PDA

View Full Version : Lower power scope on AR


Panfisher
January 5, 2013, 03:25 PM
My new Bushnell 1.5 - 4.4 x 32 Dusk to Dawn scope came in the mail today. First impressions: Seems heavy for its short size. Outer edges of the view are a little blurry, common on low end scopes. No problem mounting in on the flat top of my R-15, lots of room to move it. Mounted it and WOW is it ever fast on target at close range at 1.5 power, for me way faster than I ever hoped to be with apeture/post sights, no batteries and on 4.5 while it wouldn't be much of a prairie dog rifle (but then I have a different one for that) it ain't bad. I did mount it just a litle short of perfect since I have a longer neck than my wife, but I can live with it and so can she. Heaven help any zombies or bad guys that show up at the door or in the yard and pasture once I get it sighted back in. Now waiting for the rail to mount the TRL-1 on and its complete. I had thought about selling it while the prices are crazy high, but my wife likes it too so why would I?

I like the scope much better than any red dot I have tried, however I have never tried any of the high end ones. For those who are looking for an optic and haven't tried a low power scope give one a look through, for $70 its a heck of a nice scope for an AR.

Mobuck
January 5, 2013, 09:48 PM
That is the scope I use and recommend for 16" carbines for general purpose use. The scope snobs won't admit that there are decent lower budget scopes on the market.
Even with 60YO eyes, that combination has been very successful for me while coyote hunting. I figure the 16" barrel is good for 250 yards in the field.

jmr40
January 7, 2013, 03:31 PM
I've used dots and find a 1-4X or even 2-7X is much better. Up close they are faster on target and offer the added flexability of longer range precision. Dots are easier to see in poor light, but the target is hard to pick up. The crosshairs on a scope are harder to see in poor light, but the target is easier to see, so low light use is about a wash.

COSteve
January 7, 2013, 03:40 PM
Dots are easier to see in poor light, but the target is hard to pick up. The crosshairs on a scope are harder to see in poor light, but the target is easier to see, so low light use is about a wash. A lighted reticle on your scope makes seeing it in low light a non-issue.

Northslope Nimrod
January 7, 2013, 04:39 PM
I have one on my 10-22. I have a 2-7 on my AR and I do love them. The 2-7 is still a little hard for rabbits that are less than 15 yards away. I would like to an additional angle mounted holographic or something. My Bushnell isn't that bright of a scope but it does ok.

Ben Towe
January 7, 2013, 05:00 PM
I'm a scope snob but Bushnell is about the best inexpensive scope maker out there. I actually have one on my .22-250 that does very well. I'm glad you are pleased with it!

btmj
January 7, 2013, 11:24 PM
I really like to 1 - 4X scopes, and you don't need to spend a lot for one. Nikon Monarch-African for less than 300, or the Nikon M-223. Bushnell, Leupold, and Burris have similar scopes in that price range. I went with the Monarch African. I think the German #4 reticle is very fast.

Up close they are faster on target and offer the added flexability of longer range precision. Dots are easier to see in poor light, but the target is hard to pick up.

yeah I agree. I thought I was at a disadvantage to a red dot sight, but I have handled ARs with EOTECH and expensive Aimpoints, and I like my $280 Nikon better.

If I wanted to step up, I would pick the Leupold VX-R Patrol 1.25-4X .

Panfisher
January 8, 2013, 10:22 AM
It would be a handy option on the low power scopes to have a small say 3 MOA illuminated dot, or what I would like is jus the fine part of the duplex cross hairs illuminated, provided that if not turned of the cross hairs would still be visible. Then you could have the flexibility of both. Oh well I am still liking the little Bushnell. Mounted the rail (literally took longer to open the blister pack it was in that it did to attach it to the forearm) and attached the light. Now if the dogs are going crazy at night and I go outside to see what is happening I don't have to have one hand holding a light and the other trying to handle the rifle.

Xfire68
January 8, 2013, 11:00 AM
I have a GRSC Combat rifle scope on one of my AR's. http://www.grscinc.com/crs.html and love it. I have a Buris Prism 536 5x on the other and it is fantastic.

BillyJack3
January 8, 2013, 01:47 PM
LOVE the GRSC. Just not the price.

Xfire68
January 8, 2013, 02:21 PM
LOVE the GRSC. Just not the price.

Yes I understand that. I bought the 1-4x (Korean made glass) a few years ago which is not of the same quality as the 1-6x (Japanese made glass) and I only paid $325. The newer 1-6x has much nicer glass and a few other enhancements but, I am not unhappy in anyway with my CRS.

I thought they were still selling the older 1-4x but I guess not?

dean1818
January 9, 2013, 12:58 PM
I use the 1x4 VXR from Leupold its fantastic!

Erno86
January 9, 2013, 03:56 PM
I would prefer a 1-6x on top of one of my AR's, but my 1-4x Burris XTR, with a Burris FastFire red dot mounted on top, suits me well; but the turrent clicks are a bit mushy.

wyobohunter
January 15, 2013, 01:01 PM
I really like the versatility too. I've got a Weaver Super Slam dangerous game 1-5x33 on mine. Quick on target for the close stuff but can be turned up for mid-range coyote shooting. As far as the unlit reticle... So what, a lighted reticle is neat if you can see your target. That means close range. I have the XS XTI (tritium) 45° BUIS for that, no batteries.