Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
General Gun Discussion => Rifles and Shotguns => Topic started by: g23 on June 16, 2011, 08:59:25 PM
-
Ok so far I have been shooting with the iron sights and have been doing rather well. Im ready to go to the next step and buy some optics but there are to many to choose from and I really don't want to invest a bunch of money in something that is overkill for my shooting style. So far I have shot out to 100 yards and I think I would like to go farther but I also think I would like to do some tactical stuff which would be 50 yards or less. I have shot a friends AR with an Eotech 512 on it and I liked it but we were only shooting targets 25 yards or less. Should I invest in something with magnification or even night vision? Like I said I don't want to go overkill but I want to buy the right thing the first time.
Looking forward to your replies thanks in advance!
-
Like I said I don't want to go overkill but I want to buy the right thing the first time.
Was going to suggest Horus Vision but... You will NOT like the price tag.
http://horusvision.com/reticles.php (http://horusvision.com/reticles.php)
You ever want to see one, let me know.
-
Well, Here's a few things I can tell you... On my XCR I run an EOTech (standard circle dot). The circle is 65moa and the dot is 1moa. In other words, up close and personal it's great and fast... At longer range it's also nice. I use the 1moa dot to shoot out to 100 yards all the time and it's really no problem at all. No, it's not magnified, so if your own vision isn't up to par then you will have to consider that. There is no focus and there is no magnification, but it's FAST and it's ACCURATE... I personally love mine. Yes, it is expensive, but it's also a BRUTE... The ACOG is another popular choice. It's a @@@@ fine sight and also built like a brick, but it will hurt your pocketbook. However, if you like the ACOG, a popular "poor mans alternative" to it is the Bushnell red dots. Now bear in mind one thing. The difference between a red dot and a holographic system like the EOTech is that the HWS do not suffer from parallax effects. In other words, if you sight through a red dot it's important to have a good cheek weld and to be consistent EACH AND EVERY TIME, because your EYE is actually part of the sight radius. Since you're using irons, think of it this way. If the red dot were your front sight, then your eye would be the rear sight. If your eye moves left or right between shots, the point of aim is going to shift with it. However in a holographic system, the reticle tracks WITH your eye... So as you move your head around behind the sight you'll see the reticle move to STAY on the target (assuming the rifle is locked in place). This makes two-eye open shooting much easier and quicker as well as more accurate (since it's not based on consistency of cheek weld).
Now as for the long distance stuff, I also run an flip to side magnifier in front of the EOTech. So if I want to make a long distance shot I just flip it in place and I've got magnification (I think it's 4x if I recall), or alternatively I just press a button and it flips out of the way so I can use the eotech unmagnified...
If you go with a system like this, I'll give you a bit of advice. Don't skimp on the EOTech... Buy the real deal. With the magnifier, you can certainly buy something cheaper like the Primary Arms stuff. The magnifier is NOT holding zero, and frankly you really don't use it that often anyway. Don't buy one with a mount. Just buy a good flip to side mount separately. All the ones that come with mounts, the mounts are junk and you'll be replacing it anyway. I'd never buy the cheap knockoff crap with ANYTHING that needed to hold a zero though.
Last but not least there are a range of scopes that you can put on it. I'll be honest with you though, I'm not a fan of scopes on these types of platforms... Unless ALL you're doing is long range shooting, that would be the exception. Unless you get a QD mount for it you're going to be severely limiting is close quarters effectiveness. With my setup I can shoot with the EOTech, my irons co-witness show I can use the BUIS with the EOTech on or off, and I can also use the magnification or not... It's versatile. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't feel that way with a scope mounted.
-
BTW, here's a shot of my XCR. You can see the EOTech up front, the magnifier behind, and the BUIS front and rear. It's like one big happy family... ;)
P.S. Sorry there's so much background noise... It was just a crap shot I snapped after cleaning it.. ;)
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g50/rusirius/XCR2.jpg)
-
RUSirius,
I've got to ask... is that tricycle what you use in your driveby's with your AR? heheheheee ;D
Your EOTech set up sounds lovely! That's my next purchase this summer is to outfit my AR.
Great info!
Moosie
-
RUSirius,
I've got to ask... is that tricycle what you use in your driveby's with your AR? heheheheee ;D
Your EOTech set up sounds lovely! That's my next purchase this summer is to outfit my AR.
Great info!
Moosie
Well, originally I used the scooter. I liked it better because the handle bars were a lot higher... I could take a knee and get off a pretty good shot. The problem was, that scooter is inherently unstable. The first trial run I musta been doing about 12mph and the rifle tweaked the handle bars just a LITTLE bit and BLAMO!!! I was scrubbing out the road rash with a wire brush... Not pretty...
So then I switched to the tricycle... It's been working out pretty well for me so far. Only problem is you have to keep pedaling, which makes getting a shot off much more difficult. If you stop pedaling it just starts flapping those pedals into your feet and beating you to death with your own knees. I also like the little ringer bell on it too... That way just as you're approaching your target you can ring that thing out as if to say, "Yo mutter pucker! Look what's coming FOR YOU!!!" Pretty intimidating...
I'm thinking about switching off to a Big Wheel though. I think the improved ergonomics should help tremendously. Only thing is, some of my friends that use them tell me they have serious traction issues during fast escape maneuvers... I dunno, just have to see.
They see me rolling........
-
I'm thinking about switching off to a Big Wheel though.
Lower C/G will not tip over as easily when sliding around the corners...
-
Wow... Thanks for all of the great info... I am thinking I will go the eotech route just have to figure of the magnification side of things... There always seem to be a few people at the range with AR's loaded with goodies I think I will have to see if they will let me look at the magnification set up they have and fire a few rounds to see what I want... If you were buying an Eotech today what model number would you get... Seems like I always see people with the 512
-
Eotech is always confusing because they have about a MILLION different models... Forget about all the various part numbers and such... Here's what it really comes down to...
A) What type of battery do you want?
- The model in my pic above takes standard AA batteries. The advantage to that was at the time the other option was the N type batteries... Much harder to get, more expensive, and not a whole lot smaller. Now you can get one that uses a single 123. The 123 can be picked up at your local wal-mart so availability isn't a problem. It makes the eotech much shorter so it takes less rail space. Not a problem if you've got a big arse monolithic like the XCR, but maybe a concern if you don't have much to work with. It's also lighter.
* So while I'm perfectly happy with my AA powered EOTech, if I was buying it today I'd get the 123 powered model.
B) What type of reticle do you want?
- There's a ton of options here too, but in general it works like this... Do you want a 65moa circle with a 1moa dot in the center (as mine described above) or do you want a single 1moa dot. There are other models with ballistic drops calibrated for .308, .50, etc... less lethal, and just about everything imaginable, but the circle dot or dot are the two basic options.
* I can't see any reason for going with the dot over the circle dot. Just doesn't make sense to me NOT to have it.
C) Will you be using it with NV equipment?
- You either will or won't. If it has the option to go into NV mode it costs more. If you won't be using it, then you can leave it off and it'll cost less... ;)
* I don't have NV gear, so I'd leave it off...
D) Any other non-standard things you're looking for?
- You can get them in various camo, you can get them with buttons on the side (to make use with magnifiers easier.. I.e. the magnifier doesn't get in the way of the buttons. You rarely ever change the buttons... You turn it on, adjust it's brightness for the current lighting and then you don't touch it again... Not a necessary option...
* I'm a "standard" kind of guy...
So anyway, what do we learn from all this? If I was personally buying an EOTech today, I'd get the XPS2-2. Circle dot with 123 and no NV support.
You might want something different, but don't get confused by the models, just focus on what features you do or don't want, and then you can pinpoint the model from there.
-
I personally prefer the Aimpoint for red dot.
Another choice is to get an ACOG.
I will actually be selling my VMX3 with the mount in a week or so to get an ACOG.
I am thinking $170 for the magnifier with the ADM QD flip to side mount, price new is around $230
-
Great post rusirius .
-
I personally prefer the Aimpoint for red dot.
Another choice is to get an ACOG.
I will actually be selling my VMX3 with the mount in a week or so to get an ACOG.
I am thinking $170 for the magnifier with the ADM QD flip to side mount, price new is around $230
Just out of curiosity, have you checked out the EOTechs? Just wondering what it is about the ACOG you like versus the EOTech? I wonder because I went through a self-debate when choosing an optic myself. I really liked that the ACOG didn't use batteries, but then given the battery life of the EOTech I didn't really consider it a downfall. I liked the EOTech because of the 1MOA dot, whereas if I remember right the ACOG was 3MOA? I also like the option of being able to remove the magnifier from the EOTech for CQB. On the other hand, I really liked the drop compensation on the ACOG. In the end, obviously, I decided on the EOTech. Already having a FTS magnifier I would have thought you would have leaned more toward the EOTech?
-
some reasons I like the Aimpoint better are based on side by side comparison and reviews on the web.
Some people have reported problems with the battery compartment on some EOTech bounce and eventually loosing contact.
The battery life of the Aimpoint are years while EOtech are months
I like the single dot 2MOA (my preferred) or 4MOA on Aimpoint better than the busy circle of the EOTech.
Holding them both side by side, the Aimpoint feels much more sturdy all business like.
The EOTech and Aimpoint are the best in red dot optics, people swear by both. It comes down to personal preference.
I know you asked why I like the ACOG better, and I made the comparison with the Aimpoint cause I think that is what you meant, since the ACOGS and red dots are a little different for different purposes. Take a look at the Trijicon ACOGS, no battery needed, four times magnifier (or more)...they are a different system all together not specially designed for CQB like the red dots are.
-
The ACOGS are usually for a specific caliber, mid to long ranges, for the 5.56 you zero at 100 meters (i believe) and they have bullet drop compensator out to 800 meters.
-
some reasons I like the Aimpoint better are based on side by side comparison and reviews on the web.
Some people have reported problems with the battery compartment on some EOTech bounce and eventually loosing contact.
The battery life of the Aimpoint are years while EOtech are months
I like the single dot 2MOA (my preferred) or 4MOA on Aimpoint better than the busy circle of the EOTech.
Holding them both side by side, the Aimpoint feels much more sturdy all business like.
The EOTech and Aimpoint are the best in red dot optics, people swear by both. It comes down to personal preference.
I know you asked why I like the ACOG better, and I made the comparison with the Aimpoint cause I think that is what you meant, since the ACOGS and red dots are a little different for different purposes. Take a look at the Trijicon ACOGS, no battery needed, four times magnifier (or more)...they are a different system all together not specially designed for CQB like the red dots are.
Actually I was curious of your thoughts with ACOG versus EOTech. I realize the aimpoints are perhaps a bit better comparison, but my point was, you obviously already have a magnifier so I was wondering why you hadn't considered just adding an EOTech along with it to basically get to the same place you'd get with an ACOG. Like I said, I struggled with it myself for a while trying to decide EOTech with a magnifier or ACOG. Since I made the opposite choice I was just curious if you had considered the same choice and why you had decided on the ACOG if so.
-
rusirius, if you have one rifle I would say the red dot (Aimpoint or EOTech) with a magnifier behind is probably a better choice than an ACOG.
Here is the best of both worlds, an ACOG with an Aimpoint on a Larue offset mount
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=385824
lol
-
Another thing to consider is if you run rifle matches. This case I would argue an ACOG is better than Aimpoints or EOTechs with the flip to side maginifier. Some ACOGs, equiped with BAC, give you the ability to keep both eyes opened for target aquisition, the problem I've seen is that you still have to get closer for a proper aim. This however is an advantage if you are running matches as it is faster than flipping the magnification to the side and back depending the distance you are shooting.
-
Another thing to consider is if you run rifle matches. This case I would argue an ACOG is better than Aimpoints or EOTechs with the flip to side maginifier. Some ACOGs, equiped with BAC, give you the ability to keep both eyes opened for target aquisition, the problem I've seen is that you still have to get closer for a proper aim. This however is an advantage if you are running matches as it is faster than flipping the magnification to the side and back depending the distance you are shooting.
I'm not sure I've ever understood the whole concept of the BAC ACOGs. I fully understand BAC, and use it myself, but I don't understand what difference there is between the standard ACOG and the BAC model, short of possibly a brighter reticle. The EOTech supports two-eye open targeting in the absolute truest sense. Rather one eye is looking through the glass and the other is just open, or rather both eyes are looking through the glass, the results are still always the same (without magnification), that being an absolutely 100% crisp and clear sight picture along with a 100% crisp and clear reticle. In fact, in my opinion the holographic nature of the EOTech makes it one-up the Aimpoint in this respect as well. Because of the holographic design, it's not a reticle or dot that is seen on a close object super-imposed over the target. Instead the reticle becomes a part of the target. Your focus is 100% on the target and yet the reticle is 100% in focus as well, not even a small or slight bit of blur. Sorry, I'm rambling... Back on point...
The point is, with the magnifier engaged the EOTech works perfectly fine with BAC technique. And again if the only difference between the ACOGs with BAC and without is the brightness of the reticle (and from what I can tell, that's it), the EOTech can be adjusted to everything from "barely make it out at night" to "it's in full bloom in the brightest of sunlight and I can't see a @@@@ bit of the target..." LOL...
At the end of the day, for anyone considering optics for their rifle, I think this discussion makes one thing very clear. It's not one size fits all. There is no "best" sight. It's all about your personal preferences and what makes you most comfortable. I've seen lots of posts on other forums asking about what sight they should put on their rifle... I think I have a new answer for that question...
NONE...
That's right... Don't spend one @@@@ bit of money on anything until you can arrange to try rifles with the various sights on them... Try one with an ACOG, try one with an Aimpoint, try one with an EOTech, and try one with a more traditional scope. Engage close targets, distance targets, and various drills. If you decide to go with a traditional scope, even then you owe it to yourself to try at MINIMUM a cheaper Bushnell and a more expensive Leopold or similar. See the differences first hand and ONLY then should you make a choice...
Yeah, your right... That's all a bunch of BS and completely impractical... Which is exactly why the next point is so very important...
Aimpoint, ACOG, EOTech... It doesn't flippin matter... You buy either one of those and you WILL be happy. You'll love it like it's your first born. That doesn't mean one day you won't try something different and WISH you had made a different choice, but you'll still walk away happy with your own... ;)
-
[...]
At the end of the day, for anyone considering optics for their rifle, I think this discussion makes one thing very clear. It's not one size fits all. There is no "best" sight. It's all about your personal preferences and what makes you most comfortable. I've seen lots of posts on other forums asking about what sight they should put on their rifle... I think I have a new answer for that question...
NONE...
That's right... Don't spend one @@@@ bit of money on anything until you can arrange to try rifles with the various sights on them... Try one with an ACOG, try one with an Aimpoint, try one with an EOTech, and try one with a more traditional scope. Engage close targets, distance targets, and various drills. If you decide to go with a traditional scope, even then you owe it to yourself to try at MINIMUM a cheaper Bushnell and a more expensive Leopold or similar. See the differences first hand and ONLY then should you make a choice...
Yeah, your right... That's all a bunch of BS and completely impractical... Which is exactly why the next point is so very important...
Aimpoint, ACOG, EOTech... It doesn't flippin matter... You buy either one of those and you WILL be happy. You'll love it like it's your first born. That doesn't mean one day you won't try something different and WISH you had made a different choice, but you'll still walk away happy with your own... ;)
Excellent post!!!
Note: If anyone is planning on running a 1x red dot (Aimpoint, EOTech...) I have a VORTEX VMX3 for sale with an American Defense flip to side mount ;D
-
Vortex SPARC has received great reviews, $199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZB4itTusM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZB4itTusM)
-
Vortex SPARC has received great reviews, $199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZB4itTusM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZB4itTusM)
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tested parallax with it? I'm curious because I remember seeing the same guy do a review on one of the Vortex red dots and he mentioned the parallax effect of it. What's odd though is that in it he mentioned that you DO have the parallax at anything less than 50 yards, but anything beyond that you don't. He shot a target (i don't remember distance) and had about an inch of parallax exhibited by not having the dot centered.
But here's what doesn't make sense to me, and I'll admit my experience with red dots is only limited shooting of a few and not though testing, and the holographic sites don't have it, so maybe I'm missing something.. but.... How the hell can the parallax go AWAY past 50 yards? If you have an inch of deviation at say 20 yards, then how the hell can it be back to normal at say 100 yards? I guess I'm thinking in relative terms... If I have my sight off say 4moa, then at 25 yards i'll have an inch (roughly). So at 200 yards I should have 8 inche, not dead center... I mean I know we're talking about two things completely different here, but I'm not sure I can wrap my head around it... if having the dot offset results in an inch at say 25, then how can it come back to center at say 100? I suppose the thought experiment would be getting the rifle perfectly lined up with two targets that were also perfectly lined up. What this is telling me, is that if I placed the dot ABOVE the two targets so I could see over them, even though I was looking in a perfectly straight line, but the sight was off center enough to throw the dot to the side, it's saying that the dot would be an inch off the near target, but perfectly on the far target... It's kinda hard to describe in a thought experiment, but hopefully you get what I'm saying... I dunno... just doesn't make sense to me....
-
My thought is the further the distance the lesser parallax effect you will have. Just as an experiment, put your index finger close to your eyes and align to a target (i.e. wall clock) against the wall, now move your head side to side and see how much parallax effect you have. Now stratch your arms with the index up and look align to the same target, move your head side to side and the effect will be lesser.
-
My thought is the further the distance the lesser parallax effect you will have. Just as an experiment, put your index finger close to your eyes and align to a target (i.e. wall clock) against the wall, now move your head side to side and see how much parallax effect you have. Now stratch your arms with the index up and look align to the same target, move your head side to side and the effect will be lesser.
Yes, but I THINK that logic is flawed... Let me explain...
In this situation you are moving the distance of your finger from your eye...
This to me would be akin to moving the distance of the red dot optic from your eye... (i.e. moving it further out on the rail, away from the eye... NOT sighting from the same red dot to a target further away...
A more logical experiment I think would be to do the same thing except CHANGE targets... So in other words, put your finger close to your eye and alight to a target that is close, like a wall clock and move side to side... Now do the same, but with a target much further away... Let's say across the yard on the other side of the street, but keep the finger in the same position...
See what I'm saying? Now instead of parallax changing the point of aim a couple of inches on the wall clock, you're now moving it several feet when the targets that much further away...
Or again, maybe I'm just missing something! ;)
-
Hrmmm... I have to think about it more as I'm still a bit confused, but I think I might finally be starting to get my head wrapped around how this is possible...
I'm thinking about it in terms of a scope where you have an objective lens... In that case you're going to have a "range" of distance where there is no parallax, but anything closer or further away (basically outside the focal area of the objective and reticle) is going to have it. I'm still not sure how that relates to the red dot precisely though. I haven't studied them closely, but I was under the assumption that a red dot (with no magnification) was essentially the same as my EOTech... Well, sort of... In other words, the EOTech uses a holographic plate. (i.e. the interference patterns created by the reticle are printed in the plate itself. This plate is illuminated from behind by an LED. So any time you are looking through it, the light pattern of the original reticle is recreated. Because it's created from the interference patterns, that's why there's no parallax, because when you change the angle you're looking through that plate, you're changing the position of the reticle because the original reticle was some distance away from the plate. If that makes sense... If not, check out how holograms are made and it will... ;)
With a red dot, I was thinking it was more like a "HUD" type display. In other words, you have a single pinprick of light with a plate of glass in front of it (and presumably some sort of coating to help with reflecting the dot). In this case, the reticle would be probably less than an inch away from the plate. i.e. you get a parallax effect...
What I'm not sure about is why that effect wouldn't simply start small and continue to get worse... UNLESS despite not having magnification there is still an objective lens working with a focal lens... ARG.. Now I'm confusing myself again... Ohhh well... LOL
-
My thought is the further the distance the lesser parallax effect you will have. Just as an experiment, put your index finger close to your eyes and align to a target (i.e. wall clock) against the wall, now move your head side to side and see how much parallax effect you have. Now stratch your arms with the index up and look align to the same target, move your head side to side and the effect will be lesser.
Yes, but I THINK that logic is flawed... Let me explain...
In this situation you are moving the distance of your finger from your eye...
This to me would be akin to moving the distance of the red dot optic from your eye... (i.e. moving it further out on the rail, away from the eye... NOT sighting from the same red dot to a target further away...
A more logical experiment I think would be to do the same thing except CHANGE targets... So in other words, put your finger close to your eye and alight to a target that is close, like a wall clock and move side to side... Now do the same, but with a target much further away... Let's say across the yard on the other side of the street, but keep the finger in the same position...
See what I'm saying? Now instead of parallax changing the point of aim a couple of inches on the wall clock, you're now moving it several feet when the targets that much further away...
Or again, maybe I'm just missing something! ;)
Now try to do the same exprient with your left foot up...then your right foot....now try both feet up... LOL
You are correct, the logic I used would not apply to this case, very confusing indeed.
-
OP, here is another option to you - Trijicon TR24. I dont have experience with it but some people really like it.