Which red dot will fail first?

[Elbert P . Suggins]

I mounted a Burska red dot on a Bushmaster AR-15 and a Trueglo on a AK-47. I didn't spend alot on either, maybe $50-75 and hope they stay together and don't fall apart like some posters have said they will do as they are some of the cheapest. So do you think they will hold up to recoil and keep their zero or will I end up spending 200-400 dolllars or more for better quality?

 

[jmorris]

I have a cheap ($29) BSA red dot that has been on a bunch of different guns. Always works if the battery isn't dead. I even put it on one of my belt fed rifles for a strange gun at one of our 3 gun matches.

 

[CraigC]

Cheap stuff usually gets replaced and some folks are determined to learn the hard way.

 

[courtgreene]

you could always put it on another rifle with less recoil, so it's not like it's a waste if you can't use it on those rifles forever.

 

[christcorp]

On the other hand, I have some sub-$100 scopes and such, that have served me well for more than a decade. Holds aim and doesn't go off because of recoil. The old saying of "You get what you pay for" is not always correct. That's an "Easy" way of rationalizing paying a lot for something. However; if enough research is done, you can find products that people are having great success with. Even though it only cost a "Fraction" of what other say you SHOULD pay. e.g. BUIS, magazines, Scopes, Holsters, and plenty of Non-Gun related items. But this is a free country. People can spend whatever they want. I choose NOT to buy impulsively or ignorantly. I research and find the items that most people have had the most success with, then I look for the least amount of money I have to spend on it.

 

[K-Rod]

I've never had luck with the cheap red-dots. After just a few plinking outings they all go from a "Red-Dot" to a "Red Snowflake" so far the only one thats held up is a Sight Mark but it's a Holografic not really a scope.

Further more all of them have been on nothing bigger than an AR. Mostly they've been mounted on rimfire rifles & pistols.

 

[Kwanger]

I mounted a Burska red dot on a Bushmaster AR-15 and a Trueglo on a AK-47. I didn't spend alot on either, maybe $50-75 and hope they stay together and don't fall apart like some posters have said they will do as they are some of the cheapest. So do you think they will hold up to recoil and keep their zero or will I end up spending 200-400 dolllars or more for better quality?

Of all the things you can buy in the world, I have learned that optics is an area where if you cheap out *too* much, it'll usually come back to bite you. Not that you have to spend tons of money on the latest military brand name product of the day - you just have to get something above bargain bucket. With dot types for instance, you could have spent a bit more and got something from Primary Arms, or a little more still and from Vortex - both of whom stand behind their products and in the case of Vortex in particular, are usually pretty robust and well designed in the first place.

No telling how long those cheapies will last, or hold zero, or adjust properly, or whatever - you may be lucky and they work well - or you may not be so lucky (more likely, especially over time ).

 

[CraigC]

The old saying of "You get what you pay for" is not always correct.

It is in this case. You 'may' be lucky enough to use cheap optics all your life and never have an issue. I've had enough cheap optics fail to know that money is never wasted on good glass. Buying quality the first time is cheap insurance.

 

[Elbert P . Suggins]

And I noticed on the TrueGlo that when I move my eye up and down, left and right the dot stays on target except when I move my eye left of the tube the dot moves also to the left. But the Burska dot stays in position while moving my eye in all directions. I just called a friend that mounted a TrueGlo on a Mosin-Nagant M44 and after five rounds both lenses blew out so I guess that answers my questions that I previously asked so thanks for all your responses.

 

[christcorp]

It is in this case. You 'may' be lucky enough to use cheap optics all your life and never have an issue. I've had enough cheap optics fail to know that money is never wasted on good glass. Buying quality the first time is cheap insurance.

I don't need insurance. But this type of conversation reminds me of people who excited about receiving a "Tax Refund". Sorry; but if you're receiving a tax refund, then I don't EVER want to talk to you about finances. A tax refund means you don't know anything about finances.

As for optics. I have many different optics, for different weapons and guns. For me, I put optics/sights into 2 categories. Magnified (Typical scopes with 3x up to whatever and usually larger than a 30-40mm lens. Then there's the non-magnified. I put both red-dots and iron sights into this category. This category is much less critical. Some say it isn't, but I will disagree with them. whether it's holo or red-dot or iron, it is all basically open sights. I don't need the quality of glass for 100-150 yards. And that's exactly what open sights "including holo and red-dots" are designed for. You don't hunt 300 yards away with a red-dot. Just like you don't normally shoot inside 100 yards with a 4x scope.

And while I have $500+scopes like zeiss; I also have $50-$75 non-magnified sights that have done we well for many years. If you want to spend $500+ on an EoTech; have at it. For me, that's the biggest waste of money on the planet. But again; that's just me. All I ask of iron sights or other non-magnified optics is 1) That it physically stays on the rifle. It doesn't loosen up and possibly fall off. and 2) That once I sight it in, that it stays sighted in. Yes; I have run into some crap that isn't consistent. But i've also found some really good sights that don't cost $100 or more either. I don't base my decisions off of what others say. I use the experiences of others, and many other sources, and then I make a decision. sometimes it wasn't a good decision. But I refuse to simply pay $500 for an EoTech because it's "Cheap Insurance". No it's not. Some make claims like. "You should spend on optics, at least close to what you paid for the rifle". If that isn't the biggest crock of shiite I've ever heard. (Just my opinion). Again; I'm talking about non-magnification sights. Magnified scopes have a whole different list of issues that need to be considered.

 

[Quentin]

EPS, all you can do is keep shooting with them and see how it goes. They won't take the abuse of a milspec model but if you don't whack them on door jams they might hold up to recoil. Time will tell. Cowitness them on your irons and if there's a problem at least you'll know right away.

So far my two Bushnell TRS-25s are holding up well on my 5.56 ARs. And a cheap NC-Star on my Colt "M4" .22lr. One TRS-25 dot began drifting off to the left but the mount had loosened. A quick cinching down and the dot was again lollipoped back on the front sight.

Last week I picked up a cheap BSA on sale for $19.99 at Cabelas that mounts nicely on my Marlin Model 60 (won't fit on picatinny which was ok with me). Looks like it'll work. Anyway, no way could I buy that many top quality RDS optics so this was the only way to go.

 

[CraigC]

I don't need insurance.

Really? I do. Sorry sir but I've had a bunch of cheap-ass scopes fail, enough that you won't pee down my back and tell me it's raining with this rhetoric. Like I said, if you can get by with cheap scopes, consider yourself lucky. I prefer to take as much luck out of the equation as possible by buying quality the first time. And who the hell said you had to pay $500 for an Eotech to get a decent optic??? There's a huge array of optics available in th at range between the $30 BSA and the $500 Aimpoints and EOTechs.

 

[armoredman]

I'd like to know what ones in that range are nice - I'd like to put one back on my vz-58 since my EOTech went bye bye due to a bad month of finances, and can't afford something that expensive again.
I have had cheap red dots fail, an ADCO that was wrong out of the box, a BSA that began turning itself off after 50 rounds, and I have had cheap scopes fail, like a Simmons 8-Point that wouldn't hold a zero to save its life. So if someone knows of a medium priced red dot reflex sight that will hold up to mild abuse and doesn't cost and arm and a leg, I'll listen

 

[Maverick223]

I don't know about red-dot optics but cheap riflescopes rarely ever pay off. I'd save up for a proven system like an Aimpoint or, on the cheap end, a Vortex which at the very least has an excellent warranty (and judging by their other optics holds promise).

 

[walter34payton2002]

On the other hand, I have some sub-$100 scopes and such, that have served me well for more than a decade. Holds aim and doesn't go off because of recoil. The old saying of "You get what you pay for" is not always correct. That's an "Easy" way of rationalizing paying a lot for something. However; if enough research is done, you can find products that people are having great success with. Even though it only cost a "Fraction" of what other say you SHOULD pay. e.g. BUIS, magazines, Scopes, Holsters, and plenty of Non-Gun related items. But this is a free country. People can spend whatever they want. I choose NOT to buy impulsively or ignorantly. I research and find the items that most people have had the most success with, then I look for the least amount of money I have to spend on it.

I don't need insurance. But this type of conversation reminds me of people who excited about receiving a "Tax Refund". Sorry; but if you're receiving a tax refund, then I don't EVER want to talk to you about finances. A tax refund means you don't know anything about finances.

As for optics. I have many different optics, for different weapons and guns. For me, I put optics/sights into 2 categories. Magnified (Typical scopes with 3x up to whatever and usually larger than a 30-40mm lens. Then there's the non-magnified. I put both red-dots and iron sights into this category. This category is much less critical. Some say it isn't, but I will disagree with them. whether it's holo or red-dot or iron, it is all basically open sights. I don't need the quality of glass for 100-150 yards. And that's exactly what open sights "including holo and red-dots" are designed for. You don't hunt 300 yards away with a red-dot. Just like you don't normally shoot inside 100 yards with a 4x scope.

And while I have $500+scopes like zeiss; I also have $50-$75 non-magnified sights that have done we well for many years. If you want to spend $500+ on an EoTech; have at it. For me, that's the biggest waste of money on the planet. But again; that's just me. All I ask of iron sights or other non-magnified optics is 1) That it physically stays on the rifle. It doesn't loosen up and possibly fall off. and 2) That once I sight it in, that it stays sighted in. Yes; I have run into some crap that isn't consistent. But i've also found some really good sights that don't cost $100 or more either. I don't base my decisions off of what others say. I use the experiences of others, and many other sources, and then I make a decision. sometimes it wasn't a good decision. But I refuse to simply pay $500 for an EoTech because it's "Cheap Insurance". No it's not. Some make claims like. "You should spend on optics, at least close to what you paid for the rifle". If that isn't the biggest crock of shiite I've ever heard. (Just my opinion). Again; I'm talking about non-magnification sights. Magnified scopes have a whole different list of issues that need to be considered.

I disagree. First, it depends on your usage. If the gun will ever possibly be used for defense, then no, cheaper is not better. The thing with getting a lot of those "cheaper" red dots is that you may get one that holds zero and doesn't self destruct, but you run the risk of getting the same model that doesn't do so. The quality control just is not the same from, say, ncstar as it is from EOTech and Aimpoint. The second thing is the technology. You can't get the holographic technology that yields zero parallax from any other than EOTech. Bushnell offers it, but without the armor. Also, good glass is nice when you run a magnifier and it doesn't hurt. Battery life is another concern. At the end of the day, for a serious gun, you want to minimize any potential failures as much as possible. One way to do that is to use optics with quality parts, that have good quality control, that have a record of success in different circumstances, and that are well crafted. When the focus is on building the best quality product you can, that costs more money. period. I really want to hear you say that if your life depended on a rifle you would choose a sub 100 dollar red dot. I didn't even mention customer service because when something fails it is too late anyway. But the good brands will stand by their stuff.

 

[walter34payton2002]

I just called a friend that mounted a TrueGlo on a Mosin-Nagant M44 and after five rounds both lenses blew out so I guess that answers my questions that I previously asked so thanks for all your responses.

Just think.....This could happen at the worst moment. For me it is also a huge piece of mind. How would you like to think every time you pick up the rifle....Is this thing going to turn on, how much battery do I have left, is it holding zero still, and will today be the day it breaks. No way.

 

[Davek1977]

I didn't even mention customer service because when something fails it is too late anyway. But the good brands will stand by their stuff.

Primary Arms, importers of some of the better quality "cheapie" red dots, has outstanding customer service from EVERY account I've read....personally, I've never had to contact them, because the sight has performed as advertised since day one. While some places may skimp out on customer service, it doesn't take the purchase of $500 sight to get outsrtanding service even after the sale. Once again, people are making the assumption if its cheap, it has to suck. Thats not always the case. I don't plan on going into battle any time soon. I don't need, nor can I even justify, a $500 optic. If the world ends and i am forced into a situation where I do have to defend myself, guess what? Despite popular belief, my optic won't fail because it suddenly senses I'm in a combat situation as opposed to out hunting. The gun and the scope don't know the difference, and the odds of being in an armed confrontation where I'm forced to use my carbine defensively are so miniscule, I'm not going to purchase all my gear and guns with that possibility being my primary focus. I plink and hunt, I'm not hunting Al Quida. That being said, my budget rig of A doublestar carbine and primary arms m4 suits me just fine. Neither has failed or hiccupped on me yet, and I have just as much fun wit it as those who have invested twice what I have in it. I have no doubt my rifle/optic will do whats asked of it, despite it not carrying 'premium" rollmarks on every piece, and while not bought as a combat system, I do think it'd suffice if forced into that role

 

[fallout mike]

Yall guys keep saying you need optics that are good for self defense and. That your life might depend on it? Really? Where do yall live? Do yall have to like get on your roof and shoot them coming down the road or what?

 

[armoredman]

Pretty rude, mike. Some places get a little nuts now and then, like Nawlins during Katrina, or the '92 LA/Rodney King riots, yeah, there can be an actual use for these things, so don't be judgemental - it can and has happened.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I mounted a Burska red dot on a Bushmaster AR-15 and a Trueglo on a AK-47. I didn't spend alot on either, maybe $50-75 and hope they stay together and don't fall apart like some posters have said they will do as they are some of the cheapest. So do you think they will hold up to recoil and keep their zero or will I end up spending 200-400 dolllars or more for better quality?

I don't think your testing is appropriate given the different amounts of recoil by each rifle. At first blush, I would say whichever one is on the AK-47 would be most apt to fail first.

If the rifles are in your self defense stable, consider getting a better sight. If for plinking, have fun with your testing and be creative. Try switchng the sights between the two rifles so that the both get time on each. To be fair, you need to run one optic on one gun for X rounds and then move it to the next gun and put the second optic on the first gun and run it for the same number of rounds. Then repeat with the second gun and continue back and forth. In this way, but sights will endure the same number of shots with the same amount of recoil in the same order and will make the testing more appropriate.

Cheap stuff usually gets replaced and some folks are determined to learn the hard way.

And some folks never learn about unnecessarily paying too much money.

 

[christcorp]

Craig; the fact that you said there are quality optics from the $30 BSA to the $500 Aimpoint or EOTech shows that we don't disagree. I specifically said that there are plenty of good optics out there for under $100. And I definitely believe so.

But let me reiterate that I'm specifically speaking of Non-Magnification sights. Holo, red-dot, and iron sights. A whole different set of variables come into play when discussing magnified sights. Which I only use for hunting. My 2 main hunting scopes are an A1optic and Zeiss. One costs about $100 and the other over $500. Both have been perfect for what I use them for. But for non-magnification sights, it's a different story. There is no difference between iron sights and red-dots when it comes to range. The only difference is that a red-dot/holo type sight is easier and faster to acquire your target. And for what it's worth, i would never spend $200 for a pair of iron/backup sights. As long as the sights don't fall off; and stay zeroed, then they are doing their job. People say the AR's are designed to shoot out to 500 yards. Well for those who believe that, you need to join the military or go back in and play war. For any defensive use you'll use it for as a civilian, the chances are almost 0% that you'll ever use it past 100 yards. And that's really pushing it. But if you believe it could happen that you'll need it past 100 yards, then you probably believe in the red-dawn theory. In which case, we don't need to discuss it, because we won't find any common ground.

Sorry; but I not doing belly crawls under barbed wire anymore. I'm not kicking doors in. I'm not going to try being a sniper at 200+ yards. I have absolutely no need for some armor protected sight that costs $500.

 

[fallout mike]

Armored man, I live an hour from nawlins, some of that stuff went on here too in gulfport. It would not have helped u in new Orleans though. The police and military went door to door confiscating everybodys guns.

 

[jerkface11]

I've had both. Barska wouldn't hold a zero out of the box. Truglow was a 2x model and had the worst paralax of any optic I've ever used. It was like looking thru a fisheye lens.

 

[CraigC]

And some folks never learn about unnecessarily paying too much money.

Really? I don't have a single optic that cost much over $300. I have also never had a Burris, Weaver, Leupold or Bushnell Elite fail. Whereas I have a box full of Tasco, Red Star, BSA, Simmons, TruGlo, etc. that are garbage. Some folks just refuse to believe that they paid good money for junk....until it lets them down.

 

[christcorp]

Unless it doesn't let you down.