Magnification in a "defensive" optic

[Crow Hunter]

I have read and participated in several threads recently about magnified optics.

Several people advocate the use of a magnified optic on a rifle. Usually 1x4 and sometimes an ACOG.

Now if you are planning to have a rifle to do several different things like target shooting, hunting, and defensive use, I can see how a 1 x 4,6,8 variable could be very useful. I tried to go that route myself but I didn't like it.

In a LEO role, I can see the need for magnification (Alaskapopo has a good example) and definitely in a MIL role. But in both of those instances the rifle is primarily an offensive weapon.

On a purely CIVILIAN DEFENSIVE rifle(which a large number of people seem to own rifles for), how do you see magnification being of use to you personally?

This can be day to day activities or your favorite SHTF zombie scenario.:D

I want to see how people with different outlooks/experiences, plan on using their rifle/optic combos.

I personally, only use magnification "offensively". Particularly when I am actively seeking out small innocent animals to "snipe". ;)

[aaron_c]

I wouldn't expect to ever need magnification for a purely defensive role. Explaining to a jury why you popped someone 400 yards away would be difficult, no matter the circumstance. I'd even have trouble finding a use for it in a "WROL" scenario unless a mob sent you a post card saying they were going to raid your home tomorrow. Zombies? I suppose, but I have a Browning BARII Safari for the more distant work (or a 2nd AR set up for such a thing, for many of us/you).

[ra2bach]

I wouldn't expect to ever need magnification for a purely defensive role. Explaining to a jury why you popped someone 400 yards away would be difficult, no matter the circumstance. I'd even have trouble finding a use for it in a "WROL" scenario unless a mob sent you a post card saying they were going to raid your home tomorrow. Zombies? I suppose, but I have a Browning BARII Safari for the more distant work (or a 2nd AR set up for such a thing, for many of us/you).

well, I suppose the best direct answer to that question is if someone 400 yards away is shooting at you...

but that's not the best reason. I see a need for magnification to be able to "identify" a threat that is beyond what the naked eye can make out. plus, it's pretty obvious that seeing something 2, 3, or 4 times larger makes it easier to get accurate hits at extended range, rather than just somewhere on target. whether that's something that's important to you, well there's your answer...

[seb5]

I pretty much agree with you but will add that many of us live in the country and live several hundred yards off the road and many miles from anywhere. My wifes carbine sports an ACOG because she has astigmatism and sees bundles of grapes in a RDS. With a TA44 she is becoming proficient, finally! My two go to's both wear T-1's. My precision rifle, which is carried for work had a NF 2.5-10. My "just for the heck of it" carbine wears a TA33HG. I very much prefer the Aimpoints on my carbines that I consider home defense models. About 90% of my rounds are through the 2 with Aimpoints as well.

[hikeeba]

On a purely CIVILIAN DEFENSIVE rifle(which a large number of people seem to own rifles for), how do you see magnification being of use to you personally?

This can be day to day activities or your favorite SHTF zombie scenario.:D


I can't say that I own rifles specifically for civilian defense or home defense, but I feel they could certainly be pressed into those roles if the need did arise. And if that need did arise, I think it would depend on the situation whether or not magnification could come into play.

I like to use magnification because it allows me to see targets better/easier. Not only does magnification allow me to see the target better, but I can also see where rounds are landing on the target (given appropriate magnification for my eyeballs and the distance). This allows for instant feedback while shooting. It's more or less a convenience; a luxury, since I am just shooting for fun and enjoyment, and my life or the lives of others aren't on the line.

But if I imagine a defensive situation - thinking about where I live, the area in which I work, and the types of 'situations' that could occur - I see only intermittent use for magnification for me, personally. If I was to shelter in place in an urban or suburban location, I could likely live without magnification. If I were to be on the move, having the option of magnified optic would be ideal. I wouldn't be comfortable running a fixed power optic 100% of the time, just because I am not accustomed to using one. And if I had to chose between my 1-4x setup and my RDS + magnifier combo, I'd choose the latter.

And since the imagination has been unleashed, I'd like to imagine a variable power magnifier and a ultra-compact, 1-4x scope in a FTS mount. And also that I can fly, possess super-human strength, and can turn myself invisible. Imagining is fun! :smile:

[jwfuhrman]

I've been running a 4x ACOG on my 10.5 SBR. A little much but it's what Ive got to use. Debating on switching to like a 2.5x optic. But most likely will end up with a Aimpoint PRO on it. Out to 400yds, if it comes to it, a threat will be very well identified.... Because unless they are shooting at me or someone else in my group, they aren't a threat....

[Failure2Stop]

At low power (under 5X), the magnification isn't really the problem.
The problem is in eye-box and the usefulness of the reticle.

[ra2bach]

...Out to 400yds, if it comes to it, a threat will be very well identified.... Because unless they are shooting at me or someone else in my group, they aren't a threat....

LOL. and there you have it...

the only thing I would say to that is if I'm taking rounds from 400 yards, I'd most certainly want a magnified optic to send them back quicker and more accurately.

I've shot to 600 yds with iron sights in competition so I know a little about that, but I absodamlutely guarantee you I would be faster and more accurate with even a 2 or 3 power scope. a 4x or better with a ranging type reticle would make it seem simple in comparison...

[rob_s]

I absodamlutely guarantee you I would be faster and more accurate with even a 2 or 3 power scope. a 4x or better with a ranging type reticle and training and experience using it would make it seem simple in comparison...

I had to add to the above, not because I think you don't, but because I think so few do. I see too many posts, here and elsewhere, from people saying "here's my new home/ranch defense rifle with some magnification so I can get the hits at distance". Absolute ****ing hogwash. These people would be better throwing rocks at that distance because at least they have some experience with that.

Magnification, variable or not, and a ranging reticule do not a panacea make. Especially not shooting uphill at a moving target that may be shooting back.

[ra2bach]

I had to add to the above, not because I think you don't, but because I think so few do. I see too many posts, here and elsewhere, from people saying "here's my new home/ranch defense rifle with some magnification so I can get the hits at distance". Absolute ****ing hogwash. These people would be better throwing rocks at that distance because at least they have some experience with that.

Magnification, variable or not, and a ranging reticule do not a panacea make. Especially not shooting uphill at a moving target that may be shooting back.

yeah, that kinda goes without saying. but one thing that hasn't been discussed here is being able to see your impacts.

laying in the dirt at 300 yards and making hits in the black with irons is easy if you've done it before and you know the wind, your dope and your come-ups, but mostly it's because when they pull that target back down into the butts, it comes back up with a spotter showing your impact so you can adjust.

in your scenario, give me the same rifle, or even one with a RDS zeroed at 50 or 100 yards, at some unknown distance way out there, and I'd be a lost ball in tall weeds - as would just about anybody who hasn't had training and significant experience doing this type of stuff.

now, with some magnification, it's possible (but not certain) that you may be able to see impacts and adjust fires to that.

I know this is possible because I've done it with small varmints in the open at distance. now these little critters weren't shooting back but they were scurrying around, and if I only had irons or a RDS it's possible they might have gotten as much enjoyment out of it as I did.

now whether you've got a lot of experience or next to none with either a scope or a RDS, being able to see that you just shot under/over/beside what you're pointing at is going to be a lot more helpful than guessing.

anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it... :cool:

[Alaskapopo]

I wouldn't expect to ever need magnification for a purely defensive role. Explaining to a jury why you popped someone 400 yards away would be difficult, no matter the circumstance. I'd even have trouble finding a use for it in a "WROL" scenario unless a mob sent you a post card saying they were going to raid your home tomorrow. Zombies? I suppose, but I have a Browning BARII Safari for the more distant work (or a 2nd AR set up for such a thing, for many of us/you).

No not really. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I was being fired upon by a person armed with a rifle at 400 yards so I returned fire to defend myself. While such an example is rare its totally justifable. There is no magic range at which you are no longer allowed to shoot back. If the suspect has the ability and opportunity to do you harm and place you in jeapordy you have the right to defend yourself. Rather the threat is at 1 foot from your muzzle or 1000 yards.
Pat

[Doc Safari]

No not really. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I was being fired upon by a person armed with a rifle at 400 yards so I returned fire to defend myself. While such an example is rare its totally justifable. There is no magic range at which you are no longer allowed to shoot back. If the suspect has the ability and opportunity to do you harm and place you in jeapordy you have the right to defend yourself. Rather the threat is at 1 foot from your muzzle or 1000 yards.
Pat

I'd have to agree with this. I operate in terrain where I may face a threat from one foot all the way out to 400 or 500 yards.

I am seriously considering a scope instead of RDS for my carbine. I'm thinking low to no magnification is good, unless it's a variable with no more than 3 power. Reticle style will be important too. It also has to work with a light.

This thread has got me thinking in a new direction. I'm glad I stumbled onto this.

[shootist~]

...

now whether you've got a lot of experience or next to none with either a scope or a RDS, being able to see that you just shot under/over/beside what you're pointing at is going to be a lot more helpful than guessing.


Also the scenario any hunter is familiar with: Shooting into shadows, (due to brush, timber, or whatever), - i.e. in poor light - even at moderate distance. In lots of cases a target is just invisible with a RD or irons; but not so with some magnification. Also referred to as target identification. The real world is not a square range with highly visible and fully exposed targets.

[christcorp]

Crow; you bring up a great question, that MANY people simply refuse to consider. Are there needs for magnified scopes on a tactical type rifle? Yes. Prairie Dogs, coyotes, marksmanship and competitive shooting, etc... For home defense? Nope. not at all. But you will never convince certain people of that. They will talk about how they live on this 1000 acre ranch, where it's a 1/2 mile to the road, bla bla bla bla bla.... Truth is: 1) The tactical rifles in question were designed for 100 yard +/- human shots with open sights or non-mag red-dot types for fast acquisition of the target. 2) If you shoot a person at those distance; actually, probably anything more than 50 yards (And that's pushing it unless you have some 7,000 sq ft house); you'll have a hard time winning ANY Self Defense case in court. It's just not going to happen.

Also; chances are, if you really do live in that type of environment, then you're probably also into hunting. If i truly needed to shoot someone at 100+ yards away, because they are trying to shoot me at that distance, then I'm going to use my Savage 7mm remington magnum hunting rifle. It is as close to a sniper rifle as you're going to get. And my hunting rifle will be much more accurate than ANY 5.56 rifle out there. Especially at 400 yards. And while I will still have a difficult time convincing a jury that someone 200 yards a way was a threat; it will be easier defending that story with a hunting rifle than with an "Evil Black Rifle".

In your house, you can kill a person with just about any weapon you want, and get away with it. There is definitely a threat. Trying to claim a threat a 100, 200, 300, 400+ yards is pure B.S. You're almost never going to be able to say you were so threatened that you had to shoot back. And again; even if you were, then you should be grabbing your 30-06, 7mm mag, 300 win, 243, etc... They will outdo any of the AR's. Those distances is exactly what those hunting type rifles and calibers were designed for. The AR wasn't.

Again; you're not going to convince a lot of people of this. They think their AR15 needs to be set up for self defense at 100+ yards. It's B.S., but they'll never admit it. But there are a lot of people who DO shoot coyote, prairie dogs, rabbits, etc... at long distances. Including competition marksmanship shooting. For them; they have a dual purpose. They want the 1-4 mag so they can use the 2/3/4 for targets, varmints, and competition; and they want the 1x for self defense when needed. I can buy this. The AR is not my first choice for self defense, but I can see where it is for some people. And a 1x4 scope used for varmints, targets, competition, and defense makes a lot of sense. But for the strictly self defense purpose, the mag sight is not needed. It's border line mall ninja. At least conspiracy level. 100+ yard shots are not self-defense. At least not in court. If you feel they are self defense distances beyond 100+ yards, then at least use your hunting rifle. It will be a better caliber; more accurate; and easier to defend in court.

[Alaskapopo]

Crow; you bring up a great question, that MANY people simply refuse to consider. Are there needs for magnified scopes on a tactical type rifle? Yes. Prairie Dogs, coyotes, marksmanship and competitive shooting, etc... For home defense? Nope. not at all. But you will never convince certain people of that. They will talk about how they live on this 1000 acre ranch, where it's a 1/2 mile to the road, bla bla bla bla bla.... Truth is: 1) The tactical rifles in question were designed for 100 yard +/- human shots with open sights or non-mag red-dot types for fast acquisition of the target. 2) If you shoot a person at those distance; actually, probably anything more than 50 yards (And that's pushing it unless you have some 7,000 sq ft house); you'll have a hard time winning ANY Self Defense case in court. It's just not going to happen.
Also; chances are, if you really do live in that type of environment, then you're probably also into hunting. If i truly needed to shoot someone at 100+ yards away, because they are trying to shoot me at that distance, then I'm going to use my Savage 7mm remington magnum hunting rifle. It is as close to a sniper rifle as you're going to get. And my hunting rifle will be much more accurate than ANY 5.56 rifle out there. Especially at 400 yards. And while I will still have a difficult time convincing a jury that someone 200 yards a way was a threat; it will be easier defending that story with a hunting rifle than with an "Evil Black Rifle".

In your house, you can kill a person with just about any weapon you want, and get away with it. There is definitely a threat. Trying to claim a threat a 100, 200, 300, 400+ yards is pure B.S. You're almost never going to be able to say you were so threatened that you had to shoot back. And again; even if you were, then you should be grabbing your 30-06, 7mm mag, 300 win, 243, etc... They will outdo any of the AR's. Those distances is exactly what those hunting type rifles and calibers were designed for. The AR wasn't.

Again; you're not going to convince a lot of people of this. They think their AR15 needs to be set up for self defense at 100+ yards. It's B.S., but they'll never admit it. But there are a lot of people who DO shoot coyote, prairie dogs, rabbits, etc... at long distances. Including competition marksmanship shooting. For them; they have a dual purpose. They want the 1-4 mag so they can use the 2/3/4 for targets, varmints, and competition; and they want the 1x for self defense when needed. I can buy this. The AR is not my first choice for self defense, but I can see where it is for some people. And a 1x4 scope used for varmints, targets, competition, and defense makes a lot of sense. But for the strictly self defense purpose, the mag sight is not needed. It's border line mall ninja. At least conspiracy level. 100+ yard shots are not self-defense. At least not in court. If you feel they are self defense distances beyond 100+ yards, then at least use your hunting rifle. It will be a better caliber; more accurate; and easier to defend in court.

That is BS. How many court cases have you sat in on? Your statement is not even remotely related to the truth and the law. As for hunting rifles they are fairly irresponsible to use for self defense.The over penetration issue is huge and they are poor choices as well tactically. A 5.56 is a great defensive weapon.
Pat

[christcorp]

That is BS. How many court cases have you sat in on? Your statement is not even remotely related to the truth and the law. As for hunting rifles they are fairly irresponsible to use for self defense.The over penetration issue is huge and they are poor choices as well tactically. A 5.56 is a great defensive weapon.
Pat

Do you know what you're saying? what over penetration? I didn't say to use a hunting rifle inside your house. I'm talking about the unique person who insists that there is a threat at 200 yards and they need to shoot them at that distance, because they feel threatened. If you feel threatened by a shooter that far away, then you're taking individual shots. Not a 30 round magazine type of shooting. Therefor, you'll gain accuracy and effectiveness with a hunting rifle that was designed to shoot those distances. The 5.56 was not designed to shoot, 200, 300, 400+ yards. Not saying you can't do it, but it wasn't designed for that. Over penetration at 200+ yards is not an issue.

And yes, I do understand the law. The forums and internet is full of B.S. So believe me or not, I really don't care. My wife's law firm does quite a bit of criminal law. I asked her and all the partners about this very topic. "In your house, it's pretty easy to say you were responding to a threat, and you had to shoot an intruder.... But it will be very difficult to consider a person that is NOT in your house, 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, etc... away from you, as a threat." I totally agree with what lawyers are telling me. Can you prove that someone 200 yards away is a threat, and you HAD TO SHOOT BACK??? Yes, but it's going to be difficult.

So you can believe what you want. If you think it's EASY to claim you felt your life was threatened by someone 200 yards away, and you HAD to shoot back and kill them; go for it. I don't, and lawyers don't think so either. And as for the hunting rifle; that's strictly intended for those who really think there's a threat at 200-400 yards. My hunting rifle is much more effective weapon at that range than a 5.56 16" AR15 is. But you aren't going to buy any of this anyway, so it doesn't matter. Believe what you want.

[Doc Safari]

If you feel threatened by a shooter that far away, then you're taking individual shots. Not a 30 round magazine type of shooting. Therefor, you'll gain accuracy and effectiveness with a hunting rifle that was designed to shoot those distances. The 5.56 was not designed to shoot, 200, 300, 400+ yards. Not saying you can't do it, but it wasn't designed for that. .

I see your point. I will be the first to admit that if I have to return fire at 200 or more yards I'm going to be focused on simply surviving long enough to get the Hell out of there because the person that fires on you from that distance probably has a weapon that will do the job. On the other hand, if the situation warrants, I would head for cover and/or concealment and try to take an aimed careful shot if getting back to my vehicle and hitting the road wasn't as immediate an option. Example: if your attacker is between you and your vehicle and "running" meant running into the deep desert.

[Alaskapopo]

Do you know what you're saying? what over penetration? I didn't say to use a hunting rifle inside your house. I'm talking about the unique person who insists that there is a threat at 200 yards and they need to shoot them at that distance, because they feel threatened. If you feel threatened by a shooter that far away, then you're taking individual shots. Not a 30 round magazine type of shooting. Therefor, you'll gain accuracy and effectiveness with a hunting rifle that was designed to shoot those distances. The 5.56 was not designed to shoot, 200, 300, 400+ yards. Not saying you can't do it, but it wasn't designed for that. Over penetration at 200+ yards is not an issue.

And yes, I do understand the law. The forums and internet is full of B.S. So believe me or not, I really don't care. My wife's law firm does quite a bit of criminal law. I asked her and all the partners about this very topic. "In your house, it's pretty easy to say you were responding to a threat, and you had to shoot an intruder.... But it will be very difficult to consider a person that is NOT in your house, 50 yards, 100 yards, 200 yards, etc... away from you, as a threat." I totally agree with what lawyers are telling me. Can you prove that someone 200 yards away is a threat, and you HAD TO SHOOT BACK??? Yes, but it's going to be difficult.

So you can believe what you want. If you think it's EASY to claim you felt your life was threatened by someone 200 yards away, and you HAD to shoot back and kill them; go for it. I don't, and lawyers don't think so either. And as for the hunting rifle; that's strictly intended for those who really think there's a threat at 200-400 yards. My hunting rifle is much more effective weapon at that range than a 5.56 16" AR15 is. But you aren't going to buy any of this anyway, so it doesn't matter. Believe what you want.

(for the part in red in your post)
Yes it’s a simple concept if you shoot someone with a 300 Winchester Mag its going to go through them and continue down range and could kill someone else. If you use a 5.56 its going to stay inside the body and fragment. Not a hard concept to understand.

The 5.56 was designed to be an effective assault rifle round for the military from 0 to 500 yards. It falls short with military ball ammo a bit but with good loads its fine to at least 400 yards. (77 grain MK262 75 grain Hornady Tap etc)

Having a 30 round magazine in a semi auto firearm is still an advantage at 200 yards and beyond. If I were wrong our soldiers in Afghanistan would be using bolt action hunting rifles and they are not.

I don't care what your wife’s friends told you. I do work as a police office and do have training on the legalities of using lethal force. Nowhere in any state or federal law is there anything stating you can defend yourself at this range but not at this range.

Janet Reno when she was a DA in Florida tried to prosecute someone for shooting someone in self-defense at 50 yards. Her argument was the suspect was armed with a snub nosed revolver and was not a threat. The defenses firearms expert squashed that theory. I believe what I believe based on knowing the law and my training, not on some attorney's opinion that knows my wife. Frankly it does not matter what the attorney's feel its matters what the jury believes. What really matters is the political environment in which you live. What is acceptable to people in Texas is not the same as what is acceptable in New Jersey. We had a preacher shoot two burglars in the back killing them both. He was acquitted. People on the jury must have been tired of burglars.
Your hunting rifle is not a more effective fighting weapon at any range. Yes it has more power. But your limited rounds and higher recoil put you at a serious dis advantage.
Pat

[christcorp]

I said "My Wife's Law Firm"; not some lawyers she knows. Point is: You're going to have a difficult time justifying self defense at those distances. If you don't think so, well, you're wrong.

Now, if you think that every time you go out into the woods for a casual hike, and could be threatened by some maniac with a high power rifle, and therefor, you make sure you have your AR/AK with you every time you go for a hike; then have at it. I'm not going to argue with you. It's futile. This discussion started asking about magnification optics for self defense. NORMAL self defense means protecting your home and/or property. When people go/to work, shopping, friends, etc... then don't normally carry a rifle with them. They carry a pistol; generally concealed. A rifle for self defense, traditionally means HOME defense. If you live on a ranch and feel that a threat at 200,300, or 400 yards is a possibility, then have at it. And please, don't compare home defense to military ops. They have little to nothing in common. "Again, a topic that some will vehemently argue". Point is; if you need a magnified rifle to protect your "Ranch", then you'd be better off using your hunting rifle.

For the "real' person talking about home defense with a rifle, you're not going to be shooting those distances. A magnified sight isn't necessary. It can definitely be handy if your rifle is a dual purpose rifle where you're using it for varmints, prairie dogs, competition, etc... Makes perfect sense. But for "Home defense"; no. If they are that far away that you need a magnified scope; there's a good chance that they aren't the threat you're going to try and defend yourself against. Especially in court.

P.S. What over penetration are you talking about. For some reason, you think you're going to be some Davy Crocket, shooting some threat at 200+ yards, and be dead on balls accurate. And you're worried about over penetrating them and hitting an innocent bystander? Where the hell are you shooting. first, be more concerned that you'll even hit your target. You'll do a lot more damage to a bystander if you miss your target, than if you over penetrate your target and THEN hit them. And why are there innocent people in your scenario? Or do you think you're shooting in some urban environment on the roof of an apartment building 8 blocks away. Your scenarios seem a little Hollywood.

[The_War_Wagon]

I'm building an SPR with a 3x9x40 scope for it; I also have a PTR91 outfitted with a Leupold Mk.IV CQ/T.

My other 4 AR's all have unmagnified Aimpoints & Trijicons for CQB work. I don't want to be fiddling with flip-mount magnifiers, either, should the SHTF.

[Failure2Stop]

The 5.56 was not designed to shoot, 200, 300, 400+ yards. Not saying you can't do it, but it wasn't designed for that.

Will you please stop with this BS.
You have brought it up before, and I pointed out the error when you did.
The M16 and 5.56 not only can perform well at mid-range (if barrier penetration is not a large factor), but performance out to 500 yards had specific criteria that had to be met during testing for adoption.

This is all entirely outside the context of "Magnification or not for HD" anyway, so please just drop it.

[Alaskapopo]

I said "My Wife's Law Firm"; not some lawyers she knows. Point is: You're going to have a difficult time justifying self defense at those distances. If you don't think so, well, you're wrong.
Now, if you think that every time you go out into the woods for a casual hike, and could be threatened by some maniac with a high power rifle, and therefor, you make sure you have your AR/AK with you every time you go for a hike; then have at it. I'm not going to argue with you. It's futile. This discussion started asking about magnification optics for self defense. NORMAL self defense means protecting your home and/or property. When people go/to work, shopping, friends, etc... then don't normally carry a rifle with them. They carry a pistol; generally concealed. A rifle for self defense, traditionally means HOME defense. If you live on a ranch and feel that a threat at 200,300, or 400 yards is a possibility, then have at it. And please, don't compare home defense to military ops. They have little to nothing in common. "Again, a topic that some will vehemently argue". Point is; if you need a magnified rifle to protect your "Ranch", then you'd be better off using your hunting rifle.

For the "real' person talking about home defense with a rifle, you're not going to be shooting those distances. A magnified sight isn't necessary. It can definitely be handy if your rifle is a dual purpose rifle where you're using it for varmints, prairie dogs, competition, etc... Makes perfect sense. But for "Home defense"; no. If they are that far away that you need a magnified scope; there's a good chance that they aren't the threat you're going to try and defend yourself against. Especially in court.

P.S. What over penetration are you talking about. For some reason, you think you're going to be some Davy Crocket, shooting some threat at 200+ yards, and be dead on balls accurate. And you're worried about over penetrating them and hitting an innocent bystander? Where the hell are you shooting. first, be more concerned that you'll even hit your target. You'll do a lot more damage to a bystander if you miss your target, than if you over penetrate your target and THEN hit them. And why are there innocent people in your scenario? Or do you think you're shooting in some urban environment on the roof of an apartment building 8 blocks away. Your scenarios seem a little Hollywood.

Point in red. Its almost funny. Well if you don't agree with me then you're wrong. :lol:

Try some logical arguments based on actual cases or the law and personal experience.
We had a mental person taking shots at someone in a national park who was more than 200 yards away. Fortunately he did not hit anyone and the situation was ended without anyone dying. But stange things do happen. In my line of work we are taught we are responsible for each and every bullet. So yes I am concerned with over penetration. Such a long range scenario is rare but then again having to use your weapon in self defense is also rare. Plan for the worst and hope for the best and take what you get.
Pat

[christcorp]

I already tried logic. Also tried legal, albeit info from lawyers who you obviously don't agree with. (And this is a very conservative state, where you're allowed to shoot anyone in your house, and you don't need a permit to carry concealed). You still have to show a threat.

Failure: I never said a 5.56 couldn't be used at long distances. I simply said, and stand by, that it was intended for CQB and short distance infantry. It wasn't designed as a single shot sniper rifle. Can a person become proficient at 400-500 yards with it? Yes. But that's why the military had 7.62x51. I consider under 200 yards to be short distances. That's also the distance where open sights are more practical. That's also the type of sights that our military predominantly used with the M-16. Not that some didn't have scope and other sights. But most were either iron sights or non-mag optics. Now; if your eyes can see beyond 200 yards, up to 500/600 yards without a scope.... Go for it. You've got great eyes. But the fact remains that the evolution of the AR/M16 was not intended to be a 400 yard shooter. Then again; it wasn't really designed to shoot prairie dogs and coyotes either.

But as you rightfully said, this thread is about magnification scopes for Defensive purposes. I stand by my point. If your "THREAT" is far enough away that you need magnification, then either they aren't that much of a threat, or you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury when you shoot someone at 300 yards.

P.s. Alaska; analogies of mental patients or escaped prisoners, etc... in the woods is not "Defense". If that was the case, then everyone would be walking around everywhere with an AR/AK with them 24/7. You're using the analogy that a police officer or similar would use in a "Line of Duty". That's not defensive in nature. That's actually "Offensive" in nature. You are intending on confronting this person. You aren't defending your home, property, etc... You're aggressively trying to confront them. Totally different scenario. a magnified scope on an LE weapon? Sure. Makes a lot of sense. But the OP said "Defensive". As in home/self defense.


Point in red. Its almost funny. Well if you don't agree with me then your wrong. :lol:

Try some logical arguments based on actual cases or the law and personal experience.
We had a mental person taking shots at someone in a national park who was more than 200 yards away. Fortunately he did not hit anyone and the situation was ended without anyone dying. But stange things do happen. In my line of work we are taught we are responsible for each and every bullet. So yes I am concerned with over penetration. Such a long range scenario is rare but then again having to use your weapon in self defense is also rare. Plan for the worst and hope for the best and take what you get.
Pat

[Doc Safari]

If your "THREAT" is far enough away that you need magnification, then either they aren't that much of a threat, or you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury when you shoot someone at 300 yards.

I agree with the second statement to a degree, but I do not agree with the first one.

I live in a area where there is a chance, however remote, that my land might be used by Mexican drug smugglers.

Personally , I do not live in fear--right now. I keep my gun or guns handy, but I don't sleep with one under my pillow. Nor am I some shit-kicking cowpoke Rambo looking for a fight. I'm somewhat off the beaten path, so I'm hoping that little fact keeps me safer than all the Colt 6920's in the country. If the normal smuggling routes become too dangerous, though, I am remote enough that I could see myself running across the wrong people at some point. One of my biggest fears is that I will either find a bunch of marijuana plants growing in some remote corner of my ranch---- or---- that I will see my fence line cut so my land can be used for smuggling, and that some spotter is watching me check my fence for cuts every time I'm out there.

So I can see scenarios where I might run into a perp either at point blank range or at a distance. The one at a distance is the one that worries me because I may catch a bullet before I even know he's there. When I'm out I watch the horizon and the terrain for anything out of place pretty conscientiously.

So, yeah, I can see the advantage of a minimal amount of magnification. I'm not saying turn your AR carbine into a sniper rifle, but I have to ask myself what an RDS will do that irons won't at my practical CQB range, and whether or not I'd be better off with a cross hair so I can take a careful aimed shot if I need to.

I've said it before, but I switched to a 5.56 AR due to my getting older and wanting to keep the weight down.

[Steve S.]

Will you please stop with this BS.
You have brought it up before, and I pointed out the error when you did.
The M16 and 5.56 not only can perform well at mid-range (if barrier penetration is not a large factor), but performance out to 500 yards had specific criteria that had to be met during testing for adoption.

This is all entirely outside the context of "Magnification or not for HD" anyway, so please just drop it.

5.56 is deadly past 200 yards. Saying it isn't is just silly talk. I think target identification is a strong argument for magnified optics.

I'll be ditching my EOTech XPS2 shortly - and the 1-4x Trijicon TR24 is a strong contender. My personal reasons being as follows...

1. The EOTech has given me problems - and the battery life is way below advertised. I just don't trust it.

2. I wear contacts during the day. My vision isn't terrible, but the nice EOTech reticle is a giant blur without contacts in.

3. The EOTech turns on at a much too bright setting for use during night hours.

4. I don't like having to press a button to go live. I honestly view the EOTech as more of an offensive RDS. If I stick with a RDS for my HD carbine - it will most certainly be an AimPoint. It is superior in every respect to the EOTech in my situation for home defense.

5. In my (somewhat limited) exposure to the TR24, it has very few disadvantages to a RDS while on 1x. Everything but some of the most akward shooting positions make it just as viable as a RDS. I also find it much nicer on 4x then a 3x RDS magnifier.

6. I don't have to turn it on. And the (lack of)batteries last for 12+ years. If they do shit the bed - I still have a post to use (in the case of the TR24) until I can remove it and flip up my BUIS.

7. I've been playing with magnified optics in my home. One thing I noticed is I have a lot of glass windows / doors. For example, the rear of my house has a sliding glass door which leads to a "florida room" with glass pane windows all around. Trying to identify a target across my property with two pieces of potentially dirty glass can be a chore. Some zoom can help pick out details farther away - and tell whether it's an armed intruder creeping towards my house or a drunk brother-in-law stopping by to raid my pantry. I don't think you need to be shooting something at 400 yards to utilize the advantages of a little zoom.

8. It can fill a variety of roles. I don't get too much into "end of the world/ zombie attacks / russian invasions / katrina / etc." - but should any of these rarities occur - the 1-4x is incredibly versatile.

9. The fiber optic illuminated reticle (in the case of the TR24) works well without contacts. I'm not looking at a blurred holographic blob or a cluster of grapes. It seems to keep more of it's shape.

I still will keep a RDS around - but I strongly feel like a 1-4x will be my go to optic. We will see. I do know that I am done with EOTechs though.

[Failure2Stop]

Failure: I never said a 5.56 couldn't be used at long distances. I simply said, and stand by, that it was intended for CQB and short distance infantry. It wasn't designed as a single shot sniper rifle. Can a person become proficient at 400-500 yards with it? Yes. But that's why the military had 7.62x51. I consider under 200 yards to be short distances. That's also the distance where open sights are more practical. That's also the type of sights that our military predominantly used with the M-16. Not that some didn't have scope and other sights. But most were either iron sights or non-mag optics. Now; if your eyes can see beyond 200 yards, up to 500/600 yards without a scope.... Go for it. You've got great eyes. But the fact remains that the evolution of the AR/M16 was not intended to be a 400 yard shooter. Then again; it wasn't really designed to shoot prairie dogs and coyotes either.


Dude, I am telling you that for a fact the 5.56 has performance requirements past 600 meters. Fact.
Where it performs best is well within 600, but that does not change the fact that it was designed and required to work at the far side of mid-range.
It has nothing to do with being a "sniper" rifle, a CQB carbine, iron or electronic sights, my point is very simply correction of erronius information.

[Alaskapopo]

I already tried logic. Also tried legal, albeit info from lawyers who you obviously don't agree with. (And this is a very conservative state, where you're allowed to shoot anyone in your house, and you don't need a permit to carry concealed). You still have to show a threat.

Failure: I never said a 5.56 couldn't be used at long distances. I simply said, and stand by, that it was intended for CQB and short distance infantry. It wasn't designed as a single shot sniper rifle. Can a person become proficient at 400-500 yards with it? Yes. But that's why the military had 7.62x51. I consider under 200 yards to be short distances. That's also the distance where open sights are more practical. That's also the type of sights that our military predominantly used with the M-16. Not that some didn't have scope and other sights. But most were either iron sights or non-mag optics. Now; if your eyes can see beyond 200 yards, up to 500/600 yards without a scope.... Go for it. You've got great eyes. But the fact remains that the evolution of the AR/M16 was not intended to be a 400 yard shooter. Then again; it wasn't really designed to shoot prairie dogs and coyotes either.

But as you rightfully said, this thread is about magnification scopes for Defensive purposes. I stand by my point. If your "THREAT" is far enough away that you need magnification, then either they aren't that much of a threat, or you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury when you shoot someone at 300 yards.

P.s. Alaska; analogies of mental patients or escaped prisoners, etc... in the woods is not "Defense". If that was the case, then everyone would be walking around everywhere with an AR/AK with them 24/7. You're using the analogy that a police officer or similar would use in a "Line of Duty". That's not defensive in nature. That's actually "Offensive" in nature. You are intending on confronting this person. You aren't defending your home, property, etc... You're aggressively trying to confront them. Totally different scenario. a magnified scope on an LE weapon? Sure. Makes a lot of sense. But the OP said "Defensive". As in home/self defense.

PS Defense is any time you are taking actions to protect your human life or that of another. You are not using logic. Your argument to date has been. Some attorney's I know say that its not self defense at range X. To that I say BS based on an understanding of the law and my training in that area. Generally when you are a victim the aggressor is the one who brings the fight to you. If the attacker choses to engage you from 400 yards with a rifle you will not go to jail for shooting back. You would also be an idiot to sit there and play like possum and pretend your not in danger.
Pat

[Crow Hunter]

Please don't turn this into an effectiveness or caliber argument. That isn't the intent.

I am looking for scenarios in which you personally would see magnification as a useful tool for your personal defense.

So far I have seen several people mention engaging someone at 300-400 yards. Undoubtedly magnification is very useful in that type of situation, but is that an actual defensive use or an offensive use? To me defensive means that you have a known threat and you are responding to that. Offensive means you are the one making the threats. Police and military use arms offensively. Going out and looking specifically to engage someone else who is or is likely to be armed. I don't think that most reasonable people would consider that even in the worst case SHTF scenario as a civilian.

One of the reasons that I have read about engaging a target at 400 yards would be if you were taking fire from someone at that range. How do you see this working?

In that type of situation, I would assume that a person who is firing at me from that far away is most likely armed with a rifle and a magnified optic. I got lucky and this person just misjudged the wind or my distance but now either has my position or is within one shot of bracketing me. And that I am lucky enough to be close to cover and able to very quickly figure out where the shot came from and which side of the cover I should be on.

So how would a magnified optic come into play here? How would it give me an advantage? I would think that the 1st time I stuck my rifle/head around cover to return fire, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the opposition.

Of course, I don't have any tactical/military experience, so maybe there is a trick to this but I would think that I would be effectively pinned down and without a distraction/team members/CAS (:p) the best I could do is wait him out or hope he tries to circle around me and I get the drop on him.

Personally I would try to run away, but that is just me.:D

As to the living on a farm with vast open spaces, are you going to put up signs after the SHTF that says "Anyone crossing this line will be shot"? Do you normally aim rifles at people on your property now? I realize that magnification will help you identify if someone was carrying a gun or now, but wouldn't you think that in a SHTF scenario MOST people would be carrying guns? Wouldn't it be better to at least let them get within yelling range to find out what they want?

My neighbors are right at 200 yards away from me. I can't hear what they are saying when they are out in their yard, even if they are yelling at me.

Please don't get this closed, I am seriously interested to see what others think.

[Alaskapopo]

Please don't turn this into an effectiveness or caliber argument. That isn't the intent.

I am looking for scenarios in which you personally would see magnification as a useful tool for your personal defense.

So far I have seen several people mention engaging someone at 300-400 yards. Undoubtedly magnification is very useful in that type of situation, but is that an actual defensive use or an offensive use? To me defensive means that you have a known threat and you are responding to that. Offensive means you are the one making the threats. Police and military use arms offensively. Going out and looking specifically to engage someone else who is or is likely to be armed. I don't think that most reasonable people would consider that even in the worst case SHTF scenario as a civilian.

One of the reasons that I have read about engaging a target at 400 yards would be if you were taking fire from someone at that range. How do you see this working?

In that type of situation, I would assume that a person who is firing at me from that far away is most likely armed with a rifle and a magnified optic. I got lucky and this person just misjudged the wind or my distance but now either has my position or is within one shot of bracketing me. And that I am lucky enough to be close to cover and able to very quickly figure out where the shot came from and which side of the cover I should be on.

So how would a magnified optic come into play here? How would it give me an advantage? I would think that the 1st time I stuck my rifle/head around cover to return fire, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the opposition.

Of course, I don't have any tactical/military experience, so maybe there is a trick to this but I would think that I would be effectively pinned down and without a distraction/team members/CAS (:p) the best I could do is wait him out or hope he tries to circle around me and I get the drop on him.

Personally I would try to run away, but that is just me.:D

As to the living on a farm with vast open spaces, are you going to put up signs after the SHTF that says "Anyone crossing this line will be shot"? Do you normally aim rifles at people on your property now? I realize that magnification will help you identify if someone was carrying a gun or now, but wouldn't you think that in a SHTF scenario MOST people would be carrying guns? Wouldn't it be better to at least let them get within yelling range to find out what they want?

My neighbors are right at 200 yards away from me. I can't hear what they are saying when they are out in their yard, even if they are yelling at me.

Please don't get this closed, I am seriously interested to see what others think.

In the un likely event some one started shooting into your house endangering you and your children you would be justified in shooting back. If they happen to be taking those shots at your home from 400 yards away (un likely but possible) it still self defense. Do I think that the average home defense rifle needs magnification? No. But is there anything wrong with being prepared for an un likely event? Again No.
Pat

[ra2bach]

I already tried logic. Also tried legal, albeit info from lawyers who you obviously don't agree with. (And this is a very conservative state, where you're allowed to shoot anyone in your house, and you don't need a permit to carry concealed). You still have to show a threat.

Failure: I never said a 5.56 couldn't be used at long distances. I simply said, and stand by, that it was intended for CQB and short distance infantry. It wasn't designed as a single shot sniper rifle. Can a person become proficient at 400-500 yards with it? Yes. But that's why the military had 7.62x51. I consider under 200 yards to be short distances. That's also the distance where open sights are more practical. That's also the type of sights that our military predominantly used with the M-16. Not that some didn't have scope and other sights. But most were either iron sights or non-mag optics. Now; if your eyes can see beyond 200 yards, up to 500/600 yards without a scope.... Go for it. You've got great eyes. But the fact remains that the evolution of the AR/M16 was not intended to be a 400 yard shooter. Then again; it wasn't really designed to shoot prairie dogs and coyotes either.

But as you rightfully said, this thread is about magnification scopes for Defensive purposes. I stand by my point. If your "THREAT" is far enough away that you need magnification, then either they aren't that much of a threat, or you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury when you shoot someone at 300 yards.

P.s. Alaska; analogies of mental patients or escaped prisoners, etc... in the woods is not "Defense". If that was the case, then everyone would be walking around everywhere with an AR/AK with them 24/7. You're using the analogy that a police officer or similar would use in a "Line of Duty". That's not defensive in nature. That's actually "Offensive" in nature. You are intending on confronting this person. You aren't defending your home, property, etc... You're aggressively trying to confront them. Totally different scenario. a magnified scope on an LE weapon? Sure. Makes a lot of sense. But the OP said "Defensive". As in home/self defense.

first of all, if someone is shooting and rounds are impacting around you, regardless of the distance, that would fit the definition of a threat. the fact that they haven't hit you (yet) is irrelevant if they are shooting AT YOU...

whether you respond to it by returning fire, withdrawing, or hunkering down behind cover while you ponder your options is up to you and the situation at hand, but by firing AT YOU (and not just firing indiscriminately and the rounds are coincidentally impacting in your vicinity) they have already shown intent.

second of all, as the topic is "magnification in a defensive optic", you are trying to limit the definition of defensive to inside the home or CQB distance disregarding the valid examples others have shown where they may come under fire from further away. I imagine a border patrol agent would have a very definite advantage with a scope on his carbine for all the reasons already listed. whether you want to acknowledge all the applications, or just the ones you consider valid doesn't change reality.

and third, I would be very careful of trying to lecture folks that have that little SME (subject matter expert) designation after their name on the purpose and design of this weapon. it just makes you look silly.

as Ronald Reagan said, "the problem with liberals is not that they don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they do know is wrong". if F2S tells you something about this weapons platform take that to the bank...

nice use of paragraphs though...