Isn't that always how it goes...:D
Printable View
Typically, I would have thought it was my DDM4V5, with Eotech. Now that I've seen how well my BCM MK12 upper performs, with my Vortex PST 1x4, I really like its close to mid range flexibility and would choose it. Ah. Who am I kidding? I'd tak'em both!
I'll probably run out of ammo long before I run out of battery life in a true SHTF scenario. And frankly, battery life would be the last of my concerns in such situation. But I'm running a PA 1-6x with Samson BUIS.
There is no best SHTF optic because there are too many SHTF scenarios.
While I agree that the variables (1-4Xs since I can't afford the good 1-6Xs) are great, and a nice compromise, they're just not for me.
I tried two of the best values (the Burris MTAC--way better FOV than almost any, a daylight visible BDC horseshoe, and very light at 14ounces though they're advertised as more, AND the TR24R) but:
(a) the 1X was a bit weird super close in (not that you'd probably use it close-in),
(b) combined with mounts they were just too heavy after you get used to running just irons or a a T1, and
(c) the eye-box (though famously great on both models) just isn't nearly as forgiving and fast as a red dot FOR ME.
For now I Quick-Attach a magnifier when I want to sight the gun in and could see using the magnifier if needed as a makeshift scope or monocular; however, if Trijicon ever puts out a TR24R with a BDC/ranging reticle (like the TA31 chevron), I'll probably have to get another.
This reply will also serve to address the couple of replies to my last post
I'm picking up a lot of false dilemma in this debate. As I stated, I can see the necessity of glassing things and even people you have not decided to shoot.
My argument, I'll state again, is in regard to the abandonment of an ethic on the topic. Eurodriver seems to be implying that in a "combat situation," necessarily of his own definition or even invention (he has not clarified), the rules are suspended, to the point that he will aim his "loaded weapon" directly at an unarmed human being for no better reason than to take a photograph of himself aiming a loaded weapon at an unarmed human being. He cites his circumstances as justification for violations of the rules, or that the circumstances (whatever they be) suspend the rules.
To address the first statement of the quote above: I'm quite sure the circumstances of some kind of "SHTF" situation would change how I generally handle and employ firearms. But not by much. No. Not by much. I still would not knowingly aim my weapon at anyone I was not at least potentially going to fire on. I would not use my weapon's magnified optic as binoculars. I would use binoculars, if there were no exigent circumstances; no demand for time performance; no need to be ready to fire at any moment. If there's no shooting going on and no reason to believe shooting will begin soon, there's no exigency, and therefore no extenuation of ethical burden.
We're not talking about increasing risk by following arbitrary rules. We're talking about valuing the life and health of other non- enemy-combatant people enough to not point guns at them. That applies whether we're in combat or not.
^^^^^^ I think the picture really scared him, even though you were giving a demonstration. You have to remember that there are gun owners out there that do not make their living with their weapons and do not fully understand what they could possibly be taking on when owning such things. Yes, some just like to "dress up" and look "tacticool", some even like the sport of shooting, might even find it relaxing like I do, yes there is the thrill of it as well. Some hardly ever take their weapons out and shoot them because they might get dirty or scratched up. Remember, this is a forum, with several thoughts and ideas, so far no one seems to have broken the rules here on M4C regarding this topic. Please do not try and push your thoughts and ideas on someone because you don't see things the way they do. It will make a good thing go bad quick. Let's get back to the original topic, or maybe start your own thread about how you feel about such things?
I really think there are more things to consider. The hunting analogy is null because you've identified it as a game animal before aiming your rifle. You wouldn't point your rifle at an orange vest to see who it was. Personally, I use binos constantly when hunting to scan. When I see or hear movement I bino, then ready my bow and take position. Oftentimes I've found moving the rifle or bow is more likely to alert game than simply scanning with binos.
I believe dead man described the military/LE side already.
But beyond those situations consider tactics, what happens when whoever is running security for this unknown puts one through you for pointing a rifle at his buddy? We already use this as reason to use deadly force---when one feels threatened by somebody obviously capable of deadly force, one may defend themselves in most jurisdictions. This is our civil society with the rule of law.
Good luck to you. I hope none of this ever matters to any of us. I hope the person who means you no harm doesn't feel threatened when you point your rifle at him. Hopefully it doesn't cost you or another person their life for needless escalation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This thread is not about actions in combat, debate on the 4/5 firearms safety rules, or who can better argue minutia/circumstance.
This thread is about optics, and optics choices.
Back on topic please.