PDA

View Full Version : AR scope magnification?


Dangerwing
June 8, 2009, 05:30 PM
I recently aquired a Rock River CAR-15. I have a holographic optic (kind of an Eotech rip-off) but I also want to have some accuracy at longer ranges. I think the best plan is to get a magnifier for the optic I already have. The magnifier mounts just behind the holographic optic so when you look through it, you look through both. The magnifier just magnifies the holographic view.

Believe me, there is a question coming. What magnification should I get? 3x, 5x, or 7x. The price goes up about $30 per magnification level with $90 as a starting point. I'm pretty sure that 7x is more than I need, and even 5x might be a little much, but 3x seems a little low. I was hoping for 4x but I cant find that as an option unless I get one that costs hundreds of dollars more, and I'm on a budget.

CortJestir
June 8, 2009, 05:46 PM
Depends on the distance you plan to shoot the most, really, and how good your eyes are, I suppose. 3x is fine for 100-200 yards, IMO. 200-400 yards bump up to the 5x. 400 yards or more, go to 7x.

ETA: I noticed you want some accuracy at longer distances. You'll be better served with a scope designed for this purpose with adjustments for elevation and windage.

surg_res
June 8, 2009, 07:46 PM
IMO, match-grade iron sights would be more accurate out to 600 yards than a $90 scope. You'll meet a few people who regret not spending enough on optics. A good mount and rings might run well over $90, with decent scopes starting in the $200-300 range... Obviously, the sky is the limit from there, but a bare minimum should be spent to avoid the 'cheap' scopes, which will cause more frustration than reliable function.

WC145
June 9, 2009, 08:43 AM
I've tried a number of scopes and red dots on my Bushmaster and finally settled on a Millet DMS-1 1-4x. It is a true 1x for shooting close with both eyes open and adjustable up to 4x for longer ranges. It uses a "dot in a donut" reticle than can be illuminated red but is black in bright light or with the illumination turned off. It is solidly built with decent glass. I have it mounted with medium Burris Xtreme Tactical rings although alot of guys, especially those that shoot "nose to charging handle", use a mount that sets it further forward. I think it's a lot of scope for the money, I paid $200 + shipping from SWFA and got the rings from Midway for around $55.

Double J
June 16, 2009, 12:40 PM
I'd go along with what CortJestir says. I believe a good scope will serve you better. Besides, the more add-ons mean more to go wrong. I'd try a good compact scope, maybe in the 3x9x40+ range to take advantage of light gathering with options as to what magnification is needed.
--I've tried the halo sights, the dot sights, laser, etc. But I keep going back to a variable scope. JMHO.

davebig
June 17, 2009, 03:00 PM
The adjustable scope is better as the distance between the magnifier and your current optics (if it isnt clipped or screwed on) will throw off the shot a bit, plus a bit more if its longer distance. Don't skimp on the $ so you can get something that lasts, but you need less mag. than you think.

comn-cents
June 17, 2009, 03:14 PM
I went with a Leopold and it was worth every cent.
It's a 2x7 with a Boone & crocket cross hairs.


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48273&d=1244754961

sholling
June 17, 2009, 03:52 PM
I don't trust knockoffs and so went higher quality. The last thing you want is scope failure when you need your rifle. I'm putting a Bushnell Elite 4200 1.24-4x24 on one of mine, but that's out of your budget. Two solutions that I'll suggest looking at are the Millet DMS 1-4x24 (http://swfa.com/Millett-1-4x24-DMS-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P9251.aspx) and the Nikon Monarch African 1-4x20 (http://swfa.com/Nikon-1-4x20-Monarch-African-Riflescope-P12810.aspx). I'm basing that solely on reputation not experience but they are worth looking at.

The Millet has an illuminated circle-dot reticle. It's said to be so-so in low light and very-very long but it's cheap.

The Monarch is not illuminated but offers great glass for just a few dollars more than the Millet.

One that some people rave about is the Bushnell Trophy 1-4x24 (http://swfa.com/Bushnell-1-4x24-Trophy-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P11611.aspx). I'm not sure that I trust a scope that cheap but a lot of people swear by them.

darkgael
June 17, 2009, 05:01 PM
, match-grade iron sights would be more accurate out to 600 yards than a $90 scope.
+1 about that. The Service Rifle match shooters are shooting 600 yards very accurately with National Match rears. A scope may be nice but not needed. That being said, when I put a scope on my AR, it is a 4X32 ACOG, VERY clear and calibrated out to 600 yards. I don't feel the need for more.
Pete

lmccrock
June 18, 2009, 07:55 AM
Some of us no longer have eyes conducive to precision iron sight shooting. Been there, done that, no longer shoot highpower.

I have a Simmons ProDiamond 1.5-5x (~$100) and it works pretty well, although the clicks are not at all repeatable. I now have an IOR 1.1-4x with a dot inside a horseshoe and I can smack plates reliably at 300 yards, but I still need to work on it for more precision. Adding a scope to a flattop AR can mean adding an extension rail to get enough eye relief. Holosights and ACOG do not need this, but an ACOG will set you back $1000 or more. Another well-liked budget low power variable is the Weaver 1-3x, but I have never used it.

So...the original question is what magnifier to get for the holo sight, a magnifier that mounts between the holo and your eyeball. Does the magnifier increase the size of the reticle as well? Be careful, I guess it would amplify any imperfections (fuzziness) in the reticle and more than 3x might make it unusable.

Lee

sholling
June 18, 2009, 11:11 AM
Another well-liked budget low power variable is the Weaver 1-3x, but I have never used it.+1 Weaver makes good reasonably priced but rugged scopes.