AR 15 best optic for CQB

Cost... they spent the money on that CMR and will be pushing that until someone offers something better that starts cutting into their sales. A lot of guys will just plug their nose and get it as a stopgap solution till something better comes along.

I'll pay $4k for a high-end scope that is mature feature-wise. But, I'm not going to do it for a half-baked solution...
 
kombayotch said:
Cost... they spent the money on that CMR and will be pushing that until someone offers something better that starts cutting into their sales. A lot of guys will just plug their nose and get it as a stopgap solution till something better comes along.

I'll pay $4k for a high-end scope that is mature feature-wise. But, I'm not going to do it for a half-baked solution...
Click to expand...

Do you mean with laser range finding GPS and bluetooth capabilities? Only kidding. I just can`t see how LEOs and military can justify the ever increasing cost of some of these scopes anymore. Spending that sort of money on high end sniping scopes maybe.
 
Your missing the point.

TMR is a utterly worthless reticle -- its dead, move on.

In the other thread I pointed out the costs of the Horus etc.

Don't loose sleep on the reticle not "working" for your loads.
Simple know where your trajectory is in relationship to the reticle. Kinda like using a Horus grid...
 
KevinB said:
TMR is a utterly worthless reticle -- its dead, move on.
Click to expand...

Any kind of basic mildot or reticle with only verticals and horizontal hashes is well past it's expiry date.


KevinB said:
Simple know where your trajectory is in relationship to the reticle. Kinda like using a Horus grid...
Click to expand...

Sure, and people are going to be willing to do that with an optic up to a certain price point. But, they aren't going to want to drop a lot of cash in something that has that reticle or a basic mildot like the PR or S&B 1-8s. I'll probably end up going with this scope and doing exactly that, but it still is just a stopgap solution.
 
KevinB said:
Your missing the point.

TMR is a utterly worthless reticle -- its dead, move on.

In the other thread I pointed out the costs of the Horus etc.

Don't loose sleep on the reticle not "working" for your loads.
Simple know where your trajectory is in relationship to the reticle. Kinda like using a Horus grid...
Click to expand...

I quite like the Horus it`s a mil reticle, fast to use, and will work with any load and caliber. The problem with CMR types reticles is just as you say, it`s guess work, and another thing to think about everytime you pull the trigger if you`re using something other than the matching load. Mind you, rather than using a holdover mil based reticle system, like the Horus, I still think there is no substitute to having a dialed in scope with a mil or an MOA plex reticle on a sniping rig.
 
Sititunga said:
I quite like the Horus it`s a mil reticle, fast to use, and will work with any load and caliber. The problem with CMR types reticles is just as you say, it`s guess work, and another thing to think about everytime you pull the trigger if you`re using something other than the matching load. Mind you, rather than using a holdover mil based reticle system, like the Horus, I still think there is no substitute to having a dialed in scope with a mil or an MOA plex reticle on a sniping rig.
Click to expand...

Dialing in or holding on the grid, its the same sh*t. One takes a lot longer and requires the adjustment of mechanical turrets, the other requires nothing. You do the math.

TDC
 
For CQR range, 1st choice C-MORE. 2nd, Eotech. 3rd, Aimpoint. C-MORE gives you both-eyes-open sighting/ target identification in it's simplest and purest form. I gives you the most unobstructed sight picture. Eotech comes next, while the traditional Aimpoint, in my opinion, "tunnel-visions" you when aiming.
 
TDC said:
Dialing in or holding on the grid, its the same sh*t. One takes a lot longer and requires the adjustment of mechanical turrets, the other requires nothing. You do the math.

TDC
Click to expand...

If you`re going to make fast shots at multiple ranges the Horus or similar are ideal and very quick, but if you have the time I would rather dial to make that 937 yard shot.
 
Last edited:
KevinB said:
The point being made is 1,000 rds is a useless number in terms of being able to offer feedback from a durability standpoint.

As an example I have about 25,000 rds of 7.62 on the Leupold 1.1-8x CQBSS, and about 4k on their new 1-6, the only reason I beleive the 1-6 will hold up is due to my experiences with the 1-8 rapelling, ATV'ing and seeing a bunch of tother stuff done to them.

On the EO's I have personally witnessed too many (in excess of 200) lie down and Die -- with Aimpoints, I have seen I think 7 die in the same period and have more Aimpoints as a sample size.
Click to expand...

Yah true but I'm not beating up on it as it would be in the field/deployment conditions. I think for the price and what the OP was asking EOtech and Aimpoint's are both a good solution.

Again if you have astigmatism, test it out with your glasses before. The ELCAN DR 1.5x6 is working best for me in that aspect...

I read a nice review with pics on the 1.1-8x, looks amazing and really nice but way out of my price range. $4000
http://www.opticstalk.com/_topic30301.html
 
I recently got an opportunity to spend a fair bit of quality time (~ a thousand rounds over the course of a week) in the US with a Horus Talon 1-4x24 scope with the illuminated H50 reticle.

I must say that I came away rather impressed and am considering purchasing one for my own use - if I can find one in Canada. Quick to pick up the reticle in QCB scenarios and I was making 500m shots at man sized targets with ease using the hold points in the reticle aiming grid (and their software my friend had loaded on the Laptop).

Certainly, I acknowledge that it might not meet everyone's requirement, but after using it I felt that it performs very well both as a QCB optic (at 1x, with illumination) as well as for medium distance engagements (at 4x).

The one potential drawback: Non-adjustable parallax. I was unaffected, but may be a concern for some.
 
Sititunga said:
If you`re going to make fast shots at multiple ranges the Horus or similar are ideal and very quick, but if I have the time I would rather dial to make that 937 yard shot.
Click to expand...

Why would you waste the effort moving a mechanical knob when you can use a fixed hold point within the reticle? That's completely illogical. The mechanical error possible and present in optics coupled with human error in dialing means its a less than ideal method. We've covered the time wasted but apparently thats not an issue.

TDC
 
TDC said:
Why would you waste the effort moving a mechanical knob when you can use a fixed hold point within the reticle? That's completely illogical. The mechanical error possible and present in optics coupled with human error in dialing means its a less than ideal method. We've covered the time wasted but apparently thats not an issue.

TDC
Click to expand...

With all due respect, unless the reticle you`re talking of has .1 mil hash marks I can`t see how that can be. I think human error is just as likely with the way you describe.
 
Both have their place. The turrets are definitely more precise, but a good reticle in your FFP setup gives you the ability to just shoulder the rifle and start firing in situations where taking the time to adjust a turret or dial means missing the chance to get off a shot.

As for the OP's requirements, I have an Aimpoint, but I would never use it as the only optic on anything but a pistol caliber carbine. I think its short sighted to put something that lacks any kind of field adjustment or BDC on a rifle that is capable of shooting at any kinc of distance. In his price range, I would probably go with a Viper PST and only use it at 1x.
 
Sititunga said:
With all due respect, unless the reticle you`re talking of has .1 mil hash marks I can`t see how that can be. I think human error is just as likely with the way you describe.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically talking about Horus type reticles. I'm not one to beat the fanboy drum, but after watching some extreme range hits with a grid reticle and some solid data, there's no reason or need to dial in. The other factor here is just what level of accuracy the shooter is looking for. I admit, the type of hits seen in the video were not F-class type groups, but then again the majority of us aren't looking for such nor are we capable of such at the ranges demonstrated.

TDC
 
photo-5.png


If you have a range card like the above the Horus grid is awesome.

However if you know the Bullet Drop of the CMR reticle (hint the 762 is for a KAC 16" gun with M118LR) you can backwork the reticle and work out what your load corresponds to in the reticle.
 
KevinB said:
However if you know the Bullet Drop of the CMR reticle (hint the 762 is for a KAC 16" gun with M118LR) you can backwork the reticle and work out what your load corresponds to in the reticle.
Click to expand...


Of course you can... A 77 SMK @ 2780 fps. (my 24" bbl. AR Comp load) actually tracks very well with the 5.56 version of the CMR (62 gr. @ 2970 fps.). My plan if I go with that scope...

However, if you aren't using a load that tracks with it, you've basically regressed back to same situation you had when guys were using their mildot reticle for holdovers on scopes that had MOA turrets. You end up having to memorize your dope in two different units.
 
The best sights for the AR are the ones you can afford, and not the ones you need to skip a mortgage payment in order to acquire.

seriously though, it's personal preference like another poster mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom