2x Same Rifle or something else

[bigcoastie]

So I currently own a Noveske N4 Lo-Pro Recce, and really really like it a lot. I'm using a TA31 ecos on it which is working out nicely. The biggest thing that bothers me is I also have the same exact upper on order from them as well. Anyone else have the same two rifles and are happy with it or should I be getting something else? For some reason I keep thinking two is one, one is none but I'm not sure it applies to actual rifles.


The only other options for me since I'm military and move all the time and can't really own an SBR would be a 14.5" perma attached FH or more of a SPR at which point I'd probably go LaRue just based on the fact that I'd like something else what do ya'll think?

[Audiophiliac]

How much would you sell the Noveske for? I will be looking for an upper sometime in the next several months.

[bigcoastie]

You're more likely to get a kidney out of me. At least at the moment I have 2x of those but until that upper comes in I only have 1 Noveske.

[jeffy]

Seeing as how modular the AR platform is, you could build it up in a number of ways that will make it different enough. If you REALLY like it, keep both.

[Army Chief]

I do subscribe to the theory that there is merit in having two identically-configured rifles if you can afford to do that. Yes, there is a two-is-one-and-one-is-none aspect to this, and yes, I defintely understand how frequent PCS moves pretty much rule out an SBR.

One of the reasons I try to justify the 2x approach is because I have two sons, but that is decidedly long-term thinking. The more reasonable near-term jusitification is that this would insure that you have an optimal backup available in a training situation (i.e. a carbine class). If your primary went down for any reason, having an identical backup would allow you to continue with minimal (if any) adjustments to a new configuration.

Finally, although this is a decidedly military thing, we deal with type standardization all of the time in uniform, and there is something that makes sense to me about keeping my personal rifles in a more or less baselined pairs. I'm not talking about trying to turn your CQB carbine into your SPR, nor am I suggesting that every AR in the house should be identically configured. I'm just espousing the view that identically configuring two rifles that already share most of their common characteristics (i.e. barrel length, and intended engagement ranges), makes a certain amount of sense.

AC

[bigcoastie]

AC you brought up some things that really helped me I'm going with the 2x noveske lo pros now I just have to decide what optic I'm going to go for.

Since I have a small obsession with my TA31 ecos and it has a red dot I'm wondering one thing. When I go to a carbine class am I going to get torn up using it, I could really care less about what someone thinks of me but I'm wondering if it's going to be able to keep up with eotechs and aimpoints.

[Paulo_Santos]

It would be very nice to have 2 of everything, but I'd rather have a carbine set up for SHTF and 1 for precision. If you go to a class just have spare parts.

I liked the concept of the TA31DOC so much that I bought one. The more I shot it, th. More I hated it. I prefer a 1x4 scope or a red dot.

[Army Chief]

It would be very nice to have 2 of everything, but I'd rather have a carbine set up for SHTF and 1 for precision. If you go to a class just have spare parts.

Sound logic, to be sure. Of course, in a perfect world, I'd prefer to have 2x SHTF carbines, 2x precision carbines, 2x SBRs, and ... well, you get the idea. LOL In the end, this often comes down to a question of how much treasure you can really afford to allocate to building a collection.

Given the obvious impracticalities associated with trying to build matched pairs for every application, I guess for me it comes to this: if you're in a situation where 2-3 (in total) carbines is essentially what you've got to work with, then it makes very good sense to optimize according to CQB/SBR, medium-range/utility, and SPR/distance and accuracy configurations. The latter tend to get very expensive, very quickly when you're topping them with premium optics, and SBRs (as stated) are often impractical for servicemembers, so that would seem to make an argument in favor of concentrating on the middle ground* for now, and branching out later as you have the opportunity -- and capital -- to do so.

I tend to look toward .30 caliber-based solutions for the distance role, so the next step for me is likely a brace of SBRs. Obviously that has been impossible while I've been overseas, but I'm looking forward to getting back into the NFA side of things a bit.

AC

* This can become even more relevant in most unexpected ways, such as when your 20-year-old son tells you that he wants to take a carbine class with you, but will need to borrow a weapon.

[bigcoastie]

It would be very nice to have 2 of everything, but I'd rather have a carbine set up for SHTF and 1 for precision. If you go to a class just have spare parts.

I liked the concept of the TA31DOC so much that I bought one. The more I shot it, th. More I hated it. I prefer a 1x4 scope or a red dot.

Do you like red dots or 1-4 better? Because right now I'm debating a burris xtr and a T-1

[Paulo_Santos]

Do you like red dots or 1-4 better? Because right now I'm debating a burris xtr and a T-1

The only time I would prefer the red dot is if I was just purely kicking in doors. For everything else, I would prefer a 1x4 scope. If I could only have a red dot, I would get an Aimpoint Magnifier to go with it.

In LE, most of the work is in the 0-100 Yard range so a 1x4 scope would be ideal. Some people don't think magnification is all that importatn, but I do, especially for target ID purposes.

[bigcoastie]

What 1-4 are you using and what did you feel made it better than the Trij w/ red dot?

[Paulo_Santos]

What 1-4 are you using and what did you feel made it better than the Trij w/ red dot?

I'm actually using the Swarovski 1x6 scope. Here is what I disliked about the TA31DOC:

The ACOG itself:
1. 1.5" eye relief. Way too short. The ACOG wacked me on the forehead several times and I had to move the scope forward on the rail.
2. The reticle was too bright outside and I had to put some tape over the fiber optic tube to lower the light intake. I would have rather used the TA01NSNDOC.
3. The 200 Meter line is distracting. Now I know why John Paul from JPRifles removed it from his custom ACOG Reticle.
4. Caliber Specific Reticles suck major a$$. I want a reticle that works with me, not the other way around. Trijicon claims it is close enough, but in reality it wasn't, unless you consider 8" off at 300 yards, close enough.

The MRD on top:
1. Sits way too high. I got used to it after a while, but not ideal.
2. The MRD was a nightmare to zero.
3. The MRD washed out like the Trijicon Reflex.

That's all I can think of right now. The ACOG is great if you are using it in the Military and you are using the ammo it was designed for. Other than that, I don't care for them. Most of the other Trijicon Products are great. I really want to check out the new 1x4 Accupoint.

[bigcoastie]

1-6 is nice but 1800.00 is a bit too high for me right now. I'm only grouping 8" groups anyway standing with my acog @ 300 yards but they aren't high or low I'm just not a sub 2 moa @ 100 yard shooter with it either. I figure 8" is good enough. Anyone else have an opinion about acogs vs 1-4

[Army Chief]

Admittedly, my experience with ACOGs is limited to experimenting with them on other's issued weapons, so you can take this with a grain of salt: that said, an ACOG is a fairly specialized piece of kit in much the same way that an Aimpoint or EOTech is a specialized piece of kit. When you start to talk about the advantages of that kind of specialization (i.e. target ID at distance versus in-your-face engagement) you rapidly come to realize that you can't really have your cake and eat it, too. What you can do, however, is get close -- and nothing gets you closer than a variable, like the 1-4x offerings we're seeing on the market right now.

ACOGs excel for those 100+ meter "what the heck am I even looking at?" situations, but lack elegance and simplicity for the close-in shots. (When I speak of elegance, I'm not talking about appearances, so much as streamlining, since the only CQB-ready ACOG is one with an attached add-on RDS.)

Some guys feel that the 3x compact ACOGs offer a near perfect compromise, but only you know what your situation is likely to call for. Personally, I'm drawn to the variable concept because I want the utility of being able to engage in both a near and far fight, and I don't care to be limited by a more perfect solution that confines me to one end of the spectrum or the other. There are some superb $2k solutions out there, yes, but there are also a number of $1k products that would seem to provide much the same capability. Nightforce's NXS is worth looking at, as is Trijicon's TR-24. If cost is a llmiting factor, the TR-21 may be even more suitable.

There are others, of course, and it isn't my purpose to go on about this as if I'm speaking from experience that I simply do not have, as many of these products are unfamiliar to me outside of their marketing data. Conceptually, however, I believe that I can defend the wisdom of the 1-4x ground, and in doing so, point you to some of the better solutions that won't necessarily break the bank. It falls to you to determine which (if any) of these is really best-suited to your needs, whatever they might be.

AC