Rifle Scopes Red dots on LPVOs? Explain

[LRSHOOTER0311]

So I have a question, I see alot of people running red dots on the scope rings of LPVOs, 45 deg offsets in conjunction with LPVOs, etc. In my dealings with most, they are either running an LPVO, red dot or Holographic sighting system. But I've seen this trend where some are running two of them at the same time, such as mounting an RMR or equivalent on the scope rings or offset. I get the need for backup sighting such as offset, flip up or fixed irons. But I need some help understanding why people are running red dots with LPVOs. I thought the allure to LPVOs was that you could get a 1x optic with an illuminated center dot that acts as a red dot.

Can someone elaborate on what I'm missing? Or is this an expensive way to get a heads up/high/1.93"/ etc. on top of their primary optic? Then why not just run the LPVO in a higher mount?

 

[aslrookie]

Passive aiming option under NV

 

[Lug Nut]

So I have a question, I see alot of people running red dots on the scope rings of LPVOs, 45 deg offsets in conjunction with LPVOs, etc. In my dealings with most, they are either running an LPVO, red dot or Holographic sighting system. But I've seen this trend where some are running two of them at the same time, such as mounting an RMR or equivalent on the scope rings or offset. I get the need for backup sighting such as offset, flip up or fixed irons. But I need some help understanding why people are running red dots with LPVOs. I thought the allure to LPVOs was that you could get a 1x optic with an illuminated center dot that acts as a red dot.

Can someone elaborate on what I'm missing? Or is this an expensive way to get a heads up/high/1.93"/ etc. on top of their primary optic? Then why not just run the LPVO in a higher mount?

Some folks are speed shooting and don’t want to dial the LPVO to 1X for the close up stuff. Think 3 gun competition or otherwise.

Some like it for back up.



But not my cup of tea. Just the LPVO is good enough.

 

[koshkin]

I mostly use offset sights (some times red dots and sometimes irons) to have a supplementary sighting system that I can use without having to remove the scope. However, since some of my guns have prism sights and some have LPVOs, I try to set them up so that a lot of the gun handling is the same. Better muscle memory that way.

ILya

 

[beetroot]

I too have never understood the set up, if you are going to have a red dot sight for fast/close shooting why not go with a 2-10 or 3-9 etc as the primary optic.

It seems like the red dot being there is an admission that your LVPO isn't as quick as the red dot;
therefor it doesn't make sense to use the LVPO on 1x when the red dot is faster;
therefor why bother having a LVPO in the first place, when you could have more magnification.

It's been a thing for a long time now even back when most LVPOs were just 1-4, which is even more confusing too me why a higher magnification scope wasn't used.

I've never shot 3 gun or similar events, so I'm speaking from a purely theoretical point of view.

 

[LawnMM]

The LVPO isn't slower, people just don't put the time in. It has it's short comings but speed isn't one of them, at least in a practical sense.

 

[PBWalsh]

2-10, 3-9, etc. optics are usually heavier than a regular LPVO or may not fit well on a rifle. I am currently planning on using an SWFA 1-6 with an offset RMR. Why? Because I enjoy the turrets of the SWFA but remember the 1x was not super fast. So for a compromise, I can throw an RMR on there and have a solid LPVO that I can dial with as well as a RDS.

Of course, as fast as the industry moves, this plan could change next week.

Ideally, I’d take a 2.5-10x32, mil/mil, FFP, <18oz. optic with an offset RMR. But nobody makes that.

 

[Matches Malone]

Some points were already made, so I won’t echo them.

However to the point of close up, be it competition or tactical shooting ie, CQB/fighting in structures etc *field of view* plays a role. Simply setting a LPVO at 1x, you still end up with tunneled vision even with two eyes open. Be it shooting at multiple paper/steel targets or larping in your house looking for zombies, it’s easier to transition target to target with more field of view. This is because we aren’t hunting for the target in the optic, right? We are seeing the threat or target with our eye, looking at it, then driving the weapon.

 

[Anb618]

Ideally, I’d take a 2.5-10x32, mil/mil, FFP, <18oz. optic with an offset RMR. But nobody makes that.

Find a used PST Gen I 2.5-10x32. Damn close at only 7oz over your weight requirements.

 

[PBWalsh]

True, but I’d like a more reliable ZS and glass quality. Think NF NXS 2.5–10x32 but in FFP.

 

[LRSHOOTER0311]

Passive aiming option under NV

I could see this.

 

[LRSHOOTER0311]

Some folks are speed shooting and don’t want to dial the LPVO to 1X for the close up stuff. Think 3 gun competition or otherwise.

Some like it for back up.



But not my cup of tea. Just the LPVO is good enough.

So essentially they have one optic at 1x and the other at 4 or 6x. I guess that could make some sense sortof like the Leupold D-EVO system.

 

[LRSHOOTER0311]

The LVPO isn't slower, people just don't put the time in. It has it's short comings but speed isn't one of them, at least in a practical sense.

My thoughts exactly. But I want to make sure I wasn't missing something.

 

[LRSHOOTER0311]

Some points were already made, so I won’t echo them.

However to the point of close up, be it competition or tactical shooting ie, CQB/fighting in structures etc *field of view* plays a role. Simply setting a LPVO at 1x, you still end up with tunneled vision even with two eyes open. Be it shooting at multiple paper/steel targets or larping in your house looking for zombies, it’s easier to transition target to target with more field of view. This is because we aren’t hunting for the target in the optic, right? We are seeing the threat or target with our eye, looking at it, then driving the weapon.

Seems like a solid point to me.

 

[beetroot]

Some points were already made, so I won’t echo them.

However to the point of close up, be it competition or tactical shooting ie, CQB/fighting in structures etc *field of view* plays a role. Simply setting a LPVO at 1x, you still end up with tunneled vision even with two eyes open. Be it shooting at multiple paper/steel targets or larping in your house looking for zombies, it’s easier to transition target to target with more field of view. This is because we aren’t hunting for the target in the optic, right? We are seeing the threat or target with our eye, looking at it, then driving the weapon.

Still begs the question why bother with an LVPO then, when you could have a higher magnification scope?
Somewhat less of point now 6-10x LVPOs exist, but is still seems strange to me.

 

[Blackhalo]

Still begs the question why bother with an LVPO then, when you could have a higher magnification scope?
Somewhat less of point now 6-10x LVPOs exist, but is still seems strange to me.

It's a valid question. I'm going to try running an Offset RMR(Had a G17 laying around with one that I don't use) w/ the 1-10 Razor I just got.

But honestly, with the Holosun proving to be good options for an rmr footprint optic it's not much more money to run them offset then it is a good set of offset irons.

 

[LawnMM]

This is because we aren’t hunting for the target in the optic, right? We are seeing the threat or target with our eye, looking at it, then driving the weapon.

You're doing that regardless. Doesn't matter if it's an aimpoint, eotech, or lvpo...

What you described, looking at the target, then driving the rifle to meet what you're looking at is exactly why it doesn't make an lvpo any slower.

 

[Matches Malone]

You're doing that regardless. Doesn't matter if it's an aimpoint, eotech, or lvpo...

What you described, looking at the target, then driving the rifle to meet what you're looking at is exactly why it doesn't make an lvpo any slower.

No.
What I described is how to be fast, and practical. That’s not what people do. Amateurs get lost in their optics all the time.

You see less, there’s tunneling with a LVPO and more field of view with a dot optic.

Weak side use of a lvpo feels weird for anyone, there’s an eye relief issue. If anyone one of these issues happen up close, then it’s slower.
Can it be trained out? Sure. I guess. It’s more simple with a dot.

 

[LawnMM]

What red dot are you using where the bad guys are standing so close you can see them all within the view of the RDS but not an LVPO?

If there's downside to LVPO it's that it clutters up more of your view OUTSIDE the optic than a small RDS.

Unless all the evil doers huddle together for a hug your eyes are coming off the optic regardless to look at the next target in sequence as you start moving the rifle. At which point, what's it matter?

This whole ones faster than the other argument is ridic.

 

[Matches Malone]

Still begs the question why bother with an LVPO then, when you could have a higher magnification scope?
Somewhat less of point now 6-10x LVPOs exist, but is still seems strange to me.

If we are looking at doctrine, a battlefield that involves being out in open terrain and moving to and in structures, an lvpo can for sure be a good piece of kit. It has that flexibility. I’d rather have a lvpo then a magnifier with exception to a eotech with specific reticles. If mostly being used within 50y and at best being used with 300, with no need for a DMR, then I don’t see how it’s the more useful optic in that particular scenario.

However to stay on topic the OP asked about like and rmr mounted at a 45 degree. Im not comparing dots specifically vs lvpo, I have been comparing it to a 45 degree offset. Trex has some pretty good examples. I link it here:

 

[RHINOWSO]

A piggyback RDS also helps picking up distant targets when prone instead of hunting for it through the soda straw, regardless if you have a LPVO or higher magnification range scope.

 

[Matches Malone]

What red dot are you using where the bad guys are standing so close you can see them all within the view of the RDS but not an LVPO?

If there's downside to LVPO it's that it clutters up more of your view OUTSIDE the optic than a small RDS.

Unless all the evil doers huddle together for a hug your eyes are coming off the optic regardless to look at the next target in sequence as you start moving the rifle. At which point, what's it matter?

This whole ones faster than the other argument is ridic.

Your question sounds is borderline ignorant. I only talk from a practical stand point. LVPO’s have their place but, some tools are better then others.

Life isn’t the flat range where camel jockeys are standing all around you with AK’s and you get to shoot them with a little timer on your belt. What happens is when you enter a threshold, or during an approach to an objective, etc and the gun fighting starts, people start moving around. Like playing sports, you need to see, and react to the play. Generally it’s the small details that mess you up, you need to see where you’re walking, and you need to see who’s maneuvering on you and so forth. Try doing that with you’re eye in a scope.

 

[LawnMM]

Okayyyyy... so it's not transition speed that makes them slow, it's general awareness of ones surroundings that makes them slow. Got it.

I'm sure approaching an objective in durkastan, losing the element of surprise, and needing to look around for bad guys maneuvering on you is what everybody means when they say an LVPO is slower than an RDS.

Now I understand! Keep moving the goal post, eventually you'll touch on something that makes sense. Won't have anything to do with the context of this conversation but by God you'll have done it!

Nobody's talking about approaching enemy encampments but you. Pretty sure the comment is made in regards to transition speed. Tried it both ways, I don't see a difference.

Looking around outside your optic, not tripping on anything where you're walking, tactical awareness, it sounds familiar... kinda like:

If there's downside to LVPO it's that it clutters up more of your view OUTSIDE the optic than a small RDS.

 

[LawnMM]

@LRSHOOTER0311 I think some are doing it as a backup, some use it as a secondary sighting system.

You'll occasionally see guys using it on bolt guns as a way of transitioning between targets without having to power the optic magnification down to hunt for the target.

I happen to agree with you, a set of irons is all the backup I'm after. There's probably a lot of 'it looks cool' being mixed in as well.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Its a Carryover from the old days when we didn't have any solid LPV's with the exception of the shortdot, and not everyone was willing to drop $2500 back in 2004 for an 1-4. So your standard 3-10 , 2-8, ect scopes would get a red dot (usualy dr optic) for fast and close in work when need in case you find yourself somewhere you don't want to be. No one is doing planned CQB with a Mk11 or MK12 .

Putting a red dot on a LPV is less that pointless today. someone probably saw someone do it and copied that, and others copied that. The only reason I could imagine is having one setup for NV, but 99% of people are aiming with IR lasers anyway.

 

[TheTick]

Wow... this conversation is in the weeds.

I first started seeing off-set or piggy-backed RDS with fixed or non-1x low end magnification optics back in the day. Guys I know started doing it when they realized that their brain was getting ripped in half trying to make an entry with anything other than 1x (even 1.1x can screw with you when you pull up your sights and it slows down your OODA). Maybe some of you here can do it, but I certainly can't and it eventually gave me a monster headache. An advantage of the piggy-back was it was easier to get behind when prone or wearing a full mask respirator after launching gas, but then visible lasers and IR became readily available. I'd never put an LVPO that didn't start at 1x on a gun I would ever consider to make entries with.

As far as searching a building and looking through any sight, let alone a LVPO: why are you looking through your sights while searching? Head (eyes), body, gun is the order it goes and *** personally *** I don't come up onto sights and take the safety off unless I'm about to make it happen. Secondly, you'd be insane to make room entries dialed up on your LVPO. Now if you're scanning with your LVPO, then you likely are dialed up and picking shots at distance, but your certainly not inside the room with the guy you'retrying to shoot. Dialing up is a great way to target ID and be accurate with your shots, obviously. Once upon a time someone I know put up a really, really good group at about 100 yards... just wish a LVPO was in use so maybe that group never got fired in the first place.

Anywhoodle, I *** again personally *** believe the RDS coupled with the LVPO is because it's kinda hard to have BUIS (unless offset) with a LVPO and the RDS becomes the "BUIS" (you know what I mean). If your LVPO takes a dump, then you switch to your RDS, if that takes a dump, then God hates you or you bought cheap stuff. But, at least you can "put them in the glass" during a smelling distance gunfight and make hits. I would offset irons before having a battery operated RDS as my only back-up. Batteries are #1 on Murphy's list and that dick got me with it before.

RDS on a boltgun is a great way to hit movers, especially if you use a Holosun "Eotech reticle" so you can lead them with the front side of the circle.

I'm not looking to get into a huge debate and all that above is just what I've observed, done, worked for me for a good while now. If all that sounds like bullshit to any of you, feel free to pay it no mind. If it made sense to anyone, then that's my good deed for the day.

And, I'm spent...

 

[LawnMM]

If your LVPO takes a dump, then you switch to your RDS, if that takes a dump, then God hates you or you bought cheap stuff.

BTW I think you hit on it, throwback to the ACOG days when it was 4x fixed and the RDS was for close up work.

 

[jeffl838]

From a marksmanship perspective: Froelich (uspsa pcc competitor) puts two red dots on his rifle for left handed barrier shots. It’s a neat idea.

Nvg use: passive aiming with a 45 degree red dot and a scope is retarded. 12 o clock (or 45 off a top ring) is alright.

Speed: a red dot is definitely faster than a 1-6. Yes, you might be able to get your first shot at .25 from both optics and cite that as proof of “just as fast”, but I disagree with the metric. I would say a nice 1-6 might be nearly as fast, but a red dot comes into visibility way faster than a dot in a scope and is infinitely more forgiving. I don’t think the speed advantage of a red dot is why people offset them though, because an offset red dot is gonna require retraining, which sucks if you already have a million reps doing a normal ready-up. I would say the speed between an offset red dot and a nice 1-6 might be a wash

More competition stuff: 3 gun open shooters use it on stages where they don’t want to touch their mag setting back down to 1x. Saves them time.

sniper stuff: you can scan with your eyeballs, orient the rifle with your red dot, and then plop down on your scope and boom you’re mag’ed in on the thing you wanna look at. Really only works for 12 o clock or other top ring mount.

all the reasons off the top of my head.

 

[LRSHOOTER0311]

It's a valid question. I'm going to try running an Offset RMR(Had a G17 laying around with one that I don't use) w/ the 1-10 Razor I just got.

But honestly, with the Holosun proving to be good options for an rmr footprint optic it's not much more money to run them offset then it is a good set of offset irons.

I hear you on that, my only argument would be that irons don't run on batteries and will always work when you need them when everything goes to shit or there are no batteries accessible.

 

[koshkin]

Irons also crap out occasionally. They work better in the rain than open miniature red dots though. Battery life issue while still there has been greatly improved lately with all the modern LED-based reflex sights lasting for a long time. I routinely replace all batteries once a year, so I do not have to worry about. Pretty much everything I use lasts for more than a year on a battery these days.

With irons, I have been looking to the most low profile option available and stumbled onto XS's XTI offset irons that are work surprisingly well for close up stuff and are very low profile.

ILya

 

[deersniper]

True, but I’d like a more reliable ZS and glass quality. Think NF NXS 2.5–10x32 but in FFP.

Why FFP? if you are going to be shooting far enough to hold over the extra mag at full power isn’t going to hurt anything.

 

[newguy2k3v2]

I bought a cheapo vortex venom and arisaka 45 mount to try the concept on a rifle with a 1-6 mk6. I'm out a night a lot shooting pigs through a clip on. Sometimes they'll start running towards you. If I'm looking through the scope nods are flipped up and off. I figure I can roll the gun and hit white light if need be.

Haven't had much practice in with it just yet or a situation where I needed it.

 

[mpl2353]

Still begs the question why bother with an LVPO then, when you could have a higher magnification scope?

This is the big question. For most people it is weight of the larger power scopes. But when you look at it, it’s only a few ounces. I’m a fan of a Leupold Mk5/6 3-18 with an offset red dot for 14.5”+ carbines. They can reach 600 yards, which I’m typically wanting 12-14x, but are still good for room clearing in which I would use a dot. That and the specific scope mentioned weighs roughly the same as the vortex razor 1-6/1-10.
A lot of people are using the dots with LVPOs and keeping the lvpo at the max magnification so it doesn’t matter if they’re ffp or sfp. They’re effectively making it a fixed power scope. The reality of it is if you are clearing a room and walk out the door, then 150 yards down the street there is another bad guy shooting at you but innocents running around(think military/leo) you want that extra power for target ID and when someone can come out at any moment from 15 yards away there simply isn’t enough time to take your support arm up to flip the throw lever. It saves a second or two and that’s a big deal. That and it’s just easier. It doesn’t require doing anything but canting the gun.
So yes, you can train to become as effective, or you can do this and train something else that makes you an all around better asset to your team. It’s like night vision, you can use single tube and train with it to be as good as someone with dual tubes, but it takes more time and training while the dual tube guy is focusing on other things.

 

[PBWalsh]

Why FFP? if you are going to be shooting far enough to hold over the extra mag at full power isn’t going to hurt anything.

Consistency at all mag ranges. I know no one is seeing hashmarks at 2.5-4x, but I simply prefer FFP for everything. I cannot think of a scenario where I’d personally prefer SFP for anything with a milling reticle.

 

[msstate56]

If you need to mil something with a 1-4x or 1-6x you’re probably not doing it right. I’ve never come across a situation in 14 years of toting a carbine where I needed to mil a target with it. These are essentially point and shoot weapons. I know people think it’s fun to hit a full IPSC at 6-800 with a 16” .223, but that’s not real world applicable.

 

[msstate56]

I ran down this path years ago with a TA31 ACOG, and a offset Aimpoint Micro. Because the ACOG sucked at close range, but was actually pretty good past 75-100 yards. Now that LPVOs are abundant, the ACOG has been mostly forgotten, but the old theory is still sound. As others have mentioned there is an application where you would want to leave your LPVO on say 4-6x and hit any CQB range targets with an offset red dot. This is what you see open class shooters doing in 3 gun matches. It also has an application in a perimeter/ over watch situation in LE. I’ve trained for years with both red dot and LPVO. No matter how much time you have on the LPVO, a red dot is still a better choice for 50 yards and in. Especially at room clearing distance. Being “just as fast” on a flat range is not the same as using it in the real world. Go run through a shoot house with force on force training, then you will see the red dot still has a place.

The other problem with using a higher powered scope is field of view. I have a much better field of view with a 1-6 set on 4x or 6x than I do with a 2.5-10 or 3-9 on the same setting. You just have to keep your objective with the weapon in perspective. For example- a 14.5”-16” carbine shooting .223/5.56 is not a 600 yard weapon, no matter how bad some people want it to be. If your primary use is 300 and in, with magnification mostly for improving your target identification, then a 1-6 or so is still a good bet.

 

[beetroot]

The other problem with using a higher powered scope is field of view. I have a much better field of view with a 1-6 set on 4x or 6x than I do with a 2.5-10 or 3-9 on the same setting.

Not necessarily true, the Gen 3 Razor has the same FOV on 10x as the Gen 2 PST 2-10 on 10x, the Razor 1-6 has the same FOV on 6x as the AMG on 6x.
The latest gen LPVOs do offer impressive FOVs but nothing unobtainable by a higher magnification scope.
My PST 3-15 and PST 1-6 both offer impressive FOVs and both look very similar on the same power setting.

Not going to argue with the rest of your post though.

 

[msstate56]

Not necessarily true, the Gen 3 Razor has the same FOV on 10x as the Gen 2 PST 2-10 on 10x, the Razor 1-6 has the same FOV on 6x as the AMG on 6x.
The latest gen LPVOs do offer impressive FOVs but nothing unobtainable by a higher magnification scope.
My PST 3-15 and PST 1-6 both offer impressive FOVs and both look very similar on the same power setting

What I mean about FOV is not necessarily the angular numbers of the scope. For me it’s less obstructive view down range if you will. Running both eyes open- the smaller LVPO blocks less of my down range vision than the larger scope, if that makes sense.

 

[LawnMM]

What I mean about FOV is not necessarily the angular numbers of the scope. For me it’s less obstructive view down range if you will. Running both eyes open- the smaller LVPO blocks less of my down range vision than the larger scope, if that makes sense.

It makes sense, just has nothing to do with field of view.

 

[TheTick]

This is the big question. For most people it is weight of the larger power scopes. But when you look at it, it’s only a few ounces. I’m a fan of a Leupold Mk5/6 3-18 with an offset red dot for 14.5”+ carbines. They can reach 600 yards, which I’m typically wanting 12-14x, but are still good for room clearing in which I would use a dot. That and the specific scope mentioned weighs roughly the same as the vortex razor 1-6/1-10.
A lot of people are using the dots with LVPOs and keeping the lvpo at the max magnification so it doesn’t matter if they’re ffp or sfp. They’re effectively making it a fixed power scope. The reality of it is if you are clearing a room and walk out the door, then 150 yards down the street there is another bad guy shooting at you but innocents running around(think military/leo) you want that extra power for target ID and when someone can come out at any moment from 15 yards away there simply isn’t enough time to take your support arm up to flip the throw lever. It saves a second or two and that’s a big deal. That and it’s just easier. It doesn’t require doing anything but canting the gun.
So yes, you can train to become as effective, or you can do this and train something else that makes you an all around better asset to your team. It’s like night vision, you can use single tube and train with it to be as good as someone with dual tubes, but it takes more time and training while the dual tube guy is focusing on other things.

Geez... I wonder if I could even teach myself to pick which optic to look down under stress. I've burned the same "cheek weld, up to eyes, safety off, send it" for so many years that it'd be an incredible feat to strip that out before even starting to learn to rock the gun over for my primary unmagnified optic. I can see teaching that pulling up and finding a dead optic means an immediate cant to offset, but picking which one? Are there people actually doing that from anything other than scratch? I'd leave it at 1x and if I stepped out and there is a target 150 yards away that needs prosecuting, then I'm like to move first while dialing up and then grabbing a sight picture.

I just don't see myself stepping out of a structure and being met with a surprise near target that needs immediate shooting and remembering to cant the gun. I'm going to pull up on my primary optic over top of the gun that's dialed to "11" (that's for you, Spinal Tap fans) and go "oh f@*k, why does this look this way?" and be slow on the trigger instead of just immediately knowing/remember/doing a roll-over to the unmagnified RDS.

As weird as it sounds, it'd make more sense to offset the magnified optic as there's generally more/longer of a thought process to shooting under magnification. But, trajectory at distance with an offset magnified optic would be an absolute CF. I don't think there is anyway to avoid the RDS as the offset, but then I would consider it as a back-up only and run the LVPO at 1x unless I need to dial it up specifically. Otherwise I'd just be walking around with my rifle canted 99% of the time. If I wanted the ability to quickly pick between the optics intentionally and not as a back-up after the primary went down, then I would piggy-back it. Your sight-over-bore height increases (you lose the same sight-over-bore height that you keep with the offset), but it's simply a matter of picking your head up slightly to pick the unmagnified optic.

I don't like it... but I've never been rightfully accused of being brilliant.

 

[msstate56]

Geez... I wonder if I could even teach myself to pick which optic to look down under stress. I've burned the same "cheek weld, up to eyes, safety off, send it" for so many years that it'd be an incredible feat to strip that out before even starting to learn to rock the gun over for my primary unmagnified optic. I can see teaching that pulling up and finding a dead optic means an immediate cant to offset, but picking which one?

As weird as it sounds, it'd make more sense to offset the magnified optic as there's generally more/longer of a thought process to shooting under magnification. But, trajectory at distance with an offset magnified optic would be an absolute CF. I don't think there is anyway to avoid the RDS as the offset, but then I would consider it as a back-up only and run the LVPO at 1x unless I need to dial it up specifically. Otherwise I'd just be walking around with my rifle canted 99% of the time.

Leupold has solved your issue with the Devo. It’s using the LCO as primary, with the magnified optic being “offset” but using the same cheek weld and not having to cant the gun over. I’ve never used one so I don’t know how well it actually works, but at least the concept is intriguing. I’m with you though on the piggyback vs offset. It’s damn near impossible to use offset from your weak shoulder. A piggyback RMR or the like on top of the scope tube is better if you need both.

I think what we find after all this is there is no “do all solution.” Every choice is a compromise somewhere. You have to decide what aspect you need the most, then compromise on the other part. For example- if your carbine is mostly for entry/CQB work then a red dot with 3x magnifier is a good bet. Red dot for your primary mission- but a decent compromise solution for longer shots.

If you are mostly using it for intermediate ranges (say beyond 50 yards), with a small possibility of CQB- then a LPVO may be you best solution.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

So I have a question, I see alot of people running red dots on the scope rings of LPVOs, 45 deg offsets in conjunction with LPVOs, etc. In my dealings with most, they are either running an LPVO, red dot or Holographic sighting system. But I've seen this trend where some are running two of them at the same time, such as mounting an RMR or equivalent on the scope rings or offset. I get the need for backup sighting such as offset, flip up or fixed irons. But I need some help understanding why people are running red dots with LPVOs. I thought the allure to LPVOs was that you could get a 1x optic with an illuminated center dot that acts as a red dot.

Can someone elaborate on what I'm missing? Or is this an expensive way to get a heads up/high/1.93"/ etc. on top of their primary optic? Then why not just run the LPVO in a higher mount?

Running both basically means you are Delta. It's like a thigh holster with 2 straps or carrying a knife in your left pocket rather than your right (for a righty.)

You see that shit, beware: probably Delta.

 

[koshkin]

Leupold has solved your issue with the Devo. It’s using the LCO as primary, with the magnified optic being “offset” but using the same cheek weld and not having to cant the gun over. I’ve never used one so I don’t know how well it actually works, but at least the concept is intriguing.

I think what we find after all this is there is no “do all solution.” Every choice is a compromise somewhere. You have to decide what aspect you need the most, then compromise on the other part. For example- if your carbine is mostly for entry/CQB work then a red dot with 3x magnifier is a good bet. Red dot for your primary mission- but a decent compromise solution for longer shots.

If you are mostly using it for intermediate ranges (say beyond 50 yards), with a small possibility of CQB- then a LPVO may be you best solution.

I really liked the D-Evo concept and I hope Leupold makes a Gen2. To me, that was faster transition than anything else I tried, but the magnified optic was a little bit more picky with eye relief that many people wanted. Honestly, if they made the magnified optic 5x20 instead of 6x20, it would probably be a lot easier to adjust to. Even as is, I am really thinking about picking one up if I find a good deal.

ILya

 

[msstate56]

I really liked the D-Evo concept and I hope Leupold makes a Gen2. To me, that was faster transition than anything else I tried, but the magnified optic was a little bit more picky with eye relief that many people wanted. Honestly, if they made the magnified optic 5x20 instead of 6x20, it would probably be a lot easier to adjust to. Even as is, I am really thinking about picking one up if I find a good deal.

ILya

Good to know. Makes me want to see if I can find one to T&E now. Thanks for your response.

 

[TheTick]

Running both basically means you are Delta. It's like a thigh holster with 2 straps or carrying a knife in your left pocket rather than your right (for a righty.)

You see that shit, beware: probably Delta.

Bruh, doest thou even pipe-hit? Double leg strap is so 2011.

 

[mpl2353]

Geez... I wonder if I could even teach myself to pick which optic to look down under stress. I've burned the same "cheek weld, up to eyes, safety off, send it" for so many years that it'd be an incredible feat to strip that out before even starting to learn to rock the gun over for my primary unmagnified optic. I can see teaching that pulling up and finding a dead optic means an immediate cant to offset, but picking which one? Are there people actually doing that from anything other than scratch? I'd leave it at 1x and if I stepped out and there is a target 150 yards away that needs prosecuting, then I'm like to move first while dialing up and then grabbing a sight picture.

I just don't see myself stepping out of a structure and being met with a surprise near target that needs immediate shooting and remembering to cant the gun. I'm going to pull up on my primary optic over top of the gun that's dialed to "11" (that's for you, Spinal Tap fans) and go "oh f@*k, why does this look this way?" and be slow on the trigger instead of just immediately knowing/remember/doing a roll-over to the unmagnified RDS.

As weird as it sounds, it'd make more sense to offset the magnified optic as there's generally more/longer of a thought process to shooting under magnification. But, trajectory at distance with an offset magnified optic would be an absolute CF. I don't think there is anyway to avoid the RDS as the offset, but then I would consider it as a back-up only and run the LVPO at 1x unless I need to dial it up specifically. Otherwise I'd just be walking around with my rifle canted 99% of the time. If I wanted the ability to quickly pick between the optics intentionally and not as a back-up after the primary went down, then I would piggy-back it. Your sight-over-bore height increases (you lose the same sight-over-bore height that you keep with the offset), but it's simply a matter of picking your head up slightly to pick the unmagnified optic.

I don't like it... but I've never been rightfully accused of being brilliant.

instead of offsetting the magnifiedoptic just train to use the offset dot as the primary. So if you come out and see that target far away you simply cant the gun out. Similar to what the t.rex arms video posted earlier in this thread says

 

[TheTick]

instead of offsetting the magnifiedoptic just train to use the offset dot as the primary. So if you come out and see that target far away you simply cant the gun out. Similar to what the t.rex arms video posted earlier in this thread says

Yup, I said offsetting the magnified optic is a no-go because the trajectory/hold-overs would be an absolute mess that amplifies at distance. I'm tracking you and have seen the T.Rex video. I'm just curious how many people are pulling that off while processing threats and not paper targets. That's my point: I've seen plenty of dudes shoot, move, and communicate like studs on the range and then can't get out of their own way when real stress comes.

I guess this topic needs to be split into two branches: are you using this for target shooting/competition or applications of force on other people?

I'm not aware of anyone using an offset RDS as a primary and a center-rail mounted magnified optic as a secondary and I have gotten to/get to try and keep up to some pretty high-speed dudes. If I take a true accounting of myself, and I light years away from being a slouch, I don't think I could pull it off. Maybe I could if I had learned to do this from jump street, but it'd be even less likely now after so many years.

I'll put some feelers out to see if anyone is doing it. Is anyone in here aware of an offset RDS being used as the primary and a magnified center-mount optic, whether dialed up or not, being used as a secondary in actual operations? This intrigues me.

 

[jeffl838]

For cqm i shot my laser with my rifle canted so that the laser is directly over the bore. At cqm ranges, the fact that my laser is zeroed with the rifle uncanted doesn't make a difference. If I can do that, I don't see why you couldn't program yourself to aim at cqm ranges with an offset red dot, if you felt like you needed to.

 

[mpl2353]

I'm not aware of anyone using an offset RDS as a primary and a center-rail mounted magnified optic as a secondary and I have gotten to/get to try and keep up to some pretty high-speed dudes.

A few people I stay in contact with (in the real life world, not competition) have informed me the general trend is to have the lpvo set on the highest setting and have an offset dot for true 1x capability. They’ve said it’s a matter of training and it has sped up things. Furthermore with stress taking away fine motor skill, it’s easier to cant the gun as opposed to reaching up to the scope with their hand to shoot.

 

[jeffl838]

A few people I stay in contact with (in the real life world, not competition) have informed me the general trend is to have the lpvo set on the highest setting and have an offset dot for true 1x capability. They’ve said it’s a matter of training and it has sped up things. Furthermore with stress taking away fine motor skill, it’s easier to cant the gun as opposed to reaching up to the scope with their hand to shoot.

lol doing that as a universality is just retarded. Just get a fixed power optic at that point.