Rifle Scopes CQB Optic?

[Plasmech]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charlie_Foxtrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eotech makes great stuff, holo sights are the future. </div></div>

The no parallax is nice.

 

[M1S90]

Re: CQB Optic?

Trijicon Reflex

 

[philodox]

Re: CQB Optic?

I use a Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T. Other guys on my team use the Eotech. I love the leupy. Variable 1-3 power. While on 1 power it's a reflex sight just like the Eotech and you can zoom up to 3 power to hit those 300yard head shots with ease.


Oh, did I forget to mention that you can use the reticle on the Mark 4 CQ/T even though the battery is dead, even at night? Try that on an eotech.... Eotech is top notch, don't get me wrong. But I feel the Leupy M4 CQ/T is far superior.

 

[Scottmilk9]

Re: CQB Optic?

+1 for the leupold CQT, I have had one for 8 years, i've tried everything and keep coming back to the CQT.

I'm not LEO, I am a competition shooter so the CQT works great for me, plus the cheek height looks really high, but its right on for me.

 

[gruntbull]

Re: CQB Optic?

Eo or Aimpoint wont let you down. I dont care for the magnification frills and all that other crap that will just make your rifle heavy and give it a personality complex. Is it a short range shooter or a long range plinker if A SHORT range variant, go with eo or aimpoint. (since both have a battery, get a nice BUIS also) I like one that folds down, but is up in a flash.

 

[MW81556]

Re: CQB Optic?

I have had EO's and aimpoints and I have had no trouble out of either.My only dislike with the Eotech is the reticle can seem a little fuzzy and when it is turned off you can still see a very dim red dot, not noticable unless your looking for it, I figure thats why they have poor battery life.

 

[EddieNFL]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Metalhead0483</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hesitate to rely on any optics that rely totally on batteries unless you're got back up irons in place already... </div></div>

Trijicon Reflex. No batteries.

 

[scotharr]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Metalhead0483</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hesitate to rely on any optics that rely totally on batteries unless you're got back up irons in place already... </div></div>

Trijicon Reflex. No batteries. </div></div>

Trijicon Reflex = washout with the flashlight

 

[*Nine]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MJW556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have had EO's and aimpoints and I have had no trouble out of either.My only dislike with the Eotech is the reticle can seem a little fuzzy and when it is turned off you can still see a very dim red dot, not noticable unless your looking for it, I figure thats why they have poor battery life. </div></div>

That's not normal. I know that a few years ago EOTechs had all sorts of issues, and many of them were fixed when the Revision F models were released. I still hear about problems with battery life though. I'd contact EOTech about a specific unit if you can see anything when it's off. My old EOTech never had anything visible when off. The reason that the battery life is poor compared to an Aimpoint is just that the diode they use to project the hologram needs a lot more power than the one that Aimpoint can use to just project a small dot.

 

[Falar]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hunter223</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd prolly go with the leuppy cqt 1-3x </div></div>

That's what I'm using now, but plan on "trading up" to a USO 1-4 soon.

I still like the CQT over the options in the poll. It doesn't totally rely on batteries like aimpoints/eotechs and still has 3x to make those longer shots a little easier. The size of the dot is not ideal for shooting small groups on paper, but it is a CQB optic after all and the larger dot makes sense for that role.

 

[BillCominos]

Re: CQB Optic?

I run the IOR M2 with the Druganov reticle as my primary optic with my Aimpoint attached to the side rail....QD rings makes the swap a snap! The Aimpoint perfectly cowittnesses with my BUIS as well! Would like to try out an Eotech though.....

 

[Equlizer_3rd]

Re: CQB Optic?

Other: Burris XTS 135 Red dot
I use one on my Ar 15 Stag. But if you got the money get Aimpoint way better in my mind.

 

[dustinlotz]

Re: CQB Optic?

ACOG with the Doctor sight on top, seen here:

 

[popndrop]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jicko</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aimpoint Micro T1 (w/ Larue mount)..... light, and effectively.... probably the fastest of all.... and light (oh, i need to say it again)!! </div></div>

+1

 

[angelone]

Re: CQB Optic?

you are not alone,I like Aimpoints too,hard to beat this red dot,100% waterproof ( EOTech not )
red dot is clear and bright in sunlight ( EOTech wash out )
new M4 have 9 year M3 50.000h battery life ( EOTech 9 days )

 

[SoundFx]

Re: CQB Optic?

I'm hoping that the new 1-4x Trijicon Accu-Points will be the bee's knees when it comes to this. Only thing I'm worried about is the eye relief aspect. From what I understand (and please correct me if you know otherwise), even though it's supposedly a true 1x at its lowest magnification it doesn't have the "red dot" style infinite eye relief. Once you dial up the magnification, I certainly expect it to become like a normal scope with all of the typical qualities. But, at 1x, I really want that infinite eye relief. If it did, at least in my very limited experience, it would be pretty hard to beat. Got one on order, hope it works out!

 

[angelone]

Re: CQB Optic?

fine combo,but you have to change head position for use the red dot

 

[angelone]

Re: CQB Optic?

I dont know the Trijicon,but the NXS 1-4x24 is a true 1x with both eyes open and big FOV,then turn magnification up you get a real scope,USN Seals use it for CQB to midrange sniping

 

[Erron]

Re: CQB Optic?

i have been through 3 aimpoints this deployment the dot keeps freezing. on the other hand they have been through 2 deployments now.

 

[angelone]

Re: CQB Optic?

M versions or commercials?

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: angelone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are not alone,I like Aimpoints too,hard to beat this red dot,100% waterproof ( EOTech not )
red dot is clear and bright in sunlight ( EOTech wash out )
new M4 have 9 year M3 50.000h battery life ( EOTech 9 days )
</div></div>

I have Aimpoint and EOTechs. Love them both. Your info on the washout and battery life are way off. The reticle on the EOTEchs are a hell of a lot brighter than the Aimpoints. The battery lasts more than 9 days on the EOTechs. For one, you can't even run the EOtech for more than 8 hours due to the auto-shut off. Maybe the EOTech you have is messed up.

 

[angelone]

Re: CQB Optic?

my EOTech was a 553 SOCOM model,I have used it on a 3-gun match,and it was a hot sunny day,and the targets where white,so my SOCOM 553 washes out!
I cant see it with my eyes!
My buddy use the Micro T1 and the red dot was clear and bright,even in sunlight.

I well know the auto shut off from EOTech,but for a soldier in the field,or a officer in the street is the battery life more important then for the match shooter.
With EOTech on the battlefield you must always keep in mind is it on or off?
with Aimpoint you dont,turn on and dont think on it more,next year you can turn off!

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: CQB Optic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: angelone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my EOTech was a 553 SOCOM model,I have used it on a 3-gun match,and it was a hot sunny day,and the targets where white,so my SOCOM 553 washes out!
I cant see it with my eyes!
My buddy use the Micro T1 and the red dot was clear and bright,even in sunlight.

I well know the auto shut off from EOTech,but for a soldier in the field,or a officer in the street is the battery life more important then for the match shooter.
With EOTech on the battlefield you must always keep in mind is it on or off?
with Aimpoint you dont,turn on and dont think on it more,next year you can turn off! </div></div>

I've used the 512, 516, 551, M2, M3, and M4s. I currently have the M4s and we have the 512s at work. When you turn on the EOTech, the default setting is 12, which is as bright as the Aimpoint on the highest setting. The EOTech goes up much higher. Again, I'm not doubting you, I just think you had a bad EOTech.

I never heard of anyone having issues with the auto shut-off. For the EOTech it is a must because of the short battery life.

 

[Genin]

Re: CQB Optic?

I said other because I own a walther red dot sight and it has been wonderfully reliable and seems pretty ruggedly built.

 

[DAFAR]

Re: CQB Optic?

You know I love my Aimpoint( I have two) But since I am right handed but left eye dominant I tend to shut one eye almost reflexively when shooting. Because of this the trijicons do me no good. However I have been playing with an illuminated sn 4s from us optics and it is figgin awsome. I choked when I first saw the price but when you figure what a trijicon costs, or the price of a decent optics an aimpoint and associated mounting systems would cost the uso is pretty comparible

 

[Vindex]

Re: CQB Optic?

CQB Optic for work within 75 meters?

At the risk of overanalyzing the hell out of the issue, I'll stray a bit. Keep in mind this is my personal opinion.

The choice of any optic really depends on the rifle itself. If your working rifle has a limit of 75 meters, you are likely dealing with a short barreled (under 14") rifle that is pushing maybe 3 or more MOA at 100 yards. Aimpoint or Docter seem to shine in close quarters, where the size of the dot does not obscure the target at longer distances.

What I learned way back in my basic days in 1977 was that the maximux effective range of a M-16 with a 16" barrel was 450 meters. That is really about the maximus effective range of the military 5.56 round in those days, using iron sights. While I did score hits on the 450 meter pop up, I do recall it was a bitch, and would not want to bet my life on such a shot. For most people, 250 to 300 meters is probably more the max. My concern about the dot and hollow sights at ranges of 100 meters and beyond is their siae relative to the target at those ranges - it covers the target. That makes an accurate shot at those ranges problematic (probably better off with irons).

I just went through this drill with a new rifle. An AR with a 16" barrel in 6.8 SPC. The 6.8 offers more range than the 5.56, and the maximum effective range for the 6.8 is somewhere in the 600 meter range. It wound be nice to have an optic that could cover you up to your rifle's MER. Using the old rule of thumb of 1X for every 100 meters, a 6X scope would be a nice to have.

But what about the close shots? A fixed power 6X scope would be tough to view those close targets. Instead of a point ubscuring the target, you'd have a sight full of the target. So to get the most out of one mounted optic, you'd want a variable power scope.

1X would be ideal at the low end, but there are not a lot fo choices in 1-6 variables. There are, however, some choices in the 1.5-6 range. With just a little practice, you can still go both eyes open with the low setting.

Looking at the different options, I went with a USO SN-4, with the 34mm tube option. Tons of light, more than enough travel for both long and shorter ranges, large sight picture, and the lighted JNG reticle.

If I were going through the same drill with a 5.56 with a 16" barrel, I'd probably settle on the 1-4 power SN-4.

My personal view is that the performance of the rifle ought not be limited by the optic you choose. Even if the majority of your work is going to be within 50 meters, there WILL come a time when you will want to hit targets within your rifle's capabilities.

 

[jwfrazier]

Re: CQB Optic?

Vulcan I think you are right on. I have had an aimpoint on my HK91 for a long time now, and it just sits on the shelf. I think if I had a more versatile optic, I might shoot it more often.

 

[338LM]

Re: CQB Optic?

I prefer the NF 1-4X over all other CQB optics. I have both the FC-2 and the NP-1. The FC-2 is great for getting on something as quickly as possible close in. The NP-1 is better for doing a little more precision shooting a few hundred yards out (not as quick close-up).