TexasCHLforum.com

Maxwell wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:56 pm TAM,

I hate to admit it but I had to look up ACOG...




p.s., There are so many bad puns and double-entendres Charles would kick me off of the forum...

LOLZ. I've honestly never bothered to look up any other definition. I've just always known it to mean "Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight".

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:36 pmYeah, the magazine thing doesn't really concern me. I would prefer .300 BO or even 5.56 over the 9 mm, as in the time it takes a 9mm to reach a 100 yard target you can pretty much light up a cigarette and pour yourself a mixed drink

I just saw a youtube video today by IraqVeteran8888 from several years ago, wherein he tests 9mm for "lethality" 7 yards to 440 yards. They shoot the closer targets with a CZ pistol. For the further targets, he uses a Keltec Sub-2000. They run the test with 124 grain FMJ, and 124 grain Federal HST, using both 3/4" plywood backed by 2x4s, and ballistic gelatin targets.

Surprisingly, the FMJ still had enough velocity/energy to punch through both the plywood and the 2x4 at 440 yards, and the HST had enough velocity/energy to expand in the ballistic gel at 440 yards...just not quite as dramatically as it did at close range.

Video Part 1:


Video Part 2:


Sure enough, the round takes a while to get down there at 440 yards, and it also calls into question whether or not you'd need to actually shoot someone at that distance. That's "escape and evasion" distance in my book. Still, it was nice to know that the cartridge is generally more capable than even I was willing to concede. I hear you on the .300 Blk, and already have a SBR in that chambering ... but again, it doesn't address the Glock magazine issue. I'm thinking in "get home" terms (as I'm sure you are too with that Mini Roni), more than I am interested in engaging in a long range shootout. I suppose I could just keep my SCAR 17 in the car. LOL

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:33 pm TAM,

When I travel I by truck I carry my G19 Gen4 concealed strong side hip. By having the Roni and the RDS (and some 33 round mags), I can increase the effective distance over which I am accurate with the pistol (say from 25 out to 50 yards). I completely acknowledge the correctness of your statement with regard to barrel length, but with the Roni, when I exit the vehicle for the evening somewhere that I have not been before, I don't have to bring the long gun into the hotel with me and if it does get stolen, the thief does not get a gun, only an expensive, relatively light weight piece of non-functioning plastic. Hence my primary reasoning. YMMV.

BC

P.S. I have a SIG MPX with an 8" Bbl in 9mm that I have SBR'd and which is an absolute joy to shoot out to 100 yds+, but its heavier to lug around and way too expensive to leave overnight in the truck, even locked up.

Well, the theft reason is a valid one I had not considered. I’ve “window-shopped” both the MPX and the CZ S1 Scorpion, and right now, both are a little too rich for my pocket book. But also, neither takes my Glock magazines, and I’m really trying to unify the platforms as much as possible.

What to do, what to do...

montgomery wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:32 amMakes sense - agreed it is hard to beat ACOG if money is not a factor. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

You’re certainly welcome. But don’t overlook options like the Primary Arms or Burris fixed or variable magnification optics for ARs as a viable alternative to the Trijicon. They may run on batteries for illumination, but they do have etched reticles with a valid bullet drop compensator regulated for the .223/5.56 cartridge. I have owned both companies’ options now (a fixed 5x powered Burris Prism sight, and a 1-6x PA scope, and I have to say that I prefer the PA reticle. But my ACOG is better than either. It’s notable that Trijicon now offers an ACOG using Primary Arms’ ACSS reticle, so there is something to it, and if I were able to buy the same ACOG today but with the ACSS reticle, I’d choose that one even over the TA31F reticle I currently have.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:58 pm Here is my most recent. CAA (Israeli) Micro Roni brace for G19 with Vortex SPARC RDS. of course, if RDS fails can always just pull G19 out I reckon

I was happy when they brought out the pistol version of that chassis, because I had no desire to permanently convert my Glock pistol into a registered SBR. I guess that now you can get a “folding” Glock 19 that makes it even easier to fold the whole thing up. I am kicking around the idea of a building a 9mm AR pistol that will take Glock magazines. Alternatively, I might build a 9mm upper and add a mag-well adapter for my already registered SBR. I kind of like the idea of a multiple caliber platform on a single lower. BUT ... and this is the main reason I haven’t sprung for the Micro Roni brace ... I don’t see a practical benefit to a long gun / hand gun fusion unless one takes advantage of the ability to have a longer barrel for better ballistics - and the Roni doesn’t provide that. Whether I build or buy, I want at least an 8” barrel, if not longer, AND I want to be able to mount my pistol suppressor on it.

LONG before the ATF or the NFA existed, people who carried a pistol and a rifle in the same caliber didn’t buy rifles with the same barrel length as their pistols, and for a good reason. It wasn’t enough to just get a more stable shooting position, but a longer barrel gave improved terminal ballistics (and range), and a longer sight radius improved accuracy. Hence the development for example of lever action rifles and pistols chambered in .45 Long Colt. Of course there were compromises, like the mounting of a carbine stock onto a Mauser pistol.

So it seems to me that, at any range at which I am likely to deploy a firearm chambered in a pistol caliber which I already carry, it makes more sense to have either an SBR or carbine which takes my pistol’s magazines. I already own a Keltec Sub-2000, but I’m a little frustrated with a couple of its “features” like unacceptable accuracy. I can actually shoot my G17 more accurately than I can the Sub-2K with the G17 magazines in it, and that’s just ridiculous. So the only benefit it has is greater velocity, but that velocity is meaningless if it doesn’t hit where you want it to. If I regulary carried my .357 revolver, I’d just go get myself a .357 lever action and be done with it. Likewise my .44 magnum revolver (which I never carry). I made the decision for a number of reasons a while back to carry 9mm Glock pistols. So, a long gun chambered in 9mm that accepts my Glock mags is what I’ve settled on, and my principle inner debate is over whether to buy/build a dedicated 9mm AR pistol that takes Glock mags, or to buy/build a 9mm upper + mag-well adapter to fit my existing SBR.

jason812 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:04 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:56 pm An RDS without a battery is just a piece of glass to look through.

Yep. I'm not worried about the sight failing. The battery being drained is another question.

The flip side of that with the T1/T2, H1/H2, and I think the Primary Arms Micro RDS, is that the battery is good for 50,000 hours, or 5.7 years. If you keep a stock of CR2032 batteries on hand, you’ll have a usable RDS for many years, so long as you can replace the battery. I always have 5 or 6 of those on hand in my safe anyway, because I’ve got 7 different optics that use that battery. But, if everything ever goes to heck, those batteries may no longer be available. If you have an etched reticle, you still have a functioning optic. In fact, it’s one of the things I really like about my 4x32 BAC ACOG - it has an etched reticle AND dual source illumination. If everything goes to heck, and I can no longer have Trijicon replace the tritium, I still have an fiber-optic illuminated reticle as long as there is a trace of ambient light, and I still have an etched reticle even if there is no illumination at all.

RDS’s work great, but only if you have access to replacement batteries when yours eventually runs down ... as they all do.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:31 pm

montgomery wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:06 pm Given the overall optic ruggedness and long battery life with modern red dots, holographic, and scopes, what is the opinion on running no iron sights versus folding sights versus fixed front / folding rear for a fighting / training carbine?

Funny, but I was having this same discussion at the DFW Gun Show this past weekend. If running military grade optics (e.g., Trijicon) BUIS just seem like a useless addition. I have never had an optic fail yet (Aimpoint, EoTech, Trijicon, etc.) and don't expect to see combat, so as I acquire new platforms, I am just going to run the optic and forget about the BUIS. As I age, I find the BUIS become less and less useful anyway.

Yeah, as a general thing, I don’t use iron sights either because my eyesight was degrading for a long time until I had my cataract surgery. But as a matter of policy, I always put irons on my rifles if they didn’t come with them. I have one rifle that doesn’t have iron sights, and that is my Remington 700. Most of the rest have an optic too, but having iron sights is just part of prepping for me. An RDS without a battery is just a piece of glass to look through. As much as I like my T2 Micro as an RDS, it’s useless if the battery goes down. That’s why the T2 is the only optic I own that doesn’t have an etched reticle. That’s why I love ACOG type optics over an RDS.

AJSully421 wrote:I have a bunch of different optics. I have had an Eotech, didn't like it. I have two Aimpoint ML3 2 Moa, an Aimpoint T1 micro 4 Moa, an ACOG 4x chevron with a LED lit reticle, and two bushnell scopes at 10 and 12 max power.

The 12x is on my Sig 716 .308. Aside from that... The ACOG is by far the most useful optic that I have. I can sight in for the feeder at 100y and then be on at the other feeder at 290 yards. The only down side is the cost and shooting inside CQB distances... But then just open your other eye and put the blob of the reticle on your target and fire a couple times. It is nice to have the 4x so I can see my target clearly.

The Aimpoints ML3s are the most versatile. Zero for 50, also approximate zero for 200. Hold "one dot down" at 100, and then I can hit a 12" steel plate out to 300 with "one dot high, and at 400 by holding "two dots high", and bring that all the way in to bad breath range. The red dot is also the fastest to get on target with.

The micro is on a 12" SBR.

If I didn't want to spend $1,200 and want an optic that would increase your ability to hit targets within practical ranges (25-300 yards), then an Aimpoint 2 Moa red dot cannot be beat. Nothing wrong with the PRO or the ACO models if you are on a budget.

I agree that the Micro is good for those kinds of ranges, and I love mine. The problem is the age and condition of my eyeballs! I can see well enough to drive without my glasses - although I don't - but I can't see enough detail on a target past about 50-75 yards to ethically take a shot without magnification. OTH, I flat LOVE my ACOG, and everything you said about it is spot on. And what you're describing with the both eyes open technique is that "Bindon Aiming Concept" (BAC).

Abraham wrote:I'm going to throw in a bit more to be considered in optic choice: Whether to buy a "tube red dot" no magnification, vs. a "reflex red dot" no magnification.

Since TAM is our scope guru, what say you for puma guy if he goes red dot no magnification?

We need to clarify some definitions first:

• Holographic sights...... There is only one manufacturer of these kinds of sights: Electro-Optic Technologies. The gorilla in the room is EOTech, but they are also marketed under the name Bushnell. These sights have a laser-generated holographic "photograph" of the reticle sandwiched between two layers of glass, which form a window through which you view the target. They function by projecting a small laser beam backward and upward angle toward that window, and onto the hologram, illuminating it without directing the laser at the shooter's eye. Because the window is not reflecting the light back to the shooter's eye, there are no optical coatings on the glass, and so light transmission is very very good. Being a hologram, the reticle image has three advantages:
  
  1. It is not as sensitive to the position of your eye relative to the "eye box" of the optic, so that even if your eye is not perfectly aligned behind the optic, if you can see the reticle, it will be correctly aligned with the target. (Try having your eye outside the eye box on a magnified optic, and you may not even be able to see the reticle, let alone see the target.)
  2. Because the hologram is essentially a photograph of the reticle, you can have a reticle that is more complex than a simple dot. Thus, you get EOTech's various reticle options which are able to be used for ranging, bullet drop compensation, etc.
  3. Because the reticle appears in a larger viewing area than a simple red dot, these sights provide more of a "heads-up" display (like in a fighter jet cockpit), and lend themselves well to CQB.
  The downside of course to this arrangement is a larger, somewhat heavier optic than other configurations of "RDS".
• Reflex sights..... Pretty much all other sights that we label "RDS" (red dot sights) fall under the "reflex sight" category. Instead of a hologram being projected backward toward the shooter's eye, the reflex reticle is (per the provided linkey) "projected forward, from a point behind the objective lens, and is then reflected off the back of the objective lens assembly toward the shooter's eye". The light source for that reticle dot is most commonly a LED, but there are other types like fiberoptic, etc. Because the dot is being projected forward toward the objective lens and then being reflected backwards to the shooter's eye (which is why they are called "reflex" sights), optical coatings are required to accomplish the reflexion, and that can compromise the amount of light that comes through the optic from down range....... although truth be told, most of us would never notice how much it was compromised. Reflex sights tend to fall into one of two categories:
  
  1. "Heads Up": Examples would be the Trijicon RMR, Mepro 21, and Burris Fastfire.
  2. "Tubular": Examples would include Aimpoint Micros, Aimpoint Pro, Primary Arms Micro, etc.
  It goes without saying that, as with other optics, models fall across a broad price range. My T2 Micro is very pricey, but there are others available at a third or less of that cost.

Neither the holographic or reflex sights are limited by eye relief or parallax. The shooter can mount the optic as far forward or as far back as he wants. As long as he can see the reticle (dot or otherwise), he's good to go. Either system also works well for shooting with both eyes open.

There are two other categories of optics worth considering......

1. Prism Sights. Examples would include any of the ACOGs at the higher price points, and the Burris AR536 or AR332 at the lower end. These are fixed power optics, typically magnified (3x, 3.5x, 4x, 5x, etc.), but not always. Some are 1x. These combine the advantages of a RDS with the advantages of an etched reticle which can be illuminated by different kinds of sources. For instance, the ACOG gives you illumination provided by both tritium and fiberoptics, while the Burris examples use a battery but also offer both red and green illumination choices according to user preference. But either option will still provide the shooter with a black etched reticle if the light source goes away. I have owned a Burris AR536, and I have owned (and still do) a 4x32 BAC ACOG (TA31F). The ACOG is designed around the Bindon Aiming Concept, which encourages having both eyes open, which superimposes the reticle over the sight picture, and allows the brain to switch back and forth seamlessly between the eye that's on the optic and the offside eye. It takes a little getting used to, but it works, and it works very well. The ACOG has superb glass too. The Burris did not seem to work as well in that regard.......plus it was a fair amount larger and heavier than the ACOG. I eventually sold it when I bought the ACOG. In recent years, Lucid has released its P7 Combat Optic, which is also called a "poor man's ACOG", about which I am curious......but I've never seen one in the wild yet.
2. More traditional magnified rifle scopes with a simple red dot: Any of the Leupold "Firedot" series comes to mind. I have a 1.5-5x33mm Leupold Scout scope mounted on my 16" .308 Ruger Gunsite Scout. It has a fair amount of eye relief (8" - 6.75"), and consequently a pretty generous eye box. The reticle is a simple, non-illuminated duplex, with a single "Firedot" red dot in the middle of the reticle. It is not much useful for ranging or bullet drop compensation, but this is a "brush gun", and shooting a 150 grain soft point Nosler Partition at a velocity of roughly 2545 fps, I have a maximum point blank zero of 258 yards - well within the maximum magnification of 5x, and the red dot helps to pin the reticle on the target.
   
   Now, I don't think a scout scope would be the desired optic for an AR15, but Leupold offers this reticle setup on scopes that are appropriate for that platform.

Well, like I said, I have a T2 Micro on my SBR, and a EOTech on my wife's AR carbine. Of the two, I much prefer the Micro for reasons of weight and size, but I have good friends who have also owned both, and they prefer the EOTech. I think it is a tomato/tomahto kind of thing.

BTW, I'm not really a scope guru......I've just spend a lot of research time and money over the years on trying to find what I want.

I have an Aimpoint Micro on my 10.5" .300 Blackout SBR, but that optic is strictly for SD/HD/CQB purposes. The matching carbine length 5.56 upper for that lower has a 4x ACOG on it. I am going to be picking up a Strike Eagle for the SBR upper for hunting applications. All of my other MSRs have magnified optics except my wife's AR which has an EOTech on it - but even that has a 3x magnifier for it if needed.

If I had to live with just ONE optic for an AR15, I'd go with something in the 1-6x to 1-8x range.

puma guy wrote:I was asked by a friend my opinion on whether I would mount a red dot or a scope on an AR-15. He was trying to decide which to purchase at Cabela's yesterday. The scope was a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x which is really a combination red dot and scope I guess. It has a reticle (etched I think) which can be illuminated and though not a simple dot is generally the same thing. The red dot he was interested in was an Aimpoint Pro 1x 2MOA dot. He wants to use it for hogs and anticipates shots from 75-150 yards. I am not well versed on Red Dot and holographic sights and have always used scoped rifles for hunting. I consider hunting a precise shooting situation and to me a scope, even the Strike Eagle lends itself to that better than a red dot. I try to place the shot for DRT precision and for the most part have always been able to do that. With a 2moa dot I would think trying to place a behind the ear shot on a 50-60 pound hog at 150 yards would not be precise. Of course a heart/lung shot would probably not be as difficult. Keeping my hunting experience in mind, i.e. distance, lighting, background, size of the game, etc. I recommended the Strike Eagle scope. He purchased the Aimpoint. I am interested in the opinions of those who use red dots, especially for hunting.

Puma guy, you'd be right...... the Strike Eagle's reticle is etched. Pretty much all scopes in that class/configuration have an etched reticle, the illumination being secondary. That is the failing point of a RDS — that sans battery, it becomes an expensive tube of short length and less use, with glass on either end. IMHO, use of an RDS pretty much mandates a set of BUIS in the event of a battery failure. An RDS has the advantage of no parallax issues, but when the light goes out inside that tube, it's pretty much worthless. If the battery fails on an etched reticle, the scope is still usable as long as there's enough light to see the reticle against the target. And I agree 100% about the use of a magnified optic for hunting precision. I get cyphertext's point about not caring whether the hog is DRT or dies a mile away, but I would personally prefer a quick and precise kill, even for pest animals. I supposed I would use my RDS for shots inside of maybe 75 yards tops, but beyond that I really don't trust my cataract-infested eyeballs without magnification.

I have a similar though more expensive scope to the Strike Eagle on my DMR rifle — a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5x24 SMRS. It works pretty well. The reticle is similar to the Strike Eagle's and is etched and illuminated. The big difference between the two is that the Bushnell's reticle is in the first focal plane, and the Vortex's is in the second focal plane. For those who are not familiar with the significance of that, FFP scope reticles are valid for ranging/holdovers at all magnifications because the reticle zooms in and out in your field of view according to the magnification level. SFP scope reticles in that class (1-4x, 1-5x, 1-6x) are only valid for ranging/holdovers at the maximum magnification because the reticle remains the same size at all magnifications in your field of view. So an FFP scope's reticle when zoomed all the way out acts like more of a red dot, but that would NOT be the case with the Strike Eagle, which is an SFP scope.

Left is the Bushnell SMRS reticle. Right is the Vortex Strike Eagle reticle: