Best Fighting Rifle Glass

[sprice]

What do you think is the best scope for a "fighting rifle?" The one I want is primarily for a dmr, with a 16" barrel, but a do-all that is suitable for close quarters would be great.

I like ones that do not take batteries/no electricity. I do prefer an illuminated or bright type of reticle, preferably one featuring drop compensation. I would like it to be able to hit minute of man with a few rounds (about a full magazine, at least hitting close) at 800 yards. A red reticle is also prefered. Durability and reliability is a must!

Any knowledge, information, or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks again!

I probably should have added in the Nightforce NXS 1-4 and 2.5-10 also...

 

[HOLY DIVER]

ACOG?

 

[Chris Rhines]

I hope that you have a big budget.

Look at the Trijicon ACOG TA-11 ($1000-1200), Schmidt und Bender Short Dot PMII 1.1-4x ($2500-$2700), and maybe the Swarovski Z6i-BRT 1-6x ($2300). Of those, the Trijicon is the only one that does not require batteries. All have daylight-visible illuminated reticles, in-reticle bullet drop compensation, and sufficiently rugged construction to go on a fighting rifle.

-C

ETA - sorry, didn't see the poll. The Zeiss and Trijicon Accupoint have no in-reticle BDC, which limits their useful range to around 400 yards. The Leupold could work, but the 1.5x low end makes it a bit harder to use at close range, and the reticle illumination is worthless. I have no experience with the Pride-Fowler.

 

[Smac61]

I'm going to refrain from voting as I'm not qualified to say which is "best" but I like the TR-24 based on battery-less operation and cost, relative to the other choices...

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

I wouldnt know, cant afford any of those. I served almost 40 years ago and some of the militarys best snipers often were equipped with Redfields. dont know what Carlos Hathcock used but you can bet "he didnt need no stinkin ACOG" wonder how he could have done with todays hi tech optics...scary huh??

 

[sprice]

he used a 10x unrtl, but that IS something scary to think about! Hmmm... Gunny hathcock with an lwrc repr equiped with nightforce/other optic mounted on it...

 

[Motega]

If I can offer my 2 cents, I don't think optics have come very far in regards to the glass in the past 30-40 years... there are still camera lenses (Nikor aka Nikon) from that era considered superb and the physics haven't changed... coatings etc. sure but a top of the line scope from Vietnam era and top of the line now probably have a lot in common. In fact a good pair of binoculars from 40 years ago probably sells for about 10X what it cost then and considering the individual human attention most products got back then I might even PREFER a vintage scope/bino/lens to a modern equivalent from the same company!

 

[Coal Dragger]

While there are plenty of good choices out there, in my estimation and personal experience it is hard to beat the Trijicon 4X32 ACOG for proven performance under very tough conditions.

 

[taliv]

based on your thread title: aimpoint micro T1
based on your description: the acog would suit your needs best

i don't think anything else in your poll really matches what you asked for, since you seemed to be describing an acog.
but
if you want a nightforce 1-4x i will sell you one cheap

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have a Trijicon Reflex on my duty rifle. It is great for up close defensive shooting.

 

[TechBrute]

Taliv nailed it. An Aimpoint is superior up to 300 yards. The ACOG is probably the best for what's on your list. You can use the Bindon Aiming Concept up close on the ACOG, I don't know if the lit reticles on the other scope work well that way.

 

[chrome_austex]

Just about any of those would get the job done, but I just picked up an swfa ss 1-4x hd for my 20" upper. I like it better than the aimpoint 1-4 (but I like those too).

I think its got all of those scopes beat, or at minimum it should be in the running. $800 is a steal for what you get. true 1.0-4, red illumination, mil reticule and .1 mrad turrets.

Nothing wrong with an acog of course, but a red dot won't be doing you any favors out at 800. For that range, I'd prefer a 3-9x or more, but my personal needs don't really go beyond 400y.

 

[cheygriz]

There's gotta be a good reason the USMC issues the ACOG TA31.

I know my TA31 works well for me.

 

[HorseSoldier]

TA11 of TA31.

I ran a variable for a while on my M4 and personal AR and found that, ultimately, I almost never used anything by x1 or x4.

And I found that with a TA31 my times up close were competitive with my times running an EOTech -- not quite there, but close enough. And I could transition to engage long targets just fine.

You should also have the Elcan Specter on your list. I don't have much personal experience with them, but they're well thought of by guys who got them in the SOPMOD 2 kits.

 

[TechBrute]

Just about any of those would get the job done, but I just picked up an swfa ss 1-4x hd for my 20" upper. I like it better than the aimpoint 1-4 (but I like those too).

I think its got all of those scopes beat, or at minimum it should be in the running. $800 is a steal for what you get. true 1.0-4, red illumination, mil reticule and .1 mrad turrets.

Nothing wrong with an acog of course, but a red dot won't be doing you any favors out at 800. For that range, I'd prefer a 3-9x or more, but my personal needs don't really go beyond 400y.

I think you're confused.

Aimpoint = non-magnified red dot
ACOG = fixed magnification scope with lit reticle and BDC

Also, the SS does not go to a true 1.0x, despite what the glossy brochure with the pictures of guys in camo says. The only scope that goes from a TRUE 1.0x to a magnified scope is the Elcan SpectreDR, a nice piece, if not a bit heavy and quite pricey.

 

[Lakedaemonian]

It REALLY depends on application, but in the experiences I have had the Aimpoint Comp M4 is sufficient. Its bulletproof, you can get a AA battery almost anywhere, on the most prevalent battle rifle (5.56) you can accuratly engage out to 300 yds with it (if you know your holds), & it is superb for close & dirty work.

 

[chrome_austex]

TechBrute, yeah, I meant to type accupoint, not aimpoint, thank you for correcting me.

Actually I believe the SWFA is a true 1.0x. I have one in hand, so I don't need any glossy brochures Shooting with both eyes open, I can't see any magnification difference at all at 1x. Yes, vendors love to exaggerate their magnification ranges (leupold is notorious for overstating theirs), but this isn't a case of that.

Perhaps that Elcan used to be the only one. not anymore. I believe the accupoint 1-4 is also a true 1.0 (as opposed to their 1.25x4), and a quick web search reveals a host of others.

Its worth noting that the critical eye relief (or "eyebox") can be quite narrow on these 1-4 optics optimized for wide field of view and high magnification range, making head position tricky at the highest power. Thats the compromise downside to the rest of the features.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Actually I believe the SWFA is a true 1.0x.

Can you cowitness your irons through it?

 

[chrome_austex]

No that doesnt work like one would think due to the way a scope works, when viewing a target through a 1x scope you see the image from the front lens' perspective. So although the front post is visible, you seem 5" closer to it. The effect gives you some paralax for nearby objects (5m or so). That, and theres no room to flip up the rear irons.

Not an issue, cause the 1x scope does the same job as irons, but with less obscuring your view. I'll probably run troy flipups as backup irons 'just in case'.

You'd have to have a 1x with extended eye relief to clear the rear irons, and the irons would have to be precisely aligned in height and windage with the centerline of the scope to avoid parallax error. Even then the front irons would appear a few inches closer due to the optics.

A scope at 1.0x power is not the same as the non-lensed glass used on red dots, but beyond about 5m they're about the same (with the nod to the red dot for having the dot at infinity, while the scope is fixed at like 100y, depending on the parallax setting)

 

[TechBrute]

The only reason the Elcan is able to achieve a true 1.0x is that it is not a variable power scope. It has an internal mechanism that switches between 1.0x and 4.0x (or 3, I can't remember). It's really no different than the Aimpoint having an entire magnifying array behind it, only it's internal.

If your point is that modern scopes marketed as "1.0x" magnified scopes are so close to 1.0x that you can't percieve the difference, I'll certainly grant you that. But your whole last statement about there being some parallax, and that your front sight appears 5" closer, illustrates that it is not a true 1.0x power. The whole concept of something appearing closer IS magnification...

 

[HorseSoldier]

Which was the point I was getting at. My Horus was advertised as x1-4, but it wasn't true x1 power at the bottom end. (Nice scope and well made, for all that, however.)

 

[chrome_austex]

TechB, Thats interesting about the Elcan, but the'res nothing wrong with 1.0-??x variable power scopes. For all practical targets outside of arms length, they are effectively 1.0x.

If scopes show an illusion of moving your eye a few inches forward, thats subtly different from being at a higher magnification. If they were anything other than 1.0x you'd see the magnification on distant objects as well.

Besides, i'm not certain you're correct about the Elcan being different other than it being a toggle between 1x and 4x. Here one reviewer comments that even at 1x "the perceived image is marginally magnified", which sounds exactly like what we see through the variables when set at 1x. I'm sure the Elcan is great tho and it sounds like it offers a wide field of view.