I posted a question here asking what was the best way to switch between intermediate ranges and close quarters in an urban environment.  Not surprisingly, the members contributed a lot of great thoughts (complete with pictures).  The discussion moved to low-power, illuminated variables designed to bridge the gap between red dots and more precise, magnified optics.  I started putting together a spreadsheet to decide which one I wanted to purchase, so I thought I'd post the information in the form of a web site.  Here it is:  CQB/Intermediate-Range Variables Comparison.

It is still a work in progress, and I have asked members to contribute some of their first-hand experiences of the optics discussed.  All information included on the above site is the contribution of members more experienced than myself, and any errors are my own mistake.  Please IM or e-mail me if there is anything you would like to contribute or feel is missing.

[Original post:  What is the best way to switch between intermediate ranges and close quarters in an urban environment?  For example, could you use a Larue QD Mount with a ACOG and switch to BUIS if your were clearing a house without loosing your zero?  Any thoughts?]

Really?  Any mount of magnification too much?

Quoted: . I saw one of those new S&B scopes at the last class I took and other than being pretty large and very expensive, it would also do a phenominal job at that task.

Yes it would:

Cool, thanks for all the info.  I happened across a Flash animated demo of the BAC earlier today, but I've never played with them myself.  The S&B will probably be out of my price range if it's in the same neighborhood as their other optics.  haha  I was afraid magnified optics would be hell inside of a building, but I'm a total novice when it comes to this kind of shooting.

bsbg, how would you compare it to the ACOG if you've had a chance to play with both?  (Thanks for the picture!  Love it!  haha)

The S&B, being adjustable, offrs Aimpoint like speed in close at 1.1x.  At 4x it offers precision, and with the dot on it can be used with the BAC like the ACOG.  The ACOG is smaller and lighter, and maybe more robust, and doesn't need batteries.  The S&B offers adjustable brightness, unlike the ACOG.

As far as price of the S&B, you can buy an Aimpoint, an ACOG and some nice Larue mounts for each for about the same price, but then you have to swap scopes rather than just spin the magnification dial .

More info in this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=210280

Quoted: bsbg, if I have overlooked it Im sorry, but do we have any idea what battery life is on that S&B. The one I saw was really really great looking.

100 hrs on a CR 2032.  It has auto shutoff after 6 hrs  so you don't end up with a dead scope in the safe after showing it off.

Around $1000 is about my max for optics right now and even then I'll need to save for a bit.  I'm a grad student with not a ton of cash to throw around.  The S&B does sound like an awesome concept, though.  I might wait until I have a little more disposable income for that kind of high-speed gear, though.  haha  

Thanks to both of you for sharing your experience.

ETA:  Pretty nice battery life on that scope!

A Combo that works well for both occasions is the Leupold CQT, 0 mag up to 3 power by the twist of the hand.
Jack

I have a setup that works great for me.  I have an Aimpoint M2 with Larue Mount.  I also have a Bushnell 3200 10x Mil-Dot scope with the Larue M4 QD scope mount.  On top of that I have flip-up front and rear sights.  It is very easy to interchange the optics; all you have to do is flip a few levers.  If you do some careful shopping, you can probably get all of that (minus the back-up iron sights) for $1000 or less.

Wes

Quoted: Cost on a TA31 ACOG will hover somewhere right below to maybe right above $1000, price on the S&B will hover from right below to right above $2000. Neither of these scopes are inexpensive by any stretch. Some might think it is strange they sell so well with the incredibly high price tags. Others take it to mean they work as advertised, and that nothing else less expensive can do the job it does.

You can get a S&B short dot for $1600 currently form a guy on Tactical forums.  Retail is $2100-2200.

I don't recall where I saw the picture, but someone had a 20" AR with a conventional scope on top. Mounted up towards the ends of the handguards at the 1or2 o'clock position was an Aimpoint. Not sure how they got it at that position, but it looked like it would work.

ETA, you can mount a Jpoint or whatnot (tiny red dot) on top of a tradition scope.

I don't have first hand experience with either of those setups, and say go with the ACOG.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't recall where I saw the picture, but someone had a 20" AR with a conventional scope on top. Mounted up towards the ends of the handguards at the 1or2 o'clock position was an Aimpoint. Not sure how they got it at that position, but it looked like it would work. 20" with ACOG and OKO mounted at 11 o'clock (I'm a lefty) www.cavalryarms.com/2gun/26.jpg www.cavalryarms.com/2gun/27.jpg common configuration for using dual optics for 3 Gun, usually you drill and tap a free float tube for the mount or to attach a short section of rail.

SinistralRifleman,

That's a super cool set up.  I've never seen anything like that.  Props!  

Ever experience anything that'd make you think that particular set-up wouldn't be good for hard use in a combat situation?  (I'm not sure how rigorous 3-gun competition is, so forgive my ignorance...)  Which ACOG is that out of curiosity?

DevL,

I saw a link to that deal.  Thanks, though!  I'd be really tempted to try one if I had a little more money in my gun "warchest."  Although I haven't fielded one myself, I've played with their optics and was impressed.  I think for the time being I'll just save my pennies for an ACOG for the time being...

3rdtk,

The Leupold CQT appeals to me, I'm thinking about that too...

Can you define intermediate range for us?  As most interactions in Iraq are happening at less than 100m, I would consider anything from 50 to 150 m as intermediate.

For me, an Aimpoint does this just fine.  Turn down the dot and use it in conjunction with your irons for precision work.

Durable, fast in CQB, and the cheapest of the lot.  

if i had to pic one i think its my new fav, TA31.


the donut gives a nice aimpoint like dot for close in, and can reach out and touch targets out and about

Quoted: What is the best way to switch between intermediate ranges and close quarters in an urban environment?

[broken record] TR21 ACCUPOINT!!![/broken record]

Quoted: What is the best way to switch between intermediate ranges and close quarters in an urban environment?  For example, could you use a Larue QD Mount with a ACOG and switch to BUIS if your were clearing a house without loosing your zero?  Any thoughts?

Um hows about a variable power scope?? that way no switching around of optics. 1-4 or something like that. It works very well I use one on my AR.

Quoted: You can get a S&B short dot for $1600 currently form a guy on Tactical forums.  Retail is $2100-2200.

And I thought the ACOG is rediculously overpriced...

Veiw thru a TR21 on a dreary February day...





And a pic of the optic...



I REALLY dont know what the general resistance is to that optic.  I think the Accupoints rock.  One is going on my M1A shortly.


The S&B is a NICE scope....but it aint $1300 nicer to me.

Thanks for all the suggestions (not to mention pics and video).  I guess why I was thinking ACOG versus some of the other alternatives is that I thought it'd hold up better.  Since I've been hearing a lot of endorsements of the CQT and the Accupoint, I'm definitely going to have to think about them more seriously.


As far as range, I'm going to limit myself to terminal range of 16" 1-in-7" barrel and the appropriate ammo (that's the current AR project that I'm putting together now)--not to mention my own limits as a marksman.  I don't have the greatest eyes, so I'm a little weary of irons for precision work in general.  Sometimes, I just have a hard time picking up irons.  That might be more lack of training/practice than my eyes, though.

Quoted: Thanks for all the suggestions (not to mention pics and video).  I guess why I was thinking ACOG versus some of the other alternatives is that I thought it'd hold up better.  Since I've been hearing a lot of endorsements of the CQT and the Accupoint, I'm definitely going to have to think about them more seriously. As far as range, I'm going to limit myself to terminal range of 16" 1-in-7" barrel and the appropriate ammo (that's the current AR project that I'm putting together now)--not to mention my own limits as a marksman.  I don't have the greatest eyes, so I'm a little weary of irons for precision work in general.  Sometimes, I just have a hard time picking up irons.  That might be more lack of training/practice than my eyes, though.

Terminal range of  Mk262 Mod1 from a 16in barrel is around 170 yards only. A 1-4 variable or a 1-3 CQT or the IOR 1.1-4 would do very well at those ranges same with just an Aimpoint. The good thing is IIRC(not sure of the CQT) but all those should be less than 1 grand.

I missed my chance at a C-more variable power that you can't get in the civilian world.  I wonder when they will come out.  Someday I'll get some pics from the guy that has it right now.

TR21 is the best solution.  I have run one for years in 3-gun.  I am currently  starting  a  operational test on them with my military guys in the sand box , do to the need  for a all purpose optic with more range capability than pure CQC sights.  The key to using a TR21 is setting up optimal eye relief for the user, It needs to be far enough FWD on 1.25X  for both eyes open use,  but placed close enough that when cranked up to 4X it only requires a slight FWD shift of head position / cheek weld  for an instant  shift to dominant eye magnified sight picture.
To me it is plainly clear if you watch both  the video clips  the TR21 is much faster on the close targets than the off center OKO.
Out.
2011BLDR

Quoted: TR21 is the best solution.  I have run one for years in 3-gun.  I am currently  starting  a  operational test on them with my military guys in the sand box , do to the need  for a all purpose optic with more range capability than pure CQC sights.  The key to using a TR21 is setting up optimal eye relief for the user, It needs to be far enough FWD on 1.25X  for both eyes open use,  but placed close enough that when cranked up to 4X it only requires a slight FWD shift of head position / cheek weld  for an instant  shift to dominant eye magnified sight picture. To me it is plainly clear if you watch both  the video clips  the TR21 is much faster on the close targets than the off center OKO. Out. 2011BLDR

YOu can already do that with scopes like the leupold 1-4x20 or the IOR 1.1-4x26. Also if your using a 4x as max, it can easily be shot both eyes open. Also you want to eliminate the need to shift your head forward when you use the 4power setting. The real key is finding the mounting position for the scope so that you don't have to shift your head fwd so you can see properly through the scope at 4x. Once I found that spot with mine everything was great. The reason I say this is because I've been told that the cheek weld/ position of the eye behind the scope is very important. If your not consistant with it, your POA/POI can shift. I've been told thats true when shooting a precision rilfe, because your eye is not on the same line when you change your cheek weld it can trow the shot off. Somone who knows more about what I'm trying to say can probably explain it better, I think I was about as lear as mud.

But any way I wouldn't worry about shooting with the dominate eye at 4 power, as a 4power scope can be shot withboth eyes open with little problem. Also forget the 1.25 power I've shot scopes like that, 1.25 or 1.5 is a little bit of a brain teaser for CQB stuff I'd get it as close to 1 power as possible. The biggest complaint I've ever had with 1.25/1.5 power scopes is that extra .25-.5 power. When your using(well at least when I am) a low power variable at it's lowest, I tend to end up with almost a binocular vision type thing, where it's lik I'm looking through the scope with both eyes, though I still retain my periphial vision. The thing is that with that extra .25-.5 power it fucks with my depth preception, with the straight 1 power I don't have that problem.  I've met a couple people who have mentioned that problem with a 1.25 or 1.5 power scope as well. Could just be us couple people, but than again.... Just something to think about.

I need to add something to this too actually: Another important thing is height of the scope if your using a traditional type scope for CQB to medium range(say 300yards) If it'smounted to low, your head is not in a good position for CQB work, you want your head up, you don't want to be low on the stock. So the height of the scope is important. example  

With the rifle set uplike this, the scope was about 1/4 inch to low for me whn shooting CQB stuff, as a result I was constantly having to to lower my head to get a clean view through the scope. With the set up below, the scope is higher, and when I bring the gun up the scope is actually a tad bit higher than I want it.


I still haven't found the right rings to put it at that "right height" but for now it's closer than it was. I also have the scope further back over the BUIS, what that does is makes it so that at 4power I don't have to shift my head forward to get a good view. I can stay right where I am with my cheek weld.

There are also some quirks with using a traditional type scope with some positions, I found this out durring a Defensive Edge carbine class. Someof the positions Sully had us shooting from were more dificult to do with the scope, but they were doable. And now that I've gotten used to it from practicing those same drills it's not a problem at all.

This is why I usually keep my comments to my self , any one with a low post count is flamed for even trying.  I know the one shooter was using full auto, my comment was on the generally smother and faster target to target accusitaon times, but we all know looks don’t equal hit factor.  I am a Military Firearms instructor (18 years) and long time USPSA Competitor (13 years).   If the TR21 was being shot with the scope closed why would you post the video as an example (without telling any one)! Except to validate that your 2 sight set up is great and falsely invalidate the one optic concept that can work for close to medium ranges. ( that was the original question in this thread)   I shoot a lot of 3-gun and USPSA pistol in addition to teaching Active Duty Military shooters, a conservative # of rounds I fired last year in carbines (work & competition) equipped with a TR21 is 40,000. The year prior would have been 55,000 split between the TR21,  TA11F-A (ACOG),  RX09-23 (ReflixII) and a M68 (Aim point).  The TR21 set up demands that you keep up a solid practice / dry fire routine that you could let slip with the other systems, but the advantage is that you can adjust  to differing situations on the fly and not  be stuck with a “compromise “ set up based on the “ expected” scenario. On carbines Iron sights are for "emergancy use" when you have broken all your optics, lasers and NVG's IMO.
   For my eyes the perfect 1.25X position and the perfect 4x position are ½ “apart (with tac vest).  If you can match them up great.  I find it very natural to adjust and settle in for that 4x shot, if I did not feel the time was their I would tack the shot on 1.25X with no adjustment. On the 4 TR21’s I have fielded so far I only have one shooter who can match everything up perfectly , but as levels of equipment and armor change for varying missions  this may not hold true for him either.  Yes cheek weld, scope height and eye relief are important when using this set up.  I use the CAS-V rail, A.R.M.S. #35QD mount with #35M rings and #37 reducers , a Vltor stock with the battery compartments installed solves the cheek weld problem, everything  combined equals out to a perfect heads up shooting position. With the much larger rear lens on the TR21  it is much faster tha the CQ-T or the IOR IMO (yes I ran an operational test on them).I have pictures of both my work and game carbines, but do not have them hosted.
Out.
2011BLDR

No offense taken. I have always found this internet post thing hard as there is no immediate feed back as in a real conversation. There are many complexities and variables to finding an ideal setup for all ranges, every setup has advantages and disadvantages.
Out.
2011BLDR

Very informative information guys, keep it up.  Glad to know that the Trij can take that kind of round count!  I'm heavily leaning that direction.

Quoted: This is why I usually keep my comments to my self , any one with a low post count is flamed for even trying.  I know the one shooter was using full auto, my comment was on the generally smother and faster target to target accusitaon times, but we all know looks don’t equal hit factor.  I am a Military Firearms instructor (18 years) and long time USPSA Competitor (13 years).   If the TR21 was being shot with the scope closed why would you post the video as an example (without telling any one)! Except to validate that your 2 sight set up is great and falsely invalidate the one optic concept that can work for close to medium ranges. ( that was the original question in this thread)   I shoot a lot of 3-gun and USPSA pistol in addition to teaching Active Duty Military shooters, a conservative # of rounds I fired last year in carbines (work & competition) equipped with a TR21 is 40,000. The year prior would have been 55,000 split between the TR21,  TA11F-A (ACOG),  RX09-23 (ReflixII) and a M68 (Aim point).  The TR21 set up demands that you keep up a solid practice / dry fire routine that you could let slip with the other systems, but the advantage is that you can adjust  to differing situations on the fly and not  be stuck with a “compromise “ set up based on the “ expected” scenario. On carbines Iron sights are for "emergancy use" when you have broken all your optics, lasers and NVG's IMO.    For my eyes the perfect 1.25X position and the perfect 4x position are ½ “apart (with tac vest).  If you can match them up great.  I find it very natural to adjust and settle in for that 4x shot, if I did not feel the time was their I would tack the shot on 1.25X with no adjustment. On the 4 TR21’s I have fielded so far I only have one shooter who can match everything up perfectly , but as levels of equipment and armor change for varying missions  this may not hold true for him either.  Yes cheek weld, scope height and eye relief are important when using this set up.  I use the CAS-V rail, A.R.M.S. #35QD mount with #35M rings and #37 reducers , a Vltor stock with the battery compartments installed solves the cheek weld problem, everything  combined equals out to a perfect heads up shooting position. With the much larger rear lens on the TR21  it is much faster tha the CQ-T or the IOR IMO (yes I ran an operational test on them).I have pictures of both my work and game carbines, but do not have them hosted. Out. 2011BLDR

When you set yours up did you check it for eye relief at the max power setting first and than mount or did you set it at the low power setting? One thing I noticed about the leupy that I use is that when I set the scope up for the eye relief with the scope set at 1 power it would be ok till I got up to 4X. than the ER wasn't right. But if I set it up with the scope set to 4X, there was no problems when I switched between power settings. May not work the same with the scope you use but just thaought I'd see if you tried that or not.

Good info, 2011BLDR. I'm glad to hear the TR21 is getting some of the acclaim it's due.

You might also check out the new Nightforce 1-4x with the FC-2 reticle.  About half the price of a S&B but it'll do the same job.  I plan to switch from my ACOG to that when they start hitting the market.

Quoted: You might also check out the new Nightforce 1-4x with the FC-2 reticle.  About half the price of a S&B but it'll do the same job.

No, it won't .  Everything I have heard is it will not have daytime visible illumination which allows red dot speed at 1x and BAC at higher magnification.

NF does not claim daytime illum.  BUT... it can work in most light conditions.


photoman, you comment on Mk262 is undecipherable.
 Given M855 frags out to 140 in a 20" M16A4/2 you feel 170 with mk262 and a 16" is a reason to limit an optic?  Dont take this as a flame I just cant really get around your comment...

Quoted: NF does not claim daytime illum.  BUT... it can work in most light conditions. photoman, you comment on Mk262 is undecipherable.  Given M855 frags out to 140 in a 20" M16A4/2 you feel 170 with mk262 and a 16" is a reason to limit an optic?  Dont take this as a flame I just cant really get around your comment...

General_Tso said "As far as range, I'm going to limit myself to terminal range of 16" 1-in-7" barrel and the appropriate ammo"

I was just pointing out that with Mk262 Mod1 yer fragmentation range is 170 yards from a 16in barrel, so really ANY optic would work just fine. Which is exactly what I said in the other post, Any optic be it an aimpoint, EoTech, S&B short dot a nightforce 1-4 it doesn't matter at 170 yards they will all work.

Is that a little clearer??? didn't take it as a flame, but I thought the first time I said it it was pretty clear.

My gun is set up for work from PB-300 yards, thats why I went with a 1-4 variable.  I'm not one to tell somone what optic to have or use we all like different things I'm not a fan of red dots, but I won't say don't get one. optics are personal choices. I don't car if you want to use a Tacpoint over an Aimpoint or a tasco over a leupy not my money, not my gun.

Did anyone read Fortier's article on the Meostar 1-4x22 in the Jan issue of Shooting Times? Maybe he'll post some more info for us. This optic may hold considerable promise. As I understand it, the unit has daytime illumination and bright glass. Suggested retail is $739. I'm sure they could probably be had for a good bit less. I'd love to have a pic of the K-Dot reticle. One drawback is the 16.9 oz weight.

I did put the limitation on range, but my main objective is to find an optic that compliments the strengths of one particular rifle, a quick handling, defensive carbine that's well-suited for close quarters but can stretch out to ranges that make sense for a carbine without hurting close quarters effectiveness.  

Did I understand someone correctly that you can use any scope with both eyes open at low manification?  One of my bolt guns has a 2-7X Leupold on it, and at 2X I have hard time using it with both eyes open.  I'm sure this is an apples to oranges comparison to some of the magnified optics we've talked about, but I think it'd probably take a lot of getting used to it.  I'm leaning towards the AccuPoint if I can train myself to use them fairly close in.

I enjoyed both SinistralRifleman's and 2011BLDR's experiences.  Thanks, guys!  Good discussion.  It is interesting that a lens cover was closed.  I hope I can get to where my shooting is that intuitive.  2011BLDR, your set up sounds pretty nice.  (If you send me an IM, I'd be happy to host them for you.)

Photoman, is it hard getting a decent a cheekweld with a mount that high?

Thanks again, everyone.

ETA:  Think the Crane/LMT Sopmod stock would give as good a cheekweld as the Vltor?

Quoted: I did put the limitation on range, but my main objective is to find an optic that compliments the strengths of one particular rifle, a quick handling, defensive carbine that's well-suited for close quarters but can stretch out to ranges that make sense for a carbine without hurting close quarters effectiveness.   Did I understand someone correctly that you can use any scope with both eyes open at low manification?  One of my bolt guns has a 2-7X Leupold on it, and at 2X I have hard time using it with both eyes open.  I'm sure this is an apples to oranges comparison to some of the magnified optics we've talked about, but I think it'd probably take a lot of getting used to it.  I'm leaning towards the AccuPoint if I can train myself to use them fairly close in. I enjoyed both SinistralRifleman's and 2011BLDR's experiences.  Thanks, guys!  Good discussion.  It is interesting that a lens cover was closed.  I hope I can get to where my shooting is that intuitive.  2011BLDR, your set up sounds pretty nice.  (If you send me an IM, I'd be happy to host them for you.) Photoman, is it hard getting a decent a cheekweld with a mount that high? Thanks again, everyone.

Not at all, Infact I have an excelent, very repeatable cheekweld with it up that high. I'd like to take about 1/8-1/4 in off the height of those rings and put the (center of the)scope closer to the actual height of what the carry handle would be, but other than that it's great. I've got a pic of me shooting it at the class(one handed at that) and it would help in showing what I mean about the height of the scope, but I can't up load it to my hosting site while at work, if somone wants to host it/post it for me let me know.  The gun went to a Defensive edge carbine class in Oct in the configuration it's in in that second pic. I could shoot every single position with it, some were a little wierd at first, but my rounds still found their targets, now that I've gotten used to those positions more they are not so wierd.

Quoted: Quoted:I was just pointing out that with Mk262 Mod1 yer fragmentation range is 170 yards from a 16in barrel, so really ANY optic would work just fine.

okay seen - I just hate equating terminal with fragmentation range.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:I was just pointing out that with Mk262 Mod1 yer fragmentation range is 170 yards from a 16in barrel, so really ANY optic would work just fine. okay seen - I just hate equating terminal with fragmentation range.

I should have left it at terminal, but from what he said originaly I just assumed(ya I know) that he actually ment the fragmentation range. Didn't mean to throw the confusion in there.

Consider the IOR 1.1-4x26 CRT

When you set yours up did you check it for eye relief at the max power setting first and than mount or did you set it at the low power setting? One thing I noticed about the leupy that I use is that when I set the scope up for the eye relief with the scope set at 1 power it would be ok till I got up to 4X. than the ER wasn't right. But if I set it up with the scope set to 4X, there was no problems when I switched between power settings. May not work the same with the scope you use but just thaought I'd see if you tried that or not.

No. I want the perfect 1.25X position for the following
1. Quickest target to target acquisition times.
2. Full speed movement wile maintaining reticle and target focus.
The perfect 4x position will reduce the effectiveness in these areas. The real advantage a TR21 has over all the other scopes in this category is the  40MM rear objective (32MM of glass) and the long eye relief on 1.25X.  It is my personal #1 choice, I have available to use: ACOG TA11F-A, ReflexII RX09-23, and M68 AIM POINT but prefer the TR21.
out
2011BLDR

Quoted: When you set yours up did you check it for eye relief at the max power setting first and than mount or did you set it at the low power setting? One thing I noticed about the leupy that I use is that when I set the scope up for the eye relief with the scope set at 1 power it would be ok till I got up to 4X. than the ER wasn't right. But if I set it up with the scope set to 4X, there was no problems when I switched between power settings. May not work the same with the scope you use but just thaought I'd see if you tried that or not. No. I want the perfect 1.25X position for the following 1. Quickest target to target acquisition times. 2. Full speed movement wile maintaining reticle and target focus. The perfect 4x position will reduce the effectiveness in these areas. The real advantage a TR21 has over all the other scopes in this category is the  40MM rear objective (32MM of glass) and the long eye relief on 1.25X.  It is my personal #1 choice, I have available to use: ACOG TA11F-A, ReflexII RX09-23, and M68 AIM POINT but prefer the TR21. out 2011BLDR

  The leupy 1-4x20 has an eye relief of 4.3in (1x), 3.8in (4x) the TR 21 has an eye relief of 4.8in(1.25x) to 3.4(4x) inches. They are relatily the same. If you find the "sweet spot" the scope will be in the right spot at any power and you won't have to change head position at all. And it will still allow for the quickest target to target acquisition and full speed movment while maintaining retical and target focus. I've used this on many different variable power scopes and it has always worked for me.

The leupy 1-4x20 has an eye relief of 4.3in (1x), 3.8in (4x) the TR 21 has an eye relief of 4.8in(1.25x) to 3.4(4x) inches. They are relatily the same. If you find the "sweet spot" the scope will be in the right spot at any power and you won't have to change head position at all. And it will still allow for the quickest target to target acquisition and full speed movment while maintaining retical and target focus. I've used this on many different variable power scopes and it has always worked for me.

Except with with Night Vision.
out.
2011BLDR