AR15 Optics Opinions:

R

Runt

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Location
B.C. Interior
Hello Every One,

I’m about to purchase/receive (delivery pending) my first AR....a Daniel Defense V3. I own several other firearms that would fall in the precision category. The semi auto’s are .308 variety. So this will be my first .223 and I’m rather unsure about optics choice. Really there are so many. Primary use will be most likely IPSC three gun, possibly some service rifle type shoots and general target shooting. I do want rugged as possible though as I may swap these optics to non-restricted firearms where I require max-dependability as I’m a avid outdoors person (mostly exploring).

So what I have researched thus far is red dots for fast target acquisition with a plethora of manufacturers, magnifiers to add to the red dots etc., variable zoom scopes with 1X short distance with again many to choose from, the do it all 1X to 6X Specter which is extremely expensive, then the 3-10X or 4-16X scopes that can be teamed up with a red dot scope tube ring or base mount. Lastly there are the variable power 1-10X such as the Schmitt & Bender, Leopold, Velada and March optics. So here is what I have decided and please correct me if I’m wrong:

• AR15 DDV3 – Mostly the .223 cartridge does not have the capability to put anything over a 6X to good use?

• Due to the short distance a red dot with magnifier or a variable power scope that can dial down to minimum 1.5X would be best?
What are your opinions?

Thank you in advance
 
The .223 cartridge can more than put 6x to good use. I run a bolt gun in .223 with 15x and a buddy the same gun with 22x optics and we use every bit of it. 700 yards isn't out of the question with bulk ammo and is very doable with handloads. One CGN member here runs a 16" barrel and takes his .223 to 1000 yards. That being said, your intended role will likely not benefit from such magnification. The AR is NOT intended as a precision rig, although it can be modified to perform well in such a role. Your rifle is not setup that way.

A solid low magnification optic will provide you the most flexibility. The 1-4 or 1-6 types are your best bet. Good optics aren't cheap, so don't expect something solid for peanuts. In addition, the chances of finding something that you can run on your AR and on a bush gun that fits several roles well, is very difficult and expensive. The IOR 1-8 or 1-10 optics look promising but come with the sticker to match. If I were you, I would shop around and maybe select something like a Leupold VX3 1.5-5 or their VXR line in either 1.25-4 or 2-7. Decent low end mag for quick and dirty but some magnification and the ability to run a traditional hunting style reticle(illuminated by the way) for your bush gun(s). Personally, I run a Trijicon Accupoint Tr24G. Solid manufacturer and superb optics. Its only a 1-4 and has no BDC reticle, but its lightening fast, super bright and doesn't take batteries.

TDC
 
Some SME's down south are giving the Trijicon RMR optic some 'trigger time"on there AR's.
I'm getting one and will be testing it out. IMO since most of my usage is at the range, smaller and lighter appeals to me. Just my $.02. Remember "buy once cry once" LOL
 
Didn't someone around here just do a review on the Leupold HAMR, which is both a 4X with a BDC and a reflex red dot?

[youtube]3mF42dkKfbI[/youtube]

Oh wait! That was me! :D

I do like the 1-4 variables though. That's why I'm going back to my vortex viper 1-4 PST tomorrow.
 
Very good points TDC. In regards to illumination TDC you mentioned illuminated reticules(IR). I have noticed several manufacturers either have a IR dot only or a full IR do you know if there is a distinguishable distance at close ranges? I personally would think a dot alone would be beneficial at short range and a fully illuminated ranging reticule at longer distances would be best...such as the Burris 1.5-6x40mm XTR ballistic Reticule? This scope seems to me to have its advantages as ballistics speaking at short ranges the AR vs my beloved semi auto .308’s out to 200 + m are quite similar ( I have not a .223 yet so not sure), Keeping in mind that loads are different etc. And most of this ballistic reticule stuff is mostly crap. However when holding over and you see where your shots are hitting these types of reticules are very helpful on moving targets....read coyotes .

TDC said:
The .223 cartridge can more than put 6x to good use. I run a bolt gun in .223 with 15x and a buddy the same gun with 22x optics and we use every bit of it. 700 yards isn't out of the question with bulk ammo and is very doable with handloads. One CGN member here runs a 16" barrel and takes his .223 to 1000 yards. That being said, your intended role will likely not benefit from such magnification. The AR is NOT intended as a precision rig, although it can be modified to perform well in such a role. Your rifle is not setup that way.

A solid low magnification optic will provide you the most flexibility. The 1-4 or 1-6 types are your best bet. Good optics aren't cheap, so don't expect something solid for peanuts. In addition, the chances of finding something that you can run on your AR and on a bush gun that fits several roles well, is very difficult and expensive. The IOR 1-8 or 1-10 optics look promising but come with the sticker to match. If I were you, I would shop around and maybe select something like a Leupold VX3 1.5-5 or their VXR line in either 1.25-4 or 2-7. Decent low end mag for quick and dirty but some magnification and the ability to run a traditional hunting style reticle(illuminated by the way) for your bush gun(s). Personally, I run a Trijicon Accupoint Tr24G. Solid manufacturer and superb optics. Its only a 1-4 and has no BDC reticle, but its lightening fast, super bright and doesn't take batteries.

TDC
Click to expand...
 
I have a leupold Delta Red dot sight on my way to mount alongside my Leupold scope on my AI.300 700 clone. I do agree lighter is better but I prefer longer range shooting. Here in Prince George we are blessed with a standard or long range....thank you PG Rod & Gun Club! I'm thinking distances greater then a red dot can provide are optimal for my needs. Does a RMR co-witness with a magnifier properly? Really do not know that much about the mounts...heavily researched the sight though...they are impressive! Only decided Leupold due to past customer service and I read online and verified through reputable dealer that customer after sale service was less than stellar.

mildot said:
Some SME's down south are giving the Trijicon RMR optic some 'trigger time"on there AR's.
I'm getting one and will be testing it out. IMO since most of my usage is at the range, smaller and lighter appeals to me. Just my $.02. Remember "buy once cry once" LOL
Click to expand...
 
IR reticles are somewhat of a mystery to many in my opinion. An IR reticle doesn't mean you can shoot in the dark, if you can't see your target who cares if you can see your reticle? Illumination aids in diminished light or when the need for a highly visibly aiming point is necessary. Such as during a three gun match or other high speed time based shooting event. The daytime illumination will be used far more than the low light settings. For the hunter, naturally the dusk and dawn times will be the most beneficial times for using illumination. The other benefit of IR is the contrast they provide with the background. This really helps the eye find the centre and separate reticle from everything else.

As for what works best/better the dot or full illuminated reticle. I think its a personal preference coupled with the optic/reticle in question. If your optic sports a BDC or mildot style reticle, then full illumination might be the better way to go. However, if your optic sports a more high speed reticle for close in work and/or rapid sight acquisition, then an illuminated centre point/dot/cross might be the ticket. Many IR optics run just an illuminated centre for a couple of reasons. Its easier and cheaper to produce, and the primary use of IR is for rapid acquisition. More importantly, rapidly acquiring the centre point of the reticle. A full IR is nice and I have that on my Nightforce, but the optic and reticle pattern are not designed nor intended for rapid acquisition. This makes the full illumination a benefit as it allows the shooter to use the full reticle when and where time allows. An illuminated centre point really draws your eye in and aids in rapid acquisition but leaves out any other features of the reticle(if it has any) and could limit its uses under diminished light.

So here's the bottom line. You need to select an optic and reticle combination that BEST suits the MAJORITY of the shooting you and your RIFLE intend to do. If that's close in fast competition stuff with the odd distance work, then a rapid acquisition reticle or one with an illuminated centre only would likely be your best bet. If you want something for those dusk/dawn hunts or distance work on varmints. I say run a reticle with full illumination, and ideally IMO a reticle with BDC/mildot/some form of ranging/holdover built in.

Seeing as how you intend to compete, I say stick with 1-4 or 1-6 range, a rapid acquisition reticle, something not overly cluttered that really draws your eye to the centre and with only an illuminated centre dot/trangle/donut etc etc.

Bottom of the page is what I see when I shoot. The colour is off in the photo but the reticle is a crazy bright green and is insanely easy to pick up. I had a red one as well, and a buddy has one now. Either work well. I also have a trijicon RMR(compact reddot) that is amber in colour(fiber optic no batteries :)) and its great, but it does washout with some vegetation.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=25016

TDC
 
I like your reviews! Thank you for posting that. If nothing less your photography skills are appreciated....opinions seem educated i.e. verify what I know to be factual via. CGN & Internet blather. Interesting that you have the same view to go to a 1-4X scope only. I have one rifle which is a heavily modified Norinco M305 shortened, restocked, blah blah blah...really everything done to it with a falcon Menace 1.5- 6X with IR and its great. I think I lucked out though because the dame thing is marginally less clear (on the edges) then the 4-14X40mm VXIII Tactical leupold I have on my LTR. However I find it too low of magnification for a .308......223 may be. Price point wise I could go this way again but willing to try something else as the weight and size of the Falcon is on the higher end of the scale.

TV-PressPass said:
Didn't someone around here just do a review on the Leupold HAMR, which is both a 4X with a BDC and a reflex red dot?

[youtube]3mF42dkKfbI[/youtube]

Oh wait! That was me! :D

I do like the 1-4 variables though. That's why I'm going back to my vortex viper 1-4 PST tomorrow.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm... the Burris scope (1.5-6x40mm) possiblty could fill my needs.



TDC said:
IR reticles are somewhat of a mystery to many in my opinion. An IR reticle doesn't mean you can shoot in the dark, if you can't see your target who cares if you can see your reticle? Illumination aids in diminished light or when the need for a highly visibly aiming point is necessary. Such as during a three gun match or other high speed time based shooting event. The daytime illumination will be used far more than the low light settings. For the hunter, naturally the dusk and dawn times will be the most beneficial times for using illumination. The other benefit of IR is the contrast they provide with the background. This really helps the eye find the centre and separate reticle from everything else.

As for what works best/better the dot or full illuminated reticle. I think its a personal preference coupled with the optic/reticle in question. If your optic sports a BDC or mildot style reticle, then full illumination might be the better way to go. However, if your optic sports a more high speed reticle for close in work and/or rapid sight acquisition, then an illuminated centre point/dot/cross might be the ticket. Many IR optics run just an illuminated centre for a couple of reasons. Its easier and cheaper to produce, and the primary use of IR is for rapid acquisition. More importantly, rapidly acquiring the centre point of the reticle. A full IR is nice and I have that on my Nightforce, but the optic and reticle pattern are not designed nor intended for rapid acquisition. This makes the full illumination a benefit as it allows the shooter to use the full reticle when and where time allows. An illuminated centre point really draws your eye in and aids in rapid acquisition but leaves out any other features of the reticle(if it has any) and could limit its uses under diminished light.

So here's the bottom line. You need to select an optic and reticle combination that BEST suits the MAJORITY of the shooting you and your RIFLE intend to do. If that's close in fast competition stuff with the odd distance work, then a rapid acquisition reticle or one with an illuminated centre only would likely be your best bet. If you want something for those dusk/dawn hunts or distance work on varmints. I say run a reticle with full illumination, and ideally IMO a reticle with BDC/mildot/some form of ranging/holdover built in.

Seeing as how you intend to compete, I say stick with 1-4 or 1-6 range, a rapid acquisition reticle, something not overly cluttered that really draws your eye to the centre and with only an illuminated centre dot/trangle/donut etc etc.

Bottom of the page is what I see when I shoot. The colour is off in the photo but the reticle is a crazy bright green and is insanely easy to pick up. I had a red one as well, and a buddy has one now. Either work well. I also have a trijicon RMR(compact reddot) that is amber in colour(fiber optic no batteries :)) and its great, but it does washout with some vegetation.
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=25016

TDC
Click to expand...
 
If it were me putting a scope on an AR and I had no issues like shooting issued scopes only I'd be putting on something that went from 1.5-8ish. It would have at least 1/2 minute adjustments and a fine reticle.
 
"fine reticule" ....really....why so? I had always thought a dot or a dohnut would be best for closer up shots....Please do not consider my questions challenging or disrespectful, it’s just that I have little experience. However I have read your posts for years now so know you have words listening too. I assume the finer reticule is for the ease of longer shoots which I had mentioned as my overall willing trade off. The Sightron 1-7x seems like a good choice but the reticule sucks. So far the Burris scope I mentioned previously seems like a good choice but alas only a 6X.

Longshot said:
If it were me putting a scope on an AR and I had no issues like shooting issued scopes only I'd be putting on something that went from 1.5-8ish. It would have at least 1/2 minute adjustments and a fine reticle.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Longshot has one excellent point and one that I disagree with!

Make sure your turrets are fine! Whether you shoot MOA or milrad, it is definitely worth while getting turrets with the smallest amount of click. There is nothing more frustrating than knowing where you want to be zeroed, and bracketing around that point because one click is too large a movement.

But I disagree with the fine reticle. Target dots and fine vplex disappear for me. I much prefer reticles that are both fine and heavy. So The donut with a dot like in the HAMR review. Or the fine substenstions with the illuminated blocks you see in the 1-4 Vipers. At 1X I want to be using my scope like a red dot, so thats where my illuminated and heavy reticles come into play.
 
For most uses that an AR will be used for something around 5X would be fine. As Mr. Press Pass mentioned above I also like scopes that have reticles good for quick pickup and also allow for some precision. I had a Falcon Menace 1.5-5X-30 on my SL8 that I really liked the reticle on (the center dot subtends about 1 MOA and can be illuminated red or green). The scope was a bit heavy, though.

P1060292.jpg


rail.jpg


I've used an ACOG TA33 on my FS2000 (although they're not cheap). I liked now light and handy it was--it's only 3X but I shot it back to 300m without feeling handicapped. Here's it's reticle:

reticle.jpg


P1020170.jpg


I used an Elcan for a few years on a full-size AR. I really liked the clarity of the glass, wide field of view and light-gathering ability, and the sharp point on the top of the reticle allowed for very precise shooting--I won a couple of 300m ISU matches with this scope. The scope is heavy and a little bulky, though.

P1010971.jpg


P1010973.jpg


For a lower-cost scope I've also used a Leupold Mark AR scope... I think it was 1.5-4X-28 or something like that. Traditional Leupold duplex reticle, no illumination but low(ish) cost and good quality. Sorry--no pix of that one.

Right now I've got a Aimpoint MicroH1 on my short AR and Aimpoint CompM4S on my FS2000. I've only gone back to 100m so far so I haven't really stretched them yet
 
Runt said:
Hello Every One,
- my first AR
- Daniel Defense V3
- Primary use will be most likely IPSC three gun, possibly some service rifle type shoots and general target shooting.

• AR15 DDV3 – Mostly the .223 cartridge does not have the capability to put anything over a 6X to good use?

• Due to the short distance a red dot with magnifier or a variable power scope that can dial down to minimum 1.5X would be best?
What are your opinions?

Thank you in advance
Click to expand...

First off start with a price point then add a realistic expectation of what your capabilities are with each one in the different games.
Next you should ask yourself out of all that are giving opinions on scopes, who is shooting these sports, and are they doing well with the kit they are running?
It is highly likely the fellows who are into the sports have traveled down this road(sometimes more than once).
The IOR, Burris, PEPR, HAMRs etc. Crap is going to fail and won't hold it's resale value if/when you change your focus. My advice is to steer clear of this low to mid-grade crap as it will only cost you in the end.

The do-all is a decent quality variable set up in a good quality mount.
If you want to run one scope without a red dot canted off to the side, a good option without breaking the bank would be the Nightforce NXS 1-4 power or the Leopold Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T M2 Illum. Reticle. Are good choices for both sports that won't break the bank. I think the 2.5x10 range of scopes are better for S.R. But will be a disadvantage for IPSC.
Mount them in an American Defence mount and you are off to the races.
You can run a red dot canted, but I think this is folly- especially for a new shooter into those sports. Keep it simple, clean and tight. Fine reticles are a must for distance work (300+) and close in you will not be hampered. Good turrets are a must for proper dope, but the notion you need 1/8 moa adjustment is silly. 1/4 is as fine as I'd go, and 1/2 works fine. Same same for equivilant milrad.

S&B short dots and the Elcan Specter are, IMHO, too expensive without offering any real advantage (says a guy who is not shy with spending money on expensive kit).
 
TV-PressPass said:
Didn't someone around here just do a review on the Leupold HAMR, which is both a 4X with a BDC and a reflex red dot?

[youtube]3mF42dkKfbI[/youtube]

Oh wait! That was me! :D

I do like the 1-4 variables though. That's why I'm going back to my vortex viper 1-4 PST tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Just jumped in this thread to say: that's a nice video! Good job!
 
I just put a Hi-Lux 1-4x24 CMR on my 14.5 inch AR. I have not had it to the range yet but I'm very impressed so far with the features and clarity. It has a really nice reticle that has ranging points for shots out to 900 yards and has zero stop turrets. Price was $400 from Wanstalls and Wolverine also carries it.
There are a couple good reviews if you google it. I forget the name of the parent company but they have been making scopes for quite a few years. It's built in USA.

I searched around between all the brands I could think of and nothing came close to this one for features for the money so I thought I'd give it a try.
I'll post a couple pics soon.

Good luck
 
Runt said:
"fine reticule" ....really....why so? I had always thought a dot or a dohnut would be best for closer up shots....Please do not consider my questions challenging or disrespectful, it’s just that I have little experience. However I have read your posts for years now so know you have words listening too. I assume the finer reticule is for the ease of longer shoots which I had mentioned as my overall willing trade off. The Sightron 1-7x seems like a good choice but the reticule sucks. So far the Burris scope I mentioned previously seems like a good choice but alas only a 6X.
Click to expand...

Well the short of it for me is I shoot my ARs out to 500m regularly. Thick reticles block out the target at that distance. I'd rather have a finer reticle at close in anyways.
 
Master-G said:
I've used an ACOG TA33 on my FS2000 (although they're not cheap). I liked now light and handy it was--it's only 3X but I shot it back to 300m without feeling handicapped. Here's it's reticle:
Click to expand...

Same here, 3-4X is just fine for those longer shots. I use a 3.5X Acog TA11 and it works great.
DSC01012-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom