Your aiming aid choice for AR: red-dot or scope?

[marine6680]

I like red dots, they work well.

It all boils down to what you want to do with your optic... precision at range, or quick shots. So the choice in optics between red dots and magnified (scopes) is based on your need/want from the rifle.

[Pond, James Pond]

I agree that the quick fix is not a great solution.

In truth, I do think I will make do for now with what I have. However, I don't see myself stretching much beyond what I have already budgeted for, hence my earlier post about the Nikon Monarch 3s and Bushnell Trophy models.

I have a Nikon Prostaff already and am confident in the brands quality of glass and body, even in cheaper models in their range.

The C-More simply had phenomenal magnification hence my interest. in its case, I've since found out that they are US designed but Nikko-Stirling built, so probably not the best investment.

[marine6680]

A 1-10x scope would be hard to pull off well at a low price...

The Nikon and Bushnell you mentioned look good. The Nikon does not have illumination though.

The Bushnell looks like it could be a decent optic.

[9x19]

...red-dot or scope?

Yes.

[Dragline45]

Red Dot. My AR's intended use is likely under 150yds, I want quick target acquisition and a wide field of view. Also since my AR has a 14.5" barrel, slapping a long range scope on it would be silly.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Eh... I have a 1-6x milrad scope on my 9"SBR. It does very well there. It all depends on what you want to do.

A scope helps you see better, which can sometimes mean smaller groups or more precise targeting also. Although, as a general rule, it is a bad idea to use your rifle as a telescope if you haven't already ID'd your target.

To my mind, the biggest advantage red dots have is a consistent cheek weld is much less of an element in accuracy. That is a huge advantage in non-traditional shooting stances, weak-side shooting, and shooting on the move. The contrast can also be nice in low-light and helps with quickness too. Of course, you have to be able to acquire and identify it with the MkI Mod 0 Eyeball in order to use it. And for people with astigmatism, the dot can look more like an irregular blob.

[warrior poet]

The USMC ACOG aka the RCO is a 4x scope with a red tritium chevron and sighting lines for 400-800 meters. The TA31A is ballistically matched to the M-16 (20" barrel, IIRC) and the 62 grain M855 ball round. If money is not an issue, that is the scope I would mount on an AR-15 (with a 1/7 twist and 20" barrel) as I KNOW, from personal experience that I can hit a man sized target over 90% (based on my rifle ranges) at 500 yards. I LOVE the thing.

For the M4 style inclined folks, the TA31B is made for the M4 barrel length. I was never a fan of the M4 much, but I have hit at 500 yards reliably 80%, give or take) with this scope and rifle combination.

[kutz]

ACOG, end of story period .

[bamaranger]

I think dots are faster, especially up close, they are for me, anyhow. A 1-4x, with the power backed down to 1x, is pretty fast too, for me, faster than irons.

Cranked up to 4x, the low powered variable helps at longer ranges, especially if targets start to get smallish, and it can help with target ID too. For me that means anything much past 100. For me, I can't see taking a .223 carbine much past 300 yds on anything short of pure target/range use. We don't go that far out at the club, and I'd never try a deer that far with a .223. A 3oo yd self defense threat....not likely, despite how much we anticipate and project.

For a serious GP carbine, one that will see steady use, I would rather have a mid quality, low powered variable, than a cheaper dot. We're pretty pleased with a Leupold 1-4x bought on ebay. Its been on 2 different rifles, a Mini-30 and and now an AR, seen 2-3 years of steady 3-gun and hunting use, and not a glitch. It went back to Leupold for a very coarse German #1 reticle, and that little experiment has been very positive as well. (the #1)

I've got a cheap dot, but it is not on a rifle that sees much use for anything but club 3-gun......sort of casual use. I don't have much in it, and I don't expect much.

[ronl]

Personally, if I had to choose one optic, it would be an illuminated 1-4 scope. I have the Horus Vision FFP Talon on one of my rifles and it can do anything a red dot scope can do, plus give me some magnification on targets farther away. In this instance the FFP system works very well, as on 1x you basically see a circle with crosshairs bisecting it. When cranked up to 4x the H-50 reticle comes to life and gives you multiple aiming points. I don't think the FFP SFP issue matters much in the 1-4 scopes, though. The reason I liked the Horus is the fact that the stadia were thin enough for very precise shot placement, which was not the case with the Burris and Vortex offerings that I looked at. The trade off is the extra weight as compared to the red dot/ holo sights, but the versatility is worth it in my opinion.

[zach_]

Red dot sights work better for me than iron sights at 50 to 100 yards. It seems like my eyes can focus on the target better when looking through the sight glass as opposed to the aperture and front post of an iron sight. At 100 yards, my groups are still better with my 4-12 Nikon P223 scope. At home, I will leave the red dot in place. I purchased a Vortex Sparc II (my first red dot - WOW). I used it for the first time today. The only complaint about my new red dot is the flip up lens caps. The caps don't fit tight enough on the tube. I did change between the scope and the dot a few times. The dot held zero when removed and reinstalled. The scope has always held zero when removed and reinstalled. Time will tell on durability.

[dayman]

I also like a red dot. The aimpoint PRO is what I wound up with and I quite like it.
I also bought (after my checking account recovered) a 3x multiplier to go behind it which gives me all the magnification I need to the ranges I shoot.

That being said, I also really like those little 1-4x jobs.
Now I just need to build another AR so I have a reason to get one.

[ronl]

If I had to choose one, I'd go with a 1-4 scope simply because it gives you more versatility, especially if it has a decent illuminated reticle. It can be used just as a red-dot on 1x, and, at 4x, makes longer shots easier. If you choose a red dot, one that has exceeded my expectations in just about every way is the Bushnell TRS-25. Mine has taken a pounding and just kept on going. It has been mounted on an AR, 12ga. Mossberg 930 SPX, and currently resides on an AK. Another decent priced red-dot is the Vortex SPARC. but it is twice the price of the TRS-25.

[marine6680]

Since this thread is back...

How has the scope been working for you Pond?

[Pond, James Pond]

How has the scope been working for you Pond?

I've only put 60rds through it with the scope, but as far as shooting goes, it has been fine.

With the rail-risers on the cheek-weld is pretty easy to acquire and eye relief is good. The image is very clear and I like it. I suppose I may miss the magnification beyond 4x, but nothing I can't adjust to.

Still would have been curious to see the Nikon Monarch, but who knows when that would have turned up.

[Brotherbadger]

If you are serious about reaching out to 300m, I'd go with a scope.

[Pond, James Pond]

If you are serious about reaching out to 300m, I'd go with a scope.

That's what I opted for. I need practice, and my groups are poor and my zero needs adjusting to get hits on paper at 300 without holdover, but I can see it would work. The 4x only means that it is harder for me to tighten up the group significantly than with, say, a 12x.

[yoter]

I recently put a 3-9 on my ar. 300 yards is no problem, assuming I do my part. I chose a quick detach mount so that I could go to irons if I so choose. Like many have said, I don't think there's a wrong way to do it.

[marine6680]

Most action shooting is more concerned with hits than tiny groups.

If you can reliably get groups of 6in at 300m then you are doing pretty good.

[Pond, James Pond]

I chose a quick detach mount so that I could go to irons if I so choose.

Mine are Q-R too. I don't plan on removing the scope, but I'm glad I have the option.

[Pond, James Pond]

If you can reliably get groups of 6in at 300m then you are doing pretty good.

If.

Such a small word and yet, at times, so very indispensable!!

Well, my hits that were firmly spread across the ply board under my target had a group that was a multiple of 6" But once my zero is fixed and after a few tries at 100, I hope to see some improvements.

[marine6680]

Start in close and work out.

Close allows you to see the target better and get the motions down, then you move out farther and work on refining technique.

It's useful when using relatively low power scopes.

[Dirty_Harry]

Pond, I know you have decided, but the answer is easy.....

Buy another AR!

I keep my carbine setup with an Eotech for short range stuff/HD/SHTF. It is my setup of choice. It co witnesses well with the irons and is quick on target.

The second rifle I have is setup with a Burris Tac 30 1-4 power scope. I have been shooting it a lot lately, but even on 1X the Eotech is much quicker on target. Obviously this is better at long range. It is also a 20" rifle.

[Pond, James Pond]

the answer is easy.....

Buy another AR!

If only.

I'm afraid doing that where I live is anything but easy and anything but cheap!!

[tahunua001]

how are you liking the setup james?