RDS vs 1-4x scopes

[Failure2Stop]

It would be interesting to take a group of shooters and run some drills with rds then re-run with low powered optics to see if there are measurable differences.

It's a bit more complicated than that to make an actual correlation.

In testing with proficient shooters, the greatest difference is based on personal preference. Dispersion between the different optics is less than that between the individuals in the groups of shooters.


Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[TehLlama]

It's a bit more complicated than that to make an actual correlation.

In testing with proficient shooters, the greatest difference is based on personal preference. Dispersion between the different optics is less than that between the individuals in the groups of shooters.

Sample size could alleviate that, but I agree that preferences or even biases would play a larger role in differentiating times.

[Crow Hunter]

I tried to get a 1 optic solution for "everything".

I couldn't find it.

I tried an Aimpoint M4S alone and with a FTS magnifier, Trijicon TR-24 1X4 Green Triangle, and a TA33 Green Horseshoe.

Ranked by my preference:

M4S alone
TA33
TR-24
M4S w/FTS Mag

I gave up on trying to find a do everything optic.

What I don't like about magnified optics is the need to keep a specific cheek weld to get a decent view out of the optic and weight. I have a M&P 15-22 setup with a Leupold 2-7X33 in a Burris PEPR mount that I have been using for varmint control. It can be made to work on moving targets, but I have noticed that I have often lost view through the optic when hunting if I "climbed" the stock or something like that when in unusual position trying to sneak up on critters. Not a problem, since the critters don't shoot back but I wouldn't want a "dammit where did he go" moment if they were.

So for me, on a defensive rifle, I prefer the RDS mostly due to unconventional position shooting, low light capability and since I run fixed sights, instant confirmation that I am still zeroed.

But I am just a civilian Fudd hunter, so take that in mind if you listen to my advice.

[Failure2Stop]

Sample size could alleviate that, but I agree that preferences or even biases would play a larger role in differentiating times.

It's not just sample size that is the issue, but also what skills are being evaluated, level of skill, prior training, lighting conditions, positions used, distances involved, type of zero, target background, and criteria for use of data.

Probably the largest data source we have available showing the use of different optics by folks of similar performance capability is from competition (2/3 gun).

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[ridgerunner70]

It's a bit more complicated than that to make an actual correlation.

In testing with proficient shooters, the greatest difference is based on personal preference. Dispersion between the different optics is less than that between the individuals in the groups of shooters.


Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

What's your personal preference? I seen you using a scope in your YouTube vids.

[Alaskapopo]

I have no problem's hitting 100-300 yds with the red dot, off the bench of course at the 200-300yd for me for consistency. I was just wondering if some of you using the 1-4x scopes use them for HD. I was interested in having the same carbine to cover them area's. Basically I should leave my HD carbine alone and build a GP weapon with a 1-4x scope. Just racking my brain here.

Hitting what is the question. Full size silhouettes sure no problem. Now try hitting a target that represents a threat shooting back at you from behind cover at 200 yards with just his head and rifle exposed. Not so easy. For a general purpose rifle you can't beat a 1-6 variable. For home defense a RDS is king however. A good set up is to have both.


Pat

[Failure2Stop]

What's your personal preference? I seen you using a scope in your YouTube vids.

My lightweight, non-ff, inside the house gun has a T-1 with an A2 front sight and a fixed DD rear.

My GP/teaching gun has had a 1-4x or 1-6x since about 2008.
I am pretty picky about reticles, but I think that the low-powered variable has the best performance compromise unless I am going to be dedicated to within 100 meters, in which case the RDS becomes the optimal sighting device.

In reality, and RDS is going to be fine (if not superior) for 90% of users. The low-powered variable comes into it's own once distance, threat ID, and/or midrange precision become a significant factor without wanting to give-up on close range speed.

Frankly, the whole "speed" thing is vastly over-played. The guys that have the skill to run a sub-3 1-5 drill or shoot a 1/2 and 1/2 clean can do it with any applicable optic.
*To be fair, I have to work hard to get under 2.5 at the 5 yd line with a 4x ACOG on the 1/2 and 1/2.
Being "fast" at close range is usually a moot point.
The times to be "fast" with sights are presentations and transitions, and really one could focus on presentations alone, as transitions before confirmation of threat reduction is not usually recommended except in the competition and skill-set training aspect.
An obvious reticle that draws the user's attention without overly obscuring the target or significantly narrowing the field of view at the range employed without being overly restrictive of eye location is all that is needed for success. The rest is on the shooter.

[Crow Hunter]

I am not high speed by any stretch of the imagination.

But in my experience, having something you can shoot well with and are experienced with will trump anything else when it comes to optics/rifle combinations.

Just a couple of weekends ago, I made a single snap shot from low ready on a swimming cotton mouth with a M&P 22-15 with a Leupold 2-7 set on 2x at approximately 7 yards.

My wife had seen a couple from the house that morning and gave me the job to "clean them out" before she would agree to go back down there again.

I had spent most of the previous weekend practicing with that rifle including doing close range snap shots since I had missed a vermin squirrel off the back porch last time I had had it out.

So IMHO, get something that you will get the most use out of and practice with it regularly. Don't spend too much time focused on what is considered best for an application by people who make a living shooting smelly bearded men that you may or may not ever encounter. Especially if said best will not be something you will use and practice with regularly.

[midSCarolina]

Like everyone has kinda mentioned already, an RD is going to be much more effective for HD and CQ situations but the 1-4x will be much more effective at range. Since you already have the micro, you could buy a LaRue 45 offset mount and have the T-1 and the 1-4x. I feel like I have been suggesting this to everyone but covering that full 0-300/400m range with one rifle is kinda tricky.

[Alaskapopo]

I have actually ran drills with lots of different shooters comparing various red dots, low power variables, ACOG's, and Irons.

They are on my you tube channel. What I found is in conventional shooting positions. A scope on 1x is just as fast as a red dot and Irons are very fast at close range in good light. Where the dot shines is from more awkward shooting positions. I have a red dot and a scope on my three gun rifles and I use the scope 90% of the time and only use the dot when I have to transition from a far to a close target.
Pat