ar 15 optics

[Revoliver]

I "have" read the thread....lol

Then based on everything you've posted, you clearly have understood none of it.

Tenacity is an admirable quality, but not when you let it lead you to self-delusion.You've got some issues man.

I find it ironic that you clearly practice this preachy bit, but not the bit in your last post about not picking fights with people that seem to know more than you.

As far as "budget" optics on "range" guns are concerned, there is nothing wrong with Primary Arms. Nobody is debating that.

Then why bring it up?

But...to seriously insinuate that your $189 Chinese scope with 1-year warranty is somehow on par with REAL optics actually made for REAL duty/combat/defensive roles is just beyond disingenuous at best. At worst it, advice like that could get some newbie hurt.

Please explain exactly why. Provide proof to back up your claims.
Oh, and it's $179.99 if you had even bothered to check at least the webpage of the item you seem to know so much about. Off to a good start so far.

I'm not aware of any military on earth who uses Primary Arms products. Not even CHINA!!!

Me neither, good thing I have neither posted nor even implied that.

Now you seriously need to just knock it off with all that Kindergarten "Oh yeah prove it" stuff before some poor, ill-informed, innocent bystander actually finds out the hard way that you are full of it.

You are actually trying to convince someone that asking for proof or supporting evidence of what you say is supposed to "Knock it off?"
Now THAT is delusional, especially when you consider the fact that you have at no time provided superior evidence to the contrary.

 

[Skylerbone]

Please respect the OP and report on something new. I have some $50 scopes that I suspect are older than some of the folks following this thread and nobody has insinuated anything about military use including the OP. I didn't know so many of you guys were mind readers, psychologists and product testers. I warned early on things would head this direction with brand centric people so please concentrate on personal experience rather than name calling.

PS: I'm typing this on my Chinese made iPhone 5...

 

[Warp]

Aimpoint > Chinese made replicas

If quality, durability, and reliability are what you are after.

+ not having to turn it on and off is a HUGE advantage for a defensive firearm, IMO.

Personally I don't want an optic or sight on any of my defensive firearms that has to be turned on, might turn itself off/time itself out, or runs a serious risk of having the battery die.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Here's an option that I didn't like until I saw it in person:

That's a Valdada 3x scope, with a rotating 1913 rail that's mounting a dot scope.

It's Romanian, but the optics are bright, clear, and solid. 3 power with a good reticle for looking "through" for close-in shooting, but the ability to mount a red dot as seen here means a very slight change in the way you mount means you're on the red dot (say up to 30 yards), and if needed the transition to the 3x optic is pretty instantaneous.

Sorry the review isn't done yet.

Edited to add

Here's the reticle. It's also illuminated if you like. And yes, that's a BDC up top (calibrated for 62gr 5.56)

 

[Revoliver]

Aimpoint > Chinese made replicasIf quality, durability, and reliability are what you are after.*+ not having to turn it on and off is a HUGE advantage for a defensive firearm, IMO.*Personally I don't want an optic or sight on any of my defensive firearms that has to be turned on, might turn itself off/time itself out, or runs a serious risk of having the battery die.

I have no personal experience with Chinese replicas of Aimpoints.

I agree completely about wanting an optic that does not need to be turned on, which is another reason why I am so pleased with my Primary Arms 3x compact scope because it has an etched reticle that is always 'on'.

 

[Warp]

I agree completely about wanting an optic that does not need to be turned on, which is another reason why I am so pleased with my Primary Arms 3x compact scope because it has an etched reticle that is always 'on'.

Is that why you don't use any Primary Arms red dot sights?

I also, personal preference, don't want a defensive firearm whose optic isn't visible in the dark. Lots of optics don't need turned on, but cannot be seen in low light. That's why my defensive pistols get tritium night sights, why my red dot sights are Aimpoints, and why my variable power defensive scope is a Trijicon Accupoint. And why I wouldn't, personally, want a PA 3x compact scope.

 

[Revoliver]

Is that why you don't use any Primary Arms red dot sights?

No idea what you're trying to get at as I don't use red dot sights of any kind to begin with.

I also, personal preference, don't want a defensive firearm whose optic isn't visible in the dark. Lots of optics don't need turned on, but cannot be seen in low light. That's why my defensive pistols get tritium night sights, why my red dot sights are Aimpoints, and why my variable power defensive scope is a Trijicon Accupoint. And why I wouldn't, personally, want a PA 3x compact scope.

I have come to find that, for me at least, illumination of your intended target is more important than illumination of your reticle or sight.
I do however completely understand your point (that if your target is illuminated well but you still cannot distinguish your sights you are still at a disadvantage) and am glad that you seem to have found sights that work for you.

 

[LiquidTension]

Did you continue to re-paint until you could no longer find the rifle or were you content to settle for so-so

The point was to test the durability of the Aervo, the light, and the optic. I did learn that my original paint job has too much green in it. I'll go back over it with brown this weekend to blend the colors better.

Wow you like to throw your guns down a hill??

The ones I may end up using to defend my life, yes.

I think most equipment will fail at some point, esp if you throw it down a steep hill like that.

That was exactly my point - none of my gear failed, which was exactly how I expected it to happen with quality kit. I would not do that with anything less than an Aimpoint.

 

[DNS]

Middle age eyes here.

I just did a fixed four Bushnell Banner and mounted a Center Point laser on top of the scope ring. Up close lase it but the scope allows me distance too so the best of both worlds.

Plus it just looks cool.

 

[JShirley]

Jo Jo,

Some people find magnified optics slower at very close ranges. This is why even some ACOGS have mini reflex sights or iron sights atop the main body.

If this is a "fun gun" for you, Primary Arms has a good reputation, considering it's a bargain scope.

If this is something you may bet your life on, I'd trust the maker, Primary Arms themselves, when they say that this should not be mounted on a life and death weapon.

I have the same Valdada Derek posted, plus an extra micro RDS I picked up for my girl. After playing with it, she decided to mount my Aimpoint PRO, since it's a similar height to her duty issued Aimpoint.

A note of caution: anyone can be anyone on the 'net. Trust people whose credentials you can verify. In the case of optics, I'd take the word of military or high-speed LEO, not the poodle in the tutu.

Just sayin'.

John, former 11C, 2 combat deployments

 

[Revoliver]

If this is something you may bet your life on, I'd trust the maker, Primary Arms themselves, when they say that this should not be mounted on a life and death weapon.

If you are referring to the Primary Arms 3x compact scope, then please cite your source for Primary Arms saying it should not be mounted on a life.or death weapon.

 

[Warp]

If you are referring to the Primary Arms 3x compact scope, then please cite your source for Primary Arms saying it should not be mounted on a life.or death weapon.

OP specifically asked about red dot sights, in the first sentence.

If he changed that to ask about magnified optics, I missed it. Which post?

 

[Revoliver]

OP specifically asked about red dot sights, in the first sentence. If he changed that to ask about magnified optics, I missed it. Which post?

In the original post:

since this AR craze I see a lot of folks adding red dots and scopes to them? I do have a rem 700 308 with a nice scope but that's a different animal

 

[Warp]

"Is putting a red dot optic on my AR really worth it"

He asked about putting a red dot optic on it, not about putting a magnified scope on it. He did state that other people have put scopes on AR's.

Course, if OP would return, we might know more

 

[Revoliver]

He asked about putting a red dot optic on it

Yes he did.

not about putting a magnified scope on it.

He not only makes sure to mention scopes in addition to red dots, it's part of the same sentence ended by a question mark. This is why I made the suggestion I did. There was no intent to derail at all.

Edit: He even made sure to mention he already uses a scope on another rifle to begin with.

He did state that other people have put scopes on AR's.

Which is also what made it part of the question.

Course, if OP would return, we might know more

From your fingertips to his ears!

I'd also like to apologize if it turns out that JO JO is not male as I have gone off the assumption that the OP was male.p

 

[Warp]

If he goes with a red dot, and it's a serious use gun, an Aimpoint would be preferred to Primary Arms

 

[Revoliver]

Is putting a red dot optic on my AR really worth it?

Looks nothing like this:

Is putting a red dot optic on my AR really worth it, I have had it for 6 or so years, always used iron sights and hit what I aim at just fine, since this AR
craze I see a lot of folks adding red dots and scopes to them? I do have a
rem 700 308 with a nice scope but that's a different animal

I would also like to note again that the OP made sure to mention he already uses a scope and iron sights, which is what can also be read as a comparison request, which can lead to preferences.

 

[Warp]

If he goes with a red dot, and it's a serious use gun, an Aimpoint would be preferred to Primary Arms

Also, if it's a defensive rifle that is likely to be used for quick, closer range shooting, an Aimpoint/RDS is likely going to be quicker and faster than a magnified optic.

An Aimpoint/RDS is also preferred, IMO, due to the fact that the reticle is illuminated, so that you can use it totally effectively in low light...with or without a weapon mounted light being on.

 

[Revoliver]

If he goes with a magnified optic, and it's a serious use gun, a quality optic (such as I have found my Primary Arms 3x compact scope to be) would be preferred to a bad quality one.

Also, if it's a defensive rifle that is likely to be used for quick, closer range shooting, a low magnification illuminated etched reticle scope (especially when CQB is accounted for in it's etched reticle) is likely going to be very fast and very accurate and can be faster and more accurate than a red dot sight or iron sights for some people (due to preference and or training for instance).

If shooting at a distance, a low magnification illuminated etched reticle scope can significantly increase precision (especially over a sight like an unmagnified red dot for example) due to it's magnification of the intended target.

An illuminated etched reticle is preferred, IMO, due to the fact that the reticle is both etched and therefore 'always there' as well as illuminated, so that you will have a hard time finding a scenario where you have to worry about it being washed out or washing out your intended target. It can also be used totally effectively in low light...with or without a weapon mounted light being on.

 

[Warp]

A magnified optic is unlikely to be quicker at close range than an RDS.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Jo Jo,

Some people find magnified optics slower at very close ranges. This is why even some ACOGS have mini reflex sights or iron sights atop the main body.

If this is a "fun gun" for you, Primary Arms has a good reputation, considering it's a bargain scope.

If this is something you may bet your life on, I'd trust the maker, Primary Arms themselves, when they say that this should not be mounted on a life and death weapon.

I have the same Valdada Derek posted, plus an extra micro RDS I picked up for my girl. After playing with it, she decided to mount my Aimpoint PRO, since it's a similar height to her duty issued Aimpoint.

A note of caution: anyone can be anyone on the 'net. Trust people whose credentials you can verify. In the case of optics, I'd take the word of military or high-speed LEO, not the poodle in the tutu.

Just sayin'.

John, former 11C, 2 combat deployments

Some people will just NEVER get what you are saying even when you speak the truth.
It's a shame really.

 

[Skylerbone]

It's time for me to weigh in again, against my better judgement but I will try to clarify my personal opinion and what I feel are the facts.

1. None of us know what the OP needs in terms of optics as he was unsure about direction and stated no specific intended use.

2. In regards to RDS it is my opinion that Aimpoint and Ultradot make the best on the planet at any price in terms of rugged reliability, clarity of dot and in the Aimpoint's case user friendly features (always on).

3. The above statements do not in any way determine all other market brands to be worthless, inferior junk. That may seem counter-intuitive after specifying that these two are heavyweight champions but that does not discount another product coming to market that may equal their performance, even if it happens to fall at a lower price point. Digital circuitry, particularly in relation to regulating power to increase battery life is both complicated and expensive which can account for a large chunk of the price difference between models.

4. As far as people on the net and who they are or aren't, what's an appropriate response to being called out as a poodle in a tutu? I fully comprehend what Mr. Shirley is saying but unlike most other respondents, his credentials are verifiable. If that is to be the criterion for judging information here at THR then we'll need to disregard nearly every post.

I am neither a LEO nor did I serve in the military and have never implied anything to the contrary. I do know a number of people who have or currently serve in one or both of those capacities and in general respect their opinion on matters of gear selection. That does not however make their opinions more valid than every other persons. Recently a close friend declined my invitation to the range to wring out his new duty TRP. He purchased it for supplemental carry for SWAT duties, one of several roles he serves in addition to being a department armorer and range officer. He declined as he has exactly zero experience with the 1911 and finally confided that he's never even disassembled one. This from a 10+ year veteran officer who will be trusting his life to it and makes constant effort to better his skill set from nearly every angle. I realized two things that day, he didn't want to be shown by a regular guy (one trained by a former fellow officer whose shooting credentials were as good as they come for our locale) and he didn't want to be outshot, however remote the chance. That was perhaps the first time I witnessed in person the you're (me) not worthy argument.

5. It's easy to recommend military tested gear, it's seen the rigors of the battlefield and proven out. Plenty of guys can pile on the name dropping Colt/Aimpoint/La Rue mount/Troy BUIS/Nightforce bandwagon and hey, there's no denying nice gear is nice gear period. For the rest of us without unlimited budgets, who aren't going to war and who don't throw our rifles down hills to "test their durability", buying something else can make plenty of sense. If I wanted to throw my Vortex down a hill I'd bet my paycheck it would survive just as well as an Aimpoint, the difference being if both were shattered by a rock, mine would be replaced free of charge and Aimpoint owners would be eating the cost.

As we've established that any such device is subject to failure and will at some point fail and that any proper set up will rely on good ole fashioned BUIS, catastrophic failure of any optic is an acceptable (and planned for) event that should not equate to instant death of the owner. Every choice will have its positives and negatives that require consideration.

 

[JShirley]

If you spend some time on a forum, it usually becomes clear who really knows what they're talking about. There are indeed very many other ways to build credibility and demonstrate skill than wearing a uniform~ but what is a forum newcomer to do? How are they to know whom to trust? They don't have the time spent to really have learned who a Zak Smith or Art Eatman is from a Walter Mitty or Random Liar. So, for these people, talking to someone who demonstrably has taken a product into combat is a good baseline. (I used the M68 Aimpoint CCO on my first deployment. I found it robust, clear, and easy to use.)

Competitors are another good source. Shooting sports are frequently hard on gear, and active sport like 3 gun requires sturdy gear, too. People who are known to be just plain expert shooters' suggestions work fine, too.

Who not to trust? Random people with unknown knowledge bases whose only criteria is "I like this" without providing any comparisons or even any real testing. Those are the "poodle in a tutu" folks I meant. Since people, without knowing them personally, and when they obviously are unable or incapable of speaking authoritatively, could be anyone.

Who else to trust? Well, I trust manufacturers when they say, "we make a good product, but don't suggest you use it for x". That's exactly what PA has said, and it's been quoted and sourced in this thread.

So, to recap, we have to choose who to believe on the web. People who are an unknown quantity, not recognized as experts, who show no valid basis for the products they champion, who feel belittled if anyone points out that total neophytes could be in danger if they follow such advice, and who demonstrate stubborness, childishness, and even poor reading ability- don't listen to those guys.



Pax, John (unable to sleep at the hotel the Yellow Ribbon event I'm attending is in )

 

[Skylerbone]

I believe the point of contention being repeated in regards to PA is that the statement, for which I provided a link, makes clear the manufacturer's opinion on their line of RDS. Revoliver's suggestion, based on his personal experience, was for an entirely different optic falling outside the realm of PA's statement of use. Bringing up that statement again and again is merely providing false witness to lend credibility to an argument for a different choice. The motive in any case may be sound, to steer folks toward known quality (and that has merit) but does not have true bearing on the specific product discussed. Just as recommending a Leupold riflescope, any Leupold riflescope to carry into battle would not be equivalent to recommending the Mark 4 fixed 10X fielded by our military, it should be courtesy to not blanket all products made by any manufacturer in like manner.

My final thoughts on the matter are that I would not wish to discourage anyone from owning an RDS or any other type of useful equipment based on a best or nothing attitude (and please don't see this as an accusation). I encourage everyone to do their homework, consider their needs, budget accordingly and above all, never place unreasonable confidence in any piece of hardware.

 

[JShirley]

I asked Mr. Lerner for clarification. We'll see if he responds.

As I mentioned, I bought 2 Valdada micro-dots, but I won't commend them until I've done a good bit of use with them in appropriate situations.

John