1-4x or magnifier?

[alamo5000]

He's putting the red dot off his carbine on the pistol and the scope on the carbine.

Ah so.

Duhh. Kick me in the arse for not reading enough :) LOL

Well in that case it still depends on how accurate is accurate enough and at what ranges we're talking about. With that 1-4 I would be confident to score x ring shots out to 200 yards...beyond that I think I could easily hit with it but I would prefer more than 4x.

As I said, that one optic is on my my 16" AR now and it's been rather interesting to learn about it as I go.

[Pyzik]

I would say that 200 yards would be my max. That's the longest distance around here (other than a 600) that I can shoot anyway. But really most of my shooting is done between 25 and 100.

[CarbonScoring]

Just to throw this out there, since it may help in your decision making process....

My Accupoint is the only variable optic I've used. One thing that drew me to it, as apposed to the Vortex and Leupold offerings I was also looking at, is that is has a very bright center triangle. I do most of my shooting within 50 yards, so being able to use it like a red dot close in was high on my list. Since you may be in the same boat, you may want to look at how bright certain illuminated scopes are, and how close to 1x they are. Some illuminated scopes aren't very bright, and the illumination is almost pointless. As for the true 1x, you won't get the same true 1x out of most (if any) scopes that you do an Aimpoint, but some are closer to 1x than others. This is also something that bothers some people more than others. Best to check out the scope in person if you can.

[Uffdaphil]

Is this for a fun gun or defense? If the former I would love to try the PA 1-6. For the latter I would save up for a Vortex 1-4 at the minimum. The triangle TR24 is my preference if sole variable for Carbon's reasons. I've had amber, red and green reticles and all are good. Just kept red for personal preference.

[UWone77]

I like the 1-4 vs 1-6. I feel like the 1-6 is trying to do too many things. For 99.99% of my shooting, a 1-4 fills my needs.

What's the budget?

[voodoo_man]

I should write an article on magnification and implementation...

[Pyzik]

I like the 1-4 vs 1-6. I feel like the 1-6 is trying to do too many things. For 99.99% of my shooting, a 1-4 fills my needs.

What's the budget?

Right now it's low. $250. If I wait a bit I could push it to $500... Unfortunately something really nice just isn't in the cards for me. I could always save up and get a Trijicon but I can't even justify the price to myself. I just don't shoot *that much though I love it if I did. And being realistic, a carbine isn't a "go to" gun for me. It's gonna be my M&P9.

I should write an article on magnification and implementation...

Do eeet.

[alamo5000]

Golden question asked by Uwone

Its just my opinion but for 200 yards and in 1-4 is plenty. That's what I've been using. For any kind of self defense or tactical shooting its good. If you want to stack shots in a precision rig then more is better. But if you are shooting at bigger targets and aren't as concerned with quarter sized groups at distance then stick with 1-4.

That's what I've found by using mine.

[alamo5000]

Right now it's low. $250. If I wait a it I could push it to $500...

Check out the link I put up to the bushnell. I've been reasonably impressed for the price. I went pretty cheap on my optic too until I can afford more but so far I like it.

[voodoo_man]

An optic should not be "maxed out" in order for its intended use. If I am looking to actively engage a contact at 100y, a 1-4x would do well since I can discriminate very well. At 200y it starts to be an issue at 300y forget it, you probably been a 1-6 or 1-8x.

[gatordev]

An optic should not be "maxed out" in order for its intended use. If I am looking to actively engage a contact at 100y, a 1-4x would do well since I can discriminate very well. At 200y it starts to be an issue at 300y forget it, you probably been a 1-6 or 1-8x.

Wouldn't you also agree that it depends on WHAT you're actively engaging, as well? If just ringing steel, then 4x works just fine. If you're trying for something living, be it human or otherwise, then more can certainly be better.

I'd also argue it depends on HOW you're shooting. From a bench/prone stable position makes more mag the bestest thing in the world. But if you're shooting from an unconventional position (sling, crouch, barricade-type like a tree or car, etc), then I find much more than 5 or 6x starts to get really wobbly at 300-400. And 4x is almost too much at 200.

[voodoo_man]

Wouldn't you also agree that it depends on WHAT you're actively engaging, as well? If just ringing steel, then 4x works just fine. If you're trying for something living, be it human or otherwise, then more can certainly be better.

I'd also argue it depends on HOW you're shooting. From a bench/prone stable position makes more mag the bestest thing in the world. But if you're shooting from an unconventional position (sling, crouch, barricade-type like a tree or car, etc), then I find much more than 5 or 6x starts to get really wobbly at 300-400. And 4x is almost too much at 200.

I should preface anything I post about shooting with the concept that I only have firearms, optics and do all this training to shoot people. I do not train, build rifles or carry pistols to shoot paper, steel, etc.

With that, positional shooting is very important, primarily because most people do not really understand it. An instructor once said "the first thing I think of when seeing a target is, can I hit him prone?" Depending on your AO you may not be able to use a certain position, or you may completely rely on a specific position for accurate shooting.

Most, if not all shooting I do is from a standing, kneeling, prone position. I do some vehicle/barricade based shooting but its not exactly that important, likely reloading and riding a bike - you do it until you have a feel for it and move on to more important things.

What is the most important logic consideration when shooting at someone at distance? Discrimination. Who is it? Friendly? Foe? 10yr old holding a plastic AK? If you are limited by your optic and you do not have the ability to discriminate you do not shoot. Unless of course you are being shot up on.

I can write a PHD thesis on optics and implantation in various circumstances, there is more to it than the simple concepts I posted above.

btw - post was not meant as a dis or bash, just posting my thoughts on the matter.

[Pyzik]

I should preface anything I post about shooting with the concept that I only have firearms, optics and do all this training to shoot people. I do not train, build rifles or carry pistols to shoot paper, steel, etc.

With that, positional shooting is very important, primarily because most people do not really understand it. An instructor once said "the first thing I think of when seeing a target is, can I hit him prone?" Depending on your AO you may not be able to use a certain position, or you may completely rely on a specific position for accurate shooting.

Most, if not all shooting I do is from a standing, kneeling, prone position. I do some vehicle/barricade based shooting but its not exactly that important, likely reloading and riding a bike - you do it until you have a feel for it and move on to more important things.

What is the most important logic consideration when shooting at someone at distance? Discrimination. Who is it? Friendly? Foe? 10yr old holding a plastic AK? If you are limited by your optic and you do not have the ability to discriminate you do not shoot. Unless of course you are being shot up on.

I can write a PHD thesis on optics and implantation in various circumstances, there is more to it than the simple concepts I posted above.

btw - post was not meant as a dis or bash, just posting my thoughts on the matter.

I don't think you come across as dissing or bashing. You're out there doing actual "gun work" (thank you). I even admitted here, it's EXTREMELY unlikely I'll ever point my carbine at anyone.

Thank you for your insight. The reason I am looking at a 1-4 is "target identification" at around 200 yards. I can hit a target with my RDS at 200, but can I see it? Not really.
I'd love to take a pig one day with my carbine so the scope may be useful for that.

[gatordev]

btw - post was not meant as a dis or bash, just posting my thoughts on the matter.

Not taken that way at all. As you said, you're defining your use, which is why you have your requirements. Mine and/or Pyzik's may be different (mine certainly is and it sounds like his is as well), so I was just putting it out there for the discussion. I appreciate learning points about shooting the bad people just as much as sending the evil steel to its doom. Keep posting your thoughts, please.

Besides, when I need target discrimination, I just turn the DTV/FLIR turret towards the target and zoom in to ridiculous levels.

[FortTom]

I should write an article on magnification and implementation...

Do it, Voodoo..... should be interesting.

FT