Optics for the Fight Rifle: Target Identification & Evaluating the Threat


PDA






Anthony
March 9, 2008, 09:09 PM
Hello Everyone,

I live in the flatlands of Texas where it is not very hard to find a 200 yard plus stretch of open landscape...even in the suburbs. I'm in the process of setting up a custom built M1A as my primary fighting rifle and plan to mount a high power scope and use one of the new red dot sight mounts from Tactical Night Vision Comapny (TNVC) that mounts an Aimpoint T-1 Micro red dot sight at the 2:00 O'Clock position so one can engage close range threats without losing your cheekweld. I've discussed the mount in detail with Aimpoint's law enforcement division and have attached a photo of it below for your reference.

Accepting that the close range threat is handled, what magnification range would you suggest for the high power optic that would provide both positive target identification and the capability to evaluate a target to ensure it was a threat before firing?

Thank you for your input on this critical issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "Optics for the Fight Rifle: Target Identification & Evaluating the Threat" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TIMC
March 9, 2008, 10:23 PM
What do you want to spend?

I would love to have the Schmidt & Bender 4-16x50mm varmint with #8 reticle on my M-21.

My budget calls for something less expensive. I like the Leupold 4.5-14x50mm Mark 4 LR/T scope.

briansmithwins
March 9, 2008, 10:26 PM
On my AR I have a Aimpoint ML3 (2MOA dot) and a 3X magnifier on a Larue pivot mount. The 3X magnification has been adequate for identifying targets out to 350 yards or so. For point targets at range I would want higher mag, but 3X to 4X is pretty good.

In WWII snipers on all sides used scopes that were 3X to 6X and got hits in combat. BSW

Double Naught Spy
March 9, 2008, 11:54 PM
In WWII snipers on all sides used scopes that were 3X to 6X and got hits in combat.

Right, but the opposition wore a different uniform and was something of a known entity. There were also incidents of fratricide.

Anthony, you might be better off with a variable power scope such as a 3-9x or even slightly more powerful depending on just how well you need to identify threats and at what distances.

gunsnmoses
March 10, 2008, 12:40 PM
2.5-10 would be nice

Anthony
March 10, 2008, 02:05 PM
I have to admit that the 2.5-10x variable scope is starting to sound very good indeed.

MHBushmaster
March 10, 2008, 03:37 PM
From my experiences shooting rifles at some interesting distances, 200 yards is not in the arena of necessitation for a 9x or higher magnification IMHO. I mean, at 200 yards, with 10x magnification, you could probably read newpaper headlines if someone held a paper still enough for you:p

A 3x scope is more than adequate at 200 yards, plus the field of view is much larger with a 3x scope, like an ACOG. Its amazing how much 3x scopes with bullet drop reticles can do in the hands of an experienced rifleman, plus ACOGS are very easy to mount a Doctors Optic ontop of the ACOG. It kind of solves your offset short range red dot needs in one package. Also, ACOGs now come in more magnification besides just 3x, so it really is about how much you are willing to spend on glass for your fighting rifle.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z287/luvBUSHmaster/100_5655.jpg

Sounds like you've got a great concept, one which I've embraced as well (having magnified optics in tandem with a zero magnified red dot)

Vern Humphrey
March 10, 2008, 04:30 PM
Quote:
In WWII snipers on all sides used scopes that were 3X to 6X and got hits in combat.

Right, but the opposition wore a different uniform and was something of a known entity. There were also incidents of fratricide.

Why have a weapon you can't use tactically? Sniper tactics call for two man teams -- a shooter and a spotter. It is the spotter's job to locate and identify the target -- using optics (binoculars) designed for that job.

Also let me point out that high magnification can be disadvantageous. Making the object bigger doesn't necessarily make it sharper. It's hard to tell one blur from another when it comes to IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe.)

A good pair of 7X50 binoculars will give you a much sharper image than at 14X50 scope sight -- and be much more useful for scanning and searching, as well.

Bottom line? High magnification in a scope isn't really needed. What works is hunting in pairs and using proper optics for scanning.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2008, 04:42 PM
I am a big fan of the Leupold CQ/T optic, but it doesn't seem to have a big following for some reason.

I've had one for years and it's practically indestructible.

It's only 3x though so at range the magnification isn't much but at 1x it functions very much like the aimpoint/eotech red dot styles.

Decent compromise in my opinion.

Click Click Boom
March 10, 2008, 06:51 PM
I like CQ/T as well. People complain that the outer circle is to large. I like it because you "center" a target quickliy. The dot is for aiming the circle is for pointing.

Rifleman 173
March 10, 2008, 11:28 PM
The British have adopted a simple 4X power scope system for use on their .223 rifles. I've played with a short 4X power scope that has an illuminated reticle in it. I love it. Zero it at a distance of 50 meters and you're pretty much ready to shoot with minimal adjustments needed from 0 to 300 meters. Is that what you're looking for?

If you enjoyed reading about "Optics for the Fight Rifle: Target Identification & Evaluating the Threat" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!