Let's keep this thread focussed on the practical precision optic, and not general gun setup or red dot vs. anything else.

BUZZARD464,

Even an EOTech can shoot to 2" at 100 yards if the shooter can.    A TA31 ACOG certainly can.

Nevermind got threads mixed up, sorry all. wrong thread.

Reconsidering US Optics-

Advantages of USO- they build the optic to your specs, within some limits.  A gazillion reticles are available including third-party reticles. FFP reticle help to address the "fast" reticle application for close stuff.  Clicks are available in 0.25, 0.5MOA, and 0.1 MIL.  Zero-stop elevation knob is available (EREK).   The eye relief on the SN-3 is shorter than a comparable Leupold/NXS when on max power.

Disadvantages: generally over $1800; physically large for feature set; very heavy (over 60% heavier than a TA11); illumination nowhere near a BAC ACOG's daytime brightness.

-z

tag

Zak,

Have you ever used a Horus Vision scope? I saw an ad in SWAT mag for a new 1-4x illuminated scope called the Talon that looks interesting but I don't know anything about them. They are just under $1000.00 on their website.

RHR

Bump so it doesn't die.

I have looked through a Horus scope, and will own an SN-3 with the H25 shortly.

So, have you settled on the SN-3 w/ Horrus as the "ideal practical precision AR15 optic" ?

Spooky

No, the SN-3 is going on my AI.

I think it would double the weight of an AR15.  

The experience with that scope, once I get some time on it, should refine the quest for the Ideal Practical Precision AR15 Optic, though.

-z

AI... ahhh...  so nice...  We'll need a range report!

Spooky

The AI shoots great.  First time out, the average of every type of ammo I shot through it was 0.5MOA.  The best group to date is just under 0.3MOA.  Hitting the fartherst & smallest steel on the sight-in range at our SRM (730 yards) was doable 80% of the time, but just at the limit of what the Leu 3.5-10x40mm could "see."

I will post a report on the SN3 here when I have some time on it.

Zak,

Are you going to try the new SN-4 (the group buy)?  I would love to, but the cost would/will kill me.  

I have to live vicariously through you for the high end goodies, Yost custom, AI, MSTN tricked ARs, the time to train and compete, etc. etc

You have to be single and without children

Quoted: Are you going to try the new SN-4 (the group buy)?  I would love to, but the cost would/will kill me.

I've shot through an SN4.  The optic is large and heavy.  The eye relief is typical of a conventional optic, so see my first post in this thread about the drawbacks on an AR15.   It doesn't cut it for me as a ACOG replacement because of its eye relief, weight, size, and lack of super-bright reticle aiming point.  

In a precision role, it's good size, but 5x is on the low side of the magnification desired.  If it could be had boosted to 8 or 10x, but not physically larger, with an EREK elevation knob, and a decent reticle, I would take notice.

You have to be single and without children

Bingo.

Unfortunately....maybe....I am going to sacrafice speed for increased precision.  I simply cannot afford the S&B or the NF scopes (at least not at this time).  

The ACOG is still fairly costly, and I might lean that way if it weren't for the fact that the tritium is not going to last forever and it may not be as precise as I'd like at times.  I am concerned that just about any ACOG reticle may cover too much of my field of view if I used this optic while hunting.

For me it will likely be an illuminated Leupold 1.5-5 with 30mm tube and a German #4 dot (if I can find one with that reticle).  This will still keep me $$ hundreds $$ below an ACOG and close to a grand below NF and at least that much less than the S&B.  The newer SPR model would be nice but stretching that far dollar wise, one may as well go to the NF 1-4 or 2.5-10 IMO.

Unfortunately for me cost will play a major factor.

Edited to add that I'm hoping that I will be able to learn to make this optic as flexible as I want it to be.

Quoted: ...A possible answer may be in IOR's new compact 2-12x Tactical   About the same size as Loopies 3-9x36mm MR/T it looks like it might be close to what you are looking for.  Waiting on one right now, so really can't comment on it.  But I will let you know!

woah?  

more details if you have them..




EDITED
-------

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LUnL-jyWsUcJ:www.longrangehunting.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi%3Fubb%3Dget_topic%26f%3D2%26t%3D000724+IOR+2-12x+Tactical&hl=en

Here's what Im trying out, it's not a SB short dot, but im on a bit of a buget,...

That looks interesteing.  A 1.5-5x Leupold with PR M1 knobs installed?

I have experience with the regular 1.5-5x Leupold and ran one on an AR for a while.  I would prefer the eye relief to be more appropriate for the AR15 (probably OK on the M1A), and a little more magnification.  The knobs could use zero stops.  

-z

Tagged.......I see a quick mention of the new Leupold M2 1.5-5......was that dismissed already?

Quoted: That looks interesteing.  A 1.5-5x Leupold with PR M1 knobs installed? I have experience with the regular 1.5-5x Leupold and ran one on an AR for a while.  I would prefer the eye relief to be more appropriate for the AR15 (probably OK on the M1A), and a little more magnification.  The knobs could use zero stops.   -z

Agreed, I'll add that the battery life is way to short and the circle-dot could be brighter,.. The knobs are off a 6.5-20 and work out to around .5 MOA click.......Udog

Any updates from people that were testing new scope setups?

Just shot the Horus H25 in my USO SN3 on my AI-AWP at the TacPro sniper match last weekend.  It worked great.  The reticle alone is sufficient for targets as small as 1 MOA at 700 yards.  The additional use of the knob is helpful as a more robust sight picture can be developed.

I think a simplified Horus reticle may be the way to go for a mid-range precision AR scope.  Do away with the 2/10ths tick marks and use just 1/2 or 1/4.   Have some larger reticle structure useful for closer range hosing on low power (first focal plane reticle, of course).

-z

tag

Here's a proposition to think about:

A scope depending on reticle-based hold-over MUST HAVE a first-focal plane (FFP) reticle.

I called up Wes at MSTN earlier this week and asked him about getting the proper eye relief for a nose-to-charging-handle shooter with a Larue SPR-style mount and a NightForce NXS 2.5-10x24mm scope.  He shipped out a Larue Extended Eye Relief SPR mount, properly installed on the scope.  I intend to put this on a precision AR based on the 16" RRA Varmint gun, with the barrel fluted, threaded, and gunkoted black.

I was a little skeptical about the extended SPR mount.  It is one inch longer than the standard SPR and costs just slightly more. I carefully mounted it to a M4-style AR I had laying around to try it out.  I adjusted the torque nuts on the throw levers and had it on my AR in less than 15 minutes from seeing the package on my table.  After messing around with varoius other rings trying to get the reticle level, I really appreciated that.  It cleared my SureFire handguards beautifully and did not interfere with any of the controls for the light system.  I wanted to see the worst-case scenario and mounted the Larue flush with the front of my upper receiver.

The next test was the most critical in my mind: testing eye relief.  I cranked it up to full power, then put the toe of the CAR stock into my shoulder.  I set the 4-position stock one click from collapsed.  I closed my eyes and snapped the rifle up to my cheek.  I opened my eye and found a perfect sight picture.  It was perfect! The scope was mounted nicely centered between the rings, also.  I cranked it down to 2.5, and the sight picture was still very good.  I might move it back a notch or two, but I feel very good about this setup.  I will probably set it up for the best eye relief at 2.5x for speed's sake.

I was also very pleased with the NightForce product, the 2.5-10x24mm scope.  I was used to my clunky 5.5-22x56 NXS, which is an excellent scope.  The 2.5-10 has addressed many of the concerns I had about the 5.5-22x56.   Number one, the fine NP-RR2 reticle jumps to life when you turn it on, even in somewhat bright light conditions.  It has an adjustable intensity on the left side knob, where your objective focus would be on their AO model scopes.  The earlier models required some disassembly to change the intensity.  The fine reticle was sometimes hard to pick up on dark backgrounds even in normal daylight without illumination on the old setup.  Plus, the 2.5-10x24mm is a reasonable size and weight for a 16" AR in my opinion.

I am very pleased with the products and service I got from MSTN, and I can be a very demanding and sometimes difficult customer.  My only difficulty in the entire process was tracking down a phone number for MSTN.  But overall, I am very pleased.  Wes listened to my concerns and recommended a configuration that worked wonderfully, charged a very reasonable price, and shipped it promptly.  

Pictures to follow.

Waiting for pics.

Zak....if you could have someone build  a scope to spec, what would it be like?
I would like to have Larue build me a mount with a battery compartment on the offside (where there is no lever)  to keep it as low as possible to the bore axis and power the scope via the rings. This would allow for a larger battery to drive a brighter LED for longer.
The optic would then be completely unpowered. Intensity adjustment would be on the mounting.
This would allow for a parallax adjutment knob in the usual place and eliminate the rheostat bump that is found on the Leupys.
Definitely look at Scandium or Ti bodies to cut weight as I would go with 34mm dia. tubes and make the optic as short as possible.
IOR's 2-12 is about half way there but it's way too heavy. I'd probably plump for 1x6 vis 2x12 for general work.

Simon

Quoted: Here's a proposition to think about: A scope depending on reticle-based hold-over MUST HAVE a first-focal plane (FFP) reticle.

A big +1 on that!

In my opinion, 2nd focal plane reticles should be relegated to fixed power scopes......

Quoted: Here's a proposition to think about: A scope depending on reticle-based hold-over MUST HAVE a first-focal plane (FFP) reticle.

Not sure if I agree, but I understand your point.  My counterpoint would be, at the ranges where holdover comes into play, you don't want the reticule to subtend much of the target.  A FFP reticule, if especially contained in a low-modest powered variable, will end up subtending more as the range increases.  Maybe not so much as to completely cover the target at long range, but enough to the point where I could see it being a problem.  A 2nd FP reticule won't cover as much of the target at longer ranges.  But the operator does need to make sure he's on the right mag setting to range the target.  That's a training issue and not necessarily something inherently wrong with 2nd FP designs.

BTT for new readers.  Very interesting thread.

Sorry to all for not responding sooner- my subscription to this thread got lost (!!!).

Thanks also for bumping it.

Quoted: Not sure if I agree, but I understand your point.  My counterpoint would be, at the ranges where holdover comes into play, you don't want the reticule to subtend much of the target.  A FFP reticule, if especially contained in a low-modest powered variable, will end up subtending more as the range increases.

To be precise, it subtends more linear target area.  It always subtends the same angular distance.

Maybe not so much as to completely cover the target at long range, but enough to the point where I could see it being a problem.  A 2nd FP reticule won't cover as much of the target at longer ranges.  But the operator does need to make sure he's on the right mag setting to range the target.  That's a training issue and not necessarily something inherently wrong with 2nd FP designs.

You make a good point that a SFP reticle's lines "can" be more fine than the FFP's, and the SFP's will subtend less angular AND linear target distance as the magnification is increased.

My counterpoint is that I can obtain a sight picture with a FFP Horus H25 reticle on 1/2" dots (just), and easily on 1" dots.   So in the absence of any other larger target-ID features (ie, a single black dot on a white background), a FFP is sufficient for 1/2 MOA (limit) and easily 1 MOA targets.  I have done the same shooting 7" plates at approx 675 yards (0.99 MOA).  So I guess I don't see that as a big problem with FFP scopes.

SimonTan,

We talked about this on the phone, but my ideal GP/LR AR15 scope would be no larger or heavier than a TA11 ACOG, have eye relief 2.0 - 2.5" (same range as TA11).  It would have a BAC/Tritium/long-life-LED center dot/donut/horse-shoe for CQB, and it would have useful horizontal and vertical refernces every 0.5 MIL side and down, with another set of horizontal (windage) references at 2 or 3 mils down from center  (for windage holdoff reference at 300-450 yards). .  FFP, variable 1-6x.  1 MIL hashes would be larger, 0.5 MIL hashes would be smaller.  Every couple mils would have a numeric label.   Covered low-profile knobs, since they won't be used in the field anyway.  No parallax control.  

But the operator does need to make sure he's on the right mag setting to range the target. That's a training issue and not necessarily something inherently wrong with 2nd FP designs.

There are shooting problems when you cannot be on the highest power, BUT need to hold windage/lead or elevation.  My paper on LR optics covers these cases pretty well: OPTICS FOR PRACTICAL LONG RANGE RIFLE SHOOTING.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's a proposition to think about: A scope depending on reticle-based hold-over MUST HAVE a first-focal plane (FFP) reticle. A big +1 on that! In my opinion, 2nd focal plane reticles should be relegated to fixed power scopes......

Aren't fixed power scopes  FFP by definition?

He just means I should have said, "A variable-magnification scope depending on reticle-based hold-over MUST HAVE a first-focal plane (FFP) reticle."