optics on handguard

[HavokCycle]

Why must a red dot try to look like an acog, and take up that much space needlessly in the process?

With most decent red dots, there's plenty of real estate left for a magnifier, but between magnifier and optic, we're talking more money than some upper end glass.

I think you'd be best served looking into a decent scope. Burris and Redfield have some seemingly decent offerings that aren't much money at all. Just remember to invest in as good of a scope mount as you can afford. Scope mounts are certainly a buy once cry once affair.

point taken, and a good (read smaller) optic is on my wish-list. that bushnell is a ******* nail driver however, and until the point comes up where i'm ready to blow 600 on an Eotech i'm happy with it.

 

[jd4320t]

With all due respect, if it's a nail driver why do you need the magnifier?

 

[Tombs]

point taken, and a good (read smaller) optic is on my wish-list. that bushnell is a ******* nail driver however, and until the point comes up where i'm ready to blow 600 on an Eotech i'm happy with it.

I just mean, instead of worrying about the magnifier, get a good scope in a good mount, and switch optics around as needed.

Doesn't need to, literally, be a swiss army knife to perform like one.

 

[jd4320t]

also it that isn't a good solid free floating rail your optic is going to be moving.

 

[HavokCycle]

With all due respect, if it's a nail driver why do you need the magnifier?

i should qualify what i'm saying. at 100yd its extremely accurate. i want effectiveness at 200 and 300 yards out however, and still able to retain CQB distance effectiveness at 100yd and closer.

 

[jd4320t]

My amateur advice is to regroup and figure out what you really want. I can say this because it is exactly what I am doing with my first AR.

 

[Tombs]

i should qualify what i'm saying. at 100yd its extremely accurate. i want effectiveness at 200 and 300 yards out however, and still able to retain CQB distance effectiveness at 100yd and closer.

Even with an 8x scope, you can run it indoors.

Just need to learn how to shoot with both eyes open and practice. My favorite setup for an AR15 currently is a leupold 2-7x33mm VXR in a bobro extended mount.

It's great indoors and out to the maximum range the rifle is capable of. I usually just use 2x, but it's nice to have 7x at times.

Can also close the front lens cover and run it as an OEG since it does have a red dot system.

 

[42769vette]

i should qualify what i'm saying. at 100yd its extremely accurate. i want effectiveness at 200 and 300 yards out however, and still able to retain CQB distance effectiveness at 100yd and closer.

This is worth a look, its a good bit cheaper than eotech with magnifer.

Vortex Optics - Viper PST 1-4x24 TMCQ MOA (Capped)

 

[Tombs]

I don't see the point of 1-4x optics...

What can 1x do that 4x can't, or visa versa? Plus you have an awful lot of weight and expense in getting down to 1x without severe fisheye or distortion.

Where as, by jumping up a tier in magnification, you get double the magnification and honestly 2x is not bad even at arms length...

If I want a 1x optic, I'll grab a dedicated one. (No, not a red dot, something with an etched reticle and eye relief.)

 

[42769vette]

What can 1x do that 4x can't, or visa versa?

Im pretty sure you have to be kidding, but in case your not.

1x can be run both eyes open without inducing parallax for cqb.

4x can make precision shots at longer ranges or make man size target hits at way longer ranges.

do you understand why you dont see folks hunting in indiana with a fixed 32x scope? or why you never see somone shooting f-class with a reddot?

The main downside to running a 1-4 on a cqb target is the fact that you have a eyebox to deal with. so your saying you purposly look for a 1x scope with eye relief for cqb?

 

[sig1473]

I don't see the point of 1-4x optics...

What can 1x do that 4x can't, or visa versa? Plus you have an awful lot of weight and expense in getting down to 1x without severe fisheye or distortion.

Where as, by jumping up a tier in magnification, you get double the magnification and honestly 2x is not bad even at arms length...

If I want a 1x optic, I'll grab a dedicated one. (No, not a red dot, something with an etched reticle and eye relief.)

 

[Tombs]

Im pretty sure you have to be kidding, but in case your not.

1x can be run both eyes open without inducing parallax for cqb.

4x can make precision shots at longer ranges or make man size target hits at way longer ranges.

do you understand why you dont see folks hunting in indiana with a fixed 32x scope? or why you never see somone shooting f-class with a reddot?

The main downside to running a 1-4 on a cqb target is the fact that you have a eyebox to deal with. so your saying you purposly look for a 1x scope with eye relief for cqb?

What are we defining as CQB? 25 yards and under?

I'm not talking about running some silly and ridiculous magnification on a rifle that has no use for it. I'm saying that what you give up to get 1x is too severe VS what you gain by accepting 2x on the low side.

Yes, it's much easier to track a target up close with less magnification, but there's nothing 1x can do that 2x can't. You still have a zero, you still have an optic above the bore. You have parallax issues to some degree but nothing that is enough to worry about unless you want to take your rifle to the pistol range and shoot one hole.

I like 1x glass, yes. Not for close range though, but for precision at distance without giving up field of view. It's a real shame the leupold prismatic wasn't made like the PKAS is, if it was, then you'd totally get my point. I doubt many people have seen a PKAS or looked through one though. Think of it as iron sights without any obstructions and a more precise aiming point. It's a completely different feel than a red dot, and you have to really get your head off the optic to have it black out on you, the eye relief isn't as much of an issue as you'd think. Lets put it this way, a target doesn't seem nearly as far away or as hard to hit in 1x glass as it does with a red dot. And a dedicated 1x scope isn't anything like a variable in all of my experiences.

 

[tradertator]

I really like both the Prismatic and PKAS. The clarity of the Leupold is awesome, and a great alternative to a red dot if you have vision problems. Downside to the PKAS is adjustments get weird.

 

[tradertator]

As far as the OP, I think your going to have trouble with that setup. Mounting optics on the forend is a bad idea in general, unless it is a top notch rail with anti rotation devices built in. Your getting a lot of good advice on here, but seem to be ignoring what everyone is saying. Not that I give a flying ****, but why ask in the first place?

 

[42769vette]

What are we defining as CQB? 25 yards and under?

I'm not talking about running some silly and ridiculous magnification on a rifle that has no use for it. I'm saying that what you give up to get 1x is too severe VS what you gain by accepting 2x on the low side.

Yes, it's much easier to track a target up close with less magnification, but there's nothing 1x can do that 2x can't. You still have a zero, you still have an optic above the bore. You have parallax issues to some degree but nothing that is enough to worry about unless you want to take your rifle to the pistol range and shoot one hole.

I like 1x glass, yes. Not for close range though, but for precision at distance without giving up field of view. It's a real shame the leupold prismatic wasn't made like the PKAS is, if it was, then you'd totally get my point. I doubt many people have seen a PKAS or looked through one though. Think of it as iron sights without any obstructions and a more precise aiming point. It's a completely different feel than a red dot, and you have to really get your head off the optic to have it black out on you, the eye relief isn't as much of an issue as you'd think. Lets put it this way, a target doesn't seem nearly as far away or as hard to hit in 1x glass as it does with a red dot. And a dedicated 1x scope isn't anything like a variable in all of my experiences.

I had a long post typed up but decided its better to take the high road as some folks are jsut to far gone. I will close by saying every zoom range without exception has its benifits and down sides.

Good luck to you sir

 

[sig1473]

I had a long post typed up but decided its better to take the high road as some folks are jsut to far gone. I will close by saying every zoom range without exception has its benifits and down sides.

Good luck to you sir

^Agreed^

 

[HavokCycle]

As far as the OP, I think your going to have trouble with that setup. Mounting optics on the forend is a bad idea in general, unless it is a top notch rail with anti rotation devices built in. Your getting a lot of good advice on here, but seem to be ignoring what everyone is saying. Not that I give a flying ****, but why ask in the first place?

as i stated, call it an exercise in experimentation. i like 'well what would happen if i do this'

i pulled it out of the safe tonight and fiddled a bit more. i dislike it. the entire setup is inconvenient and the eye relief is not even close to where i need to be. something has to come off. the optic and the magnifier don't line up properly so eye relief is even more critical, and i'm unwilling to give up BUIS.
3x is coming off until i grab a new optic.