View Full Version : Advantages of 1.1-4x Variable over TA31F for 5.56 Light Precision Rifle
I'm trying to figure out what advantages going with a Short Dot, or one of the other low powered variable tube optics when compared with an RCO that is worth the weight tradeoff.
I'm already dead set on a somewhat lightened precision rifle between 14.5" and 16", but what keeps frustrating me is when I calculate the expected weight with a high end variable optic (or estimate what it would be with a 1-8x unit) I'm well into .308 precision rifle territory for loaded weight even before I've added a suppressor.
I am already extremely comfortable with the RCO, and it works well for me at very close ranges, and I certainly appreciate the field of view and lack of batteries. The eye relief is a nonissue for me running a UBR.
My focus with this rifle is being able to make accurate shots out to 600m, but the only area I see an optic like the short dot holding any tangible advantage is making precise wind adjustments at longer ranges (vice just using kaaan-tucky holdoffs), but I can't convince myself that is reason enough alone to live with the added weight on a rifle I'm paying the extra coin to golf ball dimple the barrel, and use a shortened reflex suppressor on, I still have the cash to go S&B.
Failure2Stop
08-21-11, 09:21
Before I go on a rant about how much I love 1-4 optics let me say this:
If you are issued and like the RCO for your application, and a 1-4 with mount will put the two at an equal cost, why not just go with an RCO?
I'm already looking well beyond the remainder of my current pointless pseudo-deployment then EAS and into a personally owned weapon to replace my current M4A1 SA clone.
I'm just trying to figure out what gains I would have with an S&B 1-4x or 1-8x unit over the TA31 I'm already comfortable with.
The other part is that I'm aiming for an overall empty rifle weight of less than 9lb, if possible, it seems the weight of the optic and the stock are what is driving that limitation. I understand it's a somewhat arbitrary target, but above that range I might as well start looking at a .308 rifle.
ICANHITHIMMAN
08-21-11, 10:05
Here are the advantages as I see it in favor of the 1-4 optic. With the 1-4 you can adjust your optic more precisley for engagements past your zero range without holding over (guessing).
The 1-4 optic is not bullet weight dependant. So if you get a great deal on some 55g surplus and want to shoot that to 600m you can easly adjust accordingly and then just jump to a 77g OTM if you wish and it can be done with repeatable know precsion.
You can get diffrent BDC nobs for most 1-4 optics for faster long range engagements from most companys or Keton industries.
I have a Hours Talon on my MRP its a great dual role optic CQB to 800m. Then a US optics SN4 on my SPR both optics are FFP dual role.
Failure2Stop
08-21-11, 11:51
The biggest advantage with going with a quality 1-4 (or at least by my definition) is that you can have precise zeroes along with precise hold-overs and hold-offs. Holding off 3.5 Mils is a lot easier when you have a horizontal mil scale than trying to with the BDC provided by the RCO. Illumination is better, and you can pick up the reticle on target better (faster, more precise, more obvious) when working closer range targets.
The ability to bring the magnification down to 1x (or near 1x) is bigger than people think. I can run the RCO pretty well, and my preference for low powered variables is not based off of internet BS, but rather from shooting magnified optics (and specifically the RCO) a LOT. I have used the RCO in lots of environments, and frankly, it fails in the ones that are the most important to me: speed at close range in changing lighting conditions with white lights and precision at mid-range on head/torso targets. ACOGs do absolutely fine at 3-gun type competitions (reticle dependant, FWIW, pretty much nobody competes at a high level with the TA31 w/ chevron reticle *hint*), but most of those competitions are shot in daylight at uniformly colored targets that don't actively try to hide or change distance without warning.
I select my optics based on their features and performance.
Simply being a 1-4 (or 1-whatever) is not the determining feature on its own.
If you are looking at a precision rifle down the road, the expense of the premium optic would already be behind you. One way to justify it, anyway.
There is still some Kentucky involved in "dialing" the windage however, since it never seems to remain constant.
I am already extremely comfortable with the RCO, and it works well for me at very close ranges, and I certainly appreciate the field of view and lack of batteries. The eye relief is a nonissue for me running a UBR.
The field of view is amazing. The eye releif sucks when wearing safety glasses, and really sucks when wearing safety goggles. I beat the crap out of the lens on my safety glasses with the TA31F.
I like the vari' scopes over the ACOG because they have a diopter ring to adjust the reticle focus to the users eye. I hate scopes that don't have a reference point for a zero diopter correction. The only ones i've seen that have a zero mark are the S&B and TR24. When wearing glasses or contacts, I need only a slight correction, typically into the negative on the diopter ring. Should I be seperated from my glasses or contacts, I can dial the diopter ring at its max negative setting, typically about -3.00 diopters, and have near 20/20 vision when looking through the scope. You will get some eye fatigue when doing this for extended periods, but you will be able to see.
A .308 is going to be heavier no matter what. I'm not picking up your concern there. If you stick all that crap on a .308, the .308 is still much heavier. If you have a need to make terminally effective shots at 600m, and in reality be doing this quite a bit, a .308 may be for you.
I fully grasp what I'm hearing here, and this is mostly rehashing the argument I've had going in my head for the last week. I've got three pairs of Oakleys with opaque lenses from being banged against the RCO on my issue rifle, and my time behind a variety of low powered variable optics has me convinced that they have a distinct advantage once I'm shooting beyond 300m.
I already know I like the S&B CQB reticle, it was an amazing bit of design work to have that work correctly, and I had planned on running a variety of loads (77grSMK, Mk318/M855 62gr) through this rifle and wanted the changeable BDC if possible.
I guess my next question is the weight tradeoff, and going to higher magnification. I can see the value in the 1.1-4x SD, but for a bit more bulk up top I can wait for the SD8 (or look into the Premier, Leupold, March, Swaro offerings) would that added magnification be worth it?
Would you consider going with a less versatile handguard (especially since NV operations are a near term consideration for this rifle): specifically dropping a 12" Lite rail and getting a 13" VTAC Extreme unit?
I think the 1-8 argument is largely all theory at this point as the only one in the market is the Leupold. They don't have near the production numbers of the 1-4s.
I wouldn't argue the extra magnification could be handy, but it comes at the penalty of weight and a small exit pupil.
All the 1-4x scopes I've owned with exit pupil specs in that same range have been less than desirable for anything other than target shooting. I can't speak if there is a technical connection to exit pupil and eye box, but it makes sense that there is. I'm also on the fence about being an early adopter of a $2,500 dollar optic. As great as the short dot is, there have been revision to the design after it got into the world.
I placed an order with S&B for a 1-4x through their LE program.
The model I ordered is the latest revision of the 1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot LE. The tube has been shortened to be just about the same length as the first gen short dot, and I ordered it with a P4 (standard mil-dot). The specs on Schmidt's German website are the most accurate.
I know some will balk at ranging reticles in second plane configuration, but on a scope as low power as a 1-4 I don't see it being an issue. You can't really range at anything lower than 4x, and you would be on 4x if you are compensating for drop. Of course, the scope ships with a 75gr drop cam for elevation.
I had asked about a 77gr cam, and Mark Cromwell said I wasn't the first to do so, but there wasn't enough intrest for the Germans to make one.
I can't find anything as to the load and barrel used to develop the cam. I don't know if it's for the 5.56mm TAP T2 load, or the .223 TAP round.
I've come across a few charts, one of which Molon posted, and the drop data for the 75gr Hornady and the 77gr SMK are almost identical when comparing the 5.56mm TAP and the Mk262.
But I digress...
Rails...
I don't have much trust in the VTAC and TRX Extreme. The mounting isn't as robust at the DD bolt up system. I like the profile of the DD RIS-II over the Lite.
For the tradeoff of a few ounces, the DD rails have a more solid attachment system, are machined beautifully, and have a lot more versatility.
If you want a light weight rail, I would look hard at the DD tube style one they recently released.
The KAC stuff looks good, but I have no experiance with them. I'm lacking the $500 dollar wrench...;)
75gr T2 TAP loadings and Mk262 are going to be closer than my ability to shoot, so the cam difference is immaterial to me, ditto on any difference that may exist between FMJ, M855, and SOST 62gr flavors.
I'm planning this around a 16" Intermediate gassed Noveske rifle, so the KAC handguards are iffy, and I have been planning from the start on running a Surefire Scout light in the low 12:00 position along with an LDI DBAL-I2 directly behind it, so the integral front sight doesn't fit this build, otherwise I'd be giving a hard look at cannibalizing my MD SR15.
I have two 12" Lite rail rifles already, and a few TROY/VTAC units, and while I agree that the bolt-up system is definitely preferable for durability even above the MFAR attachment system, the TRX Extreme system has worked for me, and that narrower handguard profile works pretty well for me, and extremely well for my prettier half of my house.
I love the M4RIS2 I have, but the higher bottom rail doesn't work for me like the regular lite rail does, so I've mostly narrowed it down between those two.
Magic_Salad0892
08-22-11, 03:36
If you decide for variable power scope, wait for S&B's 1-8X because they're saying that it'll be in the same price range as their 1-4X scope.
Having used ACOGs, next to the NF offering (I was borrowing it for a bit) I have to say, the 1-4X was waaaay better for me, especially when playing with it around the apartment.
When you say intermediate gas, I assume you mean the 11.5" gas system, similar to the SR15E3.
This is the barrel I'm running. Obviously, you won't have any gas block clearance problems with the Lite or VTAC. Both of those rails are open at the front. It was kind of iffy when I ordered the RIS-II. The DD has a small lip at the bottom, and I was worried it wouldn't clear with how far the gas block sits out. But, it does. I had gotten my barrel from MSTN, and had quite a few dealings with Wes Grant. I can't recommend them enough.
With the new tube DD rail, it has a lip, and without the measurements, I don't know if it would clear.
I'm also running a Scout light in one of the new Larue offset mounts with a FUG as a vertical grip/reference point. I don't get into the hyper extended arm shooting, but I do keep my support hand thumb pointing forward, same as I do with a pistol. The hyper extended thing may work for some, I find it way less than ideal when wearing a class A uniform style shirt with a concealable vest underneath.
Keeping the FUG at about the mid-point on the rail gives me plenty of room to attatch a bi-pod, which is also on a Larue mount...I love the dry rub they send you...what can I say...
As to the 1-4 or 1-8 S&B, I wanted the 1-8 for reasons other than the magnification. Mil reticle with mil clicks, 2nd focal dot w first focal reticle, CC mode parallax adjustment etc. But it's been a couple of months away since august of last year. The small exit pupil kind of has me concerned. SWFA had it listed with something huge like 20mm+ on 1x, but the German S&B site lists it much lower.
There is no guarantee if it was even in production that you can get one. I ordered a production S&B and was told 12-14 weeks, so I'm waiting. Between backorders and contracts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the 1-8x could be in your hands in a few months.
When you say intermediate gas, I assume you mean the 11.5" gas system, similar to the SR15E3.
This is the barrel I'm running. Obviously, you won't have any gas block clearance problems with the Lite or VTAC. Both of those rails are open at the front. It was kind of iffy when I ordered the RIS-II. The DD has a small lip at the bottom, and I was worried it wouldn't clear with how far the gas block sits out. But, it does. I had gotten my barrel from MSTN, and had quite a few dealings with Wes Grant. I can't recommend them enough.
I'm also running a Scout light in one of the new Larue offset mounts with a FUG as a vertical grip/reference point. I don't get into the hyper extended arm shooting, but I do keep my support hand thumb pointing forward, same as I do with a pistol. The hyper extended thing may work for some, I find it way less than ideal when wearing a class A uniform style shirt with a concealable vest underneath.
As to the 1-4 or 1-8 S&B, I wanted the 1-8 for reasons other than the magnification. Mil reticle with mil clicks, 2nd focal dot w first focal reticle, CC mode parallax adjustment etc. But it's been a couple of months away since august of last year. The small exit pupil kind of has me concerned. SWFA had it listed with something huge like 20mm+ on 1x, but the German S&B site lists it much lower.
There is no guarantee if it was even in production that you can get one. I ordered a production S&B and was told 12-14 weeks, so I'm waiting. Between backorders and contracts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the 1-8x could be in your hands in a few months.
It's comforting that I'm not utterly out in left field with this, I've already been bugging Wes for a quote on this upper with the above machine work (11.5" gas, dimpled), with the intent of having the upper waiting for the release of the SD8... only configuration difference I'll likely have is running a Gear Sector offset, but keeping the LT SPR-E mount.
I'm extremely patient with procuring this stuff, so the latest Short Dot will end up in my safe, even if preceded by a used Zenith LE in the near term, but I'm honestly less concerned about the miniscule exit pupil at highest magnification and the limited light box that's going to come with it: I figure the extreme range optics (1-10, 1.1-8) are going to still be very solid in the 2.5-5x magnification ranges, so I'd only have occasion to flip it up to maximum magnification if I can give up the more forgiving eye position and ambient light levels (or just keep using lower mag).
Oddly I've settled on the 12.0 Lite, but for a different reason. This rifle will probably be permanently wearing an LDI DBAL, and an OPS can (M4S or larger), so worrying about a couple ounces with the handguard is right out the window.
but I'm honestly less concerned about the miniscule exit pupil at highest magnification and the limited light box that's going to come with it
At the high end isn't what has me worried, its the low end. The S&B German website lists it at 9mm at 1x. Compare to 14mm on their 1-4x.
I would like to get hands on with the 1-8x before buying.
I'll just leave this here...;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/roguedemon/IMG_0564.jpg
Wes Grant is a good guy to do busisness with. The barrel rocks, very soft shooting with just an H or carbine buffer.
If you decide for variable power scope, wait for S&B's 1-8X because they're saying that it'll be in the same price range as their 1-4X scope.
Having used ACOGs, next to the NF offering (I was borrowing it for a bit) I have to say, the 1-4X was waaaay better for me, especially when playing with it around the apartment.
maybe that same price but there's no way the 1-8 will have the same dimensions, weight, twilight factor, eyebox, etc.. that the 1-4 will. for the compromises involved, I don't see needing a higher power for anything you'll be doing with the 5.56. larger caliber is a different story...
Magic_Salad0892
08-23-11, 05:27
maybe that same price but there's no way the 1-8 will have the same dimensions, weight, twilight factor, eyebox, etc.. that the 1-4 will. for the compromises involved, I don't see needing a higher power for anything you'll be doing with the 5.56. larger caliber is a different story...
I'm looking into alternatives right now, and I'm wondering if 1.1-4X models, or USO's 1.5-6X model is better for me.
The rest of what I was going to write was going to be irrelevant, but right now I'm trying to find a good variable magnification scope for an 11.1'' carbine. Mission: 0-600m.
maybe that same price but there's no way the 1-8 will have the same dimensions, weight, twilight factor, eyebox, etc.. that the 1-4 will. for the compromises involved, I don't see needing a higher power for anything you'll be doing with the 5.56. larger caliber is a different story...
I'm not saying I disagree on not needing anything above 4x, but I am curious to understand your reasoning on why the higher magnification wouldn't be worth the tradeoff of giving up some of the usable eyebox area, and if it's primarily a weight and eyebox at higher magnification tradeoff that's one I'm willing to make just to have more ability to observe at longer ranges.
Ideally this is only going to be ran with either a SS 16" Recce or 18" SPR, and fed mostly Mk262, T2TAP, and 69gr BH/SMK, and while my eyesight is pretty damn good, I still think I could make use of the higher magnification.
Doc Safari
08-23-11, 09:14
The ability to bring the magnification down to 1x (or near 1x) is bigger than people think. I can run the RCO pretty well, and my preference for low powered variables is not based off of internet BS, but rather from shooting magnified optics (and specifically the RCO) a LOT. I have used the RCO in lots of environments, and frankly, it fails in the ones that are the most important to me: speed at close range in changing lighting conditions with white lights and precision at mid-range on head/torso targets.
You stated on another thread that you preferred the Aimpoint Comp M4 at closer ranges. Does this mean that you consider the 1-4 variable entirely unsuitable for ranges at say less than 100 yards (even at low power), or simply that the Aimpoint is your preference for that range?
Does this mean that you consider the 1-4 variable entirely unsuitable for ranges at say less than 100 yards...
Obviously I'm not F2S, but I prefer a RDS with a 1-2 MOA dot for 100 yards or less only because eye relief is not an issue. I notice a slight difference with 1.1X scopes; I'm faster with a red dot.
With that said, I would gladly trade an RDS for the added benefits of a good 1-4X.
I'm faster with a red dot.
At what range(s)?
To me one of the primary advantages of higher magnification would be increased ability to ID targets.
There aren't generally a mix of shoot and no-shoot targets at any ranges i've been to, other than pistol ranges. Which is a training gap IMHO.
I still think the other features of the S&B 1-8x outweigh extra magnification. But, an optic with a crappy eyebox takes it from red dot like and pushes it farther into the scope column.
There was a pretty lengthy thread comparing the 1-8x short dot to the leupold mark 8 on snipers hide. The guy on the video noted it had a generous eye box. But, I wonder if having a background with high magnification scopes, with typically a very limited eye box, makes the S&B look generous. With the spec's listed on S&Bs german site, I don't know if I would buy one sight unseen.
I would rather wait until a few reviews get out into the world before buying one. Of course, as soon as it hits the market there will be tons of reviews where everyone is madly in love with their $2500 scope, noting it will cure cancer, get you laid, and cause your wife/girlfriends bust to increase one full cup size. You'll have to wait until they start showing up in the For Sale forums to get a really honest opinion.
Like I said before, its all debate fodder, because it was suppose to be released August of last year, and has been in a perpetual "two months away" status ever since.
Doc Safari
08-23-11, 10:56
$2,500 for a scope?
A scope that costs that much should see into the future.
I guess I shouldn't mention the $4000 Leupold Mark 8 or any of the Zeiss/Hendsolt scopes in the $9k range...
Doc Safari
08-23-11, 11:20
I guess it's just me. I'm not knocking anyone who has the funds to pay that for an optic, but I tend to believe as long as you spend about what you did for a rifle on a quality optic, then the rest of that money could go toward ammo, training, or whatever.
I think i'm pushing $2500 on my rifle w/o any optic....its pretty easy to do actually.
What is a SR15E3? $1,800?
There is a sliding scale to rifle scopes, where incremental increases in quality or features cost much more.
I will say the best value for the money in 1-4x goes to the Trijicon TR24 series. That is a lot of scope for $800.
Doc Safari
08-23-11, 11:46
I will say the best value for the money in 1-4x goes to the Trijicon TR24 series. That is a lot of scope for $800.
Yes, I agree. And I think I'll like F2S's SWFA scope. I think it may be the one I order. If he says it's quality then he should have the experience to know.
Either way, I guess I'll concede that $2,500 is not too too much, but it's pushing the limit. It's over my limit. But is a $4,000 or $9,000 scope really worth that kind of money?
But is a $4,000 or $9,000 scope really worth that kind of money?
Depends if you need/want the specific combination of features they offer.
The Mark 8 can be had for less through LE/Mil pricing. But if you want the useful version with the daylight visible/horus reticle you get stuck with the premium they charge for the f'n horus, good for about $400, and you can only get .308 BDC turrets.
I don't have any experiance with the SWFA scope. The weird owl/bird logo has me a little weirded out, but they have a pretty loyal following. Some new product pains with battery covers springs etc, but I suppose that is all start-up crap which can be expected.
At what range(s)?
To me one of the primary advantages of higher magnification would be increased ability to ID targets.
Speed can really only be measured on a range. So within 100 yards, I am faster with a red dot.
For a work gun, I would prefer the benefits of a 1-4,6,8X over the slight gain in speed of a red dot.
I'm amassing parts right now for a BCM 14.5" middy; it will have a NF 1-4X on it for a while at least. We are supposed to be getting issued a few of the Leupold 1-8's; knowing that, I'll try it before I buy it.
I'm not saying I disagree on not needing anything above 4x, but I am curious to understand your reasoning on why the higher magnification wouldn't be worth the tradeoff of giving up some of the usable eyebox area, and if it's primarily a weight and eyebox at higher magnification tradeoff that's one I'm willing to make just to have more ability to observe at longer ranges.
Ideally this is only going to be ran with either a SS 16" Recce or 18" SPR, and fed mostly Mk262, T2TAP, and 69gr BH/SMK, and while my eyesight is pretty damn good, I still think I could make use of the higher magnification.
I'm no expert though there are plenty here that are and if they say a 1-6 or 1-8 is a good thing better, then who am I to say it isn't..
maybe I should have said this is just my personal opinion (IMO), but to me the utility of a 1-4 is that it cuts the difference between a RDS and a magnified optic. it is pretty fast up close while being able to reach out there should the need arise. anything over 1-4 gets heavier, and with reduced factors such as eyebox, twilight factor, etc., as well as necessarily being more expensive. and I'm not an unlimited budget kind of guy...
hitting and killing are two different things and while I know that a lot of smelly bearded guys have been put in the ground with 5.56 at and over 600 yards, I don't personally have a NEED to do that. If somehow I find I do need to do that, I'll probably move up to .30 cal and a 2.5-10 or some such optic. the 1-4 just seems made for the 5.56 recce format where it can be used at bad breath distance all the way out to the limits of lethality with little compromise.
again, just my opinion...
You could do a Nightforce 2.5-10x with a T-1 or RMR on an offset if you really wanted high(er) magnification w/o giving up much at the low end.
This is all theory as the production model isn't being produced.
But, I would gear myself more for the low end rather than the high end. If you're going to need to use it as a red dot, then you're really going to want the speed. I suppose I would rather have a more forgiving scope for red dot use, then higher magnification, if it gives up eye box etc, and pushes the optic more closer to a scope rather than smack between red dot and scope.
You should find the thread and video comparing the S&B 1-8x and the Leupold Mark 8 on snipershide. I can't remember if it was the thread or video, but it was stated many users liked the S&B better on low power, 1-3x and the Mark 8 on it's high settings.
You could do a Nightforce 2.5-10x with a T-1 or RMR on an offset if you really wanted high(er) magnification w/o giving up much at the low end.
This is all theory as the production model isn't being produced.
But, I would gear myself more for the low end rather than the high end. If you're going to need to use it as a red dot, then you're really going to want the speed. I suppose I would rather have a more forgiving scope for red dot use, then higher magnification, if it gives up eye box etc, and pushes the optic more closer to a scope rather than smack between red dot and scope.
You should find the thread and video comparing the S&B 1-8x and the Leupold Mark 8 on snipershide. I can't remember if it was the thread or video, but it was stated many users liked the S&B better on low power, 1-3x and the Mark 8 on it's high settings.
Interesting you both mention the 2.5-10x32 NF, since my plan is to run a short dot on the 16" rifle and have exactly that optic on a QD mount sitting on the 18" precision upper, and swapping them if necessary should be a reasonably proposition as long as I can change/verify zero.
As far as need for dropping two-legged vermin, and want for hitting paper at extended ranges, this one will in all likelihood fall into the latter, and any pressing two-way encounters I may encounter would likely favor the lower magnification.
I guess I was getting too married to the idea of one rifle for most every task between 0-600m, and the honest answer is that rifle probably exists, but is an EMC wearing a 1-8x optic and a price tag to own and operate that I'm not prepared for, and a final weight once suppressed that would have me considering using my simple lightweight KISS 5.56 rifle instead just because it's handier.
I'd want mil/mil in a perfect world and 6x max on the 5.56. 8x seems excessive for all the above reasons. Forgiving eye box certainly would be another plus, though. I guess it is all about waiting for the perfect scope OR saving money and settling for down now for a right handy 1-4x. That would be my vote. Use the 1-4 now and sell it later when something lighter and better suited to your application becomes available - eventually optics will become lighter with better lens technology anyway.
Doc Safari
08-24-11, 17:01
Whoa! Just when I thought things were getting simple I started looking into TR24's and I find out it's not as simple as I thought:
http://swfa.com/Trijicon-AccuPoint-Rifle-Scopes-C207.aspx
I know I read a thread a while back where I saw people posting pics of the "post" type reticle. I am guessing the post is better for up close and the cross hair for longer distances, but can either be used acceptably for both within 100 yards and over 100 yards?
Realizing color of dot may be a personal preference, if you have run the TR24 which reticle and/or post do you prefer?
eventually optics will become lighter with better lens technology anyway
Glass will always be glass. Hi-index plastic lenses have way too much chromatic aberration for use in rifle scopes. I think if a company was going to make a scope lighter it would be through better/lighter tube materials and parts.
Whoa! Just when I thought things were getting simple I started looking into TR24's and I find out it's not as simple as I thought:
http://swfa.com/Trijicon-AccuPoint-Rifle-Scopes-C207.aspx
I know I read a thread a while back where I saw people posting pics of the "post" type reticle. I am guessing the post is better for up close and the cross hair for longer distances, but can either be used acceptably for both within 100 yards and over 100 yards?
Realizing color of dot may be a personal preference, if you have run the TR24 which reticle and/or post do you prefer?
I've got a TR24RT (Red Triangle/Post) I've been using as a poor man's short dot - amazingly fast optic up close, and probably the best 0-200m optic for three gun out there, I can make hits at 235m on rows of 6x6" steel with my Mk12 clone as fast as I can visually acquire targets, and it's remarkably hard to befuddle the dual illumination system (usually a bit overbright in daytime).
I chose red because that color works for me well enough, and I'm used to using the red RCO triangle as well - it's a great optic, and nearly unbeatable for the price (add a 3GS Cattail for maximum effect), but not really geared for longer range precision work. Still definitely usable on a patrol rifle, since it's an adequate red dot replacement, and allows for 4x observation. Not sure on durability, I haven't gotten to abuse mine very much.
I would like a simple MIL/MIL setup, and if NightForce would roll out one of their FFP NXS Compact 1-4x units with the MilDot2 reticle (illuminated dot at center, their mildot reticle elsewhere) then I'd be all over that scope in a heartbeat, even if it were closer to a couple grand.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why S&B is the only company to have figured out how to cram an aimpoint into a scope tube.
Every other scope on the market, with the exception of the TR24 and even the Mark 8 that uses the holographic dot, uses a light bounced off of a reflective reticle.
It's worth noting the TR24 has finger adjustable turrets under the cap in 1/4 moa increments. I can't remember how much a full turn would get you, but if you know your load data in theory you could dial it a bit.
The TR24 has many similarities to the SWFA SS scope, both in the tube and erector/turret assembly. This leads me to speculate they may be made by the same factory in Japan.
If you are seriously considering a TR24, I would wait until the end of the year. There are whispers of an updated accupoint on the horizon. It seems like in this industry the items that will be the most ideal are always a few months away and everything else is on backorder.
I saw somewhere that Elcan was releasing an update to their optic as well, something with three magnification selections. Should be interesting.
Magic_Salad0892
08-25-11, 03:44
If Nightforce or Trijicon would use goddamn Mil Dot or Mil Dot CC reticles on their 1-4 offering, they'd have had my business a LONG goddamn time ago.
Alaskapopo
11-10-11, 23:40
If Nightforce or Trijicon would use goddamn Mil Dot or Mil Dot CC reticles on their 1-4 offering, they'd have had my business a LONG goddamn time ago.
Mil dots suck for in close shooting. I would not want it on a 1-4. What I like is a simple reticle that has a bright dot in the middle (around 2 moa) with bullet drop has marks below it in mils.
Pat
Mil dots suck for in close shooting. I would not want it on a 1-4. What I like is a simple reticle that has a bright dot in the middle (around 2 moa) with bullet drop has marks below it in mils.
Pat
This.
For my part, the ideal optic would be a 1-6x with a simple 2MOA dot in the second focal plane then some sort of simple MIL reticle (akin to a simplified NF MLR reticle) in the first plane that's really only visible above 4x magnification.
On the 5.56 end of things, I don't see the value of externally adjustable turrets being as invaluable as I once did - a decent reticle should be adequate for the odd occasion where a holdover is required, though it's still a 'nice to have' feature, especially when used at KD for a range.
7.62 from a 16" AR10/Mk17 I can see more utility in that, but I can also see the weight and eyebox limitations of the 1-8x optics being a smarter tradeoff on those platforms.
I'm basically with OMD on this one, the only other wish list item on the 5.56 1-6x would be battery life that at least goes beyond the older EOTechs.
I don't see the value of externally adjustable turrets if they aren't locking. Without that its just a liability.
No one rates battery life the same. Aimpoint's 5 year spec is somewhere in the middle of its adjustment range, Eotech is rated at the brightness it turns on to.
The Short Dot LE is rated at a "minimum of 100 hours at max intensity".
Mil dots suck for in close shooting. I would not want it on a 1-4. What I like is a simple reticle that has a bright dot in the middle (around 2 moa) with bullet drop has marks below it in mils.
Pat
Can you explain why this is? I have a feeling that it has something to do with being able to hit COM at 300 yds even with a 100 yd zero if you hold at head height...thus negating the "need" for a MIL reticle...correct?
The reason this interests me is because I was planning on getting the Viper PST 1-4x in MIL/MIL for a Recce build (for use 400-500 and in, but mostly under 2-300) and then get the Viper PST 2.5-10x in MIL/MIL for my bolt gun for ranges longer than the Recce will handle. My reasoning for this was to have a reticle that was similar to each other and uses the same system (MIL/MIL)....I like consistency.
Can you guys give any suggestions as to why I may not want to do this? Is there any other scopes that you would recommend in the price range of the 1-4x PST?
I have a Short Dot with a mil-dot reticle.
I don't get why having a mil-dot reticle is a bad thing.
It's hard to range at 4x, but you can use the dots for holdovers, wind correction etc.
Alaskapopo
11-11-11, 12:14
Can you explain why this is? I have a feeling that it has something to do with being able to hit COM at 300 yds even with a 100 yd zero if you hold at head height...thus negating the "need" for a MIL reticle...correct?
The reason this interests me is because I was planning on getting the Viper PST 1-4x in MIL/MIL for a Recce build (for use 400-500 and in, but mostly under 2-300) and then get the Viper PST 2.5-10x in MIL/MIL for my bolt gun for ranges longer than the Recce will handle. My reasoning for this was to have a reticle that was similar to each other and uses the same system (MIL/MIL)....I like consistency.
Can you guys give any suggestions as to why I may not want to do this? Is there any other scopes that you would recommend in the price range of the 1-4x PST?
When you are shooting for speed you need a easy to pick up reticle and mil dots are small and precise but not fast. I had a Bushnell Eliete 6500 that was a 2.5-16 and on 2.5 power it was way slower to use than a Aimpoint with a 3x magnifier at closer ranges. The reticle does not have to be lit but it does need to be large enough that it contrasts well against the target.
Pat
Alaskapopo
11-11-11, 12:15
I have a Short Dot with a mil-dot reticle.
I don't get why having a mil-dot reticle is a bad thing.
It's hard to range at 4x, but you can use the dots for holdovers, wind correction etc.
A short dot has a lit center dot that is bright and easy to see. Its not nearly as fast with the illumination off.
Pat
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.