To scope or not to scope?

[Branth]

...That is, of course, the question.

For a while, I was of the opinion that scopes were just not something I'd use, and I'd rather use a red-dot sight. After all, if I can't see it, I can't hit it, right? While I have since scoped my AR, I still see the appeal of no magnification optics - You can use them with both eyes open much easier, parallax free, and still pretty accurate.

That said, there's a reason why optics with magnification are so popular. In a controlled setting, you can be much more accurate with them. With my rifle and some custom handloads, I put 4 out of 5 rounds into a 200-yard target in under an inch. Once. Doubt I could do it again, but still, the potential for hair-splitting accuracy is there.

So, assuming that you can't predict exactly what kind of conditions you'd be facing in a PAW, would you go with a scope, or a red-dot/holosight/irons?

I'm kinda torn... I'd be in favor of the red-dot, but then you run into the problem of batteries, which would be difficult to find unless you get something that runs on AA batteries and is pretty efficient. If they made a holosight that used fiber-optics or something, or didn't require batteries, I'd be all over it.

So, what do you guys think?

[MikeM]

I went with red dots on both my personal carbines. I went with the dots for the simple reason of wanting a head up, both eyes open shooting option.
There's nothing wrong with either irons or scopes (in fact I plan to build a scoped 20" AR next), but for the ranges I shoot at most I do not need magnification.
If I really had to step out into the PAW everyday, I would probably be looking at a 1-4 magnification on something like a LaRue QD mount with BUIS.

[smokestack]

i have a scout scope setup on my marlin lever action. its a long eye relief hand gun scope mounted just forward of the receiver. it allows the use of slight magnification and the ability to keep your eye on target until your ready to shoot.

[Maverick299]

I'm kinda torn... I'd be in favor of the red-dot, but then you run into the problem of batteries, which would be difficult to find unless you get something that runs on AA batteries and is pretty efficient. If they made a holosight that used fiber-optics or something, or didn't require batteries, I'd be all over it.

Not exactly a holosight but check out the Trijicon Acog. Batteries free with/without magnification.

Another option is a swing away magnifier. I put a reddot on my AR and then added a 3x swing away magnifier so I have the option of no magnification or 3x magnification in the same package.

To scope or not to scope.......I say both!

[AKFTW]

I have never really used optics extensively, though I plan to get a red dot this summer. One thing about most magnified optics is you have to put your face in EXACTLY the right place to see clearly with them (this may not be true of military optics, I know the PSO-1 I used was more forgiving), so your speed may suffer if you don't have the muscle memory of mounting the rifle totally down.

[Branth]

These are all valid points, and kind of echo what I'm concerned about, though I haven't heard any thoughts on the availability of batteries.

I really like the ACOG, and would totally get one if I had $1300 to blow. As it is, I still need to get a long-range heavy hitter like a .308 or -06, a tactical 12ga for home defense, and a compact 9mm for CCW, so money would likely go towards those before I dropped that much on an optic.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I'd rather have an optic. Anything decent in a fixed power (2x-5x) or a variable of the same dimensions (1-4) is awesome the second you step out of the 25m range. There's a reason the Marines use the ACOG: fixed 3.5x is maybe a hair slower at 10m than a red dot, but it's a fucklot more accurate at 400m, and makes 750m shots plausible with a weapon normally accurate to 550m.

[DarkAxel]

I'm kinda torn... I'd be in favor of the red-dot, but then you run into the problem of batteries, which would be difficult to find unless you get something that runs on AA batteries and is pretty efficient. If they made a holosight that used fiber-optics or something, or didn't require batteries, I'd be all over it.

Not exactly a holosight but check out the Trijicon Acog. Batteries free with/without magnification.

I don't really buy into the whole "Guns for the PAW" business myself, but an ACOG is only good for 12.5 years from the date of manufacture or last service, and you can't prep extras.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

I'm kinda torn... I'd be in favor of the red-dot, but then you run into the problem of batteries, which would be difficult to find unless you get something that runs on AA batteries and is pretty efficient. If they made a holosight that used fiber-optics or something, or didn't require batteries, I'd be all over it.

Not exactly a holosight but check out the Trijicon Acog. Batteries free with/without magnification.

I don't really buy into the whole "Guns for the PAW" business myself, but an ACOG is only good for 12.5 years from the date of manufacture or last service, and you can't prep extras.

The tritium part, yes. The magnification, the light collecting apparatus (for daytime chevron glow) and everything except the glow-in-the-dark bit will keep on working. They also make other Holo red-dots that are battery free, though I'll be buggered if I know what they are.

[Shiloh]

I hope the OP doesn't mind me cluttering up this thread with more questions, but this subject got me thinking. Being visually disabled (blind in the right eye, limited vision in the left) using a scope is almost a necessity for me on anything other than shotguns, handguns, or subguns. I seriously have a hard time picking out a pie-plate at 100 yards and consistently getting rounds on target. But the issue I've seen with that is the limited FOV that a magnifying scope entails. Are there any options that would allow me to go quickly from a scope for longer shots (100+ yards) and then transition to irons or a red dot for closer work?

[DarkAxel]

The tritium part, yes. The magnification, the light collecting apparatus (for daytime chevron glow) and everything except the glow-in-the-dark bit will keep on working. They also make other Holo red-dots that are battery free, though I'll be buggered if I know what they are.

That is good to know. I don't have much experience with the ACOG myself. I'm more of an irons or VP scope guy.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Shiloh: A variable power optic would work, or a fixed power combat optic. The idea is to look for something along the lines of the Mk12 (used on the USMC DMR of the same name) that is designed to switch from 4x to 12x in a matter of seconds. I only mention the Mk12 because it's the only one I've worked with, but most any variable-power optic would work. Another option is something like the Eotech with the flip on/off magnifier. Lastly, there's the 45* offset mount for a smaller RDS. It's my least favorite option, as it's really designed for last ditch "oh-shit" work than sustained 100yd shots. I've grown really comfortable with both the 4-12x scope and the ACOG for everything from 50m out to 800m. The wide-angle fixed power will be better for "battle-rifle" ranges, such as 10m-500m, whereas a variable will give you better long-distance options at the cost of a more limited FOV and a slower shot at ranges under 100m.

DarkAxel: When I started working with the DMR, I grew to love VP scopes as well, but they sacrifice the speed and quick follow up of a fixed-power combat optic. I'm still looking for a decent non-battery fixed-power combat optic that costs less than a new AR-15.

[Shiloh]

Shiloh: A variable power optic would work, or a fixed power combat optic. The idea is to look for something along the lines of the Mk12 (used on the USMC DMR of the same name) that is designed to switch from 4x to 12x in a matter of seconds. I only mention the Mk12 because it's the only one I've worked with, but most any variable-power optic would work. Another option is something like the Eotech with the flip on/off magnifier. Lastly, there's the 45* offset mount for a smaller RDS. It's my least favorite option, as it's really designed for last ditch "oh-shit" work than sustained 100yd shots. I've grown really comfortable with both the 4-12x scope and the ACOG for everything from 50m out to 800m. The wide-angle fixed power will be better for "battle-rifle" ranges, such as 10m-500m, whereas a variable will give you better long-distance options at the cost of a more limited FOV and a slower shot at ranges under 100m.

I've seen the Eotech set-up before, and it really interested me. If I ever own an AR, that's definitely a configuration I'm going to consider.

[DarkAxel]

DarkAxel: When I started working with the DMR, I grew to love VP scopes as well, but they sacrifice the speed and quick follow up of a fixed-power combat optic. I'm still looking for a decent non-battery fixed-power combat optic that costs less than a new AR-15.

I have very good eyesight, so right now I just don't see the percentage in fixed-power optics considering their cost. When I get a bit older and my eyes start to go, I'll probably break down and get one. My VP scopes are for hunting

I train on irons right now because I just can't justify the price of combat optics (one Aimpoint or Eotech will feed my family for a month or more, and money is tight as fuck right now), and I like to shoot a lot, so it works out.

[nimdabew]

I don't really buy into the whole "Guns for the PAW" business myself, but an ACOG is only good for 12.5 years from the date of manufacture or last service, and you can't prep extras.

The half-life of the tritium is 12 years. That means at the date of manufacturer, that in 12 years, the tritum will be half as right as when it was made. 12 yeras after that, half as bright as it was at 12 years. So after 36 yeras, 25% as bright. If after 36 years, you haven't been able to see shit at night with your ACOG and its superior light gathering properties without electricity and whatnot, you have bigger problems. I plan to survive the PAW for as long as it takes my children to reach child bearing years and then die off. Think 36 year life span as in the middle ages.

[nimdabew]

DarkAxel: When I started working with the DMR, I grew to love VP scopes as well, but they sacrifice the speed and quick follow up of a fixed-power combat optic. I'm still looking for a decent non-battery fixed-power combat optic that costs less than a new AR-15.

http://leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting ... ii-6x36mm/

http://leupold.com/tactical/products/sc ... mm-lrt-m1/

Personally, I would get a SFP 2.5-10x32 or a FFP 3-12x42. The 10x leupy would be my knee jerk for a field gun, but a 3-12 would be so much awesomer.

[DarkAxel]

I don't really buy into the whole "Guns for the PAW" business myself, but an ACOG is only good for 12.5 years from the date of manufacture or last service, and you can't prep extras.

The half-life of the tritium is 12 years. That means at the date of manufacturer, that in 12 years, the tritum will be half as right as when it was made. 12 yeras after that, half as bright as it was at 12 years. So after 36 yeras, 25% as bright. If after 36 years, you haven't been able to see shit at night with your ACOG and its superior light gathering properties without electricity and whatnot, you have bigger problems. I plan to survive the PAW for as long as it takes my children to reach child bearing years and then die off. Think 36 year life span as in the middle ages.

*facepalm*

Most of what I know about tritium comes from studying nuclear bomb designs. Tritium decays into He3, and that's what fucks up the nukes. Wouldn't have any effect on a tritium-illuminated reticule or watch-face, though. Thanks for the correction.

ACOGs are still damned expensive, though.

[sarky]

Not matter what, it is a personal preference and somewhat dependent upon how old your eyes are.

[Maverick299]

There is another option, albeit a sketchy one. They do make Chinese produced ripoff ACOGs. Not sure what the quality would be like, but if it gives you a battery free sight picture it may be of some value. I am not recommending nor endorsing these, just pointing out that option. You can find them at tinydeals.com, along with all sorts of knock off Eotech and Magpul stuff.

http://www.tinydeal.com/trijicon-acog-ta31rco-a4-nsn1240-01-525-1-rifle-scope-aiming-rule-sight-telescope-with-gun-mount-cloth-hbc-27021-p-22792.html

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Chinese knock off ACOGs are usually a) absolutely shit and b) require batteries. Even if they didn't, do you really want to trust knock-off labor to make an item with radioactive gas in it?

[Shiloh]

I know of one guy who ran one of the chinese knock-off ACOG's on an AR with a .22 upper, and that seemed to work out fine. But for serious rifle calibers, I've got my doubts. I play airsoft quite a bit (Yes, feel free to point and laugh ) and see them every once in a while. There's a few models that don't use batteries, but those are the ones with built-in irons instead of the tritium sights.