I have a Nikon P-223 on an American Defense Recon mount. It works great on my 16" upper the qr mount is nice because if I want to shoot irons I can get to it in no time at all
AR15 Optic Setup - This Back and Forth Must Stop!
- Thread starter JPG19
- Start date
- Status
Sorry chief, my post wasn't addressing you, it was addressing the guy who has been stating it would be foolish to use a red dot on an AR because it would limit it.
Wow. You want to talk about limited how about we talk about the limited mindset of people on the internet who see "ar15" and immediately get in mall ninja mode and only think about the supremely unlikely and impractical act of using a centerfire rifle for home defense, when that is only one of three uses that the op stated he had for the weapon, and the one that he put the least emphasis on. How about the limited experience I am getting the sense that many posters here have in using an ar in a tactical role or in the military. Spend some time in an 11b fire team and you will see that dudes get jealous of the guys with the agogs, not the guys with the m68 ccos. How about limited common sense in stating that a red dot is not less versatile than the 1-4x that he stated his other option was for his stated uses.
A 3X fixed gives you quick enough speed up close and a bit of magnification. If I could justify the cash outlay or decide on just one potential use I'd go with a nice red dot or a nice scope.
I've decided that the 1-4x Nikon is my best bet. The best bet for MY situation. I don't doubt that the guys on your fire team preferred the ACOGS like you stated. As stated, I just know a whole lot of Marines, including a Recon Marine with years of experience doing nasty stuff that he won't tell me about, and a SWAT guy. They all prefer Aimpoints and Eotechs. I hardly think they don't know what they're talking about, and I'm sure they would argue that their use of a red dot is not limiting their weapon. Given that they can engage targets out the several hundred meters with iron sights, I feel it's safe to assume that they could do the same with a red dot. Granted, their method of target identification was primarily the flash coming off an AK47, but I digress. I just don't think it was wise to make such a blanket statement as "using a red dot limits your rifle. Don't do it." Rather, I would have said something along the means of "Me and my guys in the Army preferred our acogs to our RDS." Think about it bro.
p.s. I hardly think I hear "ar15" and jump into mall ninja mode. As you stated, my primary uses for this weapon are target shooting, followed by hunting. I simply want it to be ABLE to jump into a defensive mode if needed because, as I also stated; I am far more accurate with my AR than I am my pistol (who isn't?!). I appreciate your input and it's definitely something to be considered.
Last edited:
I keep saying "magnified optic" because any variable power scope will always have some level of magnification whether it's set to 1x or not. Depending on the scope, the magnification could be 1.25 or 1.5. Either way, no common variable powered scope gives you true 1x.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
There are "true 1x" variable power scopes. Zero magnification.
Now, if you look at something REALLY CLOSE, like right in front of the muzzle, it might appear that there is a little magnification since the eye that is looking through the scope is effectively closer to the object/target than your other eye is, but that isn't actually magnification, and as soon as there is ANY distance at all, you cannot tell. It certainly isn't 1.25 or 1.5 (though some of the lesser variables are in fact 1.25 or 1.1, some truly are 1x)
Functionally, the "true 1x" on many of the better variable scopes is zero magnificaiton, and referring to them as or considering them to be a "magnified optic" seems like either ignorance or bias, to me.
Which variable power scopes do you have experience with?
Edit: This thread starts way back in 2006, but has posts up to current. Tons of info on variable scopes to anybody willing to take the time to dig through it, or just read it
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104
My M-223 is, for all intents and purposes, a 1x-4x scope. When set to 1x, I can't see any evidence of any magnification. The laboratory may find that it is 1.1x-4x, but give me a break. Last time I checked, very few of us shot weapons in laboratories. The same lame argument can be applied in reverse...WHAT IF, let's just theorize, some of the 3x scopes out there were...gasp...actually 2.98x magnification?!?!?!
The end result is a big fat...nothing. Nitpicking over trivial, insignificant "issues" is no more than a futile effort to prove someone wrong just for the sake of proving someone "wrong.":banghead:EDIT: I just discovered that, should I ever use my Nikon M-223 set at 1x to engage a target within 2-3ft of the muzzle, said target WILL appear infinitesimally larger than it truly this. Again, the end result of this is...nothing. This is virtually eliminated when the target is 5ft+ away.
I had a similar dilemma, as I wanted both a magnified scope and an RDS. I ended up buying a Redfield 2-7 scope, and mounted a Burris Fastfire iii on too if the ring, both are sighted in, and the scope is fantastic for more than 50 yards, and th RDS is great fi under 50 yards,
Neither! use your irons for HD and other fast work, and use the 1x-4x for hunting.
There you go, I successfully dodged the question!
Seriously, I would run the scope if you have ANY qualms about the other mount holding zero, just keep it set on 1x unless you are hunting or on the range.
You could always get a better mount for the red dot?
There you go, I successfully dodged the question!
Seriously, I would run the scope if you have ANY qualms about the other mount holding zero, just keep it set on 1x unless you are hunting or on the range.
You could always get a better mount for the red dot?
I had been wondering about this as well. I'm hesitant to buy a fancy LaRue QD mount (or non QD, whichever) for such an entry-level optic though. If the Bushnell RDS really doesn't hold its zero (which I have read from a couple, not a lot, of people) then of course I don't want to do that. So far, I haven't heard anyone here mention that their Bushnell TRS-25 didn't hold a zero though.
Bobson
Member
First-world problems call for first-world solutions. As an alternative, once you pick one, get rid of the other, so you're no longer burdened with these gripping issues.I voted option 1 ... That is nice setup
Option 2 is good setup also, which leads me to say you need Option 3
Option 3 = Buy 2nd Rifle to Hold Option 2 .....
Yeah, I'm aware of that one which is why I called for two. Realistically though i'm not sure that's so much of a variable scope since it has just two magnifications. It's more of a red dot with built in magnifier.
A variable power scope will never be as good for cqb as a true red dot so I don't see it as nitpicking. The difference in function between 2.98X and 3X is entirely different than between 1.1X and true 1X. Parralax, for example, will be greater with a magnified optic on minimum setting than with a red dot. Eye relief is also limited on a variable scope even at lowest setting unlike with a holographic red dot. Only true 1X optics can be used in conjunction with irons. Referring to a 1-4X as true 1X is simply inaccurate.
Last edited:
There are "true 1x" variable power scopes. Zero magnification.
Now, if you look at something REALLY CLOSE, like right in front of the muzzle, it might appear that there is a little magnification since the eye that is looking through the scope is effectively closer to the object/target than your other eye is, but that isn't actually magnification, and as soon as there is ANY distance at all, you cannot tell. It certainly isn't 1.25 or 1.5 (though some of the lesser variables are in fact 1.25 or 1.1, some truly are 1x)
Functionally, the "true 1x" on many of the better variable scopes is zero magnificaiton, and referring to them as or considering them to be a "magnified optic" seems like either ignorance or bias, to me.
This thread starts way back in 2006, but has posts up to current. Tons of info on variable scopes to anybody willing to take the time to dig through it, or just read it
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104[/QUOTE]
JustinJ: Which variable power scopes do you have experience with?
Now, if you look at something REALLY CLOSE, like right in front of the muzzle, it might appear that there is a little magnification since the eye that is looking through the scope is effectively closer to the object/target than your other eye is, but that isn't actually magnification, and as soon as there is ANY distance at all, you cannot tell. It certainly isn't 1.25 or 1.5 (though some of the lesser variables are in fact 1.25 or 1.1, some truly are 1x)
Functionally, the "true 1x" on many of the better variable scopes is zero magnificaiton, and referring to them as or considering them to be a "magnified optic" seems like either ignorance or bias, to me.
This thread starts way back in 2006, but has posts up to current. Tons of info on variable scopes to anybody willing to take the time to dig through it, or just read it
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104[/QUOTE]
JustinJ: Which variable power scopes do you have experience with?
Unless the meaning of the word "true" has changed, no, there simply isn't. There is at least one dual power scope that provides a true 1X but it has just 1X and 4X magnification setting. As I've said, yes, both eyes open works with 1-4X variable scopes but they are not true 1X in the sense of an eotech or aimpoint and the latter do have certain advantages over a variable optic.
The difference between a true 1X optic and a 1-4X is clearly demonstrated below:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/466897_Optic_Observations__1___4X_Variable_Scopes_.html
Bias? I'm talking about all brands and I have a VX-R Patrol on one of my rifles. The only ignorance here is one of physics but it isn't mine.
I don't have the time to read through all 11 pages. Where in the thread does it prove variable scopes provide "true" 1X?
Leupole VX-R Patrol, Trijicon, Vortex and a few others.
What did you observe during use as a result of them not being "true" 1x?
What magnification do you believe they are, when set to 1x?
Jest spitballing here...
Take any of this FWIW - maybe it will give you something to investigate?
I just finished setting up a 15-22 using Jerry Miculek's 3-Gun AR as a guide. I like the idea of a scope for distance work, rotating to the red dot for close up work!
While all this is on a 22, since I think you were talking a jack of all trades?, maybe a similar setup modified to suit your situation / needs / wants?
Nothing that unusual, but I started out on a budget (blew it on the Bobro mount).
I have a Nikon P22 scope (mounted on Bobro QD mount) - of course, you'd need a scope for a 223.
Weaver 1 o'clock offset behind the scope.
Bushnell TRS-25 (got the HiRise version for the muted Bushnell logo).
The Weaver mount is made in USA, and appears identical to the Daniel Defense, but at about half the cost?
I have EOTechs on the big ARs, but the more I read about the Bushnell TRS-25, the more impressive it sounded, 'specially for the price! I even saw a torture test of cheap red dots, and it did pretty darn well. There seem to be quite a number of folks happy with them on shotguns and big caliber guns, so I see no reason why it shouldn't handle a 223? (Yeah, I know it ain't Aimpoint / EOTech / Trijicon tough).
I wanted to go with more of an RMR type sight, but to get an inexpensive one that gets good reviews, it seems you have to spend much more money than the TRS-25 costs?
The darn thing looks like a Detroit test mule - got too much junk hanging off it, but it's a test platform.
Could have saved a lot of money bypassing the QD scope mount, but what the heck. I originally ordered a LaRue LT-104, but the more I read about the locking system digging into the rail (and the 15-22 has a plastic rail), I swapped to a Bobro mount.
Take any of this FWIW - maybe it will give you something to investigate?
I just finished setting up a 15-22 using Jerry Miculek's 3-Gun AR as a guide. I like the idea of a scope for distance work, rotating to the red dot for close up work!
While all this is on a 22, since I think you were talking a jack of all trades?, maybe a similar setup modified to suit your situation / needs / wants?
Nothing that unusual, but I started out on a budget (blew it on the Bobro mount).
I have a Nikon P22 scope (mounted on Bobro QD mount) - of course, you'd need a scope for a 223.
Weaver 1 o'clock offset behind the scope.
Bushnell TRS-25 (got the HiRise version for the muted Bushnell logo).
The Weaver mount is made in USA, and appears identical to the Daniel Defense, but at about half the cost?
I have EOTechs on the big ARs, but the more I read about the Bushnell TRS-25, the more impressive it sounded, 'specially for the price! I even saw a torture test of cheap red dots, and it did pretty darn well. There seem to be quite a number of folks happy with them on shotguns and big caliber guns, so I see no reason why it shouldn't handle a 223? (Yeah, I know it ain't Aimpoint / EOTech / Trijicon tough).
I wanted to go with more of an RMR type sight, but to get an inexpensive one that gets good reviews, it seems you have to spend much more money than the TRS-25 costs?
The darn thing looks like a Detroit test mule - got too much junk hanging off it, but it's a test platform.
Could have saved a lot of money bypassing the QD scope mount, but what the heck. I originally ordered a LaRue LT-104, but the more I read about the locking system digging into the rail (and the 15-22 has a plastic rail), I swapped to a Bobro mount.
instead of driving yourself and everyone else crazy here get a gol darn shotgun for home defenseMy M-223 is, for all intents and purposes, a 1x-4x scope. When set to 1x, I can't see any evidence of any magnification. The laboratory may find that it is 1.1x-4x, but give me a break. Last time I checked, very few of us shot weapons in laboratories. The same lame argument can be applied in reverse...WHAT IF, let's just theorize, some of the 3x scopes out there were...gasp...actually 2.98x magnification?!?!?!
EDIT: I just discovered that, should I ever use my Nikon M-223 set at 1x to engage a target within 2-3ft of the muzzle, said target WILL appear infinitesimally larger than it truly this. Again, the end result of this is...nothing. This is virtually eliminated when the target is 5ft+ away.
Most variable "1-4x" scopes work down to the 1.1x range. For rifle hunting, probably not an issue. For bird hunting & CQB there's an argument to be made for the true 1x red dot. Part 2 eyes open shooting, part eye relief - true 1x scopes have infinite eye relief.
Are you claiming that the "magnification" of something like a Trijicon TR24 interferes with shooting quickly with both eyes open??
I have a Burris TAC-30 (1-4). At 1x it looks very close to 1x inside the home. With the reticle lit, on 1X, it is very easy to use as a red dot with both eyes open.
- Status
