AR-15 Build/Optic Advice

[Jacket67]

Hey TFL,

I'm in the process of beginning my first AR-15 build and could use some advice. I've elected to go with a 16" mid-length rifle so I can easily change out parts when needed. Seeing as how this is my first build, I figured it'd take a bit to figure out what my preferred setup is.

I live in South Georgia, but frequently find myself around the Atlanta area because of family and friends. I live on 40 acres of land that is a mix of open field and densely-wooded area. My main purpose for this build is a defensive/fighting rifle if that need ever arises. I've done a lot of research on optics, but would like some of your opinions about what optic you'd choose and why. I understand that red dots such as Aimpoint are really rugged and easy to shoot, and are very quick to get on target with. That being said, I seem to be more drawn to the idea of a 1-4x or 1-6x variable scope just for the added capability of verifying what I'm shooting at further distances.

I would love to hear from those out there with any sort of military or law enforcement experience, but I obviously value all of your opinions who have experience with these rifles. I simply want to know what optic you prefer for your defensive/fighting AR's and why.

Also, I would love any advice on websites that are great for ordering parts for builds. I've been on BCM, Palmetto State Armory, and Brownells, but I feel like there's tons I might be missing.

Thanks in advance!

***Edit: I guess I should have clarified that this rifle build is somewhat for a WROL/SHTF scenario where I might have to leave my home, gun in hand, and be capable of defending myself. I'm not a prepper by any means, but I can't argue that having a gun that's good for that scenario isn't a bad idea. That's why I'm asking about the scope vs red dot for the optic. My apologies if I didn't clearly state that previously.

[Jimro]

Well, not much defensive use for a rifle at scope ranges, generally that's called "murder" unless the other guy also happened to be shooting at you with a rifle from quite a distance.

But in terms of setting up a 16" AR-15 for a "utility carbine" where it's light and handy yet accurate close and at distance the Burris MTAC 1-4x24. At any "defense" range the 1x setting is very much appreciated. This setup can be zeroed easy and if you do need a longer range shot use the BDC reticle.

For a rifle that might be used to take some deer (last I checked 223 was legal for deer in Georgia) at longer ranges in low light (dusk/dawn), look at a Burris MTAC 1.5-6x42, it's a little bit bigger, but has better low light capabilities with more magnification that its smaller brother. Might look a tad strange to have such a big optic on such a small rifle, but performance wise there shouldn't be any complaints.

Jimro

[Sharkbite]

Having been in Los Angeles for the Rodney King riots, im a big fan of having a rifle along if traveling into the "big city" (if at all legally possible).

I would agree that a red dot will do everything you need to do with a rifle in the event of extream civil unrest.

I used a Eo-tech sighted 10.5" M4 during my 5 years in Iraq (all of it in cities) and never regretted my optics choice. We also had the option of Trijicon AGOG's.

Any magnified optic will have an "eyebox" that you must get into to use the scope. Now, granted, some of the lower mag scopes have pretty forgiving eyeboxes, but you must still be inside that to use the optic.

Standing on the range when everything is good and any of them will work.... Get crammed into a horribly contorted shooting position or find yourself on your back and magnified optics can be problematic.

My choice on ALL of my "fighting rifles" is one of the mini reddots. Aimpoint T1, Trijicon MRO lead the pack but are spendy. Primary arms/Holosun are good options for the budget minded.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Well, not much defensive use for a rifle at scope ranges, generally that's called "murder" unless the other guy also happened to be shooting at you with a rifle from quite a distance.

Not really. I can think of a number of defensive uses of a rifle at long ranges. They just happen to be extremely rare.

[ndking1126]

Jacket,

7 years in the military with 2 deployments. I've shot Eotech, ACOGs, Aimpoints and scopes quite a bit. My take, and just my take, is this:

Eotech - fastest on target and easiest to aim when precision isn't of utmost importance. If you need a center mass hit as quickly as possible at 50-70 yards or less and don't care how small your grouping is, this is what you want.

ACOG - overall best option in my opinion. Capable of a very good precision at distance. Extremely rugged - probably the most rugged optic of all discussed. Doesn't need battery to light reticle. 4x magnification is enough to reach out there. But that is the one down side. 4x is too much magnification for quick and reliable target acquisition at short distances.

Scope - Assuming 1-4 or 1-6, this is an extremely solid option. It will handily beat the ACOG in price and also the lower magnification makes it useful at any range. It offers precision at all ranges. Realistically, I should say this is the best overall option instead of the ACOG... but there's just something about the ACOG that I love.

Aimpoint - It's really the worst of all worlds. I don't like them. Their upside is that they are very reliable and the battery lasts seemingly forever. The dot does not offer precision, and the target acquisition isn't any better than a standard scope. I've always thought the little knob to turn it on and adjust the brightness was a little clunky. Maybe that's just me being overly picky because I don't like the optic. One time I was able to shoot an M4 that had an Aimpoint red dot with an additional Aimpoint magnifier added. This was a better experience and it made shooting a little farther out easier. But there was now two devices - meaning twice as expensive, twice as much weight, and an additional device that could be broken or lost. Again... just not my personal choice.

Based on what you've said, a reasonably nice scope in 1-4x power will probably be your best option. I'm going to scope my AR.. I'll probably choose a 1-6x though.

Online I prefer Palmetto State Armory or MidwayUSA. I've found that AR-15 parts can be bought locally a lot of the time for close to what you can find online. I bought a CBC Industries upper and have been happy with it. It's still very new, but no hiccups yet (if you saw my post, I attribute the issue to Hornady ammo, not the upper). I was wanting to build my first AR for cheap. I took a chance on the company since my family lives in the same state they are located.

[waveslayer]

Originally Posted by ndking1126

Jacket,

7 years in the military with 2 deployments. I've shot Eotech, ACOGs, Aimpoints and scopes quite a bit. My take, and just my take, is this:

Eotech - fastest on target and easiest to aim when precision isn't of utmost importance. If you need a center mass hit as quickly as possible at 50-70 yards or less and don't care how small your grouping is, this is what you want.

ACOG - overall best option in my opinion. Capable of a very good precision at distance. Extremely rugged - probably the most rugged optic of all discussed. Doesn't need battery to light reticle. 4x magnification is enough to reach out there. But that is the one down side. 4x is too much magnification for quick and reliable target acquisition at short distances.

Scope - Assuming 1-4 or 1-6, this is an extremely solid option. It will handily beat the ACOG in price and also the lower magnification makes it useful at any range. It offers precision at all ranges. Realistically, I should say this is the best overall option instead of the ACOG... but there's just something about the ACOG that I love.

Aimpoint - It's really the worst of all worlds. I don't like them. Their upside is that they are very reliable and the battery lasts seemingly forever. The dot does not offer precision, and the target acquisition isn't any better than a standard scope. I've always thought the little knob to turn it on and adjust the brightness was a little clunky. Maybe that's just me being overly picky because I don't like the optic. One time I was able to shoot an M4 that had an Aimpoint red dot with an additional Aimpoint magnifier added. This was a better experience and it made shooting a little farther out easier. But there was now two devices - meaning twice as expensive, twice as much weight, and an additional device that could be broken or lost. Again... just not my personal choice.

Based on what you've said, a reasonably nice scope in 1-4x power will probably be your best option. I'm going to scope my AR.. I'll probably choose a 1-6x though.

Online I prefer Palmetto State Armory or MidwayUSA. I've found that AR-15 parts can be bought locally a lot of the time for close to what you can find online. I bought a CBC Industries upper and have been happy with it. It's still very new, but no hiccups yet (if you saw my post, I attribute the issue to Hornady ammo, not the upper). I was wanting to build my first AR for cheap. I took a chance on the company since my family lives in the same state they are located.

Amen and amen!

My wife thinks I only have 3 guns

[Jacket67]

I can see where the variable scope can lose out in it's ability in awkward shooting situations. A buddy of mine built an AR with an Eotech. I haven't shot it yet, but that'll probably give me a good idea of what I'd prefer... I'm almost considering putting a red dot on my first build, and then putting a little more time and money into a second build with a scope... but we'll see! Thanks everyone for the great insight!

Not trying to ask for too much on this thread, but what barrel length and gas system would you all recommend? Most people seem to like the 14.5 carbine, but I can't seem to jump on board with the idea of pinning my muzzle device on... Is it worth it, or would the 16 inch middy be preferable?

[marine6680]

A 1-4 or similar scope is not as fast to use as a red dot... They have an eye box even on the lowest setting. Meaning head position is important.

Standing on a range, yeah... They work fine, and fast. In competition they offer good versatility.

But in a combat situation, you have to remember to have the scope set to an appropriate magnification for the situation, and the situation will be highly variable and unpredictable.

I have seen people argue that they are just as fast as a red dot... They are always on a range shooting paper... As was mentioned, being in an odd shooting position can hinder use of a scope, as they all have eye boxes.

What kind of shooting position do you think you will be in, if someone is shooting back?


In a defensive situation, the need to shoot farther than 50yds tops, is very low, so a non magnified red dot would work better.

You always bet on the highest odds, not the fringe low chance case. Don't hinder yourself 99.9% of the time, just in case the .1% happens. Especially when a little practice can make the shortfall in that low chance situation, less of a problem... Just learn to shoot a red dot out to a few hundred yards.

The large circle with dot reticle on an eotech is fast, and the 1moa center dot can make precision shots easier, but the battery life is low and you must remember to turn it on.

The 2moa dot of an Aimpoint is not as quick as an eotech, but offers a compromise for better long range use while being big enough to use pretty quickly. The battery life and always on capability is a great feature. Practice and using a brightness setting a little on the bright side for the ambient conditions can make it faster for close range work.

A 4moa dot can be almost as fast as an eotech, but long range precision is harder.


Having an optic that is always on and ready, seeing as it will be sitting untouched for more time than it would be used... Especially if grabbed when startled from a deep sleep... I like a good long battery life red dot like Aimpoint.

[marine6680]

A 16in midlength will work fine. The difference in length is minimal. If I remember correctly, the muzzle device has to be longer than a standard A2 flash hider to bring the total length over 16in... So that means total length will be about an inch different.

I learned to use a 20in A2 rifle in close quarters, a 16in feels short by comparison.

[Jimro]

Not trying to ask for too much on this thread, but what barrel length and gas system would you all recommend? Most people seem to like the 14.5 carbine, but I can't seem to jump on board with the idea of pinning my muzzle device on... Is it worth it, or would the 16 inch middy be preferable?

Get the 16" with a mid length gas system. You can get by with any twist rate you want from 1:7 to 1:9 unless you plan on shooting tracers then you'll need the 1:7.

My time in Iraq and Afghanistan was much more town/village oriented. The biggest cities I regularly visited were Baqubah and Muqdadiyah in Iraq, Gardez, and Qalat in Afghanistan.

I actually recommend an Aimpoint over Eotech based on ruggedness. The EOTech has cooler reticles, but the Aimpoint is much much tougher.

The point about a red dot being faster at short range is both real and a bit irrelevant in my experience as the difference in timing was never a deciding factor in any engagement. I don't like choosing equipment to fix a training issue, such as proper head placement and trigger control.

At halitosis range you can put two to the chest without using the sights at all, and at distance a scope will be faster than a red dot to get precise fire on target. But, there is a reason we issue Aimpoints and EOTechs to most Soldiers, because they are stupid easy to use fast. However the military got by just fine with iron sights which are slower to use than any sort of optic, and training will make sure you put the your head in the right spot to use irons or a scope.

As far as combat being unpredictable and uncertain, yup. Do I ever expect the OP to actually engage in a running gun battle with this carbine? Nope. I expect some range time, maybe some hunting, and for that a scope is probably a better utilitarian option. If pressed into service as a *defense* rifle it will work out just fine. I don't expect people to be offensively kicking in doors and clearing rooms in major cities for defense.

Jimro

[Mobuck]

"I actually recommend an Aimpoint over Eotech based on ruggedness. The EOTech has cooler reticles, but the Aimpoint is much much tougher.

The point about a red dot being faster at short range is both real and a bit irrelevant in my experience as the difference in timing was never a deciding factor in any engagement. I don't like choosing equipment to fix a training issue, such as proper head placement and trigger control.

At halitosis range you can put two to the chest without using the sights at all, and at distance a scope will be faster than a red dot to get precise fire on target. But, there is a reason we issue Aimpoints and EOTechs to most Soldiers, because they are stupid easy to use fast. However the military got by just fine with iron sights which are slower to use than any sort of optic, and training will make sure you put the your head in the right spot to use irons or a scope."

As far as red dots go, the AimPoint is my choice. The dot may not be as precise as others but the battery life and ability to take a licking and keep on ticking offsets that by miles. I've used an AimPoint to bullets on a 10" x 10" plate @300 meters with no problems.
Also agree that sights aren't really needed for "across the room" bullet placement.

[Sharkbite]

Also agree that sights aren't really needed for "across the room" bullet placement

UNLESS precise bullet placement is critical. Headshots at tgts behind objects come to mind.

Both eyes open combined with large FOV reddot sights make it very fast to deliver pinpoint shot placement at house fighting distances AND make COM shots out to 300yds EASILY.

That, combined with the ability to see the dot from any distance behind the scope and at a huge increase in angles to the tube (when compared to magnified optics) make them a no brainer for a "defensive" rifle.

0-300yd capable...fast to use...greater flexibility in awkward positions...both eyes open

[aadams1973]

Gunbuyer.com just posted some optics deals if you're still looking:
http://eepurl.com/b_2uL9

[Targa]

My intention is not to be a jerk here just fyi. Every one of those optics can be had cheaper on Amazon.

[marine6680]

I'm with Shark on that one.

One can push a rifle with a scope into defensive duty, but it's not the best choice...

I don't subscribe to a jack of all trades kind of rifle setup. If I need a rifle for a purpose, I set it up for that purpose.

Not everyone can do that, I know, so those who can't, have to set priorities.

[ronl]

A good illuminated reticle 1-4 can give you the best of all worlds. The drawback is increased weight. Don't get me wrong, I really like my EOtech and my red dots, but they do not have the capability of a good magnified scope. There are two criteria that I use to determine just what optics I will put on a rifle. First is the accuracy of the rifle itself, and second is the intended purpose of said rifle. There is no advantage gained by putting a magnified scope on a 3 MOA rifle. 1MOA or better is a different story.

[raimius]

For a general use .223 rifle, I'd go with a red dot or 1-4/1-6x illuminated scope. In red dots, I like my Aimpoint T-2. The M2 is also good (just bigger). My current favorite is a 1-6.5x illuminated scope. On 1x, it is ALMOST as fast as the Aimpoint, but I also have a quick throw lever so I can look at 500m targets with ease. The 2MOA dot on the T-2 gets tough to use on small targets past 200m (or "ballistic point blank").

[Jimro]

UNLESS precise bullet placement is critical. Headshots at tgts behind objects come to mind.

Leaving aside the incredibly small odds of someone actually needing to "enter and clear a room" as a civilian in the US while experiencing some level of civil unrest, and leaving aside the point that a lone citizen in the continental US is probably not going to require tactics used by teams of military members conducting offensive operations under any circumstances not involving a Hollywood movie script (Die Hard for example, or any other terrorist plot that can only be stopped by the ridiculously competent hero), I'll keep playing along.

If shot placement is "critical" you don't expect someone to be "running and gunning" while doing it except possibly in video games. Irons, red dot, or scope can all make a "critical" shot depending on how good the shooter is and whether or not they have enough time to set up the shot.

If you do want someone to be shooting tennis balls (a slightly larger target than the critical zone for a cerebellum) with a red dot from 0 to 100, you'll have to accept that they'll need to know the hold over and hold under points to get the bullet to connect with the target at distance. And still, even at room to room ranges a guy with a scope or irons is still going to make the same shot.

However, since there is no "qualified immunity" for citizens and bullets don't come with a recall feature, being absolutely sure of your target before pulling the trigger seems to be advisable. On that note, a scope makes more sense, as does slowing down and not rushing into a potential fire fight. Going fast makes a lot of sense when you are training with a team that has legal immunity for killing and everyone has a particular sector and a job in the stack, slowing down as an individual to gain superior awareness of the situation and being very deliberate in your movements instead of just rushing through is a better option to stay alive. If you don't have to move, don't. If you don't have to shoot, don't. If you don't have to risk life and limb, don't risk it.

Jimro

[chicharrones]

I have a 16" barreled mid-length AR that I've tried 3 different optics combinations with. It has a 1:9 twist barrel and shoots very nicely with 55 grain to 62 grain ammo. For what it's worth, I'm a middle aged guy with no military or LEO experience whatsoever.

I've only had the rifle shown below for a few years, but when I first got it I could get by with iron sights pretty dang well. I wanted a quality red dot though, and got a lower 1/3 co-witness EoTech to fit between the sights. That EoTech was fantastic. Using both eyes open, the frame of the EoTech just disappears. The circle dot just hovers in space in front of you with the perfectly clear glass not putting any tint over your target. The little dot is surprisingly precise for distant shooting, as long as you can see your target.

Unfortunately, that EoTech lost its brightness so I got rid of it.

Next up, I tried to save some coin and got a DIO RV2 tube type red dot. I've had other tube types that work about the same, but the DIO had a very precise dot in comparison with a great brightness range. With two eyes open, the dot was easy to use quickly. Even so, looking through that tube seemed to restrict my view enormously, especially with the co-witnessed sights.

I didn't keep that DIO very long since my eyes didn't work well with that set up any more and I figured I like to try some magnification. More importantly, I wanted a way to focus the reticle or dot.

So, I currently have a Leupold VX Hog 1-4x20. In reality, it is a 1.4-4x scope. The eyepiece allows me to focus the reticle, which is really nice for older eyes. The magnification allows me to see grapefruit sized targets much easier from distance, too.

Too keep the optics fairly light, I opted for an unlit reticle scope. The downside to that is the dark crosshairs are more difficult to find in low light compared to the red dots.







EDIT: Added views "down the pipe".

These are poor cell phone autofocus pictures. To the human eye, the frame of the EOTech blurs to near invisibility, the red dot of the DIO is a pin prick, and the front sight in the low end of the Leupold is blurred away much more. By the way, the Leupold picture is at 1.4x and 4x.

[Sharkbite]

Jimro..

The context of my statement was in response to the statement that you dont need sights AT ALL at room fighting distances.

Also agree that sights aren't really needed for "across the room" bullet placement

What utter nonsense.

As to the rest of your points, i disagree with most of them. I was working in Los Angeles during the Rodney King Riots. Not very far at all from where the Korean shop owners all stood in the streets with rifles to protect their shops.

There was PLENTY of gunfire in the area. Had a group of ****bags decided to attack the building I was in a red-dotted rifle would ABSOLUTLY have been my choice. We only had Rem 870's and handguns

Across the room or across the street a head poking around a corner is a small tgt at a relatively close range. A red dot will beat a scope at those distances. Speed of acquisition..no eye relief concerns...no need to center the dot..all make the dot sights superior to magnified optics out to about 150 or so. Out past 200 the magnified optic is clearly superior. But, as you point out that is most likely OUTSIDE the envelope of civilian shootings (even under civil unrest situations).

As to "setting up the shot" as you put it...thats laughable. A bad guy pokes his head over the hood of a car to engage you and you either make the shot RIGHT NOW or you dont. These things happen INCREDIBLY fast.

Having been in a number of shooting (mostly overseas with longguns) and having used both an ACOG and a Eo-tech.. My choice HANDS DOWN is the non-magnified red dot. Just a faster, easier sighting system to use at speed, under stress and in awkward positions

As far as holds (over OR under) those remain in place REGARDLESS of sighting system. Red dot, magnified optic or iron sights...the shooter needs to understand his holds at different distances. With a variable power magnified optic those holds (visually) CHANGE with the mag power setting. Yet ANOTHER thing to complicate the shot, when you dont have the calm range setting to figure it out.

No thanks...KISS works well for me and a red dot keeps it as simple as possible.

[marine6680]

For a defensive rifle...

While bunkering in place and other confrontation avoidance strategies are best... They are not always feasible, nor are they foolproof.

That means a defensive rifle is for those times the worst happens.

In that line of thinking, you set up your rifle for the most likely bad situation you are likely to be in.


As was stated, legally, a civilian is limited to rules and laws governing self defense and the use of deadly force.

This is typically understood as being close range scenarios. Typically 25yds and less, with some rare situations that may push it to 50yds. Past those ranges, the likelihood of being in an active shooting, in which retreat is not possible... Is very low. While a civilian may not be required to retreat depending on state laws, when possible, it's usually seen as the more prudent course of action.


So if we want to set up a rifle for the most likely need scenarios... We want a rifle set up for quick action up close.

Red dots excell in this use.

It's likely that the person needing their rifle will be behind cover/concealment or otherwise in an awkward position for effective aiming.

Magnified optics are a hindrance in awkward shooting positions... And magnification will be of no use at those ranges... And even if you are in a highly unlikely situation where you are shooting at 100-200yds, magnification is not needed for effective use of the rifle.

And we don't set up rifles based on rare hypotheticals... We set up our rifles on the most likely situations.

We don't hinder ourselves for the 99.99% of the potential need, just in case the .01%... We don't buy a lottery ticket and then immediately start acting and living like we won... We know it's unlikely and not prudent to quit our jobs, etc before the numbers are drawn.


I do have to disagree with Shark on the "no need for sights" thing.

At short ranges with practice, COM hits are doable without using sights. I was taught this technique... But that was before red dot sights were more common in military use, and all we had were irons.

With a good red dot, the need for such things are lessened, but not a bad skill to learn.

[Sharkbite]

I do have to disagree with Shark on the "no need for sights" thing.

At short ranges with practice, COM hits are doable without using sights. I was taught this technique... But that was before red dot sights were more common in military use, and all we had were irons.

Not what I said, Brother.

The post said there was "no need for sights inside room fighting distances". I pointed out that if you have a small tgt area to hit at close range, sights are still needed and the red dot was the best option.

Inside most rooms, with the entire chest available as a tgt, mtpl hits COM without active use of the sights is VERY doable. Put that tgt peeking around a block wall corner and youre going to need sights to guaranty the hit.

[marine6680]

Yeah you need sights for fine aiming not COM at close range.

But active use of sights, especially quick ones like red dots is best practice to help ensure hits.

[Jimro]

Sharkbite,

No offense taken, every firearm choice is a compromise between something. I think you should look where the OP lives. If you read up further, the OP states he is in south Georgia and visits Atlanta. The last time I spent any time in central Georgia it was most definitely not LA. If it were LA, I'd recommend a red dot too. Atlanta is a big city, but it's also a railroad city with avenues of escape in every cardinal direction.

The reason why I recommend a scope like an 1-4x24 MTAC is that the reticle stadia make range estimation easier, and hold over/under easier. It also provides a better sight picture for deliberate target acquisition. When the battery fails in an MTAC, it just becomes another scope. But with it set to low power and the illum on, is not appreciably slower than a red dot when using a two eyes open aiming technique.

John Mosby checked his times between 1x red dot and 4x and 6x optics at CQB speeds and you can read the results here: https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress....ifle/#comments

Fast is fine, accurate is final. I believe the utility of a rifle that needs to get you from Atlanta to south Georgia is more enhanced by a variable scope than a red dot. My worst case scenario is a foot movement, where I would be avoiding people (including the law) and a variable optic would give me an observation option a red dot wouldn't, and a more precise hunting option for taking small game.

For offense, kicking in doors as part of a fire team, Aimpoint or Eotech all the way. But one man alone defending myself? I'll take the magnification on an optic where if the battery fails, I still have an optic. You give up a lot of advantages to gain 0.05 to 0.10 seconds of shot speed at cqb ranges with both eyes open, and actually lose speed for precise shots at distance.

Like I wrote before, every firearm choice is a compromise of some sort, so I think I've explained why I'd choose that set of compromises in that set of circumstances.

Jimro

[marine6680]

Also a different kind of use case than a standard defensive rifle.

If he is wanting a SHTF get me home when I got to cross 100 miles on foot, alone... Yeah a good 1-4x or similar may be a good option.

I will need to look at that article. I have seen a couple before, but took issue with methodology, so I didn't look at the results as being pertinent to most case scenarios.


OK, read through a bit of the article... It displays weird on my phone, so it's hard to read.

It looks like he is just timing his speed, with raising the rifle from ready, aiming, and firing.

That kind of shooting, a red dot and low power scope would have little difference between them. It's also not relevant to a dynamic situation, like actively engaging a moving and shooting target.

It takes no account of any position other than a standard stance.

If I am wrong, and missed some info, let me know.