of the cheek weld with the TR24 vs the RDS. It was amplified by dropping from a standing position into prone, particularly on uneven ground. I couldn't just keep my eye on the target, while dropping to the ground and then the don't just "magically" appearing in my field of view. I had to look through the tube more on the TR24 to find the target, not as smooth to me. Of course, it was WAY worse on 4x.
2. Odd "fighting" positions would sometimes cause the optic to black out.
3. Heavier than the M4s and the weight didn't feel as distributed as well.
4. Low light performance was not as good. The TR24 works better for me than an ACOG but not as good as a RDS.
5. Have to take the optic off, then flip up rear sight, if it goes down.
6. Even at 1x there is a "little" bit of magnification because you aren't just looking through a tube, this combined with a fixed FSB and the Larue 1.5 mount meant that I got alot of glare reflecting into my view. The FSB was slightly magnified to the point that the light reflecting off of it, "bloomed" in my FOV and was distracting. It was much worse at 4x, even with a sharpie darkend FSB.
Not my direct experience but with the exception of the very best optics they are for all intents and purposes still hunting optics that are adapted for combat and I have enough experience with decent quality hunting scopes to be slightly wary of their durability and ability to hold a zero all the time.
I am also wary of the RDS but it is really easy to check if they have lost zero.
Just my opinion from my VERY limited experience.
christcorp
07-07-11, 19:15
The main advantage I find with a RDS is eye relief. Basically unlimited. To go along with that, shooting with both eyes open. After all, the primary purpose of an AR/AK/etc.. and such optics like eotech and aimpoint, "Which is what they were originally made for", was to simply shoot people at short distances. <100 yards. And when you'r walking with a rifle in your hands, anticipating that there might be someone coming up that you might have to pull the trigger on, you do this with both eyes open. You aren't hunting, and you aren't a 500+ yard sniper. In those cases, closing one eye, resting the rifle, taking your time aiming, and pulling the trigger on a single round is perfectly fine. But in using the AR/M4 or similar type rifles, for what their main purpose is; "Shooting people quickly at less than 100 yards", you need to be able to do this as quick as possible, and as natural as possible. That means both eyes open, raising the sight up with out repositioning, overlaying the optic reticle on your target, and pulling the trigger. It's pretty difficult to do all that with a traditional scope. Not unless your objective is bench rest target practice and long range marksmanship competitive shooting, where real world targets aren't the goal. Then a regular rifle scope would be just fine.
For me, coming from the knuckle dragger side of the house I find that the RDS is always smaller, lighter, simpler, and a bit faster. For many years I was assigned as a law enforcement precision marksman so am not unfamiliar with high quality optics. Even after twenty years I still prefer RDS for entry work on search warrants and really anything out to about 50 yards.
I've used TA44's and TA33's and think they're a great combo. When I use the TA44 I can be almost as fast as a RDS but it seems to have a longer learning curve and requires more training time to stay proficient. With a timer I'm still faster with a simple RDS. I've also observed at carbine classes that at 50 yards the RDS guys generally do better than the RDS+3X magnifier or ACOG's. At 100 yards the magnified optics start to dominate, no surprise there.
I've tried several 1X4's and my favorite is the Nightforce. I've always stayed away from the Trijicon because of the triangle's lack of precision. This may just be my past of trying to shoot little groups with a larger optic. It could be a bias that I need to overcome and buy/try one.
Gents:
Please play nice. Don't post anything you're not willing to say to the other person face to face.
Thanks.
I like my 3x9 Redfield equipped Spikes middie for longer range, "precision" shooting; but my go-to Spikes carbine has an EOTech to acquire targets fast at close range. It has a flip up BUIS should the scope go down. :)WB
Failure2Stop
07-08-11, 08:02
If your primary use of the weapon is at distances under 100 meters, save money and weight and go with a good RDS.
If you want to push to intermediate range with precision while retaining 98% of an RDS's close range capability and 75% of it's durability, at 3x the cost, the 1-4(+) is the way to go.
Which is why I run a MRDS on top of my 1-4. The few added ounces ad a metric sh*t ton of capability in unconventional positions.
Rick
I'm playing with this concept right now and am still undecided if my best solution is the mini reflex or offset irons.
Easier to use with a gasmask.
Easier to use weak side such as when shooting around a corner or if your strong side is injured.
Better for really close stuff like across a living room.
Better for seeing as much of what is going on around you as possible. There might be something outisde the field of view of that 1-4x which is a threat.
Better for really close stuff like across a living room.
For stuff that short range I much prefer irons and a white light. I can shoot irons w/o my glasses or contacts.
]
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/AR%20style%20rifles/NoveskeN4withAimpoint.jpg
Forgive the derail, but why are you using the KX3 supressor with that rifle ? :confused:
It looks as if it's a 13.7" barrel, thus the pig makes it non NFA.
manderson2228
07-08-11, 20:40
Which is why I run a MRDS on top of my 1-4. The few added ounces ad a metric sh*t ton of capability in unconventional positions.
Rick
Not sure I understand what you mean MRDS? Magnified red dot? Which one to you mean? You have a red dot mounted on top of your 1-4? Thats an interesting idea. Best of both worlds.
Mini or micro red dot sight. Just flat out works once you figure out a good zero for its desired application and learn hold overs/unders. Plus work has me in gas masks so it works double duty.
-Rick
Alaskapopo
07-09-11, 18:46
Forgive the derail, but why are you using the KX3 supressor with that rifle ? :confused:
Its a 13.7 inch barrel with the PIG attached permanently. I like the look and I wanted to reduced the noise I feel should I ever fire this indoors.
Pat
CageFighter
07-13-11, 15:35
the red dot fits my needs better.
no ranges in my area that go past 300yds.
sucks for me! :mad:
Since I own both, my statements are not about which is better. For me they fill different roles. My 16" is sporting a S $ B Short Dot 1 X 4 in a Larue SPR-E. My 10.5" is wearing a Comp M4.
I used the 16" with the 1 X 4 in a 3 day Randy Cain carbine class. 6 of my friends attended using Aimpoints and EoTechs. All are quality sights. I found no issues with the 1 X 4 in any of the CQB work and was one of the fastest/accurate shooters. At 100 yards plus, I was much faster droping prone and getting hits and at 200 no one using a 1X could stay close.
I also add that I use a Grip Pod on this rifle, which Randy sneered at and said I should train without it. I convinced him that MY rifle would always have it and I didn't see the need to train without it since I wouldn't be using battle field pick ups. (I have learned to shoot without it; magazine monopod, VG, etc, but for this class I wanted to use the Grip Pod). He just laughed and said go ahead.
At 200, all my class mates could get hits, but nowhere near as fast and accurate as mine. We were all using LMT carbines and quality optics( I schooled them and arranged a group buy for guns and optics).
Part of Randy's class is low light shooting and he has the class drop prone just before the sun goes down, I believe at 75 yards, and sight in on their target. Then, in 5 minute intervals he gives the fire command. In between "fire" he stays silent and has the students stay on target. It is an interesting lesson to stay on target as it gets dark. He has the students get up once they can no longer see the target. I was one of the last to get up because I had the 4X in quality glass. Randy made a point of having my class mates look through the S & B to see quality glass in that application. If my eyes were younger I might have been the last one up.
So, what's my point? I run both, depending on my purpose. What I call my "longer range" rifle has the 1 X 4 but I can still do CQB with it. I feel my S & B is better all around if my goal is CQB to 200+. Pat Rogers is known to run a Short Dot and holds it in high regard. I don't think any would doubt his opinion.
The gun that I would pick in my house is the SBR with the Comp M4. I also have a T-1 which may take its place. The 1X works great and is my choice if I dont want to shoot at 75+.
I only buy top quality, and the S & B is $$$$. If you can afford it, it is a first class choice. My experience with it is nothing but positive, even shooting in the unconventional positions in Randy's class. The 1X RDS are smaller, lighter, and cheaper and may be better for most.
I don't see this as which one is better, but which one is better for my application. As stated, I have both and like them equally depending on my objective. Limited to one choice it would be the Short Dot because I like to shoot it at 200 as well as in close and it just works better for me. By the way, at 1X the reticle almost disappears and it makes a pretty good RDS. For those that argue it is really 1.1, it not an issue in practice and they are just argumentive. At 4X the reticle is very crisp and allows finer aiming.
I can't speak for lower tier 1 X 4s, but I wonder if those who don't care for them would change their minds if they got to run the Schmidt and Bender.
Alaskapopo
07-13-11, 17:53
Since I own both, my statements are not about which is better. For me they fill different roles. My 16" is sporting a S $ B Short Dot 1 X 4 in a Larue SPR-E. My 10.5" is wearing a Comp M4.
I used the 16" with the 1 X 4 in a 3 day Randy Cain carbine class. 6 of my friends attended using Aimpoints and EoTechs. All are quality sights. I found no issues with the 1 X 4 in any of the CQB work and was one of the fastest/accurate shooters. At 100 yards plus, I was much faster droping prone and getting hits and at 200 no one using a 1X could stay close.
I also add that I use a Grip Pod on this rifle, which Randy sneered at and said I should train without it. I convinced him that MY rifle would always have it and I didn't see the need to train without it since I wouldn't be using battle field pick ups. (I have learned to shoot without it; magazine monopod, VG, etc, but for this class I wanted to use the Grip Pod). He just laughed and said go ahead.
At 200, all my class mates could get hits, but nowhere near as fast and accurate as mine. We were all using LMT carbines and quality optics( I schooled them and arranged a group buy for guns and optics).
Part of Randy's class is low light shooting and he has the class drop prone just before the sun goes down, I believe at 75 yards, and sight in on their target. Then, in 5 minute intervals he gives the fire command. In between "fire" he stays silent and has the students stay on target. It is an interesting lesson to stay on target as it gets dark. He has the students get up once they can no longer see the target. I was one of the last to get up because I had the 4X in quality glass. Randy made a point of having my class mates look through the S & B to see quality glass in that application. If my eyes were younger I might have been the last one up.
So, what's my point? I run both, depending on my purpose. What I call my "longer range" rifle has the 1 X 4 but I can still do CQB with it. I feel my S & B is better all around if my goal is CQB to 200+. Pat Rogers is known to run a Short Dot and holds it in high regard. I don't think any would doubt his opinion.
The gun that I would pick in my house is the SBR with the Comp M4. I also have a T-1 which may take its place. The 1X works great and is my choice if I dont want to shoot at 75+.
I only buy top quality, and the S & B is $$$$. If you can afford it, it is a first class choice. My experience with it is nothing but positive, even shooting in the unconventional positions in Randy's class. The 1X RDS are smaller, lighter, and cheaper and may be better for most.
I don't see this as which one is better, but which one is better for my application. As stated, I have both and like them equally depending on my objective. Limited to one choice it would be the Short Dot because I like to shoot it at 200 as well as in close and it just works better for me. By the way, at 1X the reticle almost disappears and it makes a pretty good RDS. For those that argue it is really 1.1, it not an issue in practice and they are just argumentive. At 4X the reticle is very crisp and allows finer aiming.
I can't speak for lower tier 1 X 4s, but I wonder if those who don't care for them would change their minds if they got to run the Schmidt and Bender.
Excellent post. I prefer the Swarovski Z6i BRT 1-6 over the Short Dot but both are great scopes.
Pat
Excellent post. I prefer the Swarovski Z6i BRT 1-6 over the Short Dot but both are great scopes.
Pat
Swaro = quality. Haven't used that scope but I'll take your word. I have the Swaro laser RF. It's expensive but I prefer it over the Leica.
For the doubters, a fellow named Larry Vickers had a little something to do with the Short Dot also.
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/short-dot/
Good review here.
http://www.schmidtbender.com/images/scopes/ShortDotq.pdf
And back to the OP, the 1X RDS still has applications.
Try to get behind one of each, it will really fall down to personal pref. They both have minor pro's and con's but nothing terrible as long as you buy a quality optic.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, but the biggest two benefits an RDS has over a 1-4x scope...
1. Unlimited eye relief, enough said.
2. RUGGEDNESS. Yeah, there may be some pretty rugged 1-4x's out there, but I've yet to hear anyone claim that one is remotely as tough as a 30mm Aimpoint. Waterproofing (yeah you may not be a Navy Seal, but you still may somehow drop your weapon into any given amount of water), impact/shock resistance, no reticle lens to come loose, and physics tell us that delivering a blow to the top of a 5" long optic is less likely to bend it than doing the same to an 11" optic/scope, for example, all other things being equal.
Weight is a moot point to me. Add a magnifier to an RDS, and you're in the same general weight range.
Alaskapopo
07-18-11, 22:05
I'm sure someone has mentioned this, but the biggest two benefits an RDS has over a 1-4x scope...
1. Unlimited eye relief, enough said.
2. RUGGEDNESS. Yeah, there may be some pretty rugged 1-4x's out there, but I've yet to hear anyone claim that one is remotely as tough as a 30mm Aimpoint. Waterproofing (yeah you may not be a Navy Seal, but you still may somehow drop your weapon into any given amount of water), impact/shock resistance, no reticle lens to come loose, and physics tell us that delivering a blow to the top of a 5" long optic is less likely to bend it than doing the same to an 11" optic/scope, for example, all other things being equal.
Weight is a moot point to me. Add a magnifier to an RDS, and you're in the same general weight range.
Ruggedness. Hmm I don't see many S&B short dots dying. Both a 30mm aimpoint and a 30 mm 1-4 scope are tubes with glass in them. Both are rugged. Show me the tests comparing them in torture tests to show the Aimpoint is tougher. I have see Nightforce Scopes used like hammers in demonstrations and thrown acorss the parking lot on a rifle and it still worked. Even saw one that was shot and still worked with a bullet hole in the tube. Show me an Aimpoint that has been through that.
Pat
I have heard of aimpoints enduring all of that and more. If you're saying a 1-4x is as rugged as an Aimpoint, you're the first I've come across with that belief. The 1-4x has more pieces of glass, more moving parts, both of which mean more failure points and more points that can allow moisture in.
I'd also like to point out that I've owned scopes and red dots but am going irons only right now, so I have no bias either way.
Alaskapopo
07-19-11, 11:21
I have heard of aimpoints enduring all of that and more. If you're saying a 1-4x is as rugged as an Aimpoint, you're the first I've come across with that belief. The 1-4x has more pieces of glass, more moving parts, both of which mean more failure points and more points that can allow moisture in.
I'd also like to point out that I've owned scopes and red dots but am going irons only right now, so I have no bias either way.
I own both as well and frankly I have not made either fail. The point is your making an assumption.
Pat
To the OP, have you used both or are you trying to base all of this off of the experiences of others?
Interesting thread. I struggle with the question of 1-4x vs RDS for my first sight. I don't have the money right now for it so I continue to read people's opinions. From this, the conclusion I have reached is owning two rifles, an SBR with RDS, and my current 16" with a 1-4x atop. A pricey conclusion :p
devilsdeeds
07-19-11, 13:18
Ruggedness. Hmm I don't see many S&B short dots dying. Both a 30mm aimpoint and a 30 mm 1-4 scope are tubes with glass in them. Both are rugged. Show me the tests comparing them in torture tests to show the Aimpoint is tougher. I have see Nightforce Scopes used like hammers in demonstrations and thrown acorss the parking lot on a rifle and it still worked. Even saw one that was shot and still worked with a bullet hole in the tube. Show me an Aimpoint that has been through that.
Pat
Not to argue as I agree with you that both are valid option and both are strong, but have you seen the DD/LAV M4 Torture test with a T1?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89HEefl1KI4
I own both as well and frankly I have not made either fail. The point is your making an assumption.
Pat
I'm making no more of an assumption than you are...I've heard of far, far more cases of 1-4x scopes failing than Aimpoints. Granted, there are a variety of brands etc. of 1-4x's, but if you're going to go with one that may about as rugged as an Aimpoint, it's going to cost you about 5 times what an Aimpoint setup costs. Also, an S&B Short Dot, with is absolute top of the line in the 1-4x type category, is waterproof to 3 meters. An Aimpoint CompM4 (using this one because, I believe, the S&B and the CompM4 are the two most used in the military) is waterproof to 45 meters. So if you drop your $2500-3000 Short Dot into anything deeper than a standard swimming pool, you could lose it.
We could argue all day, but IMO, the best person to give input on this would be someone who instructs carbine courses. One of those guys would know first hand how many of each he sees go down during classes from hard use.
Alaskapopo
07-19-11, 14:11
I'm making no more of an assumption than you are...I've heard of far, far more cases of 1-4x scopes failing than Aimpoints. Granted, there are a variety of brands etc. of 1-4x's, but if you're going to go with one that may about as rugged as an Aimpoint, it's going to cost you about 5 times what an Aimpoint setup costs. Also, an S&B Short Dot, with is absolute top of the line in the 1-4x type category, is waterproof to 3 meters. An Aimpoint CompM4 (using this one because, I believe, the S&B and the CompM4 are the two most used in the military) is waterproof to 45 meters. So if you drop your $2500-3000 Short Dot into anything deeper than a standard swimming pool, you could lose it.
We could argue all day, but IMO, the best person to give input on this would be someone who instructs carbine courses. One of those guys would know first hand how many of each he sees go down during classes from hard use.
The Short dot is excellent I prefer the Swarovski. Its debatable which is best as they have different pros and cons. And yes a good low power variable does cost more than a Aimpoint alone. But it does so much more. An Aimpoint is a great CQB sight and that is about it. With a magnifier it can go out to 300 or so but the its pretty much done. A good lower power variable can allow you to make hits out to 600 yards with relative ease. As for anacodotal stories about which is tougher I could care less about what a friend of a friend in trainng supposedly saw. Lets stick with first hand experience as is required on this board. The best people to give imput on this are those that have personal experience with both such as myself.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-19-11, 14:13
Not to argue as I agree with you that both are valid option and both are strong, but have you seen the DD/LAV M4 Torture test with a T1?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89HEefl1KI4
Yes and Aimpoints are tought. I have also seen Nightforce scopes for example be tossed across parking lots and used like hammers and there is even an example of one that survived and worked in Iraq on a soldiers gun that was shot. (had a bullet hole through the tube and kept working. The point is both are very tough.
Pat
I have heard of aimpoints enduring all of that and more. If you're saying a 1-4x is as rugged as an Aimpoint, you're the first I've come across with that belief. The 1-4x has more pieces of glass, more moving parts, both of which mean more failure points and more points that can allow moisture in.
I'd also like to point out that I've owned scopes and red dots but am going irons only right now, so I have no bias either way.
He said he didn't see a Short Dot dying. A Short Dot is not any 1 X 4. They are expensive and some will say not worth it. I disagree.
I have a Short dot and agree with alaskapoppo. I also have a T-1, and a Comp M4. I can say from experience that they all have their applications and they are all rugged. If the final test is kicking one around a parking lot and beating it with a bat, then my T-1 will probably survive the best. But, it's not about kicking the optic around the parking lot. I am just as confident in my Short Dot as I am in my Aimpoints. They are different tools, but all are quality.
A QUALITY 1x4 any day of the week over a T1 and twice on sunday if I had to choose a single optic. You can train to be fast with the 1x4 (and there are guys out there that outshoot 99% of people using 4x ACOGS at close range) but you simply cannot train yourself to use a T1 to target identify at 400m. Doesnt happen.
I shot my S&B pretty well and I have no doubt that if I still owned it I would have no problem performing 99% as well as with an Eotech at close range. Once you step out of 50m or so the 1x4 absolutely dominates. Easy choice for me.
Rick
manderson2228
07-19-11, 20:16
To the OP, have you used both or are you trying to base all of this off of the experiences of others?
No.. I have shot both, and to me the 1-4 with a good daytime illuminated reticle is the way to go. I just keep seeing people better and more knowledgeable than me using red dot. I feel like I am doing something wrong, but didn't understand what.. I've learned a bunch from this thread.
Crow Hunter
07-19-11, 20:45
No.. I have shot both, and to me the 1-4 with a good daytime illuminated reticle is the way to go. I just keep seeing people better and more knowledgeable than me using red dot. I feel like I am doing something wrong, but didn't understand what.. I've learned a bunch from this thread.
Make sure you keep their frame of reference and experience in mind when looking at their optics choices.
What works for a police officer in Alaska versus a very experienced contractor in Afghanistan may not 1 for 1 translate for you. They are experts in their field, but are you in their field?
You have to look at what you will use your rifle for and how you use it.
That will determine what optic will give you the most benefits.
Gutshot John
07-19-11, 20:48
A QUALITY 1x4 any day of the week over a T1 and twice on sunday if I had to choose a single optic. You can train to be fast with the 1x4 (and there are guys out there that outshoot 99% of people using 4x ACOGS at close range) but you simply cannot train yourself to use a T1 to target identify at 400m. Doesnt happen.
Uhm nonsense. Lots of people have used iron sights on an M16 to shoot people at 400 yards with no magnification. Saying it "doesn't happen" is decidedly wrong. This becomes significantly easier with an RDS. Is it the preferred optic for shooting at 400 yards? Nope, but I've seen people shoot out to 600 yards with no magnification with the proper training. Factor in a full power rifle cartridge and range is limited only by the load, not the aiming device. I'm always amazed by those that say "this one is better at everything" and that there is never any opportunity cost...there is always an opportunity cost.
While I hate to admit it, Rob has a point, everything is a tradeoff. In certain roles, the 1-4x is an awesome optic, in other roles the RDS beats the shit out of anything. Yes the 1-4x or any magnified optic helps in target ID and has a valid role, in others the speed of the RDS works wonders.
While you can be almost as quick with a 1-4x using a standard shooting position, the RDS will truly shine when you have to shoot inside of 200 yards using rollover prone, supine or other non-traditional positions, around cover and other things where getting a traditional sight picture isn't really possible. 1-4x will never be as fast inside of 100 yards as an RDS and is certainly capable of well beyond that range.
I like both, but if I had to choose only one long gun with only one sighting system, it would be an RDS hands down. Ideally I'd have one dedicated to 0-200 yards (RDS) and another dedicated to 50-500 yards (magnified).
Come to think of it, that's exactly what I have.:shout:
Reading is fundamental.
I didnt say shoot at 400m. Im not a dubmass.
You try and see if a guy at 200m is holding a weapon or not before you are able to engage and let me know how iron sights work out for you.
Rick
Failure2Stop
07-20-11, 07:30
The requirement to focus on the front sight for accurate fire at distance makes it very difficult to maintain observation of threats at mid-range, especially if they are partially obscured, camouflaged, popping in and out of cover, or moving, which I find tend to be actions consistent with people shooting or being shot at.
No.. I have shot both, and to me the 1-4 with a good daytime illuminated reticle is the way to go. I just keep seeing people better and more knowledgeable than me using red dot. I feel like I am doing something wrong, but didn't understand what.. I've learned a bunch from this thread.
If you have tried both in your application and have developed a preference, I would say ignore what other people are doing. If you're winning more fights with your choice, keep it. If you're winning more matches with your choice, keep it. If you're taking more game with your choice, keep it.
It is interesting to note that you do not appear to be alone in this. There are at least three current threads on this topic or related and all of them appear to revolve around people looking for optical utopia when none exists.
I have used 1-x variables, low-power fixed, and RDS, and for me in my applications I've settled on RDS in 75% of the cases and low-power fixed in the others (assuming the AR platform here). The whats, whys, and hows are almost not worth posting as others will only try to cram those opinions into their end-use, opinions, and biases and find them lacking.
I get what you're saying, that you see a lot of people who's opinions you respect using something other than what you're using, but nobody is always right, and what is right for someone else may not be right for you. I find myself constantly having to couch the opinions of many who I respect with the fact that their frame of reference is military operations and that may only have a 1% commonality to my needs in some cases.
Gutshot John
07-20-11, 08:33
Reading is fundamental.
I didnt say shoot at 400m. Im not a dubmass.
You try and see if a guy at 200m is holding a weapon or not before you are able to engage and let me know how iron sights work out for you.
Rick
Writing is fundamental as well. My point was you were overstating your case. There is always a tradeoff.
Why would you shoot at someone you couldn't see or identify as a threat? Saying it "doesn't happen" is a world away from saying it's 'significantly harder'.
An RDS offers a far clearer view of a target than irons and yet shooting at people beyond 400 meters with iron sights has been a staple of warfare for a long time. Sure it's hard to do effectively but it has been done.
Is a magnified optic more suited to that need? Sure is. What is the most likely distance for the type of shooting most of us are likely to encounter? (HINT: it's not 400 meters)
I'm not talking about some guy on a sterile range with all day to make the shot. I do this for a living and have made shots at 300+ after a pkm your tore into the wall behind me and I had to sprint to cover.
I had a long day yesterday as I found out my former BC died as I was in a planning meeting for a memorial service for one of my Soldiers.
-Rick
Gutshot John
07-20-11, 08:54
My condolences on your buddy/soldier.
Doc Safari
08-24-11, 10:17
Putting the responses from this and other threads together it sounds like most people would be served by purchasing both an RDS and a 1-4, and with training and practice decide what works for them.
I'm thinking of doing this exact thing.
Crow Hunter
08-24-11, 17:01
Putting the responses from this and other threads together it sounds like most people would be served by purchasing both an RDS and a 1-4, and with training and practice decide what works for them.
I'm thinking of doing this exact thing.
YEP!
Might even throw in a ACOG for good measure. :D
That is exactly what I did. Started with 1x4 and finished with a RDS with a little ACOG in the middle.
Of course, YMMV.
Doc Safari
08-24-11, 17:05
Just to muddy the waters I noticed some of the Trijicon TR24 variable scopes have a reticle that looks rather like a hybrid of a variable and red dot reticle:
http://swfa.com/Trijicon-AccuPoint-Rifle-Scopes-C207.aspx
Accepting the fact that color of triangle may just be a personal preference, could this setup be the best of both worlds, or is that an optical illusion (pun intended :D)?
IMHO, the TR24 is one of the best values going for low powered optics. Very high quality for what you are paying. They were a better value before Trijicon increased the price on them...but hey.
I got all wrapped up in the green reticle thing, everything I was reading at the time was how amazing anything green was. There was something that was taken from a tech doc about night vision devices years ago which said your eyes can detect more shades of green than any other color. Having used a TR24G, I don't think this applies to reticles on rifle scopes, especially in low light.
At night things tend to look like a shade of blue when your eyes adjust to the ambient light. Under streetlights, things tend to be cast in an amber light. If I were to get another TR24, or Trijicon optic, it would have a red reticle.
Doc Safari
08-24-11, 17:24
If I were to get another TR24, or Trijicon optic, it would have a red reticle.
Just quickly examing a couple of ACOGS first hand, I almost instantly saw that I liked red better than amber.
Failure2Stop
08-25-11, 08:12
Just to muddy the waters I noticed some of the Trijicon TR24 variable scopes have a reticle that looks rather like a hybrid of a variable and red dot reticle:
I know a few guys that use them and hold them in high regard.
I am not so much of a fan.
I find that the triangle and post obscures too much of the target at ranges that require hold-over.
I would call it good out to 200 meters or so.
Bringing this one back from the dead because of the availability of an RDS and a 1-4 which cost exactly the same and both of which get good reviews. The Aimpoint PRO and the Burris MTAC 1-4. Let me preface this by saying I've not shot either one, and won't have the opportunity to, as I don't have access to them. My buddy Markwell just did an article on 1-4's and really liked the Burris and the PRO is pretty much bomb proof. Thoughts guys?
Alaskapopo
01-01-13, 22:07
Bringing this one back from the dead because of the availability of an RDS and a 1-4 which cost exactly the same and both of which get good reviews. The Aimpoint PRO and the Burris MTAC 1-4. Let me preface this by saying I've not shot either one, and won't have the opportunity to, as I don't have access to them. My buddy Markwell just did an article on 1-4's and really liked the Burris and the PRO is pretty much bomb proof. Thoughts guys?
Really depends on your mission. If you just want a home defense optic and you don't plan on shooting past 100 yards the Pro is great. But if you want a general purpose carbine and he ability to use your weapons potential to reach out there or ID threats then 1-4 is the way to go. Personally I don't run any rifles with just a dot anymore. That is more of a SBR or subgun set up.
Pat
so would it be optimal to run a micro on a 45 and 1/4 on top? after or add a the $$ which would'nt be too unaccomodating as far as space tied up for good support of the weapon at hand per say? i see alot of right hand shooters that have left hand over the rail, but not too much out there bring or slim down that hand position without being over extended furniture. imo, feel more secure to make a shot with great accuracy of over a 100y without the use of rds. buis can still be in its place? that woul be tripple? i understand heat build up along the barrel. i would like to afford a set up like this.
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 03:06
so would it be optimal to run a micro on a 45 and 1/4 on top? after or add a the $$ which would'nt be too unaccomodating as far as space tied up for good support of the weapon at hand per say? i see alot of right hand shooters that have left hand over the rail, but not too much out there bring or slim down that hand position without being over extended furniture. imo, feel more secure to make a shot with great accuracy of over a 100y without the use of rds. buis can still be in its place? that woul be tripple? i understand heat build up along the barrel. i would like to afford a set up like this.
I prefer Larues mount which is in a 30 degree offset. A 45 degree is fien too. But putting any small red dot on top of a scope sucks in my opinion. Your cheak weld is crap as in it does not exist. Its not nearly as intuitive. With an off set mount you simply roll the rifle slightly to use the other optic. With an optic mounted on top of a scope you have to move your head up and down and the bore off set is huge as well.
I used to run a BUIS with the scope and red dot but I found it was a waste. The chance of you losing both optics is less than small.
Pat
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.