Let talk AR-specfic optics setup......help me decide [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Let talk AR-specfic optics setup......help me decide


Airborne Infantryman
06-12-2011, 18:45
Not sure if this would be better in the optics forum, but this is specifically about a setup I'd like advice on with my M6-SPR.......(Mods, please move if this needs to go in the optics forum :wavey:)

*Disclaimer* Please don't fault me for thinking in a worst-case scenario concerning this, or how I always think "tactically". It comes from my job, and the way the Infantry has "raised" me since I joined at 17 years old.

Ok, here goes-

I bought an EOTech 553 for my SPR...........loved the way the SPR felt, balanced, and all else.....it is actually lighter than my long-range dedicated M6A2 DEA, so I decided to make it more of a close-quarters to medium range rifle. Well, I want magnification now, but don't want an ACOG. I'm dead-set on either the Magnifier, or the Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T.

This is the monster that is actually making my brain have to function while I'm on Post-Deployment leave. :rofl:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/5801682590_615789f45c_b.jpg

I'm considering two different routes-

Course of Action #1- Buy the Gen 2 EOTech magnifier and mount it behind my 553.

Pros:

- Won't have an optic just sitting around waiting to be used....
- Uses the same batteries as all my other stuff on my two ARs- CR123s
- I'm not gonna lie; I think the whole "flippy" thing from close quarters to medium range is cool. :rofl:
- I've used the 517 and Gen 2 Magnifier while overseas; albeit for a short time.

Cons:

- I'd have to mount the EOTech further forward, which means when it came time to clean the piston after shooting, I'd have to take the EOTech off to take off the top rail cover to access the piston, possibly losing my zero, although the ARMs mounts are *supposedly* a Return-To-Zero mount.

- If my batteries go "ka-plunk" (shame on me for not having extras), I have nothing but BUIS.

- I'm trying to keep things light: total weight of the 553 and Magnifier w/ mount is 24.7 ounces.

- FTS mount could possibly take a crap, and break.

- You have to press buttons to turn it on to put it into action.



Course of Action #2 - Buy a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T 1-3x14

http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/mark-4-cqt-riflescopes/mark-4-1-3x14mm-cqt/

I played with one of these at my local dealer for about 30 minutes, and even mounted it on a rifle, and loved it.

Pros:

- One self-contained unit; rail system less cluttered; more streamlined.

- Uses common AA batteries for reticle illumination

- Reticle is etched, ala, ACOG, so if batteries die, I still got a reticle.

- Goes from 1x to 3x magnification, simply by turning the eyepiece.

- No buttons to activate, or play with; no need to turn it on to use it, unless you wanna use the reticle illumination.

- This is a big one- don't need to take it off to clean my rifle.

- Lighter than the Eotech/Magnifier combo. CQ/T is 17.5 ounces, as opposed to 24.7 for the combo.



Cons:

- More expensive than the Magnifier; by about $250.

- I'll have a spare EOTech just sitting around if I buy this; maybe I can mount the Eotech on my 870 and play around with it....:dunno:


So, with these things outlined, what advice can you guys offer me? I'm dead-set on either the Mark 4 CQ/T or the Magnifier/EOTech combo. What am I overlooking concerning making this decision?

fuzzy03cls
06-12-2011, 19:14
#2. Then sell the Eotech & gain the $ back plus a little extra.

K. Foster
06-12-2011, 19:26
I’m a huge Leupold fan, but not of that model. It’s like looking through a soda straw (to narrow a field of view). My first recommendation is a low power variable with illuminated dot (1-4 or 1.5-6). At the low setting it’s like using a RDS and when you need to, you can crank up the magnification. On the down side, your head placement has to be more consistent than with an Aimpoint.
My second recommendation is just go with the Eotech as is. Their circle dot reticle is very fast at CQB distances and the 1 MOA dot allows fairly precise aiming at moderate distance.
Just my .02

Feanor
06-12-2011, 20:56
I'd go with option #1, it's a system you're familiar with, the eotech & Gen 2 magnifier offer far more versatility. I prefer the eotech over any other CQB optic.

Airborne Infantryman
06-13-2011, 00:02
*sigh*

I figure I might as well go ACOG.......I'm intimately familiar with how they work, and I trust them.....didn't realize they made this little gem though:

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA33R-8

Trijicon ACOG TA33R-8

Pros:

- Has the Bindon Aiming Concept, so can be used for close quarters shooting with both eyes open; Red Chevron reticle makes it easier to acquire.

- Generous eye relief

- 3x magnification

- Bullet Drop Reticle


Cons:

- TA33R-8 Bullet Drop Reticle is calibrated for a 14.5 inch barrel using 62grain M855; but according to Trijicon, using a 75 grain round from my 16 inch barrel will match my shots up with the Bullet Drop Reticle.

......more research is needed, but I am leaning to this, since I had an ACOG on my weapon for the most part of 5 years in the Army. Not only that, but my M6A2 DEA is wearing a TA01NSN right now....

Deployment Solu
06-13-2011, 04:38
I agree, just get the magnifier. Mine is on a QD mount. It isn't on the gun, but is always on me when I am carrying the rifle. Otherwise, it sits in the bag with the rifle.

GG&G makes the mount.

eracer
06-13-2011, 06:11
I have the TA33G-H on my carbine. Love it. I can snap shoot at CQB distance (BAC really works) and use the magnification and BDC when I need it.

The eye relief is even better than the spec indicates. I've tried a couple of low-power scopes, but the ACOG is what I ended up with.

I may swap the ACOG over to my .300 BLK SBR, though, and put my Aimpoint on the 5.56 carbine. That doesn't make sense at first glance, but if you think about it, with the Aimpoint on the 5.56 I don't have to worry about holdover with a 25/200 combat zero, and can learn the aiming points on the ACOG for the .300 BLK out to 200 yards when I'm using supersonic rounds, while keeping the CQB functionality of the BAC reticle. I know the Aimpoint is a better CQB optic, but to me, the advantage of having BDC is better utilized on the .300 BLK cartridge, and I'm used to shooting with the ACOG at 25-yard targets.

AK_Stick
06-13-2011, 08:35
Honestly I find the ACOG a very good scope for a general weapon, but for a SPR, I would much prefer a low variable power scope, as its more useful than a fixed 4x scope.


I would suggest the Leupold MK4 1.5-5x20 power SPR with or without illuminated reticule per your choice

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark4-15-5x20mm-pr-rifle-scopes.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark-4-1-5-5x20mm-mr-t-30mm-m2-matte-illuminated-spr-rifle-scope.html


With it on low power, the reticle is big enough, to be used fast, and with it dialed up, it offers slightly more zoom, and a better reticle for longer range shooting. It also allows you to dial for windage, OR use hold over, something the ACOG does not.

eracer
06-13-2011, 10:51
Honestly I find the ACOG a very good scope for a general weapon, but for a SPR, I would much prefer a low variable power scope, as its more useful than a fixed 4x scope.


I would suggest the Leupold MK4 1.5-5x20 power SPR with or without illuminated reticule per your choice

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark4-15-5x20mm-pr-rifle-scopes.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark-4-1-5-5x20mm-mr-t-30mm-m2-matte-illuminated-spr-rifle-scope.html


With it on low power, the reticle is big enough, to be used fast, and with it dialed up, it offers slightly more zoom, and a better reticle for longer range shooting. It also allows you to dial for windage, OR use hold over, something the ACOG does not.I understand what you are saying, but for me the TA33 is faster close-in than my 1.5-4.5X illuminated-reticle scope, or even my 1-4X GRSC. Again, I'm partial to BAC and both-eyes-open shooting at CQB distances. I just don't find the low-power scopes I own particularly fast. The Aimpoint is faster (just a little) up close, but suffers in comparison at the longer distances that the .300 BLK can work at with the proper ammo.

As for long-range shooting, the 3X of my ACOG is all I need for defensive work out to the practical range of my .300 BLK SBR. It's not a DMR, and I don't need turret adjustments.

As always....YMMV.

BBJones
06-13-2011, 11:40
Honestly I find the ACOG a very good scope for a general weapon, but for a SPR, I would much prefer a low variable power scope, as its more useful than a fixed 4x scope.


I would suggest the Leupold MK4 1.5-5x20 power SPR with or without illuminated reticule per your choice

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark4-15-5x20mm-pr-rifle-scopes.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-mark-4-1-5-5x20mm-mr-t-30mm-m2-matte-illuminated-spr-rifle-scope.html


With it on low power, the reticle is big enough, to be used fast, and with it dialed up, it offers slightly more zoom, and a better reticle for longer range shooting. It also allows you to dial for windage, OR use hold over, something the ACOG does not.


Share the same thoughts but would choose a different scope (just a personal preference, if it was my money).
This: http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-1-4x24-Tactical-Riflescope-KIT-P50222.aspx
(note this includes a good mount and other accessories)
or this:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/vortex-viper-pst-1-4x24-riflescope.html
(can be had for around $460 after coupon codes, +mount and covers $650ish)

Can't wait for a affordable, 1-6 with similar features to come out.

AK_Stick
06-13-2011, 16:21
Both of those scope are...... looking for a nice word.....

Less than the Leupold.


And I'm not just talking about price.

I don't understand why people will pay well over 1K for a rifle, and the saddle it, and limits its potential, with a such a poor optic.

AK_Stick
06-13-2011, 16:35
I understand what you are saying, but for me the TA33 is faster close-in than my 1.5-4.5X illuminated-reticle scope, or even my 1-4X GRSC. Again, I'm partial to BAC and both-eyes-open shooting at CQB distances. I just don't find the low-power scopes I own particularly fast. The Aimpoint is faster (just a little) up close, but suffers in comparison at the longer distances that the .300 BLK can work at with the proper ammo.

As for long-range shooting, the 3X of my ACOG is all I need for defensive work out to the practical range of my .300 BLK SBR. It's not a DMR, and I don't need turret adjustments.

As always....YMMV.



However, the OP, is talking about a SPR, and my post was directed to him.


The ACOG is fine, so long as you don't shoot close, or very far, or need any sort of windage. But its a fine scope, and I'm very happy with mine.

MrMurphy
06-13-2011, 17:41
The CQT is a piece of crap. Along with the Prismatic two of Leupold's less inspired decisions.


I would honestly run a Leupold 1.5-5X, or a magnifier.

AK_Stick
06-13-2011, 17:45
Agreed, on both counts, I was talking about the MK 4 MR/T 1.5-5x20.

Airborne Infantryman
06-13-2011, 17:51
Indeed, my SPR is an SPR, but I am gonna go outside "the norm" for this one.

Our Designated Marksmen in my unit used either an M14 with a 5x ACOG (we got rid of the Leupold's for a reason I will not discuss here), or an M16A4 with a TA31RCO16 ACOG w/ Chevron reticle.

I myself, had a TA31RCOM4 on my M4. ACOG is what I know, what I trust, and its no-nonsense.

I just ordered a TA31H 4x32 BAC, with the red Horseshoe reticle, online for a screaming good price at Cals.

I played with one at the gun store today for a good while, and mounted it to a rifle similar to my LWRC; utilizing BAC, it was quick up close, as the Horseshoe reticle really does a great job of putting itself out there, but not so much as to hamper longer range shooting. The chevron to me; has too much going on, although at a glance, the horseshoe looks like it does, but in person, I find it much better.

http://www.trijicon-inc.com/parts/TA31H-Reticle-web.jpg

BBJones
06-13-2011, 21:30
Both of those scope are...... looking for a nice word.....

Less than the Leupold.


And I'm not just talking about price.

I don't understand why people will pay well over 1K for a rifle, and the saddle it, and limits its potential, with a such a poor optic.

And the Leupold is less than Nightforce is less than S&B, but not really the point. I said if it were my money. IMO Leupold has slipped alot and not worth the price for many of their optics. Take my opinion with a grain of salt; I don't hold myself out as an expert.

AK_Stick
06-14-2011, 00:19
Leupold is still the issue glass of the US military on an awful lot of weapons, including sniper rifles.


Its not the best stuff out there by a wide margin, but vortex, and SS, are not in the same league.

You're also talking much wider price margin between S&B and Nightforce, and Leupold. The difference between Vortex and Leupold was what $200 and change?

Airborne Infantryman
06-14-2011, 00:53
Leupold is still the issue glass of the US military on an awful lot of weapons, including sniper rifles.


Its not the best stuff out there by a wide margin, but vortex, and SS, are not in the same league.

You're also talking much wider price margin between S&B and Nightforce, and Leupold. The difference between Vortex and Leupold was what $200 and change?

AK is right; Leupold may not be the best, but a lot of our precision weapons still have Leupold......but, (I cannot speak for other units) our battalion switched to 5x ACOGs for the M14s, due to certain issues with the Leupold Mark 4s.

As for my SPR, an ACOG may be more of a Recce rifle optic, rather than SPR optic, but the ACOG is what I know and trust, and due to its simplicity, ease of getting it into operation, and sheer ruggedness, it is what I ordered for my SPR.

I shoot for Minute of Man, not Minute of Angle. People get so bent out of shape about groupings on paper, but when the proverbial **** hits the fan, someone being able to shoot a 1 inch group at 100 yards, under controlled conditions isn't going to matter that much. Does it help to work on the basics of marksmanship, in order to get those tight groups? Yes it does.

I found that when things got crazy over there, I was putting that bright red chevron of my TA31RCO where the muzzle flashes were coming from, and squeezed the trigger as fast as I could......believe it or not, the M249 and M240 are still the most casualty producing weapons on the battlefield.....accuracy by volume, I suppose. :supergrin:

I'm not knocking anyone's method of shooting; I'm just saying what works for me, and what I practice. :wavey:

ScrapMetal
06-15-2011, 09:07
ACOG is a good choice, I put a Trijicon AccuPoint 1-4x24 (green triangle) scope on my 18" Noveske in a LaRue mount and couldn't be happier. The Bullet Drop on an ACOG is nice, but I don't think it's necessarily needed for a 5.56 rifle. Then again, I was a tanker and we didn't take our M16's to the field. If that's what your accustomed to, I think you did the right thing.

Airborne Infantryman
06-15-2011, 11:41
Big changes happened to BOTH, my M6A2 DEA, and my M6-SPR......I will post pics in a few days of the new setups. Costly, but worth it. In the meantime, know anyone who wants to buy an EOTech 553, brand new, only mounted, and never shot with? :supergrin:

eracer
06-15-2011, 11:52
However, the OP, is talking about a SPR, and my post was directed to him.Wow - I must have had a bout of OAD (Old Age Dyslexia) there....

I saw SBR, not SPR. :wavey:

MrMurphy
06-15-2011, 23:56
Roll with the ACOG of your choice, pick up an H-1 and LaRue's offset mount.

Made specifically to address the long/short range issue for the military and it's fast as hell.

I ditched my Eothingie and have an H-1 in an Lt660 now. A Micro/Magnifier gives you good all-around performance as well.