Quoted: I've been thinking about sticking this in the FAQ threads post, i think i will, but only once it starts to loose the recent interest it has.

Please do, this one deserves to be in the FAQ and tacked. Another kick-ass thread full of outstanding info about optics that I won't see in my local gun store, and I don't have to actually buy them to get a good feel for them.

Quoted: As far as trying one locally I have a local gunshow who is a Horus distibutor and have none.  None at the last 2 Houston gun shows either.  If I could try it out and it was at least Leupold quality Id buy it for under retail if I could find it. As far as the reticle brightness issues... I have only tried older Nightforce design with pull out illumination on the paralax knob.  This was one of the LEAST illuminated reticles I ever saw.  Like an early Leupold it was BLACK during daylight and not the least bit colored like in the Horus outdoor pic.

DevL,
Either my camera or camera fu sucks or both. Here's what I think the best I can do, I'll take a picture of both the Horus at 4x and my Leupy LR/T M3 at 4x with full lit reticle this weekend. That will be a fair  comparison.

DevL - the 1-4 NF is considerable brighter - NAG was with me at SHOT and we were lookign thru them - very easily visible inside and much brighter than previous NF scopes to my eye.

Quoted: BAC is most usefull when the reticle allows quick targeting on distant objects ina magnified mode.  It allows switching from one distant object to another without hunting.  Trying to use the variable zoom then centering on the next target and zoming again is counter productive in that scenario.

BAC benefits are well known in the scenario you gave.

I typically use 2x for general use and BAC is of more limited value. The Accupoint's power ring is designed well and on-the-fly magnification changes are easily and quickly accomplished when needed. Once again, this is my observation after a year of shooting the Accupoint. YMMV. The main benefit to the lit reticle is that it "grabs" your attention. It is, of course, fantastic in low light too. One of the variable's big advantages is that on 1.25x you can shoot on the move like a dot. The BAC helps with distant transitions but at 4x shooting on the fly is HARD to do well.

Speaking about NSX. Does anyone knows of the NSX 1-4x uses the same 1/4 moa as their higher power scope ? Also does Kenton really stock their BDC caps for NSX series ?

www.kentonindustries.com/knobs/

If both are true, that could be a good compromise for S&B if you want to save about $900.

I just returned from doing the training and installation on the next 8 TR21’s I am fielding.  
To fully understand the how I arrived at my requirements of this class of optic over the last 11 years (CQC- INTERMEDIATE ranges) I will need to cover the traditional CQC optics and their issues in meeting those requirements.  This will be a large amount of information and will need to be split in to several posts.

CQC Sights
The disadvantage of the 1X pure CQC optics in this area is the 4 MOA dot and the target area it covers at the ranges we are concerned with. The standard dot size on an open pistol in IPSC / USPSA is 7-8 MOA ideal for the 0-50M engagements and better IMO than a 4MOA inside 200M
8 MOA @5M=0.4IN
8 MOA @10M=0.8IN
8 MOA @25M=2.0IN
8 MOA @50M=4.0IN
8 MOA @75M=6.0IN
8 MOA @100M=8.0IN
8 MOA @200M=16.00IN
8 MOA @300M=24.00IN
The 2 most common “CQC” sights in use are as follows:

   M68 aim point                                                                  
                                                                               
4 MOA@ 5M= 0.2 IN                              
4 MOA@ 10M= 0.4 IN                            
4 MOA@ 25M= 1.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 50M= 2.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 75M= 3.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 100M=4.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 150M=6.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 175M=7.0 IN                            
4 MOA@ 200M= 8.0 IN                          
4 MOA@ 300M= 12.0 IN                        
4 MOA@ 400M= 18.0 IN                        
EOTech
Outer                                      
65MOA@ 5M=3.25 IN          
65MOA@ 10M=6.5 IN          
65MOA@ 25M=16.25 IN      
65MOA@ 50M=32.50 IN      
65MOA@ 75M=48.75 IN      
65MOA@ 100M=65.00 IN    
65MOA@ 150M=97.50 IN    
65MOA@ 175M=113.75 IN  
65MOA@ 200M=130.00 IN  
65MOA@ 300M=195.00 IN  
65MOA@ 400M=260.00 IN  
inner
1MOA@5M=0.05IN  
1MOA@10M=0.1IN  
1MOA@25M=0.25IN  
1MOA@50M=0.5IN  
1MOA@75M=0.75IN  
1MOA@100M=1.0IN  
1MOA@150M=1.5IN  
1MOA@175M=1.75IN  
1MOA@200M=2.00IN
1MOA@300M=3.00IN  
1MOA@400M=4.00IN  

Lots of numbers so lets analyze each over a few points in are desired range capability given  the STD 25M/300M BZO and a standard over bore mounting height of 2.82 IN ( numbers from SOPMOD Special text). Why am i staying with this 300M number? That is the capabilaty  we are looking for in the CQC- INTERMEDIATE range sight that started this whole thing.
8 MOA= 2.056IN below our dot @5M
8 MOA = 0.728IN below our dot @10M
8 MOA = inside bottom of dot @15M
At witch point we  stay inside  our dot out to our desired 300M range except that 24 IN of target coverage @ 300M is to large. If a pure CQC sight is desired and the maximum engagement range is less than 225M to equal the maximum target coverage of 18.0 IN the 8MOA is a better option than the 4MOA. If that 225M max range is accepted then the BZO could be adjusted to eliminate being low at CQC ranges making hits at 225M slightly low. At any given range the 8MOA dot is twice the size of the 4MOA important #’s inside 25M at high speed wile moving.

4 MOA= .2.196IN @ 5M
4 MOA= 1.492IN below our dot @ 10M
4 MOA= 0.528IN below our dot @ 15M
4 MOA = inside bottom of dot @20M
At witch point we  stay inside  our dot out to 90M when we will start to hit high until  we reach  3.5IN high at 175M and start dropping back down into the center of the dot for a 300M BZO.  4MOA dot was chosen by the Army in SOPMOD Block I. As being the largest able to deliver the maximum target coverage of 18.0 IN at 300M, why a CQC sight was chosen based on 300M target coverage is unknown( maby they wanted the CQC- INTERMEDIATE range sight too)  especially considering the same package also came with an ACOG TA01NSN witch is much more capable sight  from 150M-600M but is a** at CQC.

For the EOTech with a 65MOA outer ring and a 1MOA inner I don’t have numbers but if we lay what we know about the 8MOA and 4MOA sights over the chart we can pullout some concepts.  The outer ring would be ok to use as an aiming point out to 25M past that it is beyond the 18IN maximum target coverage and the inner dot should be switched to as a primary aiming point, but at 25M the inner dot is 0.25IN equal to the 4MOA @5M and the 8MOA was never that small. At 125M the outer ring is larger than a 6 FT man but the inner dot is 1.25IN  about the same as the 4MOA @ 25M and the 8MOA @15M rather small points to be searching for on a man sized target at 125M IMO.

All of the discussion so far has been concerning recitals that are dots and rings, these radiuses do not lend themselves well to giving us a precise hold over/under reference point in the sights.  Being electronic sights the edges of these radiuses grow, shrink and blur based on the power setting relative to the available light.

Next come the Triangle & Chevron type reticles as seen in the Trijicon Reflex I &II sights (no discussions about power sources and wash out hear please, we are looking strictly at reticle shape). Both shapes give a very precise point to set your BZO to, not radiuses.

Triangle
12.9MOA  @5M=0.645IN
12.9MOA  @10M=1.29IN
12.9MOA  @25M=3.2250IN
12.9MOA  @50M=6.45IN
12.9MOA  @75M=9.675IN
12.9MOA  @100M=12.9IN
12.9MOA  @200M=25.8IN
12.9MOA @300M=38.7IN
Analyzed over a few points in are desired range capability given the same parameters as used above using the top point of the triangle as the BZO point.
12.9MOA @5M= inside bottom of Triangle at witch point we stay inside our reticle out to 90M when we will start to hit high until we reach 7IN high at 175M and start dropping back down to the tip for a 300M BZO, except that 38.7IN of triangle obscuring some of our 300M FOV but not what we are aiming at.  To eliminate some of this obstruction if you cut out a notch in in the bottom that is causing the obstruction you have a Chevron (^)

Chevron
14.4MOA @5M=.720IN
14.4MOA @10M=1.44IN
14.4MOA @25M=3.60IN
14.4MOA @50M=7.20IN
14.4MOA @100M=14.4IN
14.4MOA @200M=28.28IN
14.4MOA @300M=43.20IN
When using a chevron the notched out space is treated as if it were still a filled in triangle for CQC distances giving the same result of:
14.4MOA@5M= inside bottom legs of Chevron at witch point we  stay inside  our reticle out to 90M when we will start to hit  high until  we reach  7IN high at 175M and start dropping back down to the tip for a 300M BZO, except  we no longer have the FOV obscuring effect. In fact we now have a built in ranging  feature.  Outside legs of the Chevron equal body width at 100M and inside width of the same legs equal body width at 200M

All the CQC type sights are 1X no magnification, quick but do not lend themselves well to increased precision and or extended ranges. The requirement for grater precision and extended ranges is what drives the search for the ideal CQC- INTERMEDIATE range Sight. At this point I will post this and let everyone read it wile I work on the CQC- INTERMEDIATE range Sights  post,  don’t expect anything until latter in the week on that one.
Out.
2011BLDR

CQC- INTERMEDIATE range Sights

The 1X CQC sights all have the disadvantage of increasing the area of target covered as the range increases. This is a decrease in the precision available for shot placement in the exact serinio that we desire an increase in precision.  The Ideal sight would have a large reticle up close (CQC) and decrease in size/ target coverage as the range increased (INTERMEDIATE). Additional desired traits are:
1. Large rear lens.
2. Long eye relief.
Both of these increases the speed that strong eye can detect the recital, the brain can merge it in to one image and the transition between targets. Additionally they help to increase the normal binocular vision and reduce the strong eye tunneling effect.
3. Precise BZO point, radiuses as reticles do not lend themselves well to giving us a precise hold over/under reference point.  

Now go back and look at all the optics mentioned hear (and the Kahles 1.1-4 CSX no one has mentioned yet). You see all of them exhibiting the small reticle up close (CQC) and it increases in size and area of target covered as the power increases.  They work opposite of what I feel they should. All have smaller rear lenses and less eye relief than the TR21.  I have always felt that their was no change in the size of the reticle on the TR21.  Anticipating flack this post will cause I have done a quick test on a TR21 for this.  I was wrong it DECREASES in size and area of target covered as the power increase!  A check of the Trijicon data reviles an 11MOA reticle on 1.25X and 4MOA on 4X.

For the ACOG works for everything crowd. Have you really gone on a clock and proven to yourself that is true? I have years of Military and 3-gun experience on the TA01NSN, TA01, TA31 and TAllF-A. Including numeras shot timed runs over the same scenario with the different sights, on me and other shooters of varying experience levels.  All ACOG’s are slower inside 150M than a TR21( or a 1X CQC sight) regardless of skill level.   IMO that is directly related to magnification, small rear lens and short eye relief found in ACOG’s
Out.
2011BLDR

Quoted: Quoted: Also, can the Accupoint be used with night vision?  I wouldn't have thought so... I'm not sure about the NV compatability, the triangle is plainly visible in low light. In fact, it's the perfect intensity for naked eye shooting in low light. Wow, talk about thread resurrection. hr

I was gon on travel when this came back up. TR21 with the large rear lens is great for use with night vision worn on the week eye.
Out
2011BLDR

Ill be back

2011BLDR,
For a BDC dial equipped scope like S&B or Leupold, don't you think its easier and more accuarte to engage distant shorts 300 or beyond simply by turning off the dots and turn the BDC dial to the distant and shoot ? Same for Horus where one will use the mil grid for hold over ?
I understand your complain about first focal plane reticle if one uses the same portion of reticle at different mag for targeting but my take is different part of the reticle is used at 1x vs. 4x. At 1x, the thick circle in Horus or the bright dot in S&B is used while at 4x, the mil grid in Horus or the tic marks in S&B will be used.

Regardless of what part of the recital you chose to use you still have the issue  of increasing the area of target covered  obscuring more of the target, decreasing the precision available for shot placement in the exact scenario  that we desire an increase in precision.  I would be interested to know what the MOA size of the recital is at 100M on 4X multiplied out to 300M and 400M.
Out
2011BLDR

Quoted: All ACOG’s are slower inside 150M than a TR21( or a 1X CQC sight) regardless of skill level.   IMO that is directly related to magnification, small rear lens and short eye relief found in ACOG’s

I've known this for a good while and have alluded to it in my posts but didn't come out and say it due to the toes I felt would be stepped on. It is true though..

Once again, I'd like to see Trijicon do a TR21 with a 30mm tube. 1.5x6x magnification would be cool too.

As a side note for anyone interested in long range use of the TR21, this weekend I got several hits on a 10x12" steel plate at a laser verified 480 yards! The rifle is zeroed at 50 yards and using the triangle on 4x (4 MOA triangle @ 500 yards = 20") was able to put the base of the triangle on top of the plate and get hits. That's roughly 25" of holdover. At that range on a breezy day I certainly couldn't put every shot on the plate but you get the idea. A man sized target would most likely have been hit every shot.

Kahles.com

30mm riflescopes with non-magnifing reticles

Not the best reticles and expensive, but a very nice scope!

Walli

Quoted: As a side note for anyone interested in long range use of the TR21, this weekend I got several hits on a 10x12" steel plate at a laser verified 480 yards! The rifle is zeroed at 50 yards and using the triangle on 4x (4 MOA triangle @ 500 yards = 20") was able to put the base of the triangle on top of the plate and get hits. That's roughly 25" of holdover. At that range on a breezy day I certainly couldn't put every shot on the plate but you get the idea. A man sized target would most likely have been hit every shot.

Or about the width of the average build man, put the base of the triangle accross the shoulders at 500 yards and hit COM.

It's not about being sniper precise, its about being more precise than you would be with a red dot, or irons at those extended ranges. The idea of the CQB to intermediate range optic is utility, just like the AR. It's not going to be the best choice for every job, but it can still do the job well enough to get it done.

Quoted: Or about the width of the average build man, put the base of the triangle accross the shoulders at 500 yards and hit COM. It's not about being sniper precise, its about being more precise than you would be with a red dot, or irons at those extended ranges. The idea of the CQB to intermediate range optic is utility, just like the AR. It's not going to be the best choice for every job, but it can still do the job well enough to get it done.

Good points. All this and you still get an 11 MOA glowing triangle and long eye relief for up close hosing!

If you guys have measurements on the Ocular lenses(rear lens) of your optics could you please post those measurements.

ETA:
Leupold VX-II 1-4x20 ocular lens is listed at 1.6in
Leupold Mk4 MR/T M2 1.5-5x20 ocular lens is listed at 1.7in

Quoted: Quoted: Or about the width of the average build man, put the base of the triangle accross the shoulders at 500 yards and hit COM. It's not about being sniper precise, its about being more precise than you would be with a red dot, or irons at those extended ranges. The idea of the CQB to intermediate range optic is utility, just like the AR. It's not going to be the best choice for every job, but it can still do the job well enough to get it done. Good points. All this and you still get an 11 MOA glowing triangle and long eye relief for up close hosing!

Quoted: Regardless of what part of the recital you chose to use you still have the issue  of increasing the area of target covered  obscuring more of the target, decreasing the precision available for shot placement in the exact scenario  that we desire an increase in precision.  I would be interested to know what the MOA size of the recital is at 100M on 4X multiplied out to 300M and 400M. Out 2011BLDR

I can't speak for the S&B and Leupold. But for Horus the center dot is 1 mil ~ 3.6MOA at 4x it will still be 4MOA since it is first focal plane. But that's not an issue since at 300M to 400M, you will be using a different part of the reticle (hold over down ~2 mils) and you will be operating at the fine grid area of the reticle. I still don't think you get what I said above so hopefully the sight picture below of the reticle at 4x will help.

Quoted: Quoted: Regardless of what part of the recital you chose to use you still have the issue  of increasing the area of target covered  obscuring more of the target, decreasing the precision available for shot placement in the exact scenario  that we desire an increase in precision.  I would be interested to know what the MOA size of the recital is at 100M on 4X multiplied out to 300M and 400M. Out 2011BLDR I can't speak for the S&B and Leupold. But for Horus the center dot is 1 mil ~ 3.6MOA at 4x it will still be 4MOA since it is first focal plane. But that's not an issue since at 300M to 400M, you will be using a different part of the reticle (hold over down ~2 mils) and you will be operating at the fine grid area of the reticle. I still don't think you get what I said above so hopefully the sight picture below of the reticle at 4x will help. www.horusvision.com/images/reticles/h48_Large.gif

I don't think he understands the concept period.............

hycheng,

Thanks for the the grat info on the Horus scope!

How does the Horus at 1x compare to an ACOG with BAC for 0-25 yards?  I understand it won't be as fast as the EOTech or Aimpoint but how much slower is the Horus for the close in stuff?

Photoman,
Both S&B and Horus spec their eye piece tube dimension at 43mm.

Yojimbo,
I have to agree with the observation that both Leupold M2 and Horus are not that bright as a BAC even at full setting. But the Horus has the advantage of the thick outer ring like the Eotech style and you just bracket the target at the short yardage.

I've added another image of the TR21, courtesy of 2011BLDR:


I've also added some more information to the site.  Again, I welcome anyone who wants contribute their thoughts on any of the optics.

Photoman and hycheng,

I don't think a lack of comprehension is what's at issue but a difference of opinion.

Tso,

Doesn't matter, I am the least qualified person to get into nomenclature here anyways.

Here's a photo of the Horus mounted on my Springfield SOCOM which is what the scope is intended for.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Regardless of what part of the recital you chose to use you still have the issue  of increasing the area of target covered  obscuring more of the target, decreasing the precision available for shot placement in the exact scenario  that we desire an increase in precision.  I would be interested to know what the MOA size of the recital is at 100M on 4X multiplied out to 300M and 400M. Out 2011BLDR I can't speak for the S&B and Leupold. But for Horus the center dot is 1 mil ~ 3.6MOA at 4x it will still be 4MOA since it is first focal plane. But that's not an issue since at 300M to 400M, you will be using a different part of the reticle (hold over down ~2 mils) and you will be operating at the fine grid area of the reticle. I still don't think you get what I said above so hopefully the sight picture below of the reticle at 4x will help. www.horusvision.com/images/reticles/h48_Large.gif I don't think he understands the concept period.............

I understand the concept of that scope.  Being that I have been perusing this scope concept for 11 years as an ACTIVE DUTY COMBAT DEVELOPER. I have established my parameters around user feed back in modern warfare, not range or hunting  use.  That retical has too much going on in it for the application we are talking about CQC-INTERMEDIATE (KISS Principal). Now a DMR / Sniper would have a different view on that, except for:
1. Magnification is to low, DMR’s generally like 3-10X, sniper’s 10X.
2. Years of MIL DOT usage, doubt that any one will ever get them to give up MIL DOT’s for anything else.
 
 I never really went in to the usability of some of the other scopes with Night Vision.  When we start to talk NV and electronically lit recitals we open up a whole new set of issues:
1.  To be usable “stacked” with the NVD (mounted one in front of the other, looking through both) requires very low power settings (not really visible with out a NVD).This requires very precise brightness settings and control

2.  To be used with a NVD Monocular on the week eye and the recital picked up with the strong eye when the weapon is mounted having the brain add the 2 images in to 1, well the larger the rear lens and the more forgiving the sight is to less than perfect eye alignment the better, a helmet mounted NVD is not light.  

I really do not want to argue with anyone but due to the current GWOT I feel someone might benefit from having this information available. If you are happy with your gear for your application, great. Having a deferent opinion voiced might upset some, because it is not reinforcing that your choice is the best, but it may save somebody else’s life. In reality with the long lead times for anything Trijicon it would be in my best interest if nobody else bought any TR21's, more for me to field.  But someone else in the fight may benefit by knowing of this optics capabilities.



Out.
2011BLDR

2X post Delateed

Quoted: Tso, Doesn't matter, I am the least qualified person to get into nomenclature here anyways. Here's a photo of the Horus mounted on my Springfield SOCOM which is what the scope is intended for. www.hunt101.com/img/254834-big.JPG

No worries.  I think we can all share our experiences without getting too argumentative.  

That's a sweet setup.  I especially like that stock.  Both your SOCOM and 2011BLDR's Scount make me want one of those.  (I must remind myself:  One project at a time!)  Although I think I may go the FAL route...talk about arguments!  Ha!

Quoted: Here's a photo of the Horus mounted on my Springfield SOCOM which is what the scope is intended for. www.hunt101.com/img/254834-big.JPG

Jeeezuz, hycheng, that's an awesome setup!! hat
TIA.

2011BLDR,
I agree with the KISS comment, that has been my concern about the reticle also. Like I said before, I am the least qualified to argue here so my apology if you feel it went that way.

TSO and Gasman,
Thanks for the compliments. This is the best I can come up with in PRK. I can't even have the vertical grip like 2011BLDR has in here .

I am a southpaw, so the sling is on the other side. It gets tricky though, I can't interfere with the op-rod but it cannot get too close to the grip neither.

Quoted: 2011BLDR, I agree with the KISS comment, that has been my concern about the reticle also. Like I said before, I am the least qualified to argue here so my apology if you feel it went that way. TSO and Gasman, Thanks for the compliments. This is the best I can come up with in PRK. I can't even have the vertical grip like 2011BLDR has in here . I am a southpaw, so the sling is on the other side. It gets tricky though, I can't interfere with the op-rod but it cannot get too close to the grip neither. www.hunt101.com/img/254836-big.JPG

That is one badass looking rifle

Wow, I'm certainly learning a lot from this thread..

I'd say that after reading what  2011BLDR and ipschoser1 have said about the TR21 that it sounds like a very good choice for CQC and intermediate range use. And it's also a lot cheaper than the S&B and some others.

What dealers even carry the TR21? What's the usual street price on them. Trijicon lists them at $700 retail.

The Product Wizard has Trijicon optics at good prices.  I've only ever ordered Surefires from them, but I have read on this site that a few people have been happy with their purchases of optics.  That said, I'm sure some dealers who support this site have them, too.

Quoted: TSO and Gasman, Thanks for the compliments. This is the best I can come up with in PRK. I can't even have the vertical grip like 2011BLDR has in here hpaw, www.hunt101.com/img/254836-big.JPG

hycheng,

I didn't know that Tony could incorporate pockets for light switches in his stocks...I'll have to talk to him about that, as I have a couple stocks on order with him already. How do you like his mag well modification? I'm in the People's Republic also, so I can't have a pistol grip either

Quoted: The Product Wizard has Trijicon optics at good prices.  I've only ever ordered Surefires from them, but I have read on this site that a few people have been happy with their purchases of optics.  That said, I'm sure some dealers who support this site have them, too.

Whoa! Are you serious? I'm a little skeptical at their prices...

I'd rather support a site dealer too if there are any that carry that optic. Not sure if I'm quite ready to buy it yet though. Thanks for the information.

I can't find the threads where I've seen Product Wizard discussed, but I know people here have used them with good results.  I'm all for supporting site dealers, though.

ETA:  And I've had a good experience with them myself...just haven't ordered any scopes.  YMMV.

Quoted: hycheng, I didn't know that Tony could incorporate pockets for light switches in his stocks...I'll have to talk to him about that, as I have a couple stocks on order with him already. How do you like his mag well modification? I'm in the People's Republic also, so I can't have a pistol grip either

Gasman,
Let's try to stay on topic. I started some discussion in here on the SOCOM.

Roger that. Saw the post already.

I heard back from a spokesperson at Horus, and the warranty on the Talon is only one year.  Yikes.  Whatever strengths that optic might have, that is enough to scare me away.  On another note, the battery life at its highest setting is around 20 hours, according to the same source.  For more info, see the Comparison site.

Quoted: 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!

Geez, grad students must be pretty flush these days. BACK WHEN I WAS A GRAD STUDENT- damn, I've come to this?... I budgeted $90.00/ month for food. Needless to say, we won't go into when that was. Good luck, General_Tso Rockefeller!

Quoted: 2011BLDR, I agree with the KISS comment, that has been my concern about the reticle also. Like I said before, I am the least qualified to argue here so my apology if you feel it went that way. TSO and Gasman, Thanks for the compliments. This is the best I can come up with in PRK. I can't even have the vertical grip like 2011BLDR has in here hpaw, www.hunt101.com/img/254836-big.JPG

Didn’t feel that way at all, I am always having to defend the choices I make on behalf of my operators to the “been counters”   all the technical and operational test data helps, they don’t like to hear that the end user prefers it.   Their sole function is to prevent you from spending  your money on what you need / want  if they have to let you spend it, they want the cheapest item weather it is a solution or an additional problem is irrelevant to them.
Out.
2011BLDR

Quoted: Quoted: 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! Geez, grad students must be pretty flush these days. BACK WHEN I WAS A GRAD STUDENT- damn, I've come to this?... I budgeted $90.00/ month for food. Needless to say, we won't go into when that was. Good luck, General_Tso Rockefeller!

I'm a grad student with marketable skills and not of a lot of bills at the moment, so I can afford to splurg a bit.  Don't be too envious, I have to really count my pennies in other areas to pull it off.  Not so glamerous when I have to think, "New brakes!  Damn it!  That's a complete upper!" or "Valentine's!  That's a bunch of new magazines!"  haha  But wait, that's probably how most of us think.  Honestly, I think I'm kinda cheap in other areas, which makes me feel a tad guilty.  I'll have to tighten the belt when I'm into my degree and can work less though, so this is my last hurrah.

But back on topic...  

Oh well looks like the Horus is out of the question and I am now waiting for the Nightforce unit to be released.  When I called them in December they said "check back in a couple of weeks" and we are almost to March now...

I'm in LOVE (lefty too).......... thanks for the pic!

Quoted: I heard back from a spokesperson at Horus, and the warranty on the Talon is only one year.  Yikes.  Whatever strengths that optic might have, that is enough to scare me away.  On another note, the battery life at its highest setting is around 20 hours, according to the same source.  For more info, see the Comparison site.

Just some thoughts...

IMO, there are several things about the Horus that I find less than desirable. Put me down as one of those guys who just doesn't "get" the Horus reticle in a 1-4X optic. In a long-range precision-type of scope, yes, I can see how a FFP grid could be useful. I use an IOR 2.5-10X42 with the 1st FP MP8 reticle on one of my rifles, and it IS nice to have the option to range using the mil-dots/hash marks at less than maximum magnification (unlike my Leupold M3 LR). However, the Talon is a low-magnification optic that utilizes essentially what is a circle dot reticle incorporating a mil grid. In addition to the clutter, it's difficult for me to understand how the grid could be useful in a 4X max optic.

I don't believe that the perfect short- to intermediate-range optic has been designed yet. For one, I would prefer that it not be battery dependent. I would like a true ranging reticle (like the TA11) so that I don't have to be calculating holdovers while under time stress; if it doesn't have a ranging reticle, then a BDC knob would be the next best solution. And the reticle should be easy to pick up at short ranges but more precise at longer ranges; thus, as 2011BDLR has stated, it should have a 2nd FP reticle. No such optic exists at the current time. Even the exaulted S&B Short Dot has its deficits. hock.gif

It may be that once you tape and mark the elevation knob to make a BDC knob on the newer TR21 (with the finger-adjustable knob), it best approaches the optimum optic for short- to mid-ranges. It certainly seems to be fairly popular with the 3-gun crowd. Although it may not as rugged as the TA11, for the price, one could buy two and have a backup scope for the price of one ACOG.

For a battery-dependent scope, the IOR CRT has some desirable features (eg. usable 2nd FP reticle), and its elevation knob could also be taped to make a BDC.

Another option that I'm considering is the Leupold VXIII 1.5-5X20 with the illuminated German #4 Dot. Since it has a 30mm tube, after a trip to Premier Reticles for a Mark 4 M1 knob conversion ($125) and then a Kenton Industries BDC knob added, this scope could have possibilites (would just have to keep a lot of batteries around)...

Anyone have much experience with the Leupy German #4 Dot reticle?

1) This thread needs to be tacked and/or added to the FAQ post

2) As an AR newbie who is still in the search for Optics - I find this thread particularly useful as this is pretty much exactly what I want to set my AR up to do. My primary goal is CQB engagement with the vast majority of all my shooting within 100 yards, HOWEVER I still want to be able to reach out to the 300 to 400 (Max) yard range with confidence (note I didn't say with ease or with 100% one shot accuracy).

At this very moment if funds were unlimited and I could spend anything I wanted to - I'd probably go for the S&B Short Dot or the U.S. Optics SN4 (Esp. with the group buy going on now). Unfortunately money IS limited and my true NEED & Anticipated Frequency of Use (the two of which will almost always outweigh my wants) are guiding me toward the TA21. Based on everything my little vacuum brain can pick up here and elsewhere on the web it seems that this optic will do all I'll ever really need it to and still fits well w/in my budget.

To all of you who have already contributed so much to this discussion, Please keep it alive & going - especially since more new optics are hitting the market every day.

Thanks

Sorry to bring back an old topic, but what does everyone feel regarding Horus Vision optic quality?

Comparable to Leupold Mark 4?  Nightforce?  

bump

To good much good info in this thread to let it die out.

Quoted: bump To good much good info in this thread to let it die out.

Amen!

Dear Sir,

I want to thank you for all of your EXPERIENCE based insights.  Don't worry, those of us with half a brain know you understand all the concepts.  Others think you don't understand because you haven't been "converted" to they're choice.  But, I know you realize that, too.  I just wanted you to know that "we" know that, too.  I truely value your input and real life testing vs. all the armchair commandos on this site.  Thank you for your numerous DETAILED thoughts and FACTS on this subject.  Plus, you quadrupled your post count on this thread alone.  I know you don't care.  Anyway, I just wanted you to know I learned a great deal from this thread and YOU, specifically.  I look forward to seeing other posts by you!!!

Jerry Jackson