Not at long distance but tight groups within the humane kill limitations of a 5.56 round ( 200 - hog, 300 - coyote ).

My biggest problem with the gun games I have been to is that we all get to walk the field of fire prior to starting.  Guys mentally determine before the first round is fired what targets they will dial up magnification and in what order they will engage.  

In my opinion, this is a very poor representation of reality.  LPVOs may work in this environment.  But, the logical leap that they work in a force on force environment is a stretch.  

"the military has a horrible record of providing conventional forces good training. "

Those are some very accurate words.  Most of my son's Marines shoot once a year.  When he was in OCS, 5 out of 120 of them had ever fired an AR15.  

It is bad.  

P.S.  My son shot a 340 out of 350 just last week on his qualifications.  I started him at 5 years old on a Chipmunk .22 single shot rifle.  Wait.  Actually, he shot nerf guns and b-b guns before that.  So, he basically started shooting at the age of 1.5 years.

Have you shot any blind stages at local or major matches?

No.  Our local 3 gun does not do blind stages.  

But, I have coyote hunted for 15 years.  Coyote hunting is one big blind stage that starts by surprise.   I have had coyotes show up at 3 yards to 400 yards.  My AR15 has a TA11J-G with an offset T2 on a Larue mount.  

There are 3 situations:  

1.  Up close.  Here things happen quick.  You get surprised.  The coyote is always on the run.  When that happens, I roll to my T2 and make the shot.  I would never have time to dial an LPVO down if it were on anything but 1x.  Things happen too fast.  .    

2.  Long distance with a stationary target - I use the ACOG.  

3.  Long distance when they are on a run - I watch them in the ACOG.  If they stop at a distance, I shoot them with the ACOG.  Many times, they keep coming in on the run and it ends up being a close shot.   When that happens, I instantly transition to my T2 and hit them on the run.  This would be much harder with an LPVO that I would have to dial down to 1X.  I am busy watching the animal and his body language instead of fiddling with my gun.  

I believe coyote hunting has more in common with a tactical situation than 3 gun because you never know when, where, or how fast the target will be moving.  

Instant transition between 1x and magnification is key for unknown situations.    

My issue isn'tt hat it isn't capable of getting someone accurate long shots, but with using it for long shots more than short. It defeats the lpvo's purpose as far as I'm concerned.

Hell, I just banged away at gongs out to 400 yards yesterday with a 1-5x on a 450 bushmaster. But I'm under no delusion that that's what the lpvo's made for, rather than capable of.

Perhaps gun games aren't for you since in their current incarnation, they reward stage planning and executing that plan while demonstrating your on demand marksmanship at the fastest speed you can control.

Also, you know you don't have to dial down any illuminated optic to make close range shots, right?

Some people aren't great at snap shooting magnified optics. There's nothing wrong with snap shooting or using a secondary aiming solutions as long as you get hits on target as needed

Yes.  I know you don't have to dial down an optic to make a close range shot.  But, a close range shot on a moving target under time pressure that surprised you will be a higher hit probability on 1x than 4x.

This is why hunting is better training for a tactical situation than a gun game that you walk in advance and shoot stationary targets.

I agree with you that effectiveness against moving targets is harder than most people think. And most people probably don't have much experience with it. Too much magnification for moving targets, is usually worse than none at AR distances. That's why ACOGs and RDS are great combat optics, they are simple, large FOV, and won't have too much magnification.

The key is anticipating the engagement distances, regardless of optic. In my opinion, variable power scopes are the best for hunting. But I prioritize accuracy for non moving targets for hunting, because that's more common for me. YMMV.

That bolded part. 'Snap shooting' is definitely a challenging skill and needs to be practiced regularly if you intend to use it

You mentioned force on force training earlier. Is this based on your first hand experience?

I ask because virtually all the shots that you fire in any training class are at stationary targets. Why do you think they do that?  When you dry fire, do you do that against stationary or moving targets?

Because the equipment required is usually one or more of the following: expensive, hard to find, difficult to setup and / or reset.

It can also be much more challenging from a safety perspective.

And it's an advanced skill that the vast majority of shooters aren't ready for or capable of. It would be a waste of time and money for a lot of folks. But generally speaking, it's not too tough to get people hitting stationary targets, regardless of skill level.

The reason why you fire at stationary targets in shooting schools is because it is an easier environment to teach.  Plus, moving targets are hard to simulate.  

I am not saying that dry fire or stationary target shooting is bad.  It is part of the crawl, walk, run progression of training.  But, ultimately, to really understand what gear is required, you have to go beyond this.  If all you do is shoot stationary targets, at known distances, that you can pre plan, then it is easy to adopt the wrong ideas about what will work when your environment is not so heavily controlled.

One of the biggest lesson I learned hunting with a magnified optic was - when you need 1X, you usually need it IMMEDIATELY.   Flipping magnifiers out of the way or dialing scopes is too slow.  I agree that snap shooting an optic is a great skill to practice.  But, it will always be inferior to a red dot up close.  And, snap shooting a magnified optic in low light up close will not give you a good sight picture.  (I hunt at night too)

(Haha.  I just read Missile Geeks response after I wrote this.  He said much of the same thing.)

I would like it to be known that I'm not suggesting snap shooting is as fast as a secondary 1x aiming solution. I've never had a problem doing it on boars or coyotes though

.
Not an easy shot with that round.

Understood.  You are right.  Snap shooting is a valuable skill.

As a youngster, when you were finally old enough to get to go deer hunting you didn't give 2 shitz about what was gonna be pressed up against your shoulder.  Mine was a Savage 99 with a 4x scope.  I killed a lot of whitetails from 15 yards out to over 300.  When the variables started to become reliable my first investment was a 3-9x, because I didn't feel handicapped on the low end.  I find it a bit funny to see how so many people seem to put so much emphasis on 1x for close in encounters.  You have two eyes, if you have illumination you shouldn't have a problem even with 3x

Edit*** nvm

I had a 3x9 Accupoint with the green dot and .mils. That thing was a fuckin banger and I'm sad I ever sold it. Thing was stupid light, and though rudimentary in terms of reticles, the thing just worked. I had it on a 16" gun and I miss it alot.

I haven't watched much of these guys, but the youtube algorithm machine pushed this on me today. This pretty much nails how I feel.

Their final thoughts are pretty much spot on about dedicated training. Also agree with lpvo's making you work harder. I wish at the 175 they would have only cranked to what ever magnification they ran the rds magnifiers on-i think it would have helped with the eye box comparison and been more apples to apples. Good video though!

A few more thoughts...
-watching the first dude bring up with magnifier with his shooting hand to stay on target is something I teach my dudes a lot regardless of using an lpvo or rds/magnifier.
-I wonder if the larger dude would have had an easier time with a higher mounted lpvo since he was used to a higher mounted rds
-it was interesting to see how close the splits where with admitting very little training time on lpvo's. They both seemed to improve a bit after getting more comfortable with them

Arf Warriors shoot rounds through the last rounds' holes

The TREX arms guys are great at 25y and in speed shooting. It's most of what they do. They would smoke me.

They are pretty crappy at precision shooting though if you watch any of their long range stuff. For example, if you watch their recent magnified vs.red dot video, shot at 100m , they determine that a magnifier is just slower to 100m with no better accuracy. You can see how inexperienced they are under the magnifier in the video moving back and forth to find eye relief. Of course they are shooting full sized silhouette targets. The shooting was in their estimation, pretty good, with 80% A zone hits for both. But to me, it was a shit show of misses. If they shot at a 6" box, they would be missing most of the shots fired, one of them would have missed every shot at one stage. They did not have a good idea of even the elevation to hold at 100m. There was a shift of magnified to unmagnified of like a foot for one guy at just 100m. This is the type of difference in perspective I was talking about earlier. Low standards, low expectations, and huge targets make for overconfident shooters that dont grasp their limitations. To them, a red dot is all you need to 110 yards and beyond. They proved themselves wrong, but just don't see it because of their standards taken from close range pistol competition shooting.

I know some guys will laugh this off and call my perspective ridiculous,  but usually, those are the same guys with low standards for accuracy. And to the guys saying that scopes only help at 200m or more or they would use 6x out to 600m... you must either have the best 20/10 eyesight in the world or be living in a dream. I would love to see a guy put 5 out of 10 on a 6" steel swinger at 600 yards with a 6× LPVO on an AR15. I certainly can't see well enough to do it but would love to see you do it. Please post a video!

These guys remind me of the exact sentiments of guys that hate red dots on pistols and advocate sticking with iron sights. And they are equally wrong.

Comments like... my aiming point is moving all over the place and I hate it! Are just people not liking their poor aim being made apparent. It is the same on your irons on pistol you just don't see it without the dot. Your aim is just as shit and wiggly with a red dot on a rifle... you just can't see it like you can with more magnification on an LPVO.

And I can virtually guarantee you these guys shot big ass targets. They are pistol guys that are used to full sized silhouettes and getting "hits" or " A zone" on ridiculously giant targets. I mean off hand at 175 yards? I can think of no scenario I would take an offhand, unsupported 175 yard shot with no cover. But this is a realist scenario for comparison?

These dudes are also so clueless they think the windage and elevation on a magnifier is to move your POI around lol!

Yes, it takes training to use an LPVO, but it offers advantages in more scenarios than it offers disadvantages if you train around them. You can't train around not being able to see, no matter how hard you train. And being able to see tbe the key advantage to the LPVO.

From what I can tell the TREX focus is tactical self defense type of stuff. If that's what you care about, it makes sense to focus on shorter ranges, speed and generally be ok with 5-10 MOA. For better or worse, a lot of people and organizations consider any hit on a silhouette success. My take on that is, any hit on an enemy is success. Close misses likely have a temporary effect his ability to shoot, move or communicate.

I generally disregard anyone with an ocular behind the charging handle, unless it's on a supported prone rifle.

I don't know of a scenario either, but...
That little white dot at the far right is a rigidly fixed 6 MOA steel plate at 200yds. I was having a slightly better than average day. A *beep* wouldn't add much stress. Some gusts would make Offhand sporting.


In Chris' defense though, the Accufire Atro-8 has an awful reticle.

Huh?

I would agree that the big guy had his lpvo mounted impressively rearward, but i've never heard of that company and have no idea what that lpvo's eye relief is, so chalked it up as crappy original acog short.

But the ocular lens matching or overhanging the charging handle a rail or two is completely normal and within the majority of scopes' eye relief.

Same listed ER as my TR24.

If Jake is an average dude, Chris is probably not much bigger than me, but he is depending on his shoulder mass and mostly brake for recoil mitigation. The stock is fully extended and scope is far enough back for only squared up shooting, but his grip is at the forend making him blade. Ahhh! Lol

Ah, yeah, gotcha, thought the same with how far back it was and his stance.