Originally Posted by
rauchman
To the OP, thanks for posting this. I, along w/ others I'm sure, will benefit from this.
If you don't mind, some questions for you...
Have you given up trying to find an optic that does both closer in stuff and extended range?
For now, yes. My need to shoot far away is only at things that generally give me a long time to shoot them (steel, paper) or aren't going to kill me if I'm not able to shoot them quickly enough (deer, coyotes). Range is one thing and precision is another. I think it's important to make that distinction. I'm not a military sniper with air support, etc. It would be nearly impossible to justify shooting anyone further than 200yds away, and if I was, I would probably want something more accurate and with more energy than my lightweight AR15 in 5.56.
Now, precision is another factor. There was a story posted on here awhile back about a man waking up to hear the screams of his daughter as her boyfriend was strangling her outside the car, basically at his mailbox, so probably a 25yd shot. If I had to make that shot while boyfriend was choking my daughter, I'd want all the precision I could get. Thus, not long range, but still precision, and in that case, 5.56 is probably fine.
It sounds like you're using the Aimpoint for out to 100 and then taking off the Aimpoint and putting on the Zeis for shooting further.
Yes, that is the current "MO."
Have you considered a 1x6 or 1x8, or is this magnification range still too limited for your uses?
The only 1-6 I've handled is the Vortex 3-gun scope. I found it very nice clarity wise. It seemed to be fast on 1X handling it in the gun shop, but it was pretty large and heavy. I'd like to get my hands on the Swarovski 1-6. I'm a believer in glass quality over magnification. I'll bet a person can identify and hit a target with a 6X Swaro better than he could with, say a 10X lesser scope. At this point, there are so few options in this market and there's also the cost. That's not to say that I'll never have a 1X whatever, but not right now.
Between the T1 and M2, which do you prefer and why?
I prefer the T-1. The M2 is certainly usable, but I find that the T-1 does everything the M2 does in a smaller, lighter, more robust package. I don't find the slightly smaller window to be an issue and believe if a person uses a red dot sight correctly, window size simply cannot be an issue. I'm actually in the process of putting together a package rifle to sell locally and will probably include the M2 and replace it with a T-1. The other thing I hope to gain by doing that is there are mounts/risers available from Larue that would make it a direct height crossover between the AR and the 10/22, so I could truly swap both the Zeiss and the T-1 at whim. Again, mark the turret for zero on each gun and it's really simple.
On the Leupold 1.5x5, you mentioned you didn't like it since the illumination was bright enough and the reticle was too thick. Were there other 1x4'ish scopes you would consider? If so, which ones and why?
I looked hard at the VX-R Patrol 1.5-4 with the firedot. I found it's SPR Reticle to be even thicker than the one in the Mark 4. I've not handled the SWFA SS 1-4, but I know F2S speaks highly of it. I also looked pretty hard at the Vortex 1-4, but I much prefer a central dot to an Eotech style doughnut . Even so, you're left with only 4X. I know you can get "hits" out to 500 or 600 with 4X, but where is the "precision?" That's the balance and, to me, I want more magnification.
I didn't see it mentioned, but is the Zeiss illuminated? How did the illimunation, or lack thereof, factor into your buying decision?
Do you feel the 3x9 magnification capability of the Zeiss is ideal, or is it good enough compromise, for your needs? Were there 2.5x10 or other scope choices that you were looking at also? If so, what were they and why did you go w/ the Zeiss? Was the Zeiss scope something you deliberately went out hunting for, or was it an opportunistic buy?
The Zeiss is not illuminated and it has a standard duplex (or what Zeiss calls their "Z-plex") reticle. As I mentioned in the initial post, it's pretty thin (seems thinner than Leupold's standard duplex, maybe on par with their "fine duplex") in the center, but has thicker bars where the duplex steps out, so you don't lose the entire reticle in brush or low light. Knowing that I wasn't going to try and push it into a CQB role, the lack of illumination wasn't a major issue to me. Would it be nice? Yes!
The purchase of the Zeiss was partially opportunistic in nature. Cabela's had the 3-9x40 Conquest on sale for $299 with free shipping and a $20 discount for orders over $150, so I paid $279 shipped for the scope. That's hard to argue with for a scope that usually hits the streets around $499 and even then, I think that's a bargain for what you get:
1) Etched reticle
2) Finger-adjustable, re-settable (to zero) turrets
3) Superb glass quality
To my eye, the Zeiss glass is the difference in watching regular TV vs HD. It's not the brightness, but the image resolution that is so impressive. I compared it directly to a Leupold looking into a woodline at daybreak. I could see the edge of the woodline pretty clearly and brightly with the Leupold, but with the Zeiss, I could see THROUGH the woodline and perceive the depth of trees that were 20yds inside the treeline.
Is the Zeiss the perfect "tactial" scope? Probably not. It doesn't have a ranging reticle with matching, locking, zero-stop turrets. However, I found that I didn't really have a need for those on this rifle.
In summary, I think I would be hard pressed to give up a true 1X dot on a cqb gun. If I was forced into choosing one optic for all of my applications, It would be something like a 1-8 with a 32 or 40mm objective, a forgiving eyebox, Daytime bright illuminated center dot (1-2MOA), FFP Mil-scale reticle (FFP makes it basically shrink to invisible at 1X), Mil turrets, locking with zero-stop. I think this is what the S&B 1-8 is supposed to have, but it's supposed to be like 6 Grand if/when it's ever released.
For now and for my money, I can afford to switch between the RDS and the Zeiss.
Again, thanks for you report on your optics history. It answers questions, but also raises some. I think we are all on the hunt for the ideal optic, but as others have mentioned, no one scope has really nailed it yet. Some manufacturer is going to make a fortune when they get the right feature set together on a scope of this type. Thanks!
