OKO red dot impressions

[Kobun]

I have been thinking about what red dot to put on a carbine.
I have for the while being settled on the OKO sight.
It is water proof to 5+ meters (I'll drown before that) and the battery is a common CR2032 and runs between 150 to 1500h depending on setting.
The dot on my sight is a 4moa, the lense is clear and the sight is one of the lightest on the market.
I have added a picatinny steel sight protector.

(The image is the same as the file!)

 

[MLC]

*drips with jealousy*
Let us know how your Sig likes that sight.

 

[Onslaught]

I got one for my AR a while back. I won't be posting any pics next to your Sig though

Anyway, it was super light, and the mounting hardware was the most perfect fit and best lockup I'd ever seen. It was, however, a piece of plastic

So I opted for the SC4, which is a cover like yours, but it has two quick-Detach thumb screws instead of allen screws. It also raises the sight up another 1/4" or so, which I like on the AR.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with the OKO. As far as red-dots go, it's the clearest dot I've seen so far. I like the open glass better than the tube, and I haven't found any light yet including bright sunlight that overpowers the dot. What I have found is that if you accidentally turn it on high inside the house, it hurts your eyes to look at it!

I may try the Hakko next time, for my 9mm AR build.

 

[TN-popo]

After resisting battery operated sights for so long, I fell to the dark side of the force. After doing some checking, I decided on the OKO(for all the same reasons, Kobun).
Though, I wouldn't be as happy if I didn't have the QD SC4 mount. My Dad originally got the SC3, sent it back, and got the SC4, too.
If your wondering, the SC4 returns to zero everytime. I take it off all the time and it is always "spot on" went it returns.
Best.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Kobun,
Don't know the first thing about OKO products but you should be very proud of that rig.
Beauty

S-

 

[762x51]

That's just cruel.

 

[Kobun]

I'm not trying to be cruel, but I'll try not to gloat even though I have been in a state of utter happyness since I got them both.

I'll share another pic (for the sake of the OKO. Please ignore the rifle)...

The attachment is the same as the picture you are looking at!!!

 

[Schuey2002]

So Kobun, how does it shoot.. um, with that OKO sight attached to it, of course?

Any muzzleblast? Does it affect the use of that sight?

 

[Kobun]

Well, Schuey.
It sure is a fun little gun.
If you take the best features from a G3, AK and AR, and then build it with tight tolerances, you are close...

The mags are really easy to load, and it has a good trigger.

I haven't had a chance to shoot it more that much yet, so I will have to report back on the accuracy.
But I can hit what I aim at.

I'm looking forward to chronographing it to see what the muzzle velocity is, as there is only 7" of rifling...
As for muzzle flash. It is noticable! But not that much worse than from a SG 551 with a 14.5" barrel (12.5" rifling).

I will have to take some pics of some of the guns I have to compare the size. The 552 is actually 1/2" longer than the AUG with a 16" barrel.

 

[MLC]

I've always preferred cold weather to hot, the wife may need some convincing though. How much does one of those darlings run?

 

[Kobun]

$2750 and then you can have any configuration you want.

 

[Mute]

I like my OKO. Zeroes easily, nice visibility on the reticle, seems rugged enough, good price point, clear field of view. Works for me.

 

[MMcCall]

Will the OKO co-witness on the Rock River "tactical" carry handle?

 

[Onslaught]

I'm afraid not. A buddy of mine with that exact setup wanted to try mine out at the range a couple weeks ago. It blocks the sights completely. The OKO cowitnesses perfectly when mounted directly to the flat-top receiver.


But I'll tell you the same thing I told him...

The Tactical carry handle is detachable, expensive, and popular. You could sell it, buy a DPMS detachable, or ARMS #40, and still have a few $$$ left over. In fact, you could buy a regular A3 detachable carry handle, and with the money you had left over, you could send it to one of the guys on AR15.com that chops 'em for $30...

It just depends on how much you like the Tactical Carry Handle.

 

[Mute]

Unfortunately, that Rock River Tactical handle won't co-witness with any reflex optic. The rail sits to high in relation to the sights line up. As onslaught said, most optics will co-witness on the standard flat top rails. I have my OKO co-witnessed with a ARMS#40.

 

[MMcCall]

The more I hear about this tactical handle, the more I want to go with an A2 handle and a gooseneck mount.

 

[Onslaught]

Unfortunately, that Rock River Tactical handle won't co-witness with any reflex optic.

The RRA Tactical handle was designed specifically for use with the Aimpoint and "X-wide" factory ring. I would imagine any "tube" optic that mounted very low would work. My buddy also tried a Tasco PDP5 with low rings, and it worked, but just barely. You could see about 75% of the front post, but not all the way to the base.

The more I hear about this tactical handle, the more I want to go with an A2 handle and a gooseneck mount.

Just curious, what's your aversion to mounting the optic directly to the flat-top, and using a smaller "backup" type iron sight?

 

[Mute]

Further clarification. There's a difference between the RRA Tactical handle and an A3 flat top. The A3 rail sits lower in relation to any fixed iron sight and will give you more options on optic choices if you want to co-witness with iron sights. That's probably your best choice.

 

[Onslaught]

Further clarification. There's a difference between the RRA Tactical handle and an A3 flat top.

Not exactly... The Tactical Carry handle:

Is just an alternate carry handle that attaches to the A3 flat-top as opposed to the A3 carry handle which costs about $45 less:

But the A3 flat-top is still under there, and completely accessible, should he choose.

You may be referring to the "UTE" Universal Tactical Entry Upper, which has a profile similar to the Tactical Carry handle, but is not detachable.

I was my impression that MMcCall had the former, rather than the latter. If I'm wrong, and he has the UTE, then his options are seriously limited.

But if his is an A3 with the detachable TCH, and it were my decision to make, I'd sell it, buy the forward "dot" optic of my choice, and then add one of these neat'o rear sights from LMT available from MSTN.biz:

 

[MMcCall]

Yes, my question was about the former (tactical handle), and I'm basically coming towards this two ways, one aesthetics (I'm VERY partial to the A2 profile) and the other being the cost associated with buying another rear sight.

It's not a big deal, since I don't have ANY optics yet, I was just curious.

 

[Mute]

Yes. The Tactical handle and the UTE are basically the same. One is detachable one isn't. I have an RRA A4 upper, which is pretty much the same as everyone else's A3: No integrated rear sight. Take a look at the pictures of the UTE/Tactical handle and a picture of the A4 upper (or A3 if it's not an RRA). Notice how much higher the rail is in relation to the front sight on the UTE/Tactical.

 

[Onslaught]

Yes. The Tactical handle and the UTE are basically the same.

Same height, yes.

But since...

One is detachable one isn't.

It is NOT true to say that

There's a difference between the RRA Tactical handle and an A3 flat top.

Other than the fact that one is a carry handle, one is an upper receiver...

But in regards to a COMPLETE RIFLE with the Tactical Carry handle, it IS an A3 flat-top upper, that just so happens to have a specific type of removeable attachment. Therefore, it is NOT "different", it is exactly the same, just with a different sight attachment.

The UTE can't be removed, and is NOT an A3, so it IS different.....

Whether I put an A2 handle, TCH, ARMS #40, or a #38 S-EX on it, it is still an A3 flat-top underneath.