Define "intermediate ranges" - using a .223 round the US Army and Marine Corp define ranges.

I've found that I can hit anything worth shooting at ranges that the .223 ought to be used against human sized targets with a red-dot-o-death.

Theres a couple of really cool optics on the way that are similar to the S&B Short Dot. Nightforce is making one called the NXS 1-4 and Leupold is making a new one called the MR/T M2 1.5 - 5 power. The Night Force has a much better battery life at 60 hours (presumably on its highest setting) when compared to the 10 hour life of the Leupold. But the Leupold has a very nice reticle and has accessable knobs. The Nightforce knobs are under covers that must be removed to adjust. Im not sure but I preume the NF will loose its waterproofing when you remove the knobs. Thats just a total guess though.

I would rate wither of these as a stonger optic than the Accu-Point, and each have more useful reticles than the Accu Point. The Night Force NSX and the Leupold M2 both have 30mm tubes as opposed to the 1" tube on the Accu Point. However, as Im sure everyone knows, the Accupoint has no need for batteries.. While I have no experince with either of the others and limited experience with the Accu-Point, I would suspect the Accu-Point to have the fastest reticle.

I have no experience with the Leupold, Night Force or Scmidt and Bender, but spent a lot of time looking at each at the Shot Show. I really must say that I dont think the Short Dot is worth nearly twice the price of the Night Force or just about twice the price of the Leupold. Both the Leupold Ms and the Nightforce 1-4 are lighter and shorter than the Short Dot as well.

Anyway, I was excited about all of them and think each is leaps and bounds ahead of the CQ/T in terms of a variable power, illuminated reticle optic.

LEUPOLD MR/T M2



NIGHT FORCE NXS 1-4

The NightForce catalog indicates the 1-4 NXS is available with 4 reticle choices. When I spoke to them at shot they informed me their catalog was mistaken and it is only available with three choices. Their FC-2 reticle is a circle and dot much like the Leupold CQ/T, but it has a horizantal refference mark on either side and a veticle one beneath. Im sure there is a more technical name for this and I apologize in advance for not knowing it. There was another reticle very much like this but without the circle. I dont remember the name of it and dont have their catalog here. Neither of these are extremely precise reticles, but I would guess you could acheive the same type of accuracy as a ACOG with practice. And those with ACOGs know that says a lot. You can also get it with their NXS with a miltod reticle. That would be the most precise for obvious reasons, but might not lend itself to speed as well as the others. Again, I would like to stress that I dont have any time behind any of these and am just trying to sum up what I saw based on previous experience with similar products. This is all just guessing right now.

The Leupold reticle was my favorite, in fact I think the Leupold scope was my favorite. But the itty bitty battery life is keeping me from really liking it more than the NXS. I believe these scopes NEED illuminated reticles to be as useful as they have the potential to be. But the Leupold Reticle needs to be cranked way up to high in the day time for it to be used like a BAC, and cranked way up you only get 10 hours. I just dont think that is very acceptable. Once the battery is dead and the BAC is gone, you may as well have any low variable power scope on the gun. It is worth mentioning that I thought any of the ACOG reticles grew brighter than any of the Leupold or NF reticles. And having said that, I think it is worth mentioning that the ACOGs achieve this without battery power.

With that said, the NightForce reticles glow brighter and longer, and to me, that seemed more important than a slighly nicer reticle and easier access to the knobs. I would suspect I would get more use out of the longer battery life than a more useful reticle and quick access adjustments.

yup, that sounds like the other reticle. I have a catalog at work, and could say for sure if I were looking at it. But that does sound a lot like what I saw.

The illuminated reticle will be MUCH MUCH easier to pick up and use in any situation. Without the illumination, its just a traditional scope. Traditional scopes are good for what they are good for, but they are more difficult to use quickly. For some, much more difficult.

BAC ACOG reticles are always illuminated, day or night. There are a few scenarios in which the reticle will blacken, but they are the exception.

The way I am thinking/wanting to use a optic like this is on a GP rifle (general purpose). In that role I see myself using the scope on low magnification with the reticle turned up as a close quarter optic, like an Aimpoint or EoTech. This is the role I would see the scope being used in most, because that seems to be the type shooting I do, or, would do most frequently. This is why battery life is so important for me. A scope that is as fast and simple to use as an Aimpoint up close that offers me the ability to turn up the magnification and use it for more precise shooting, be the targets close or far, is what intrigues me most about this style optic. Without the illumination, I loose almost all interest, because it looses nearly all of its close range usefulness.

I know just what you mean about using the thicker stadia lines as your aiming point. I do the same thing with the ACOG reticle. I'll just use the whole thing up close, including the lower stadia lines. I know that up close Im going to be hitting somewhere within that range. For many targets I look at when shooting quickly, thats more than good enough. I've tried to use the NSN ACOG model like that, but I find that it is much more difficult than with the illuminated reticles. I know it is not impossible, because I have done it, and there is another guy who shoots with us who is very quick with a TAO1. Psywar has mentioned here several times he has been trained and with practice can use the NSN reticle for spped work, and he does so for real... So I have no doubts it can be done. I just find the illumination is more helpful. The thing that has me so hyped about all these new scopes as that they are going further and further at bridging the gap between dot optics and magnified optics, offering the advantages of both.

Quoted: Good cuz a road trip to Fla, while fun, would be a PITA just to show ya what I was talking about. But Hey I got friends down their so who knows, I may just end up down there one day to visit and if I'm lucky I could catch a FDCC shoot.

Come during the last Weekend of the month and please feel free to join us. By then Im sure at least a couple of us will have at least a couple of these new optics we've been discussing. FDCC has been a great place for people to check out new stuff first hand.

I completely agree with Tso, if there is something to be gained with an optics longer range potential, without sacrificing its close range qualities, then I am all eyes and ears. I think being stuck in the "I can do this and that right now" mode can lead to stagnation and may fail to take into consideration a variety of scenarios. All of which are as possible as the next.

To my knowledge, and I may be completely wrong, the BAC ACOGs were the first optic to offer speed up close with magnification. Companies have been chasing the idea for a few years now. No one really offered much that I saw closing the gap between scopes and reflex sights neary as well as the BAC ACOG. Im not sure that even those other optics weve been discussing have either, but things are certainly becoming more interesting. And I love it!