AR15 Optic Setup - This Back and Forth Must Stop!

[JPG19]

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.

I appreciate the suggestions, however I already DO own a .223 scope (I have a Nikon M-223) as well as a TRS-25. In fact, that's what this entire post was supposed to be about! I am going to check out that 3-gun AR guide though!

 

[basicblur]

however I already DO own a .223 scope (I have a Nikon M-223) as well as a TRS-25.

Well there ya go! For only $22.55 you can get you one o' them thar Weaver offset mounts (which appears to be a quality unit), decide on your mount for your scope, and you're off to the races!

Here's a little video with some interesting shots - looking back at the shooter, through his red dot, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBwDCbybnCA
Using his scope for distance shots, rotating to the red dot for speed work.

BTW-iff'n you do bite the bullet on a QD mount, Bravo Company had the LaRue for $195, which is the cheapest I could find.
I never really found anyone with much of a discount on the Bobro, which I ended up with.

I read reviews of the Bushnell PEPR mount, and they seemed mixed?

Then there's ADM - seem to have rather nice stuff, priced lower than LaRue and Bobro (can be found more places at below MSRP), and the Vortex mount Miculek uses is made by ADM (you can see their name on the back of the mount). http://www.americandefensemanufacturing.com/browse/category/opticmounts/scopemounts/

EDIT: Thought I'd toss this mounting video from Brownell's - he's mounting the offset forward of the scope - I've got mine behind the scope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUxMski_eXg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

 

[backbencher]

Are you claiming that the "magnification" of something like a Trijicon TR24 interferes with shooting quickly with both eyes open??

I said there's an argument to be made. Would you birdhunt w/ a 1.1X scope, or a red dot? In CQB, if the scope fails, do you transition seamlessly to irons, or do you have to remove your scope first? I shoot my issue M4 w/ one eye firmly shut, so I don't know if a 1.1X is going to affect shooting w/ both eyes open or not. It will certainly have more limited eye relief than a red dot, which may affect quick shots.

 

[Warp]

I said there's an argument to be made. Would you birdhunt w/ a 1.1X scope, or a red dot? In CQB, if the scope fails, do you transition seamlessly to irons, or do you have to remove your scope first? I shoot my issue M4 w/ one eye firmly shut, so I don't know if a 1.1X is going to affect shooting w/ both eyes open or not. It will certainly have more limited eye relief than a red dot, which may affect quick shots.

Are you claiming the magnification of a scope such as the Trijicon TR24 is 1.1x when set to 1?

What is your basis for this claim?

Have you ever used one, or something similar?

Do you realize that the proper way to shoot a red dot, or a 1x scope with illuminated reticle acting as a red dot, is with both eyes open?

 

[backbencher]

1 - Yes, or something other than 1X. 1.01, 1.1, but not 1.0X
2 - Physics
3 - No.
4 - That is a technique. It doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Warp]

1 - Yes, or something other than 1X. 1.01, 1.1, but not 1.0X
2 - Physics
3 - No.
4 - That is a technique. It doesn't work for everyone.

No basis for your claim?

I've spoken to, and read from, a hell of a lot of people who have used illuminated reticle 1x scopes for "CQC" style shooting using the BAC.

There is exactly zero negative effect from any "magnification".

On the topic of this thread...there is no reason to discredit a quality 1-4 or 1-6 variable power scope with an illuminated reticle under the pretense that a "magnified optic" is a poor choice for fast, close range shooting.

 

[backbencher]

I've already pointed out the basis of my claim that your very expensive scope is not a true 1.0x in the optic sense of the term. It's called physics. Some people call them the natural laws of the universe. They're kinda immutable. You can bend light every which way you like, and you can get really close to 1.0x, but it's not going to be the same as running light through a plate of glass - which is what red dots do, which is why they have infinite eye relief & can use the irons through the scope.

The magnification difference is not the issue in CQB - which is why I suggested, on PAGE 1 of this thread, that the OP go w/ his 1-4x variable. If the scope fails, he'll just take it off & switch to his irons - b/c irons don't work through non-true 1X scopes, unlike red dots. THAT's the issue. W/ an Aimpoint, if it breaks, you switch to your co-located irons, & carry on shooting. Other than the Elcan, there is no other true 1X/4X variable scope - as another poster on page 3 has already pointed out.

 

[TexAg]

I'd recommend shooting both eyes open. At 1x (or 1.1) even though I am right handed, shoot right handed, but am left eye dominant the BAC works for me in close quarters. Eye relief is so generous that it is not an issue either.

 

[JPG19]

Well there ya go! For only $22.55 you can get you one o' them thar Weaver offset mounts (which appears to be a quality unit), decide on your mount for your scope, and you're off to the races!

Here's a little video with some interesting shots - looking back at the shooter, through his red dot, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBwDCbybnCA
Using his scope for distance shots, rotating to the red dot for speed work.

BTW-iff'n you do bite the bullet on a QD mount, Bravo Company had the LaRue for $195, which is the cheapest I could find.
I never really found anyone with much of a discount on the Bobro, which I ended up with.

I read reviews of the Bushnell PEPR mount, and they seemed mixed?

Then there's ADM - seem to have rather nice stuff, priced lower than LaRue and Bobro (can be found more places at below MSRP), and the Vortex mount Miculek uses is made by ADM (you can see their name on the back of the mount). http://www.americandefensemanufacturing.com/browse/category/opticmounts/scopemounts/

EDIT: Thought I'd toss this mounting video from Brownell's - he's mounting the offset forward of the scope - I've got mine behind the scope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUxMski_eXg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

I already have a QD mount for my Nikon M-223 scope (a Burris PEPR QD mount, as mentioned in the ORIGINAL post)...

 

[fragout]

JPG19: Just curious, but have you come to a conclusion yet?

 

[JPG19]

JPG19: Just curious, but have you come to a conclusion yet?

Yes, I have. I don't clear houses or engage in CQB, rather 99% of the use this rifle sees is on the range or in the woods. Given this fact, I decided that the Nikon (with a weapon light) really did make the most sense for me. Couple that with the fact that both the optic (the Nikon M-223) and the QD mount (Burris PEPR) are of superior quality to the TRS-25 and the UTG mount and I feel confident in my decision.

Now, depending upon weight, I may look into an Aimpoint or an Eotech with a 3x magnifier. This, to me, is (in theory) the perfect solution. I'll decide a little later in the year once my weapons-and-hobbies fund has grown sufficiently! Even here, I am torn, and may have to learn to let my AR stay put in it's current, sufficient configuration (or buy a second one!!)!

 

[itsa pain]

who the heck needs a scope for close work. try hunting grouse with a 1x4 scope. I made the mistake of putting a scope on my turkey gun and it got in the way and it was harder to get a bead on them and they stand still. nothing is better for close work then iron sites

 

[fragout]

In that case, I'd vote for a second whole Carbine.

I was "forced" to do a similar thing.......lol

Alright........ I actually just wanted another.

 

[itsa pain]

qqq sorry made a mistake

 

[ObsceneJesster]

I've already pointed out the basis of my claim that your very expensive scope is not a true 1.0x in the optic sense of the term. It's called physics. Some people call them the natural laws of the universe. They're kinda immutable. You can bend light every which way you like, and you can get really close to 1.0x, but it's not going to be the same as running light through a plate of glass - which is what red dots do, which is why they have infinite eye relief & can use the irons through the scope.

The magnification difference is not the issue in CQB - which is why I suggested, on PAGE 1 of this thread, that the OP go w/ his 1-4x variable. If the scope fails, he'll just take it off & switch to his irons - b/c irons don't work through non-true 1X scopes, unlike red dots. THAT's the issue. W/ an Aimpoint, if it breaks, you switch to your co-located irons, & carry on shooting. Other than the Elcan, there is no other true 1X/4X variable scope - as another poster on page 3 has already pointed out.

Some people just don't get it no matter how hard you try to explain. This is why I usually don't reply. It will just be a never ending back and forth.

No matter what you know or what kind of real world experience you have, the Internet commando is always right.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Warp]

Some people just don't get it no matter how hard you try to explain. This is why I usually don't reply. It will just be a never ending back and forth.

No matter what you know or what kind of real world experience you have, the Internet commando is always right.

I agree. People see 1.01x and can't get over the fact that that one hundredth of a point of magnification isn't a true 1x.

Meanwhile those of us who go out and shoot it see that, well, it works exactly as intended.

 

[Antrome]

This might be the solution you are looking for.


www.opticsplanet.com › ... › Burris Rifle Scopes › Burris Fullfield TAC30