This video was recently shared by jljones, in the "equipped AR versus a 7.62x51 alternative" thread.



jljones also had this to say:

quote:

This video really makes me wonder if for shorter range set ups (think suppressed 11.5s) if a quality 1x6 with a RDS back up might not be the ticket. 1x10s are generally heavier, bigger and a little unbalanced. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Razor 1x10, but they have their pros and cons. A gun with an EoTech or Aimpoint will always be faster on close up targets. (As a general rule). A good friend is loaning a SIG Tango 6T and I think I’m going to play with it in and out of the shoothouse.

One of the guys in the video's success was hampered by his ACOG, with its 4x, when compared to the other guy's higher magnification (8x) LPVO. This wasn't at long ranges.

I have a Leupold 4.5-14 scope in an ADM mount that's zeroed for my 11.5" carbine. I have used it as my primary optic in the past, with an Eotech as a secondary and NV optic (not on the gun at the same time). By chance, I ended up using a Specter as a primary for the last while. This video and jljones' comment prompted me to run a couple mags at close range yesterday, with the Leupold.

Obviously, the limiting factor with any variable power scope, even one capable of 1x, is the eye box (eye relief included) on the bottom end, when it comes to close range speed. In my shooting yesterday, I was able to match my one shot and three shot times established the last time I shot the same drills with my Eotech. These drills were performed using a 5" circle target between seven and ten yards away, from a starting position of what I call "patrol posture".

That being said, I was not able to obtain the same repeatability of this performance that I am capable of with the Eotech. It is my belief though, that a shooter can make the performance gap pretty narrow, with practice. Of course, if you only give it one try, and you're well practiced with the Eotech, you're going to perceive a significant performance gap. More practice can close it a bit.

If your primary job is CQB, it goes without saying that you'd be best served by a Eotech or dot. Maybe with a magnifier. Or maybe even a high-quality 1-6 or 1-8, as jljones suggests, with a generous eye box and wide FOV.

I am a believer in the general purpose rifle. Mr. Trex Arms says that he is not. I'd rather have the one middle gun, than the two specialized guns on either side of it, inside the scope of how I consider preparedness (avoid CQB at all costs). More magnification than many consider ideal for the GP carbine may be something worth more consideration. I love the Specter; it has great 1X performance, and a clear, wide FOV at 4X. 4X often leaves me wanting though, even at only moderate ranges, when terrain and vegetation compromise target detection and identification ability. It's also worth mentioning that urban scenarios, outside the structure interiors, offer more distant sightlines than most rural settings.

Given my continued practice of optic swapping, I can still maximize CQB performance, if a circumstance calls for it. With practice, more consistent close range speed can be improved with the 4.5X bottom end on my Leupold as well.

Different rifles and optics for different tasks. My SR25 wears a Leupy mk5 3.6-18x with an offset ACRO P2. My two general purpose ARs are 12.5” with nx8 and 14.5” with atacr 1-8, both set up with lasers for nvg use. A third general purpose 16” wears a kahles k16i and is only set up with a white light, no laser. All three lpvo rifles are great performers for me out to 500 yds.

There is no perfect in life and this applies to firearms. There are compromises at the low end and top end of magnification with LPVO, with weight and size of MPVO. You determine your needs/wants based on planned use(s) and work to stack the compromises in your favor based on these needs.

At one point I had an atacr 1-8 on my SR25 and found it lacking because I shoot that rifle out to 1270 at our range. It would have been perfect as a general purpose rifle out to 600 yds. After shooting it a bunch and determining that I wanted more mag, on went the mk5 and acro p2.


There is no one single “do absolutely everything” rifle. The LPVO equipped 12.5-14.5 AR15 comes very close. The LPVO equipped 308 or 6.5cm comes even closer if one is ok with more weight and less ammunition by weight basis compared to 5.56. Again, compromises. I’ll likely add a 16” 6.5cm GP rifle at some point.

The OP isn't arguing that there is a "perfect" set up. It is postulating that more magnification than what typically may be considered "normal" for the general purpose carbine may be advantageous in the GP carbine role.

Your 12.5" with a top end of 8x could be an example. That is perhaps more scope than many may consider for that barrel length. The magnification has a lot of utility outside it's matching the ballistic performance dictated by the barrel length and intended engagement range.

Some, admittedly niche and high-dollar, MPVOs are pushing the boundaries of size and weight. The March 1.5-15 is a good example.

After my last trip and having to remove the PA 1-8 and use a 4-16x50 just to see the target at 100 yards again I'm reconsidering the LPVO.
I've been looking to replace it with a NF NX8 1-8, but even with better glass I'm not so sure it will be much better when it's overcast out.
I've ran a NF 2.5-10x42 on my 14.7" before and am leaning to just getting another one.
I know it works well at low light and is about the same weight and length as the PA 1-8.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The OP isn't arguing that there is a "perfect" set up. It is postulating that more magnification than what typically may be considered "normal" for the general purpose carbine may be advantageous in the GP carbine role.

Your 12.5" with a top end of 8x could be an example. That is perhaps more scope than many may consider for that barrel length. The magnification has a lot of utility outside it's matching the ballistic performance dictated by the barrel length and intended engagement range.

Some, admittedly niche and high-dollar, MPVOs are pushing the boundaries of size and weight. The March 1.5-15 is a good example.

I think it’s all about perception as to what’s more mag than one thinks is needed for a given barrel length. CAG used 1.1-4 Short Dots on 10.4” 416s almost 20 years ago. And around 10 years ago was using mk8 1.1-8 CQBSS on 14.5 416s. SF currently uses the sig Exeter 1-6 and the atacr 1-8 on its 11.5 and 14.5 URGI uppers.

A short, relatively light weight 2-12 or 2-10 with a great FFP reticle and great glass with a piggybacked or offset red dot would be awesome. The mk5 2-10 comes close, but the weight and length are close enough to the 3.6-18 and the reticle options suck.

I thought wide adoption of the VCOG has kind of proved this. I think it gets even more important in a civilian setting where you don’t have a team leader telling you what to shoot at.

quote:

Originally posted by powermad:
After my last trip and having to remove the PA 1-8 and use a 4-16x50 just to see the target at 100 yards again I'm reconsidering the LPVO.

Are you talking about the PLXc? What did you not like about it?

I think about this alot. I have lots of options for what to grab when I might need to 'go'. And I spend some serious thought on how to make 'go' cover more than one rifle, but sometimes I think that's going to be a pipe dream. And in the end I think what I am grabbing is something with a 1-8x range. I'm personally attached to the NF but that's just my preference there are tons of great choice.

I’ll start by saying I didn’t watch the linked video. More often than not YouTube offerings cram 20% (or less) information into a 100% presentation. But with that mini rant out of the way and admitting it may not even be correct in this case, my thoughts about general purpose rifles and their optics.

Even though it’s very unlikely anyone outside of law enforcement or certain branches of the military forces would ever need to use a rifle in a defensive situation, it’s even less likely that any of us would need to use one in a close quarters situation. That means magnification is more likely to be useful than a detriment to our use.

“Yeah, but I can hit a man-sized target at 300 yards all day long with my red dot.” Yes, so can I; I could reliable hit such targets with an iron-sighted M14 a long time ago, but that doesn’t make a nonmagnifying sight best for the purpose—or even for many other situations.

Once the targets get smaller and harder to pick up and engage reliably than a stationary full-sized silhouette whose color contrasts well with the background, magnification helps. A couple of years ago I tested myself shooting at a 12 inch circle at 50 yards to see how fast and accurately I could hit it using both an Aimpoint and an LPVO set at 3× magnification.*

I was very slightly faster with the Aimpoint, but also very slightly less accurate. The biggest difference, though, was that I was more confident of my aiming with the magnification, and that would be even more true when the target was more difficult to see and engage confidently.

As another example, I most recently had trainees shoot at a target measuring about 7×10 inches at 100 yards with their red dots and patrol rifles. Getting hits wasn’t too hard while the white paint on the target was fresh and visible. After a number of hits exposed the dark steel, though, the target was far harder to see against the dark earth backstop, and hits went down. On the other hand, when I shot at the same target some days later with a magnified optic, I didn’t miss.

Magnification and other characteristics. I am in the “have different tools for different purposes/situations” camp, but I readily admit that that’s not practicable for many people and probably unrealistic if we ever really had to use a rifle in a serious situation. Although I didn’t start either project in mind of putting together a best general purpose rifle, the two I own that I believe fit that role best both are capable of good precision, but beyond that they don’t have much in common. One is a JP Enterprises AR type in 5.56 with a 3-15× scope, and the other (that I reviewed recently) is a Tikka T3x CTR in 308 Winchester with a 2-10× scope. There are pros and cons with each, but if I were drafted to defend a mountain pass someplace, I’d probably take the JP for several reasons. (On an unrelated issue, I am not in the “a 308 is always better ballistically than a 223/5.56” crowd.)

Anyway, another interesting subject to consider.

* https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...750003394#9750003394

quote:

Are you talking about the PLXc? What did you not like about it?

The PA 1-8 SLx, works well enough.
As long as it's a clear day and you have contrasting targets.
The PLxC would have been a contender but I don't like any of the reticles offered but do like the NF NXS

I'm thinking that even with good glass a 24mm objective is still going to be at a disadvantage when it's cloudy and such, like it is here quite a bit.
The NF 2.5-10x42 works well when it's like that though, able to spot impacts on steel at 100 yards and see the vapor trail through the mist.

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The OP isn't arguing that there is a "perfect" set up. It is postulating that more magnification than what typically may be considered "normal" for the general purpose carbine may be advantageous in the GP carbine role.

Your 12.5" with a top end of 8x could be an example. That is perhaps more scope than many may consider for that barrel length. The magnification has a lot of utility outside it's matching the ballistic performance dictated by the barrel length and intended engagement range.

Some, admittedly niche and high-dollar, MPVOs are pushing the boundaries of size and weight. The March 1.5-15 is a good example.

I think it’s all about perception as to what’s more mag than one thinks is needed for a given barrel length. CAG used 1.1-4 Short Dots on 10.4” 416s almost 20 years ago. And around 10 years ago was using mk8 1.1-8 CQBSS on 14.5 416s. SF currently uses the sig Exeter 1-6 and the atacr 1-8 on its 11.5 and 14.5 URGI uppers.

A short, relatively light weight 2-12 or 2-10 with a great FFP reticle and great glass with a piggybacked or offset red dot would be awesome. The mk5 2-10 comes close, but the weight and length are close enough to the 3.6-18 and the reticle options suck.

CAG / DevGru / and other units like that, their people have a few options to choose from, and someone else if footing the bill for glass, gear and ammo. (The only reason I don't mind paying my taxes)
This weapon is for CQB
This weapon is for longer ranges
This weapon is for mid-range stuff.

Not "This one does it all"

Those gentlemen are also some of the "best of the best" when it comes to those types of toys, and practice enough to keep that high standard. That being said, they can probably pull off accurate shotS (emphasis on the plural) with an 11in Barrel at 300yds + that 99% here wouldn't dream about.


First, I think we need to define "General Purpose" and what we are expecting.
Then, "Your" GP and "His" GP and "That Guy's" GP and "My" GP carbine might be different.

I live in a City. I'm not taking a lot of long shots past 250.
Probably going to be different for someone that lives in the country where you can see out to the horizon.
Even different for someone that's in the woods or in the mountains.


For me- One rifle isn't going to be my "Do all".
I'm sticking with .223 / 5.56 and .308 / 7.56 for calibers, and am hesitant in branching off to .300BO or 6.5, 6.8
So that fact is going to limit me - I know a 5.56 isn't going to be effective much past 500yds or so, and I'm not expecting much effectiveness out of a .308 past 850 - 900 yds.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The OP isn't arguing that there is a "perfect" set up. It is postulating that more magnification than what typically may be considered "normal" for the general purpose carbine may be advantageous in the GP carbine role.

Your 12.5" with a top end of 8x could be an example. That is perhaps more scope than many may consider for that barrel length. The magnification has a lot of utility outside it's matching the ballistic performance dictated by the barrel length and intended engagement range.

Some, admittedly niche and high-dollar, MPVOs are pushing the boundaries of size and weight. The March 1.5-15 is a good example.

I think it’s all about perception as to what’s more mag than one thinks is needed for a given barrel length. CAG used 1.1-4 Short Dots on 10.4” 416s almost 20 years ago. And around 10 years ago was using mk8 1.1-8 CQBSS on 14.5 416s. SF currently uses the sig Exeter 1-6 and the atacr 1-8 on its 11.5 and 14.5 URGI uppers.

A short, relatively light weight 2-12 or 2-10 with a great FFP reticle and great glass with a piggybacked or offset red dot would be awesome. The mk5 2-10 comes close, but the weight and length are close enough to the 3.6-18 and the reticle options suck.

CAG / DevGru / and other units like that, their people have a few options to choose from, and someone else if footing the bill for glass, gear and ammo. (The only reason I don't mind paying my taxes)
This weapon is for CQB
This weapon is for longer ranges
This weapon is for mid-range stuff.

Not "This one does it all"

Those gentlemen are also some of the "best of the best" when it comes to those types of toys, and practice enough to keep that high standard. That being said, they can probably pull off accurate shotS (emphasis on the plural) with an 11in Barrel at 300yds + that 99% here wouldn't dream about.


First, I think we need to define "General Purpose" and what we are expecting.
Then, "Your" GP and "His" GP and "That Guy's" GP and "My" GP carbine might be different.

I live in a City. I'm not taking a lot of long shots past 250.
Probably going to be different for someone that lives in the country where you can see out to the horizon.
Even different for someone that's in the woods or in the mountains.


For me- One rifle isn't going to be my "Do all".
I'm sticking with .223 / 5.56 and .308 / 7.56 for calibers, and am hesitant in branching off to .300BO or 6.5, 6.8
So that fact is going to limit me - I know a 5.56 isn't going to be effective much past 500yds or so, and I'm not expecting much effectiveness out of a .308 past 850 - 900 yds.

Exactly.

Just like the 5.56 versus 7.62 discussion was just as much about armor and barrier performance as it was about performance at longer ranges, this discussion is just as much about what advantages are afforded by extra magnification inside 300m as it is about the potential for magnification to extend our effective range.

quote:

A short, relatively light weight 2-12 or 2-10 with a great FFP reticle and great glass with a piggybacked or offset red dot would be awesome

This is more the equipment in question than anything topping out at 4, 6, or even 8x. Your 8x setup was the closest to what I was getting at, which is why I referenced it.

quote:

I think it gets even more important in a civilian setting where you don’t have a team leader telling you what to shoot at

This is something I have mentioned a few times, in various discussions in our forums. I think, if you don't have magnification on top of your gun, you ought to have binoculars around your neck. In the GP context, you'd do well to be able to observe at distance, and with scrutiny at nearer ranges.

quote:

I live in a City. I'm not taking a lot of long shots past 250

Even at 250, I think a decent amount of magnification would be appreciated, if observing movement in a window, or among vehicles, or down a poorly lit alley. My GP configuration would likely be different, if I lived in the "see out to the horizon" setting, or terrain was mountainous as such that created long sightlines. My rural environment is likely similar to an urban one, so long as we're discounting structure interiors, where engagement range is concerned. Some pasture locations may present 500M situations, but that's about as far as it'll go.

I don't disagree with the "different guns for different tasks" attitude. It is undoubtedly the best attitude. I just don't know how practical it is for Joe Blo, in the prepared civilian context. I think something suited for the majority of circumstances, and then trained with in the minority circumstances as well, can prove more effective in those minority circumstances than we may have thought. I can maybe be a little faster than I would have thought, in a CQB context, and a little more capable than I would have been without practice, at longer ranges, with some practice, with that GP carbine.

The fact that CAG was willing to make the sacrifice on the CQB side of things, to get 4x capability, with the Short Dot scopes, says a lot. Had the 1-8, or even 2-10 scopes been of the quality then, that they are now, I'd say there's an excellent chance they'd have had them on those same guns.

I think a major reason we see so many dots and holo sights on civilian guns is the fact that many of us are restricted to only short range practice environments. Folks are likely to gravitate toward what gives them the best performance in their most common shooting environment, even though that environment is likely not the one they may find themselves in, in whatever preparedness hypothetical the user may otherwise speculate.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

A good video on the topic, if I can get the embed right.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Folks are likely to gravitate toward what gives them the best performance in their most common shooting environment ....

I’m reminded of the old joke about the drunk trying to find his keys that he dropped on a dark night. He’s on his hands and knees under a street lamp when another person offers to help him look. After a few minutes the newcomer asks, “Are you sure you dropped them here?” “No, it was down the block.” “Well, why aren’t you looking there?” “Because the light’s better here.”

The tendency to do what’s easiest is a universal human trait that can be hard to overcome. Shooting from the prone is very uncomfortable for me so I avoid it, and more commonly use an elevated support. Yesterday I fired 100 rounds of .22 in dot drills using a tripod and shooting sticks for support, and while I’ve gotten to be a pretty good shot that way, it doesn’t help my prone shooting.

I will also say, though, that shooters are people like everyone else and therefore strongly influenced by fads and what they see other shooters doing. And if it’s a elite group that’s doing it, that makes it even more attractive, regardless of what relevance it may have to the individual concerned.

My take on the topic is simple. Use the tool for the job to are performing at that moment. If you are kicking in doors, use a shorter gun. If you are performing overlook, use your long range weapon.

No one gun can do it all. My GP gun wears a Aimpoint Micro with a Aimpoint 3x Compact magnifier. I am able to shoot fast close in or reach out further if needed and get decent hits.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

I don't disagree with the "different guns for different tasks" attitude. It is undoubtedly the best attitude. I just don't know how practical it is for Joe Blo, in the prepared civilian context. I think something suited for the majority of circumstances, and then trained with in the minority circumstances as well, can prove more effective in those minority circumstances than we may have thought. I can maybe be a little faster than I would have thought, in a CQB context, and a little more capable than I would have been without practice, at longer ranges, with some practice, with that GP carbine.

The fact that CAG was willing to make the sacrifice on the CQB side of things, to get 4x capability, with the Short Dot scopes, says a lot. Had the 1-8, or even 2-10 scopes been of the quality then, that they are now, I'd say there's an excellent chance they'd have had them on those same guns.

I think a major reason we see so many dots and holo sights on civilian guns is the fact that many of us are restricted to only short range practice environments. Folks are likely to gravitate toward what gives them the best performance in their most common shooting environment, even though that environment is likely not the one they may find themselves in, in whatever preparedness hypothetical the user may otherwise speculate.

Well said. Re: red dots, I also think we see more red dots on GP carbines due to the fact that they are less costly than a quality LPVO. Also a lot of guys have ultra kitted out rifles that never get used to their actual potential.

If I were forced to choose on AR with one optic to use for HD and all of the different gun games that I shoot. It would be a quality 1-6 on a 16" gun.

Vortex Razor 1-6 with the JM1 reticle is my personal optic of choice. But the Burris RT6 is a superb budget option. And there are of course a whole gamut of choices out there from $300-$2000.

I don't personally agree that a 1-6 with decent eye relief and a good exit pupil is automatically going to be slower than a RDS at 50 yards or less. Aside from the weight penalty, a quality 1-6 set at 1x gives up far less at short ranges than a RDS gives up at 100 yards or more.


JLJones touched on this in his post, but I will reiterate. A lot of people make a lot of claims about being able to shoot X distance with irons or red dots. I generally assume they are shooting at a high contrast target on a groomed range. It's one thing to hit a freshly painted white steel target at 300 yards at noon, with irons or a red dot. It's quite another to hit a grayed out steel target at dusk when the target is in the deepening shadow of the woods.

In the latter scenario, the target is likely to be invisible to anyone using irons or a red dot.


Seeing as how we can't forsee what kind of societal unrest could someday arise. If I am keeping a rifle around for that unlikely event, it's going to have a LPVO.

quote:

Originally posted by JoshNC:

Well said. Re: red dots, I also think we see more red dots on GP carbines due to the fact that they are less costly than a quality LPVO.



Also a lot of guys have ultra kitted out rifles that never get used to their actual potential.

The last sentence is 110% absolute TRUTH!
Which goes towards the first sentence; IF people knew how to use a good red dot, they could achieve much more out of their gun!