AR optic hypothesis, LPV or ACOG +RDS

[marine6680]

I am not one for a "do it all" rifle. Most of the time I think it complicates the setup and compromises for every role you want it for.

Recent threads on effective range in combat and of the 5.56 round, brought this back into my head.

Attempting to get the most effectiveness out of a general carbine from 0-500yds.


So a lot of people think a LPV scope is a good way to get a general purpose rifle suitable for close range out to medium range of 500yds. The idea being that magnified optics make for more hits at range.

But I just don't think a LPV works well close in, not in actual combat use. It works great in competition and a static range though.

So if running a LPV on 1x is less than ideal, you could eliminate the need for a variable magnification, by having something like an ACOG, with an offset mini RDS. I'm not a fan of the setup with the RMR on top of the ACOG, I would rather an RMR or similar micro, be run offset.

For more open terrain and longer engagement, the ACOG would work well, and a simple roll of the rifle gets you effective close range ability inside 50yds.

You are not going for precision at range so much as better hit ratio. So it also isn't exactly a do it all, but just an attempt to be maximally effective from close in out to a few hundred yards for minimal weight and complication.

An ACOG and offset mini reflex like an RMR weigh together, a similar amount as many 1-4x LPV. Which hover around 16oz on average.


I don't think a general purpose rifle should go over 4x or 6x magnification.

I see a quality 1-8x with an effective reticle being a good DMR scope. But I don't think of a designated marksman as being a precision shooter, more of a "can shoot the best out of everyone on the team" kind of thing. Someone able to apply a bit more precision out to 500yds than the average guy.


I also tend to discount flip magnifiers. They seem ungainly, and in essence are similar in function to a variable optic. Just minus the close range hit, but you do have an object hanging out to the side in your field of view. They would as fast to deploy as rolling the rifle 45 degrees to go between magnified and non, and due to the nature of how they work, they are not as good for extended ranges as a proper scope and reticle would be.


So which setup do you think works the best for the perimeters given?

[zukiphile]

I like very low fixed magnification. I conceive of these as slight improvements on iron sights that let me know where I will be hitting, not optics that will give me lots of detail about the target. A 1.5x to 2.5x fixed power scope can be light and give a great field of view. With etched reticles, a small circle or four quadrants of a circle can give great reference to the point to be hit without obscuring the target at longer distance the way a crosshair can. Chevrons can do that too, but may be less intuitive.

[marine6680]

I own the TA44 with ACSS reticle.

The reticle is an attempt to make a circle dot reticle but with a bit more functionality. With BDC and ranging.

The drop aiming points are subtentioned to be "head size" at the appropriate range. Then there is a ranging grid underneath.


It has limitations...

The reticle is small... I mean small. If you do not have 20/20 vision, you will have trouble making out the chevron as anything other than a slightly oblong dot.

It also suffers from the same limitations of any scope, and that it has an eyebox and eye relief. It is more forgiving than most though.

[Fishbed77]

I don't think a general purpose rifle should go over 4x or 6x magnification.

I guess the question is what do you consider a "general purpose rifle?" What are its "general purposes?" Range fun? Hunting? Competition? Defensive use? All or a mix?

I agree that there is no such thing as a "do-it-all" rifle. If it's a defensive rifle, I feel it needs to be dedicated for that use.

And (I know this is going to be controversial here) I don't think there is much need for magnification on a defensive rifle intended to be used in a civilian context. Absent "end-of-the-world" situations that I'm not getting into here, if you are engaging two-legged targets at a range that requires magnification, your act is becoming hard to justify as "defense" and is creeping much closer to attempted murder or murder. At any true defensive range, I feel a quality red dot optic is just going to serve you better.

Again, I don't think that is going to be a popular opinion, but I'm certainly willing to hear others' thoughts concerning this.

[Sharkbite]

My red dot gets me out to 300yds without issues. Thats all i can ask out of a short barreled AR platform. If i need to engage further, i have better options.

My AR’s are built as close range rifles.

[marine6680]

I'm thinking along the lines of a general issue military combat carbine. Tracking the thread about effectivity in combat I mentioned earlier.

Think along the lines of an infantryman in Afghanistan, where a patrol may take them from an area of fairly open terrain, where they may need to engage at 300-400yds, and then into a small village where they may need to respond to threats inside 50yds, or even enter a building.



For civilian HD, red dot all the way. Close range is your only concern, and speed is the way to go.


And while I can shoot red dots out to a few hundred yards as well, its generally accepted that low magnification can improve shooting at intermediate ranges.

[Dragline45]

Ive been contemplating the same. I have two AR’s, a 14.5” with a Vortex Sparc, and a 16” with a 2.5x Primary Arms Prism Scope with illuminated reticle. The 16” used to have a 1-4x scope but like you I did not find it ideal for close range work and was just not a fan. Out to 50yds both work equally as well for me, with the Sparc having a slight edge at close distsnxes. But when I start pushing out out to 100 the 2.5x really makes a difference. Both are BCM’s and are equal in quality, but I am still deciding on which one to be my go to rifle.

Note: for those who have an astigmatism and have trouble with red dots, the Primary Arms prism scopes have an etched illuminated reticle and are good to go. While I have a slight astigmatism I can still use dots, but the prism scope is crystal clear.

[marine6680]

I have been eyeing scopes lately.

I currently have a Trijicon 1-4x on one of my rifles. I really like the scope. Clear glass no distortion, the reticle is the 5.56 segmented circle BDC... It feels robust and the quality is very good.

I only ever use it on 4x though, and it works great for nailing a 10in gong at 400yds, often impacting the center 3in gong portion when I am shooting from a stable position, like a bench, sitting, or prone. I don't much care for it on 1x and close range.

But I have wondered if a settup like I propose with an ACOG and offset micro RDS would be a better way to go over a scope like that. At least when it comes to the use I described.

Because a lot of people are claiming that LPV are the future, even for actual combat use... Because "versatility"... And I am not sure I agree.

[stagpanther]

Have you looked at Primary Arm's 1 x 4 or 6 ACSS red dots? As far as I know they originated and patented the ACSS reticle that Trijicon uses. The primary arm's one features a sharp chevron--much like aimpoint's. I don't know how rugged they are--being made in China my guess is not very--but I sure like the PA ACSS reddot scopes I have. They score high in my "real value--actually works" book.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by marine6680

I only ever use it on 4x though, ...

Because a lot of people are claiming that LPV are the future, even for actual combat use... Because "versatility"... And I am not sure I agree.

The closest I ever come to combat is walking the woods or a field. I think power variability can undermine intuitive range estimation. Is the image 100 yards away or 150? What power did I leave it on? The simple 4x lots of us had on our rifles as lads didn't have that problem.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

People have been trying to solve that problem for awhile now. Some of the newer efforts, like the Leupold D-EVO, I haven’t ever seen or used; but I’ve tried a lot of the rest. I have a TA11 ACOG with an offset Aimpoint T1 on my favorite rifle. I also have a SWFA 1-6x HD on my SBR. I was never a fan of magnifiers and still am not.

For the most part, I like magnification. As long as I am using my dominant eye, I don’t have issues with both eyes open even at 6x and fairly close range. Being able to dial it down to 1x is a nice to have; but on variables it is either 1x or full magnification. The variable serves about 90% of my shooting needs and does it very well. I remember one of the lessons I learned on a shooting scenario set up in the brush. A white painted popper had been set up under a tree at about 80yds away with some tallish tan grass at the base. It was invisible to the naked eye to most people until they got much closer. I saw it through my ACOG while engaging a closer popper and was able to shoot it without having to change position.

However, when you need the red dot there just aren’t any substitutes for it. If you are shooting from a non-traditional position or one where you can’t maintain a good cheekweld (moving vehicle over terrain or anything brisker than a slow walk), the T1 is worth more than its weight in gold. It is also great for me for weakside shooting since my weak eye has a hard time finding even the generous eyebox on the TA11 these days.

The military has been using ACOG/red dot combos for over a decade now and they seem to be trending towards variables as the answer to that solution.

[Nanuk]

I don't have a lot of "combat" experience but I have a lot of service rifle experience. I was in the Army in the late 70's - early 80's and LE after that. I carried an M-16 all over Europe, the southwest border and the northern border. when working for the US Border Patrol.

I had access to ACOG's, Various RDS and EOTECH's. My personal AR, general purpose rifle wears a Primary Arms 1X4 LPV, my precision AR has a 3X9 and my two AR pistols have RDS. I have astigmatism so the RDS can at times be problematic for any real of precision.

I also run my guns in local 3 gun matches. For a host of reasons I prefer the LPV on a general purpose rifle/carbine. The magnification is a plus when searching for targets and target ID on a partially obscured target. In the civilian world target ID is critical.

[agtman]

* * * I don't think there is much need for magnification on a defensive rifle intended to be used in a civilian context. Absent "end-of-the-world" situations that I'm not getting into here, if you are engaging two-legged targets at a range that requires magnification, your act is becoming hard to justify as "defense" and is creeping much closer to attempted murder or murder. At any true defensive range, * * *

Not necessarily.

It's not distance per se, but the nature of the "threat" that determines whether and when - even for civilians - your act of "long-range" self-defense with rifle-fire is justified ...

Just FYI, here's Clint Smith eloquently explaining why distance isn't the relevant factor; it's what the threat is specifically doing to you and yours that would justify engaging them defensively at 100yds, or even farther out. He addresses this situation in the first 1:10 of this YouTube vid:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=300s&v=RMlVro8GQ-s


But back on the topic of what optic to run on an AR for defensive use (not hunting, precision "Match"-type shooting, or plinking at dirt clods from afar on a lazy Sunday afternoon), I'm good to go out to 300-yds with just a standard or even mini-RDS.

[marine6680]

Bart

Your statement about nothing beats a red dot when you need it... Is basically my primary reasoning for my idea.


The military isn't above chasing trends, and teir one guys are just as impressionable as anyone else. There is also this tendency to want a all in one solution, and I am not convinced it exists.


For me, really thinking about realities of engagement of targets that insist on shooting back... Staying in cover and exposing as little of yourself, while still returning effective fire is a priority.

When it comes to a 1-4x LPV, if 1x isn't as good as a red dot, and I use it only on 4x when magnification is needed... It seems a fixed 4x scope and an offset red dot would provide the capabilities I want, without the drawbacks of a LPV used in 1x.

[Nathan]

For the mission stated, 16” bbl, an LPV 1-8x would be best, but likely weighs too much. Therefore ACOG. Learn to run by BAC method and you can hit Close or far.


RDS is fine, especially with a 14” bbl or shorter.

[Mobuck]

"But I just don't think a LPV works well close in, "
If your target is too close to use a 1 or 1.5X optic, just look down the barrel and shoot.
After finding myself handicapped on small varmints at 250 yards, I shifted to 2-7x32 scopes on several AR's. Dialed down to 2x for coyote calling or up to 7x as needed for the longer shots, this is currently my favorite setup.

[agtman]

* * * After finding myself handicapped on small varmints at 250 yards, I shifted to 2-7x32 scopes on several AR's. Dialed down to 2x for coyote calling or up to 7x as needed for the longer shots, this is currently my favorite setup.

A 2x7 is exactly what I run on my camo-ed 'Yote AR, but that's a dedicated 'hunting' set-up rather than a personal/home defense AR.

On my HD AR, I'm running an Aimpoint H-1 and a can.

[PlatinumCore16]

I am currently running a PA 3x ACSS on my AR and I love it. It has the "CQB" reticle which means that the whole reticle illuminates, not just the horseshoe and dot. This means with both eyes open, you "should" be pretty good for close range work, and the subtensions work well at range. I don't have enough experience at close to make a good call. I've only used it to 100yds for now, but I need to get back to the range and give it some work out longer. I am thinking though that I Would also like an offset red dot if it is a little tough to use the 3x up close with more experience.

Now I also have a PA 5x ACSS on my 308 semi auto and that I definitely need a red dot for. Unfortunately the way the rifle is set up, I really can't do anything except mount the red dot on top of the scope and it's already a tall rifle, so.

[G.barnes]

I think it depends on personal preference and which lpv you choose. I’ve had multiple lpvs and Aimpoint pros and micro red dots. Currently I’m running an ax upping with the triangle. At close range with a true 1x and the basic triangle with no dots or other distractions I’m just as fast on target as I am with an Aimpoint Pro. I personally don’t like micro red dots as seeing to much of the housing is a distraction at times. It’s. Not a precision scope but you can hit people size targets at distance with ease even at 1x. Now start getting into a scope with a small dot and bdc reticles and all that your target acquisition time increase as you have to pick up the small dot amongst the other etchings, especially when most low to medium priced scopes don’t have daylight bright reticles. I also had an ax upkeep with mil dot reticle. Not daylight bright like the accupoint. I’m much faster at picking up a glowing triangle than a black crosshairs with lots of dots.

[Mobuck]

Aiming is highly over rated for "across the room" ranges.

[marine6680]

I can do point shooting, but having an actual aiming point to go by is helpful.

More so if you are concerned about misses and collateral.

[mellow_c]

This is a tough one, something I'm still trying to figure out myself.


This is what I feel so far.

For anything close... Let's just call that inside 25 yards. I feel as though iron sights along with index shooting (basically just using the front sight and more or less point shooting, or even just using the end of the barrel) is the fastest way to get good hits on any sort of man sized target. I personally don't think red dots can compete with the speed and situational awareness that go along with using iron sights at close range. And when bringing the gun up to the eye far enough that you are index shooting with the front sight but not using the rear, surprising accuracy can be achieved within those ranges and at a greater speed than i think one can achieve with any other aiming devise.

Red dots while maybe a hair slower to get shots on target (because lets face it, you have to look through the sight to use them which takes more time and consistency than index or point shooting) are going to provide you with the ability to make close range precision shots quicker than with iron sights. For example, the typical "half the bad guys head exposed behind the hostage" hypothetical.

From there, 25 - 50- 100 yards out. Red dots are going to provide quicker accuracy than iron sights and I don't think anything can beat them.

I like aimpoints, i like eotechs, but i may prefer eotechs because they have a larger window to view through which i feel helps in a lot of ways.

I don't like the idea of two optics, even if running a red dot off on the side where you have to twist the rifle, and especially when you have a red dot mounted on top of another optic. I think with enough training, one could be effective with these set ups but i feel like the time required to change positions with enough consistency required to use the close range red dots effectively would be enough that i would feel at a disadvantage.

Then there are the low power variable scopes.

I want to love them, I haven't found one that is good enough in my eyes for me to consider it a do it all aiming device, yet.

I have the same Trijicon as marine, and i haven't used it much, but i feel like it is a decent scope for the intended role, but the 1x while perfectly usable and capable, does leave you wishing you had a red dot.

Dealing with the eye box, eye relief, fish eye, and potentially not true 1x are all the reasons why i prefer a red dot. But having 4x 6x 8x available along with 1x is still a great formula no matter what.

I have not had the pleasure to look through any of the real high end $1000+ 1-6x and 1-8x optics yet.

These all interest me...

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/...h-jm-1-reticle

https://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/...lescope-1-8x24

https://www.opticsplanet.com/trijico...a51-mount.html

I would like to look through them to see if they have more of a true 1x, no fish eye, looking through a wide open window type feel.

I have looked through enough LPV scopes to know that the higher the price, the more forgiving and easier they are to use, feeling more like a red dot as the cost increases... So that gives me the hope that maybe the really expensive ones come close enough for me to be satisfied with them, but since i have no experience with them, i can't say.

Sometimes i think if i just wait another 2-3 years there will be a whole new wave of LPV models from all the different manufactures that may be even better than what is available now.

Since I still have yet to find the answer I'm looking for, i will end by saying that my hope is to eventually find a LPV that i feel does it all. And if I do, I might be willing to spend the money (and the weight) on it.

[marine6680]

Yeah, you can shoot quickly and accurate enough with point shooting, with a bit of practice.

But having a detailed dot is useful anyway. Using the red dot like a giant ghost ring is pretty quick too. So I want my HD rifle to have one, and it would be nice to have one for any close range work.


Inside 50yds, I think red dots can not be beat. Even out to 100yds they are fast if you are well practiced.


As far as an offset optic, after you zero it, it's really meant for close range work, inside 25yds. Maybe occasionally 50yds or 100yds if you want

So being perfectly behind the optic isn't critical, it's just see the dot and go.

I have seen a few people discussing them, and it is said that it isn't hard to learn to transition to them quickly. And if you are preparing to go into close quarters, you are already going to go to that optic by default, so you are mentally prepared anyway at that point.


And as you say, the limitations of a LPV on 1x makes me not think of it as a good close range optic for real world situations. Maybe if you have the initiative, like you just kicked in the door and are charging in... But if the other guy has it over you... Well I don't think the limitations are workable in that situation.


I have looked through several of the nicer LPVs, but never used them personally.

I have found that glass clairity and general quality isn't much different from the accupoint 1-4, until you cross the $2000 mark.

In general, you gain magnification, eye box and eye relief may be better... Field of view can be better. Usually the main gain is magnification.

You may be lucky, depending on the manufacturer, and not gain weight over a 1-4 option.

I recently picked up a Night force NX8, and that went back in the box and was shipped right back. For the money it cost, it had too many drawbacks to be worthwhile over the accupoint.

8x is nice, and weighing less than an ounce more than the accupoint is as well... Eye box was unforgiving in all magnification ranges. There was some fisheye on 1x that my accupoint didn't exhibit, or is too minor to notice. Glass clarity was about the same between them, so nothing there either.


As far as your links.

The Vortex has a great field of view, it is huge, and the glass is very nice, maybe a bit better than the Accupower, but not a huge jump... And it has a generous eyebox too... But it is heavy.

Not sure about the Burris, but it is a bit heavy if I remember correctly.

The VCOG isuch like an Accupower from my understanding, but with 6x and built very ruggedly. Roughly the same weight as an Accupower with a good mount.


As my Night force NX8 example shows, you don't always gain in every specification, just by paying a ton more.


I'm still of the mind to think an ACOG and offest red dot are the way to go for a "strap on your boots and take a walk through Afghanistan" general issue carbine.

[mellow_c]

Well said marine.

Thanks for discussing some of the finer details. Eye box, field of view, and eye relief are more important to me than extra magnification. So something like the Nightforce you tried out would be a waste of time and money for me as well. But the Vortex has more of what I'm looking for, despite it being so heavy. I could see setting up an overall minimalistic light weight gun that can still hold tight groups and then throwing the giant vortex on top.

I haven't read enough about the Burris yet. What i have read gives me the impression that it in theory, it would be almost everything i want, except that it just isn't, in regards to eyebox, field of view, and maybe a few quality issues I've read in a couple reviews. Id still like to look through one and see for myself because i like the overall idea of them.

The trigicon VCOG is not reeeeally on my list if only for the fact that it has an integrated mount. I've seen videos of people running them on their rifles and they have to have the stock pretty much fully extended to get enough eye relief because the integrated mount won't allow you to mount the optic far enough forward on the gun to allow you to run with a shorter length of pull. And with your stock fully extended you put all that weight out in front of you and the rifle gets heavy fast! No thanks! Also, if it's just a basic upgrade in magnification and durability over the accupower, then it doesn't improve on the areas that are most important to me, so i have no reason to look at it any further.

If you decide that your set on an ACOG type set up with a side mounted red dot, I wouldn't argue with you, and if I were to try it I might warm up to it more. However in that case, i might think about trying a nice leightweight 2-7x scope along with the red dot. I would think you could probably be at about the same weight with a 2-7x scope and mount as you would with an ACOG and then your not stuck with something like a 3.5x . . . Because 2x can be pretty dang good for closer stuff if you put in the practice, and having 7x would be very helpful with longer shots and giving you the ability to see things more clearly further away.

[marine6680]

The ACOG has the durability going for it, which is really a very big point in it's favor... And the battery free illumination is handy and works... I would go with the 4x... It has a great field of view and has a good weight. The mini 3x ACOG was like looking through a tube, with a small field of view, even with less magnification. The other 3x is bigger than the 4x but has some advantages in some of the specs, it's all a trade off.

The glass clarity on the 4x is fantastic, the only real drawback is the short eye relief. But the eyebox is large and forgiving, and the eye relief doesn't need to be spot on to see through it well.

And ADM is about to release a rearward cantilever ACOG mount to bring it over your rear sight. To allow the scope to sit back farther and not need a nose to charging handle shooting position.

I'm pretty much set on the proposed setup as being the way to go on a general purpose issue rifle. And fpr is civilians, good for guys who have farms with open land, for when they want to do a walk around and have a carbine for the odd 4 legged critter than wants to cause trouble, and they may need a bit of long range and close range needs.


I see a LPV as being a DMR optic. I don't think of a designated marksman as being a long range precision shooter... More of a intermediate range increased accuracy shooter. They have a 16in barreled rifle in my vision of the role.

You want to give them some magnification but not much. Around 8x top end seems a good upper limit for working inside 500yds. Having a 1x low end, while not ideal for close range, is workable to some extent, depending on the exact situation at the time.

A solid, rugged and reliable 2-7x might work too, if you give them an offset as well.


Other LPVs I was looking at are the Leupold Mk 6 and the VX 6HD Multigun... The Mk 6 seems a great optic, awesome glass and a very useable FFP reticle with a BDC. The Multigun has a decent reticle, but I hear the single button control is a bit funky to use. The glass is similar to the Razer, in that it is a noticable step up over the Accupower, but not a huge jump. Just a bit better on the whole.

Both are light, the Mk6 is 17oz the Multigun is 13oz. Good eyebox, eye relief and field of view.

The Multigun is similar in price to the Vortex Razer, and i seen the Mk6 on sale for $1800 but is usually $2000.

That Mk6 is really tempting... But at 6x it's not really at the magnification I think of for a DMR, and it's still not a red dot substitute, just like other LPVs. I suppose 6x is good enough for a DMR in the end though.