Rifle Scopes Best FFP Scope on Sale to use alongside RDS- 18" 6.5G General Purpose

[Neurotic]

I haven't read all of the thread, but it sounds like you're looking for a LOW manufactured LPVO. There are quite a few out there at reasonable prices if you can live with reticles or downsides...


- Sightmark Pinnacle AAC; $399 at Amazon (older LOW style with narrow FOV and 300 BLK reticle)
- Sightmark Pinnacle TMD; $499 at Amazon (older LOW style with narrow FOV and MRAD reticle
- Sig Sauer Whiskey5 (1-5); $545 at Bereli
- Bushnell SMRS II; $620
- Shepard Phantom; $750 (older LOW style with narrow FOV)
- Athlon Cronus BTR; $750 at Cameraland (almost the same reticle as Vortex's JM1, but daylight visible not bright)
-Trijicon Credo HX; $785
- Delta Stryker; $790 at darnfineshot

 

[LRRPF52]

I was shooting on Friday confirming zeros on a bunch of rifles that were my brother’s, God rest his benevolent soul.

It just reinforced how critical it is for me to continue to buying quality optics/mounts.

He had a Bushnell AR-223 on one of his rifles. Trying to even confirm zero on 100yd TGT is basically a waste of time and ammo.

He had some no-name RDS on another. Can’t even see the dot on its highest setting in broad daylight, waste of time/ammo.

I swore I had balanced out the torque on the Bushnell in whatever mount it was in, but I guess not.

I reached up to rotate the mag lever, got back into the picture, reticle was canted.

Rotated it back, tightened the fasteners with a handheld Allen wrench combo without going crazy, fired a few more rounds, whole mount was loose. I look on the side of the mount, thinking it was a PEPR. Nope. Monstrum.

If you ever see a Monstrum mount, put it on an Airsoft rifle maybe.

I was just having a bad time, and believe in finishing on a good note.

Broke out my 12” Grendel with LaRue mount, GRSC optic, aimed at one of the 3” bulls on paper at 100yds, zero-confirmed on that set-up.

The FOV and clarity difference between the Bushnell and GRSC was night and day.

Those cheap optics and mounts will all be canned and replaced.

That’s the biggest thing people don’t think about.

You try to save a few dollars on optics/mounts, but you get no performance and waste your time, range fees, ammo, gas, and any ancillary costs along the way, just to make noise at the range with no results.

Purchasing a $200-$300 optic from one of these companies with a sub-$100 mount ends up being a net negative most of the time.

Only exceptions I can think of are if you buy a known quality brand economy model with a deal on a mount. I might have seen Vortex and Leupold 1-piece mounts at Cabella’s recently for $99 for 1” tubes. An entry Leupold LPVO with 1” tube can be had for pretty cheap, but they won’t have any of the reticle options I’m looking for.

 

[6.5G]

Reviving this to preserve the history, but no need to read it all.

Just need a reliable DMR FFP mil/mil.

Trick is my new scope funds need to come from liquidating the two scopes already purchased as reccomended on the journey this thread chronicles.

Over a year ago I sent in my SS 10x42. Asked them to replace it with a 3-9. Can't remember if I had them charge the card for the difference then or if they are waiting to charge when they ship. But they haven't replaced it. The few times I've called they just forecasted receiving the scopes from overseas into the future and I forgot about jt.

So that is $250-700.

While waiting for it to come I bought a Vortex PST II 3-15 with the EBR-2c. I didn't shoot it much, but the illumination is now bleeding into the numbers beside the subtentions, which it is not designed to do. It is partially illuminating the numbers so it is just distracting and actually hurts legibility.

Don't know how Vortex works; if they can fix or replace. If they fix the street value unopened of a EBR-2c may be ~$550 now that it's discontinued (listed at that on eurooptic). If they replace with the current reticle PST-II I guess that'd be ~$1000.

So ~$800-1700 with both scopes.

It will probably make my life easier if my next scope is from one of these manufacturers, but after needing to return a scope to both I have no allegiance. I would also prefer to spend some of the funds on replacing my shit BCA. What would a wise person do in this position?

Options from SWFA: I originally asked for a 3-9, but why don't I hear people reccomending the 3-15 SS (not ultralight)? It's in stock now unlike all the others which is worth 2 in the Bush. And it is the same $699 as the 6-9. Plus, more mag. Is it not made by LOW? Is it too heavy? Why don't I hear about it as much?

Options from Vortex: the new PST II, or blow the whole budget on a Razor?

What about something from some other manufacturer?

Should I use half the value from both scopes on replacing the rifle?

Im getting tired of shooting ~3 times per scope before discovering a problem. I'm also kinda getting tired of hunting Grendel ammo and the heavy BCA barrel. In my fantasies I build a lightweight LR308 with a carbon fiber barrel. But I haven't finished grad school yet. And at least the rifle goes boom, so maybe spending more for scope reliability is the wisest thing. I'm starting to become a scope snob the hard way.

 

[DubfromGA]

I wanted something useful to do range work with a new cartridge for me, 6.5G.

I don't know if the optic will stay with this gun....but will give it run as I sight in the rifle and get acclimated to it.....and most likely when I'm working up handloads for it. It's a big bitch, but hoping she'll help on the range work. Arken EP5.

Supposedly decent ED glass (Japan ?) with Chinese assembly. Mounting a pair of their other models on two other bolt guns this week, too.








Some of the quality lpvo make a pile of sense to me in a gun that may get some action in hog hunting. These may be what I gravitate towards down the road.

 

[fdkay]

I wanted something useful to do range work with a new cartridge for me, 6.5G.

I don't know if the optic will stay with this gun....but will give it run as I sight in the rifle and get acclimated to it.....and most likely when I'm working up handloads for it. It's a big bitch, but hoping she'll help on the range work. Arken EP5.

Supposedly decent ED glass (Japan ?) with Chinese assembly. Mounting a pair of their other models on two other bolt guns this week, too.








Some of the quality lpvo make a pile of sense to me in a gun that may get some action in hog hunting. These may be what I gravitate towards down the road.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but since this thread is more than 2 years old, the OP has likely made his choice by now.

 

[drewthebrave]

Reviving this to preserve the history, but no need to read it all.

Just need a reliable DMR FFP mil/mil.

Trick is my new scope funds need to come from liquidating the two scopes already purchased as reccomended on the journey this thread chronicles.

Over a year ago I sent in my SS 10x42. Asked them to replace it with a 3-9. Can't remember if I had them charge the card for the difference then or if they are waiting to charge when they ship. But they haven't replaced it. The few times I've called they just forecasted receiving the scopes from overseas into the future and I forgot about jt.

So that is $250-700.

While waiting for it to come I bought a Vortex PST II 3-15 with the EBR-2c. I didn't shoot it much, but the illumination is now bleeding into the numbers beside the subtentions, which it is not designed to do. It is partially illuminating the numbers so it is just distracting and actually hurts legibility.

Don't know how Vortex works; if they can fix or replace. If they fix the street value unopened of a EBR-2c may be ~$550 now that it's discontinued (listed at that on eurooptic). If they replace with the current reticle PST-II I guess that'd be ~$1000.

So ~$800-1700 with both scopes.

It will probably make my life easier if my next scope is from one of these manufacturers, but after needing to return a scope to both I have no allegiance. I would also prefer to spend some of the funds on replacing my shit BCA. What would a wise person do in this position?

Options from SWFA: I originally asked for a 3-9, but why don't I hear people reccomending the 3-15 SS (not ultralight)? It's in stock now unlike all the others which is worth 2 in the Bush. And it is the same $699 as the 6-9. Plus, more mag. Is it not made by LOW? Is it too heavy? Why don't I hear about it as much?

Options from Vortex: the new PST II, or blow the whole budget on a Razor?

What about something from some other manufacturer?

Should I use half the value from both scopes on replacing the rifle?

Im getting tired of shooting ~3 times per scope before discovering a problem. I'm also kinda getting tired of hunting Grendel ammo and the heavy BCA barrel. In my fantasies I build a lightweight LR308 with a carbon fiber barrel. But I haven't finished grad school yet. And at least the rifle goes boom, so maybe spending more for scope reliability is the wisest thing. I'm starting to become a scope snob the hard way.

You're kind of all over the place here... I'll chime in on the SWFA, though. I have had their 1-4x, 3-9x in the past, and still have their 3-15x on my 18" 6.5 Grendel. It's a great optic for your purposes, and if that's all SWFA has in stock, then it's an easy recommendation from me.

 

[hlee]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but since this thread is more than 2 years old, the OP has likely made his choice by now.

You would think, but the op brought this back up from the crypt with post 103.

Op, you say you want an optic to pair with a RDS. Turn off the illumination on the vortex. It is highly unlikely that you need it. Boom. No more bleed into the numbers. On the very rare occasion that you might need it- shooting something dark in shadows (like a black bear or a pig to some such)- only turn it up enough that the reticle becomes visible. If you need a bright aiming spot in bright light, use the RDS.

That said, it doesn’t seem hat you are satisfied with either the rifle or the optics that you have chosen thus far. A budget rifle chambered in a difficult to source cartridge, topped with unsatisfactory optics. Stop throwing good money after bad. Finish grad school.

 

[fdkay]

You would think, but the op brought this back up from the crypt with post 103.

Op, you say you want an optic to pair with a RDS. Turn off the illumination on the vortex. It is highly unlikely that you need it. Boom. No more bleed into the numbers. On the very rare occasion that you might need it- shooting something dark in shadows (like a black bear or a pig to some such)- only turn it up enough that the reticle becomes visible. If you need a bright aiming spot in bright light, use the RDS.

That said, it doesn’t seem hat you are satisfied with either the rifle or the optics that you have chosen thus far. A budget rifle chambered in a difficult to source cartridge, topped with unsatisfactory optics. Stop throwing good money after bad. Finish grad school.

So he did. my apologies. Two years later and he still hasn't figured it out.
OP, decide on your price range and magnification requirements.
There is a difference in the SWFA 3-9 and 3-15. Mostly glass and coatings, the 3-9 boasts better glass and coatings. Both are dated designs, both lack illumination.
A good, FFP DMR scope for less than 1000 is the Trijicon Credo 2-10.
There are several Athlon scopes that meet your requirements, but the Trijicon is Japanese made.
To be honest, with something that maxes out at 10X, FFP is not required, in all actuality, the design of the reticle is of huge importance in an optic such as that,
There are also several 1-10 LPVO's that fit the DMR role to perfection.

 

[6.5G]

My apologies. I don't know the etiquette when it makes sense to start a new post or continue using an old.

It's true I haven't figured it out in the way no one has their life figured out, without growing and changing as they go. But I committed to one scope reccomended in this post, lived and learned, committed to a second, lived and learned, and now am opening myself up to get schooled more. The post served it's purpose and I executed; I just return to it when I learn more through experience. I kind of thought having it all aggregated longitudinally -my mistakes and experiences and other forum members' wisdom- could be useful to expediate other similarly novice readers working up the learning curve.

A big, sometimes untapped asset of this forum -and those for other disciples where you optimize a platform across multiple dimensions competing for your resources- is the holistic wisdom of knowing how to put different types of knowledge together and knowing what to prioritize.

A lot of the "what optic for $X with these specs" could be answered with Google and aren't really creating an opportunity for the tortchbearers in this community to transfer wisdom around the "why"s of doing things. I feel in the face of marketers who have more reach and persuasion, beating back the same questions about the exponentially bloating market segments we're talking about with shallow lists is not the most efficient way for experienced forum members to proselytize to acolytes.

 

[6.5G]

As it stands, my post is a longitudinal case study with lots of insights and intervention injected at common beginner points of confusion by more expert shooters. If you formatted it differently, this post could sound like the questions you're used to hearing from good interviewers gleaning hard-earned fuzzy and niche wisdom. That's a part of my doctoral work.

One question is "at a certain point, when does it make sense to invest more in your optic, versus your rifle or training, as you develop as a shooter?"

Another question is "is there an inflection point of value for dollar in this category of optics? Is it one that can be realized at most skill levels?"

And, "When guiding new shooters, I understand you have an uphill fight against marketers who convince novices to overvalue certain features over others and who use a good customer service reputation as a smokescreen for lower quality. If you could cut through that, what would you tell new shooters to focus on?"

Finally, "what would you say to a new shooter who wants to be at your level one day that is working with a limited budget?"

Just from the latest posts I would imagine an answer could be, "In a lot of crafts, it is not the tool but the craftsman. Sadly in this case, while a great shooter may be able to make a junk setup work some of the time, a new shooter will not likely make themselves a great shooter learning on a junk setup. I would advise people be in for a penny, in for a pound, and to realize having a certain feature set at a certain price segment can often be a mirage of the market. Manufacturers (and often reviewers) benefit from making you believe you can have something at a certain price point, and it can be hard to learn otherwise when millions of dollars are traded on this falsehood.

If you are limited in funds, go for a simpler category instead of cheaper in the same category. Under a certain limit, go for a proven bolt-action over a gas gun. Go for a fixed-power scope under $400, and give up on ideal illumination under $1000.

When it comes to firearms, sometimes upgrading is not a linear value trade for performance, no matter how much modularity is used as a selling point for your particular platform. Don't succumb to the sunk-cost fallacy. 'Buy once cry once' sounds elitist and turns people with fewer means off. But in my opinion, it is more cruel to people with fewer means to make them believe something is possible, take their money, and make them learn the hard way it is not. If you can't buy once, it's okay to sell your old and move up, versus being married to a rifle of Theseus.

Up to a $1500 budget between rifle and optic, I would say favor the optic over the rifle. You can grow into it, it is transferable, and upgrading optics more frequently is a bigger pain than moving up in rifles.

Think of your optic as your user interface, and the rifle as the hardware. For a parallel, it is easier to take advantage of the improved hardware right away when transitioning from a Samsung S9 to a Samsung S21, than the same to an iPhone 13.

Optics are how you use your main sense of information gathering, and it feels much more like a handicap to a new shooter to work a shot they are straining to see on target with a beautiful rifle, than it is to be able to watch and understand a rifle and it's shortcomings through a clear scope.

On paper, it is hard to evaluate the qualitative difference in slightly better glass. But get behind them, and the part of your brain evolved to be a visual hunter will tell you whether you are selling it short.

So forget the bells and whistles: the illumination, the tree reticles, heck even the zero-stops. Get humble and think like a guide outfitting a loaner rifle if you are on a limited budget. Terry Pratchett's Grimes' theory of boots ("I am too poor to afford cheap boots") applies to scopes. A renowned scope warranty won't help you on the side of a mountain to recoup the time and costs that got you there.

Over $1500 in the platform, and I would say tough it out with your scope limitations, say goodbye to your first-love rifle, and commit to learning what makes your next one better through the same scope.

If you are shooting in low light, or very long distances, upgrade the scope soon after. Otherwise, a good way to keep your priorities straight is to upgrade the glass when you reach the point that you are feeling eye strain due to long range sessions!"

That is my congealing and regurgitation of what I have learned here so far. If it passes your sniff test even a little bit, know that the wisdom came much cheaper and faster through asking questions that are annoying *because* they are not straight questions that can be googled, and through interpolation from there. But probably a lot of it is still wrong. Feel free to school me and correct me further, I'm into it and that's what I'm here for

 

[DubfromGA]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but since this thread is more than 2 years old, the OP has likely made his choice by now.

 

[6.5G]

Dub, what do you think of the small center dot on that VPR reticle so far?

 

[DubfromGA]

Dub, what do you think of the small center dot on that VPR reticle so far?

I will let you know this afternoon.

Going to the range. Will be sighting it in and running it out to 200yds.

Some trigger time is needed.

 

[koshkin]

Dub, what do you think of the small center dot on that VPR reticle so far?

The VPR reticle looks pretty promising and size-wise it should be fine. EP5 looks like a nice scope. I plan to test one in the not too distant future.
I've been keeping tabs on these and it seems like Arken has improved the QC compared to their earlier efforts to a reasonable degree, but we'll see how it all goes.

One interesting thing that comes up from a lot of people with the EP5 is that the eyebox is fairly tight, but they like the image quality.

ILya

 

[6.5G]

ILya,

SWFA 3-9 SS, SWFA 3-15 SS, or PST II 3-15?

 

[koshkin]

ILya,

SWFA 3-9 SS, SWFA 3-15 SS, or PST II 3-15?

For what application? PST Gen 2 is the better general purpose design of the three.

SS 3-9x is the better choice if you are weight conscious.

SS 3-15x42 if you need very close focus.

ILya

 

[FuhQ]

As it stands, my post is a longitudinal case study with lots of insights and intervention injected at common beginner points of confusion by more expert shooters. If you formatted it differently, this post could sound like the questions you're used to hearing from good interviewers gleaning hard-earned fuzzy and niche wisdom. That's a part of my doctoral work.

One question is "at a certain point, when does it make sense to invest more in your optic, versus your rifle or training, as you develop as a shooter?"

Another question is "is there an inflection point of value for dollar in this category of optics? Is it one that can be realized at most skill levels?"

And, "When guiding new shooters, I understand you have an uphill fight against marketers who convince novices to overvalue certain features over others and who use a good customer service reputation as a smokescreen for lower quality. If you could cut through that, what would you tell new shooters to focus on?"

Finally, "what would you say to a new shooter who wants to be at your level one day that is working with a limited budget?"

Just from the latest posts I would imagine an answer could be, "In a lot of crafts, it is not the tool but the craftsman. Sadly in this case, while a great shooter may be able to make a junk setup work some of the time, a new shooter will not likely make themselves a great shooter learning on a junk setup. I would advise people be in for a penny, in for a pound, and to realize having a certain feature set at a certain price segment can often be a mirage of the market. Manufacturers (and often reviewers) benefit from making you believe you can have something at a certain price point, and it can be hard to learn otherwise when millions of dollars are traded on this falsehood.

If you are limited in funds, go for a simpler category instead of cheaper in the same category. Under a certain limit, go for a proven bolt-action over a gas gun. Go for a fixed-power scope under $400, and give up on ideal illumination under $1000.

When it comes to firearms, sometimes upgrading is not a linear value trade for performance, no matter how much modularity is used as a selling point for your particular platform. Don't succumb to the sunk-cost fallacy. 'Buy once cry once' sounds elitist and turns people with fewer means off. But in my opinion, it is more cruel to people with fewer means to make them believe something is possible, take their money, and make them learn the hard way it is not. If you can't buy once, it's okay to sell your old and move up, versus being married to a rifle of Theseus.

Up to a $1500 budget between rifle and optic, I would say favor the optic over the rifle. You can grow into it, it is transferable, and upgrading optics more frequently is a bigger pain than moving up in rifles.

Think of your optic as your user interface, and the rifle as the hardware. For a parallel, it is easier to take advantage of the improved hardware right away when transitioning from a Samsung S9 to a Samsung S21, than the same to an iPhone 13.

Optics are how you use your main sense of information gathering, and it feels much more like a handicap to a new shooter to work a shot they are straining to see on target with a beautiful rifle, than it is to be able to watch and understand a rifle and it's shortcomings through a clear scope.

On paper, it is hard to evaluate the qualitative difference in slightly better glass. But get behind them, and the part of your brain evolved to be a visual hunter will tell you whether you are selling it short.

So forget the bells and whistles: the illumination, the tree reticles, heck even the zero-stops. Get humble and think like a guide outfitting a loaner rifle if you are on a limited budget. Terry Pratchett's Grimes' theory of boots ("I am too poor to afford cheap boots") applies to scopes. A renowned scope warranty won't help you on the side of a mountain to recoup the time and costs that got you there.

Over $1500 in the platform, and I would say tough it out with your scope limitations, say goodbye to your first-love rifle, and commit to learning what makes your next one better through the same scope.

If you are shooting in low light, or very long distances, upgrade the scope soon after. Otherwise, a good way to keep your priorities straight is to upgrade the glass when you reach the point that you are feeling eye strain due to long range sessions!"

That is my congealing and regurgitation of what I have learned here so far. If it passes your sniff test even a little bit, know that the wisdom came much cheaper and faster through asking questions that are annoying *because* they are not straight questions that can be googled, and through interpolation from there. But probably a lot of it is still wrong. Feel free to school me and correct me further, I'm into it and that's what I'm here for

I'm going to make this simple for you...

Get this one for your 6.5 Grendel AR with their 20MOA AR mount.

SH4 6-24X50 GEN2 FFP MIL VPR Illuminated Reticle with Zero Stop - 34mm Tube

7-9 Week Backorder Arken SH4 GENII: 6-24x50 Lifetime Warranty Precision Tracking Guaranteed HD Glass First Focal Plane (FFP) Zero Stop Specification: Magnification: 6-24 x Objective Diameter: 50 mm Eye Relief: 3.5 inches Field of View: 20.88-5.22 ft @100 Yards Tube Size: 34 mm Turret Adjustment:…

www.arkenopticsusa.com

Rigid Precision Mount 34mm - 20 MOA

Designed to Perform with Rugged Precision

www.arkenopticsusa.com

Get this one for your precision bolt-aciotn rifle...

EP5 5-25X56 FFP MIL VPR Reticle with Zero Stop - 34mm Tube

Designed to Perform with Rugged Precision

www.arkenopticsusa.com

Halo Scope Rings

Designed to Perform with Rugged Precision

www.arkenopticsusa.com

 

[FuhQ]

The VPR reticle looks pretty promising and size-wise it should be fine. EP5 looks like a nice scope. I plan to test one in the not too distant future.
I've been keeping tabs on these and it seems like Arken has improved the QC compared to their earlier efforts to a reasonable degree, but we'll see how it all goes.

One interesting thing that comes up from a lot of people with the EP5 is that the eyebox is fairly tight, but they like the image quality.

ILya

I really love the VPR reticle. I really like the open center dot design without anything touching the dot. It really helps to aid in precise shooting, IMO. That's kind of why I ended up with 4 Arkens, was all the features, plus the VPR reticle worked really well for me. Some might think it's "too busy", but I like it.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

However I would like to ring steel at 1k as my #1 use, do 3-gun, and press the rifle into a defensive role if needed.

Man, talk about stretching the capabilities of a rifle in every direction so it sucks at all of them.

 

[6.5G]

Man, talk about stretching the capabilities of a rifle in every direction so it sucks at all of them.

I'm fully aware aware and not the only one who intentionally desires to develop skill within those constraints rather than with specialized platforms.

Goodhart's Law applies to my interests. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Free-recoiling F Class, carrying 6 bags and a tripod for PRS, having a barely gassed carbine for 3 gun, a pistol with a thumb paddle in IDPA, all these are of no interest to my first-priciples developmental goals. I run my LCP II in IDPA BUG because I don't want to win, I want to get better at what I'd actually use in a Defensive Pistol scenario.

I won't yuck your yums or objectives for being a shooter. And you may arrive at the same competence a different way than I, and that's cool. But Ilya has his "if I can have one rifle" running thought exercise because statistically, it applies to far more people on the planet. Not that people who can afford to do otherwise are wrong. But those who cannot are not wrong either.

 

[gconnoyer]

Wait…. You carry an LCP?

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm fully aware aware and not the only one who would intentionally desires to develop skill within those constraints rather than with specialized platforms.

Goodhart's Law applies to my interests. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Free-recoiling F Class, carrying 6 bags and a tripod for PRS, having a barely gassed carbine for 3 gun, a pistol with a thumb paddle in IDPA, all these are of no interest to my first-priciples developmental goals. I run my LCP II in IDPA BUG because I don't want to win, I want to get better at what I'd actually use in a Defensive Pistol scenario.

I won't yuck your yums or objectives for being a shooter. And you may arrive at the same competence a different way than I, and that's cool. But Ilya has his "if I can have one rifle" running thought exercise because statistically, it applies to far more people on the planet. Not that people who can afford to do otherwise are wrong. But those who cannot are not wrong either.

In the same way that "I'm too poor to afford cheap boots" works, life's too short and my time too valuable to spend it pounding square pegs into round holes.

 

[6.5G]

Wait…. You carry an LCP?

Not the most permissive workplace. And I don't just carry it, I compete and end up in the middle of the pack otherwise full of G19s and CZ Shadows, 3D printed mag carriers and fishing vests at my local range. Works for me man. I won't judge or ask you to do things the way I do. But you're just trolling and are aware it is common practice to carry an LCP II in deep concealment situations. Carrying an LCP II every day in all types of clothes and practicing constantly helps me to be effectively armed more often than I would be if I were to carry a G19 sometimes.

 

[6.5G]

In the same way that "I'm too poor to afford cheap boots" works, life's too short and my time too valuable to spend it pounding square pegs into round holes.

You have more money to spend, I have more time to spend. That's why I'm not applying my rules to you

 

[TonyTheTiger]

You have more money to spend,

No. I tried the do-all rifle thing and it cost me money and caused frustration. Things went much smoother when every rifle was assembled with a specific purpose even if it took a long time and required lots of patience and bargain hunting.

 

[koshkin]

I'm fully aware aware and not the only one who intentionally desires to develop skill within those constraints rather than with specialized platforms.

Goodhart's Law applies to my interests. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Free-recoiling F Class, carrying 6 bags and a tripod for PRS, having a barely gassed carbine for 3 gun, a pistol with a thumb paddle in IDPA, all these are of no interest to my first-priciples developmental goals. I run my LCP II in IDPA BUG because I don't want to win, I want to get better at what I'd actually use in a Defensive Pistol scenario.

I won't yuck your yums or objectives for being a shooter. And you may arrive at the same competence a different way than I, and that's cool. But Ilya has his "if I can have one rifle" running thought exercise because statistically, it applies to far more people on the planet. Not that people who can afford to do otherwise are wrong. But those who cannot are not wrong either.

To be fair that's a hypothetical scenario. That having been said, when I experiment with such a scenario, I do put together the "do everything in a pinch" rifle and spend some time with it. For years now it has been the same gun choice, but I think this year it might actually change.

ILya

 

[6.5G]

Ah, what are you thinking of changing your do-all gun to?

 

[6.5G]

No. I tried the do-all rifle thing and it cost me money and caused frustration. Things went much smoother when every rifle was assembled with a specific purpose even if it took a long time and required lots of patience and bargain hunting.

Fair enough. If I was to learn from your experience to circumvent some of that frustration, what categories of specialization and what order would you recommend? What was were the limitations you underestimated when you first tried your do-all rifle? My initial stated goals quoted from a long time back (1k steel ringing etc) were already counseled to something more reasonable in the recorded process of this thread, but my idea of continuing to reply to the same post to include the whole lineage backfired. It would have been better if I summarized my current expectation and understanding in a new thread because there is a mix of people who read the first or last few posts and miss the substance of my need for support, which is my fault.

 

[6.5G]

And when I look back, the discussion changing my expectations started in this thread August 27 2020. I haven't been asking for the list recently quoted ("1k steel" etc) for 2 years. The latest understanding and expectation after already having this ("lol he wants to do it all") conversation and learning from it is below. I updated it *3* times in the course of this thread. I can take schooling. Sorry for assuming you read it. Next time I'll make a new post.

quoted

TL;DR: SHTF>Carbine Competition>HD, abandoned 1k and hunting. Not sure if I should spend more on the optic, a barrel and bolt, or on training with this year's budget now.

Thank you all,

I am overwhelmed by everyone’s continued dosing of tailored wisdom, and I will be absorbing and researching these newly given leads. In addition to gratitude, I also wanted to share some follow-up questions provoked by these insights sooner than later. I apologize that my long-winded tendency is only encouraged by the depth and value of insights I have been granted and the crossroads they put me at.

I am thankful at everyone’s persistence that my first-principles, understanding, and priorities take foreground above technical details. For those who asked and want to see this call for reconceptualization actualized, here it is. For those who have given me all they’d like (which has been a wealth), feel free to disembark with my gratitude. Here we go.

Is $550 sufficient for just the SHTF role? Is a BCA upper?

1. It really didn’t occur to me just how unsure or limited the lifespan of optics on gas guns could be.
2. SHTF economics are multilayered. Hearing #1 helps me understand that optics use value is even more nonlinear than I thought. In other words, the second $550 toward a $1100 optic may be more valuable than the first $550, if one weighs the likelihood of one’s life depending on the optic very seriously. Thus, perhaps the positively skewed and leptokurtic optic price distribution is not a representation of optimized value for this purpose, but may be more reflective of consumer pain points, ones that I myself have fallen into. I fully retract my hope that commodified serviceable optics have been realized.
3. This aids in informed priorities. It is disappointing but I have to accept that. My original objective was hoping that the Pareto Principle applied; that one could get 80% of the benefits from 20% of the inputs. In other words, just having a rifle that functions reliably and some way to aim it now is better than waiting a few years to graduate for the pursuits and learning I’ve envisioned.
4. I had originally soothed myself with the history of people who have survived worse or competed serviceably with equipment made by the lowest bidder. It is worth considering that though we may think our lives priceless, economic realities mean we all put a real dollar value on protecting our lives from the day-to-day or the worst imaginable in many ways, whether it is investing in heath, insurance, safety equipment, or emergency gear like this.
5. I use a risk-matrix to allocate attention and funds in these circumstances, and I had put SHTF in the unlikely or rare, and critical or catastrophic categories of a standard DoD/ISO matrix. This suggests medium preparedness, which I have been using to moderate my attention and fund allocation. But given #2, perhaps there isn’t as much of a “medium” optic in terms of reliability, or rifle in terms of accuracy. This might help me reconsider and sacrifice in other areas, as I had previously to get from $250 to $550.
6. I appreciate those who did not dismiss out of hand that a person deserved to be somewhat equipped at such low dollar amounts. I don’t know how much time it might take me to make the next exponential gain in optics funds, but I will work in that direction while likely using something lesser with a more thorough understanding of the compromise.
7. No element of my platform is quite up to muster. Would anyone advise investing elsewhere than the optic in addition to training, knowing that I have a BCA upper? In other words, was my original gambit to get the cheapest ticket to entry into practice and instruction better than sacrificing this time to wait for Gucci gear, or am I inhibiting my opportunities to learn by using crap?

Sharpening priorities a third time as requested, benefiting from continual advice

1. 1k: I think I should give up on 1k until funds allow a dedicated platform. Stories like LRRPF52 and others’ of surprising themselves at 1k with compromised platforms and general 6.5 Grendel lore lead me to believe it was possible. I now understand the surprise to mean that it isn’t reliably possible, nor optimal.
2. HD: Thank you to multiple folks for the recommendations and the conditional encouragement that this rifle/optic platform will serve when pressed into the HD role, given compensatory practice. As alluded to when referring to practicing with light bounce, I do “clear” my house with the rifle at night at least once a week, putting blue painter’s tape here and there for novel targets. I find that breaking into high-port around tight quarters almost makes up for the rifle’s OAL for my purposes. This has been part of my larger hope that work ethic in practice/competition and instruction could compensate for fewer resources. This belief and strategy, always accurate or not, is the main ethos underpinning my trajectory from youth in rural poverty in a crumbling house with disabled and complacent parents to near completion of my PhD hundreds of miles away. It is still the only move I have for now, aside from often over-effortful information gathering. I don’t say this to toot my horn, but to conclusively validate the appraisals that I have erred in trying to make too much out of too little, and in being too academic. I will remember the more demanding and pragmatic equipment specifications I have been taught when this is no longer the case.
3. Practical Carbine Competition: The thing about competition is the entry fees and lower round counts make a competition almost cheaper than the equivalent time at a flat range. That $/learning value proposition is what has driven me to compete. I am torn about whether more time (so my skills are to muster for HD and SHTF) is of greater utility, or whether I should budget for better gear and forgo training/practice. I moulded kydex and sewed myself esstac kywi knockoffs that function well enough for the stakes in gun games, as another indicator of my commitment and belief that it is better to be earlier to practice with something “good enough.” But I am wondering if I have it wrong.
4. SHTF: Mostly captured above. I do #3 because it is one rewarding distraction from the dissertation and because of SHTF/HD. I am certified to use a tourniquet/pressure dressing and am an ultralight backpacker in pursuit of broader self-reliance. If other training is recommended to this end I can cut budget elsewhere.
5. Hunting: As mentioned, it is an invitation for one trip that I can turn down if I am wrong about snagging this utility while satisfying the primary foci.

Circumstances
Since folks here have pushed for a holistic approach of prioritizing training and equipment, I will present the options more exhaustively.

1. My current gear is the BCA grendel with a Burris Fastfire II offset red dot and an SWFA SS 10x in a MIUSA 20 MOA 1 piece mount https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019614720 . I have the gear for competition, a 20 gauge shotgun, 2 g26 Polymer80 lowers and a LCP II. I already traded my 12 gauge to get the BCA upper; I can get rid of other things as needed.
2. The DMR class costs $695. I have everything but the variable optic and the bipod in the gear list http://thesitetraining.com/designated-marksman-rifle
3. Each competition costs $30 and eats ~100 rounds. I already have 1500 rounds. There are 4 more competitions this season.
4. A club near me with a 600 yard range has a student membership for $60. This would take me past my 300 yd comfort zone and I can teach myself as far as possible instead of taking a class if need be.
5. I sacrifice in every other budget category to the maximum. I cut my own hair and primarily eat rice and ramen and vegetables grown with my automated hydroponics system which uses a dishwasher pump I salvaged from a dumpster. I rebuilt a totaled car bought for $400 from an insurance auction for my daily driver and fixed my 6 year old laptop by following NASA’s field guide for soldering MLCCs with a $12 iron and a toaster oven. I built a pseudo-PAPR with grey-market medical parts for my mother with respiratory and immune issues to use during this pandemic. Like I said, I sewed my own kywis and traded my 12 gauge. I swear I am not obsessed with the compensatory value of work-ethic and autodidactism with no proof-of-concept, as annoying as my persistence has been, but I will retool this aim however you advise. There is only so far this can take you, and it always takes me a second to accept when I hit a wall.
6. I have $1350 more to spend this year. The above is $875, and I expect to get $250 back for my SS 10x, thus the $550 total for a variable optic and a 9.6% budget buffer or for a bipod + buffer. If I sell the offset red-dot and mount ($170) and put it all in a LPVO, that’s $720.
7. Any economic ingenuity or compromise outside the shooting sphere is untouchable for these purposes. My uncharacteristic savings rate for my fellowship funding and a widow for this hobby only comes from this self-discipline. I’ve planned these purchases/this budget since the beginning of the year.

Options

1. I fuck off from shooting and pestering others for knowledge for now until I earn more. I am genuinely fine with this if it is what folks advise.
2. Cut out training for better optic/rifle (barrel and bolt combo).
3. Mid optics ($720 LPVO, $550 mid-variable + red dot) and above training.
4. Shit optics (SWFA SS + red dot) and more training or better rifle.
5. Sell 20 gauge and/or G26 lowers and more training and/or a better optic or rifle.

Who knows. You all have been very generous for stooping to address my narrow circumstance and overly broad ideas. If you’ve read this far I am even more in your debt. Whatever the case, I think I have enough information to reflect on for a while.

 

[koshkin]

Ah, what are you thinking of changing your do-all gun to?

I usually do this discussion toward the end of the year. Check with me at that point. Last year it was in November, so I am thinking around the same time.

ILya

 

[6.5G]

Since that quoted definition of priorities, I took advice from an USSOF acquaintance, Jim Keuber via email, and Ilya on his locals membership site, and went with a PST II 3-15. I've done less shooting than previous intervals between scopes, but this one has illumination issues. From the latest advice I have decided to be grateful for whatever illumination function one can get under $1k, as now I understand this is a luxury/unrealistic at said price point.

There, I think everything is summarized and up to date. I will post a picture of what the illumination looks like if I can figure out how to photograph it but as of now I think I will keep practicing with the PST II.

Either way, I have to get something from SWFA for the broken 10x SS I sent in. I asked for a 3-9 SS with me paying the difference which they say would be available in October but they've been giving and blowing deadlines for a year. Don't blame them with all that is going on. But should I ask for a 3-15 SS instead because they have them on hand or just wait for the 3-9 SS?

 

[TonyTheTiger]

If I was to learn from your experience to circumvent some of that frustration, what categories of specialization and what order would you recommend? What was were the limitations you underestimated when you first tried your do-all rifle?

First, separate wants from needs, prioritize from there. No HD gun at all and a rifle fits the bill? I'd start there and I wouldn't dilute the keep it simple mantra of HD guns with things like magnification, weight, extra length, bipods, brakes, non mil-spec components etc.
If you really take having an HD gun seriously, do you really want to deviate from the tried and true recipe?
After that, what do you have the most fun doing? You mentioned 1k yard steel. That requires a reasonable amount of magnification. Barrel length/velocity helps, light triggers help, weight helps, adjustable stocks help, and of course more ballistic horsepower helps.

You also mentioned 3 gun. LPVO's are the standard for good reason. Lighter weight helps (not featherweight), muzzle brakes help tremendously, fast triggers help. Nobody is seriously using anything besides 223/5.56, more energy is unnecessary, more recoil is unwanted, smaller mag capacity is unwanted and most importantly increased cost per round is a deal killer. Could you imagine walking up to a stage requiring 40 rounds on paper inside 60 yards and shooting it all with $1.50 a round 6.5 Grendel ammo?

Could you shoot an intruder in the dark at 6 six feet, a 1k yard plate and a 200 round mostly close range match with an 11lb, 18" 6.5 Grendel with an MPVO, an offset RDS and 15 round mags? I guess, but it seems foolish to set out with those uses as a goal for one single rifle.

Also, be realistic with your expectations at 1k even with a 6.5G. I've got one and it's not a magic easy button for long range. Any target you missed with a 223 there's a 90% chance you'll still miss it with a Grendel.
All the above said, I really enjoy pushing the limits of short guns and 5.56 at range, trying to shoot big or powerful guns up close and fast, all sorts of silly things. But having purpose built guns really shows the contrast between building a gun around a mission and shoehorning one into a space it doesn't belong in.

 

[FuhQ]

Since that quoted definition of priorities, I took advice from an USSOF acquaintance, Jim Keuber via email, and Ilya on his locals membership site, and went with a PST II 3-15. I've done less shooting than previous intervals between scopes, but this one has illumination issues. From the latest advice I have decided to be grateful for whatever illumination function one can get under $1k, as now I understand this is a luxury/unrealistic at said price point.

There, I think everything is summarized and up to date. I will post a picture of what the illumination looks like if I can figure out how to photograph it but as of now I think I will keep practicing with the PST II.

Either way, I have to get something from SWFA for the broken 10x SS I sent in. I asked for a 3-9 SS with me paying the difference which they say would be available in October but they've been giving and blowing deadlines for a year. Don't blame them with all that is going on. But should I ask for a 3-15 SS instead because they have them on hand or just wait for the 3-9 SS?

Why not just get the 3-15x42 MilQuad they have available now?

 

[koshkin]

Since that quoted definition of priorities, I took advice from an USSOF acquaintance, Jim Keuber via email, and Ilya on his locals membership site, and went with a PST II 3-15. I've done less shooting than previous intervals between scopes, but this one has illumination issues. From the latest advice I have decided to be grateful for whatever illumination function one can get under $1k, as now I understand this is a luxury/unrealistic at said price point.

There, I think everything is summarized and up to date. I will post a picture of what the illumination looks like if I can figure out how to photograph it but as of now I think I will keep practicing with the PST II.

Either way, I have to get something from SWFA for the broken 10x SS I sent in. I asked for a 3-9 SS with me paying the difference which they say would be available in October but they've been giving and blowing deadlines for a year. Don't blame them with all that is going on. But should I ask for a 3-15 SS instead because they have them on hand or just wait for the 3-9 SS?

I do not like waiting for stuff. I'd just get the 3-15x.

ILya