Optics for the Fight Rifle: Target Identification & Evaluating the Threat

[The Canuck]

Sorry WA, I don't buy your brand today.

Why do the Police, who are only allowed to use firearms defensively need this while we, as thier fellow civilians are also only allowed to use firearms defensively are NOT allowed the same courtesy? Also, where does this fit into your Second Amendment again? Just wondering...

Also, you guys should look at Elcan's Spectre DR scope. A real nice bit of kit with a quickflip 1x/4x lense and a variable intensity illuminated red dot sight and scope reticle.

[Wildalaska]

"Why do the Police, who are only allowed to use firearms defensively need this while we, as thier fellow civilians are also only allowed to use firearms defensively are NOT allowed the same courtesy?

Its called the concept of criminally negligent (insert death or injury here)...

WildfollowsofarAlaska TM

[vox rationis]

Oh boy, some of you crack me up.

Of course that in an ideal world you'd have a 40x spotting scope, a 10x35 pair of binocs and your old lady playing spotter, but the question is, if you are forced by less than ideal circumstances to use a scope for thread ID, then what type of scope would be most practical.

Some of you shouldn't be so quick to be so sanctimonious, my high priests of impeccable firearm safety.

For example, let's say that it is Hurricane Katrina II, no intrepid law enforcement is around to come to help, and some dangerous looking dudes around 100 yards away or more are converging on your position, or are even taking pot shots your way and for some reason you can't retreat (wounded, or sick family member, etc.) and you forgot your 40x spotting scope, you lost or cracked your 10x35 binoculars, and your spotter with the telescope took a wrong turn and didn't make it. Are you telling me that you would refuse to use your rifle mounted scope to ID the nature of the threat?!

For a real life example, during the Rodney King riots some of the Korean liquor store owners were up on their roofs returning fire with handguns at longer range threats that were shooting at them and converging on their stores to destroy their life's work and possibly their very lives. How much better it would have been had they had long guns with good optics that could answer questions like: "gee is that person behind that bush 75 yards away just some kid playing with a stick/toy gun or a gang banger trying to maneuver on my position", or, "gee is that shadow in that window a block away the thug shooting covering fire for the thugs trying to firebomb our liquor store, or merely an innocent person".

In those types of extreme situations, a good scope can help you realize that a previously identified "threat" might instead be a total innocent. But darn, if you just so happen to have your 40x spotting scope, or even your 10x35 Binoculars, that of course have been grafted to your shanks, then by all means, use those instead .

[Wildalaska]

Yeah like kids playing paintball and getting guns pointed at them.

WildyourexamplesaresillyandyouradhominemschildishAlaska TM

[azredhawk44]

I had an asshat point a rifle at me way down south, about 2 miles from the Mexico border, during javelina season. He wasn't part of my hunting party and I didn't know him... it was about 300 yards distant.

He was using his scope to get a better look at me.

I dove for the dirt really quick and rolled behind a tree. The shot didn't come, and five terrifying minutes later I made my way under brush to better cover to assess the situation with binoculars, and if necessary, handgun.

The guy was gone by this point, and I never saw him again. I honestly don't know what I would have done if I re-encountered the guy, or if I would even recognize him as being the same guy who aimed at me.

I'm just glad that I didn't get shot, and that the guy didn't point his rifle at me again.

Please don't point your rifle at anyone. That's what spotting scopes and binoculars are for. I can ring the gong at 300 yards with my Redhawk, and it's only a little bit wider than a person. Someone might shoot back, even if they are only hunting with a handgun.

Back on topic, I have a Leupold FX-2 4x33 fixed power on my M1A. I can shoot from 25 yards to 500 yards with it. I keep it zeroed for a 25/250 yard zero. It's nice and small and light, but clears up the target enough that I can tell the difference between a jackrabbit and a cottontail at 200 yards.

If spotting is my PRIMARY job, I have some Leupold Wind River 10x50 binoculars that do an excellent job. If I'm loaded down and walking around a lot in back country, I have some cheap simmons folding 8x24 pocket binos that do well enough.

But I don't use my rifle scope to just "look" at anything that even vaguely resembles a person.

[MLeake]

I don't care if it's post hurricane, earthquake, or what. If I see somebody pointing a rifle my way, the very least that will happen is that the police will be called.

While we are on the high horse, my binoculars are stored with my rifles, so I'd personally have no excuse for NOT having them. Since you are describing a home defense in time of disaster scenario, you would in theory be home. Ergo, you should have your binoculars or other scope.

All you are doing by forcing this scenario is trying to justify legally and morally irresponsible behavior, in a public forum.

[MLeake]

If guys are taking potshots at me as they converge, per your most extreme scenario, then threat identification has become a moot point.

[vox rationis]

If guys are taking potshots at me as they converge, per your most extreme scenario, then threat identification has become a moot point.

There were a few other scenarios in there where having a scope on the rifle would have clearly given an advantage in properly ID'ing the threat; and if a threatening group was coming toward your position, pot shots included, you'd still want to better visualize just who the gunman is etc.

All you are doing by forcing this scenario is trying to justify legally and morally irresponsible behavior, in a public forum.

Haha, oh boy..
I think that you have to re-read my last post because based on your answers you couldn't have carefully read what I said. I clearly delineated that in extreme situations, having access to a good scope on one's rifle can indeed save an innocent life. Why is it difficult for you to process that no one is talking about sighting in on people willy nilly under normal circumstances, scope or no scope. No one is talking about using a rifle mounted scope in lieu of binoculars or a spotting scope if those are available and more appropriate to use .

What I'm talking about is, the benefit of having a scope on your rifle when you are in danger and in fear for your life, and when the decision to sight in on a threat has already been made. The scope can show you that the "threat" may instead be a kid with a paintball gun (to borrow from Wildalaska's great example), and I'd hate for you to commit an act of immoral behavior of shooting at a mis-identified target. So obviously, having the extra target ID capability of the rifle scope may be absolutely invaluable.

And I know that your set of binoculars are permanently attached to your noggin, but to come at this issue from a more tactical angle: under extreme circumstances like I described, may I suggest that pointing binoculars instead of your scope mounted rifle at what you believe to be a genuine threat to your life is quite foolish. Because I'd hate for you to be stuck with binoculars in your hand when in fact you really should have had your scope mounted rifle.

[vox rationis]

had an asshat point a rifle at me way down south, about 2 miles from the Mexico border, during javelina season. He wasn't part of my hunting party and I didn't know him... it was about 300 yards distant.

He was using his scope to get a better look at me.

Yikes, of course, what that man did is very clearly incorrect and very off putting, not to mention extremely dangerous. Pointing a weapon at someone is very serious business, and this is why I was writing only within the context of pointing one's rifle at perceived serious threats, in an extreme situation of self defense, not to merely take a peak at people using a rifle mounted scope. My mistake I suppose is that I took it for granted that we were all on the same page topic and scenario wise.

[kkb]

Replying to the OP;

How about using Aimpoint's Magnifier behind the red-dot?

With a quick release mount you can detach and use as a monocular for scanning.

[Mannlicher]

I am running iron sights on my two full size M1A rifles. MY SOCOM wears an EoTech.

[The Canuck]

You only asnwered one of my questions WA, and poorly at that (you get a "D", a technical pass, but a moral failure). How's about taking a kick at the second one?

[MLeake]

I'll address your second question, Canuck.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. Depending on one's political leanings (and whether one has bothered to read the Federalist Papers and other old documents), there are some arguments about whether this right applies to individuals in general or to state militia members in particular.

Nowhere does 2A say the people have the right to look at others through riflescopes.

IE your question doesn't pertain in any way to the topic.

As far as your first question, police don't identify people via sniper scopes, unless a spotter has already called target location. So that question has a negative bearing for your argument.

Cheers.

[The Canuck]

Okay, first off, I agree with that. I must have missed the part where we were actually began talking about sighting people through a mounted scope. My bad. I was more puzzled by the fact that WA seemed to be saying that only the Police should have fighting optics. So in regards to this coming to light, I apologize and retract any previous statements made regarding the act of sighting people through a rifle scope.

As for good optics for an AR or other rifle of similar function, I still recommend the ELCAN Spectre DR. Its a pretty neat-o set up.

[Wildalaska]

You only asnwered one of my questions WA, and poorly at that (you get a "D", a technical pass, but a moral failure). How's about taking a kick at the second one?

Do you not understand the concept of criminal negligence?

WildtherestisselfevidentAlaska TM

[The Canuck]

WA, please refer to Post #39.