Low Power Variable Scopes for rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nightcrawler

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
6,950
Location
Utah, inside the Terraformed Zone
What are your opinions on variable optics that go from very low magnification (1.1 to 1.25 power) to medium magnification (4x, usually) for a semi-auto rifle? The idea is that these scopes, on their low setting, will be used with both eyes open, like a red dot sight, but for longer ranged shots, you need only zoom in and use them like a traditional scope.

The example I'm considering specifically is the Valdada 1.1-4x, with the Illuminated Donut reticule. I think the Horseshoe reticule is too busy for my taste, but I've never used either in person.

dsat11426scope.gif


I think this would be a great optic on my FAL carbine. It'd have to be mounted high, to clear the iron sights, but I don't mind that. I was dubious about these types of scopes before, until I examined a Trijicon Accupoint 1.25-4x. On the low setting, the distortion is minimal and you can aim with both eyes open like a red dot sight. (Coincidentally, that Trijicon scope is the other one I'm considering.)

So, what do you think? Are these good ideas, bad ideas? Failing that, what optics would you recommend for a FAL carbine? Being a 16"-er, I consider it a 0-400 meter gun, and 400 meters is pushing it for my rusty, haven't-been-shooting-in-nearly-long-enough skillz. So I'm not looking for a ten power scope or any such.
 
NC,

If 400M is your max range that should be plenty. Remember the high power rifle guys shoots 400-600 yds. with aperture sights. I think the ability to shoot with both eyes open at close to zero magnification, a la red-dot, and then crank up to 4x for intermediate range shots says semi-auto carbine all over it. I like the idea. I don't have any personal experience with Valdada optics, but DSA has a reputation for making and selling top notch stuff, so I think thats a pretty strong endorsement.
 
I don't have any experience with them myself, but the 3-gun guys seem to be big fans. You might do a search at brianenos.com .
 
I just returned from the sandbox. On my issued m4 I use a Burris 2x7 compact. It works fantastic. I keep it on 2 power and shoot both eyes open. When I need to I can dial it up for a longer shot.

When I return I will do it the same. works for me.
 
Burris scopes

How fast is the 1.5, 1.75, and 2x when aiming with both eyes open at very close ranges? Is the optical distortion a problem, or do you get used to it? Presently, I'm thinking that for very short ranges, 1.1-1.25 power would be best, aiming like a dot sight. Are 1.5, 1.75, and 3 power acceptable too?

How did that Burris hold up over there in the desert? You don't often see Burris rated up there with Leupold, Schmidt & Bender, etc. But, they are a lot more affordable. As long as they hold up okay, I don't care if it doesn't have a famous name on the side.

Burris scopes I'm interested in:

lrs15x6xsig.gif

1.5-6x Signature Select (or its "tactical" counterpart)

lrs175x5x.gif

1.75-5x Signature Select Safari LRS

2x7xffIItactical.gif

2-7x35mm "Tactical" Fullfield II
 
I use 1.5-4.5 x 32 Bushnells on my SU16 and .50 Beowulf upper, and a 2-7 x 32 Leupold on my 458 Win. Couldn't be happier, both the Beowulf and 458 get used for hog and coyote hunting and work great on the shots under 150 yards or so. Dialed down to 1.5 you can shoot quickly with both eyes open, then crank it up to 4.5 for longer shots.

Any one of the three you are looking at would work great. I've got several 3-9 Burris FFII's and have not had any problems with them at all, very good glass for the money.
 
A buddy of mine and I have both rigged our AR's up with Leupold 1-4 X 20 shotgun scopes. At 1 it is perfect for quick target acquisition close in with both eyes open. At 4 power it is good out to 300 meters or so. These are not terribly expensive ($200.00), but are bright compact, and rugged. Works real good, lasts a long time.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • AR-Scope.jpg
    AR-Scope.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 460
Man. I"ve got to get up in four hours and I just can't sleep. Had the munchies! Some french bread and some cheese helped that.

Look at me. Eating like a European.

Anyways, thanks for the link, Mr. Roberts!

That Leupold 1-4x20mm scope looks interesting...very interesting. I like the simple old duplex crosshair reticule and the relatively inexpensive cost. It's made for shotguns, so the recoil of my FAL won't beat it up. (FALs can be hard on scopes).

Hrmm...Costs about two hundred dollars, you say? Maybe not as tactical as the Valada, but one third the price? Good for seeing if I like the concept of the low power variable scope. If not, Leupolds are easy to resell.

It's not actually 1x, though. It's 1.6x-4.2x. Is one-point-six-power too much magnification for very close in (0-25 meters) shooting with both eyes open, or do your eyes compensate? I know the distortion at 1.25x is minimal, but that's the only scope of this type I've played around with.

Also, that tiny 20mm objective...one thing I do like about the Valdada is the 26mm objective. Most similar scopes of this type are much smaller.

Too bad they don't make this with an illuminated reticule.

I also like their 1.25-4x "European-30" scope. Again, though, the actual magnification is 1.5-3.9x. Why don't they just call it that instead of saying 1.25-4x? If their 1.25x setting is actually 1.5x, I might as well get the 1.5-5x scope and have done with it. (This one is more expensive, though. But it IS available with an illuminated reticule.)

Lots to mull over. Hum...

The next question becomes, how to properly mount this? A lot of guys, when mounting optics on a FAL, will remove the rear sight. I won't do this. Whatever optic I have, the iron sights will remain in place and the scope will have a quick-detach setup.

For my big Valdada 4x scope, I purchased DSA high see-through rings so the scope would clear the rear sight. This was necessary because the scope protrudes rearward past the rear sight, and I've got a para-type sight on there anyway. With the standard sight and my old cheapie Bushnell scope, I could mount the scope so the lens was just in front of the rear sight, and it didn't interfere with the sight picture at all.

The problem with mounting it so it clears the irons is cheek weld. Again, I've played around with this and it's not bad to where it bothers me. I think should it become an issue I can just get one of those nice neoprene cheek pads that DSA sells. You just strap it to the stock, and you can rotate it out of the way if you want to shoot with iron sights.

Anyway...gotta go to bed now. Going to be a looong day tomorrow.
 
Is one-point-six-power too much magnification for very close in (0-25 meters) shooting with both eyes open, or do your eyes compensate?
Click to expand...

I didn't find the slight magnification of the Leupold to be a problem at all. In fact, I liked it; but I normally shoot a 3.5x ACOG.

The problem with mounting it so it clears the irons is cheek weld.
Click to expand...

Another nice thing about using a shotgun scope is they typically have long eye reliefs. I think the Leupold is almost 4", so you could probably do just fine with the scope mounted in front of the irons. You may be able to get it low enough to use the same cheek weld and still not conflict. That is just a guess on my part though, I've never used one on a FAL.
 
The 2x7 compact Burris is an older one. I have a couple of them. It works excellent. I used to use it on a personally owned semi auto m4 for coyote hunting and general truck gun use. It has held up for years of pretty rough use. I has worked perfectly in the sandbox. It is very fast too. My normal issue optic is an eotech, which is nice but I wanted something better for longer shots. I have never had any probs keeping up with the red dots for close range speed. The red dots cannot hold a candle to the Burris for longer range precision. It has worked well for me for years.
 
Thank you all again for all of the helpful insight! I'm liking this idea more and more, it seems.

Bart, the main reason I want the scope to go OVER the rear sight is because I have a DSA "tactical" rear sight with the windage knob. While the stock FAL rear sight is just a piece of metal with a hole through it, this sight has a flip aperature, beefy steel wings, and a windage knob on the side. I fear that that would obscure too much of the scope's lens.

attachment.php
 
If you just want to test the concept ...

The simmons line might fit the bill better. One of the better 3gun shooters (benny hill) turned a lot of folks onto them. Mine have the prodiamond reticle, which makes for fast CQ work. They made one that was illuminated, 1.5-5X32 IIRC, which aligns even more closely with your preferences. The 30mm costs you fov tho. I prefer mine (1.5-5X20). It's a turkey scope. CDNN cleared them out for $50 a piece (I paid 2x that, still pretty cheap).

Couple of other things. Benny Hill now shoots a Meopta (sp?) by Meostar (IIRC). It's pricier. I think this gives a true 1X on the low end.

Is it leupold that makes the 1-3XCQB? Not as much magnification up top, but excellent rep.

Mueller has been looking to introduce a true 1X with a fancy reticle, but so far it's vaporware. Been a thread on AR15.com for over a year, something like 30+ pages.
 
FWIW...Burris scopes have (or at least as of a few years ago had) brass or bronze internal parts where Leupold used nylon (plastic). I've got some Leo's, a couple B&L's, and three Burris. My single clearest, best light gathering scope IMO is a Burris Black Diamond 3x12.

I use a Burris variable on my 3" 12 gauge slug gun. You will not have near that type of recoil. Get Butler Creek flip caps to protect the glass. Burris has better internals, equivalent glass, and costs less. As with Leo's, there different grades. My 1,000 yard gun has an 8x32 Signature. It is slightly less clear than the Black Diamond, but still quite adequate for the money.
 
Another nice thing about using a shotgun scope is they typically have long eye reliefs. I think the Leupold is almost 4", so you could probably do just fine with the scope mounted in front of the irons.
Click to expand...
That does sound like a nice advantage in some situations.

However, don't most shotgun scopes have parallax set at like 50 yards?
 
I have an IOR Valdeda 2.5-10x scope with a mil line reticle. I had occasion to look through a Shmidt & Bender scope right alongside mine. The weather was overcast and the sun was going down. I couldn't genuinely see a difference in clairty or brightness under those conditions. I wouldn't hesitate to fully endorse my scope as it has been nothing short of a complete pleasure. I did think long and hard about it as the scope cost significantly more than my rifle! Considering your application I might caution you that IOR scopes are a hearty breed and they don't really compete if weight is your most significant issue (which you haven't indicated). I looked through both Burris and Leupold scopes when I was shopping and I felt that the larger tube diameter of the IOR and the quality glass made it a better choice.
 
My complaint with low power scopes in general is that with a very few exceptions (Tasco's EXP for example) they have VERY small objectives.

I guess that doesn't matter when our guys have night vision but for the average civilian hunter a 1.5-4x by 40mm scope is a very useful thing in dark timber.

I would think that red-dot type scopes or 'sights' would make use of all the light gathering they could muster, rather than just a 1 inch tube with no bell.
 
The next question becomes, how to properly mount this? A lot of guys, when mounting optics on a FAL, will remove the rear sight. I won't do this. Whatever optic I have, the iron sights will remain in place and the scope will have a quick-detach setup.
Click to expand...
IIRC, I've seen bolt-on, see thru mounts for the FAL for sale at Sarco.com. As far as the use of shotgun scopes, I use a 1.5-4.5x Swift on one of my ARs and it works like a champ.

Mike
 
Again, very interesting advice. The Burris 2-7x compact scope looks interesting too, and I prefer a smaller optic if possible. Well, smaller length-wise. I don't mind a larger objective, because like it was said, that improves light transmission and helps you in low light.

I'd prefer an illuminated reticule, but I think I could get by without.

Still, there are just too many choices. If YOU were going to put an optic on a 16" FAL carbine, which would you choose? I don't mean just low-magnification scopes, either. Any optic. Which would you install and why?

I'm mainly looking for versatility. Right now the FAL is my only rifle, I'd like to make the most of it.

Thanks!
 
A lot depends on what you hunt, and the terrain you hunt. Most of my hunting is in dense cover, swamps or along feeder creeks.
I have one Ruger M77 in .243 that has worn the same Weaver 4X scope for over 25 years now, and is deadly on whitetails where I hunt.
All of my lever hunting rifles wear older low power variables, either El Passo Weavers, or Denver Redfields.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Low Power variable Scopes
Replies
8
Views
806
Walkalong
Walkalong
C
  • Locked
Best Magnification for Battle Rifle Optic?
Replies
24
Views
6K
Jonathan
J
N
  • Locked
Trijicon Reflex Sights, Chevron Reticule, FAL Optics again
Replies
3
Views
1K
Omnivore
O
N
  • Locked
Think I found the perfect optic for my FAL!
Replies
3
Views
459
Chris Rhines
C
R
  • Locked
Low Power Variable Rifle Scope
Replies
6
Views
836
jmr40
jmr40
Back
Top