AR-15 BS Thread

There is a reason why it is expensive, because it works as advertised. Most people who go the cheap route usually end up buying the expensive thing they should have purchased to start with. Buy once cry once.

 

I Have one of these, comes with a doubler. I like it..

http://www.vortexoptics.com/category/red_dot_scopes

 

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but there is no bad Aimpoint. Spending money to get the best is good, over-spending on features you'll never use... not so much. The M4 offers nothing to the average civilian gunowner to justify the $300+ (damn near $400) premium. Nothing. The PRO does everything the M4 does for practical use at nearly 1/2 the price.

 

.
Sub'd
.

 

Did you know or do you care....

If you forget to install, or lose during installationm your disconnector spring your AR will fire a round, chamber the next, but not cock the rifle. If you happen to hold the trigger down to make sure everything is doing what it's supposed to you run the risk of burst firing...

Ask me how I know!

 

I got a GREAT deal on mine. Thats the only reason I got the m4.

I cant tell you how many times I have bought the cheap version of things and ended up spending the money again later on and getting the bettter version. "Buy once, cry once" is legit.

 

Maybe I shouldn't say that my next optic is going to be a T1. Something about a RDS that holds it dot perfectly together during recoil and also going ten years between battery changes.

 

Here yall watch this video and what the rifle goes through is impressive, but the fact that the reddot survived through all of this speaks volumes. Not to give away the ending but the sight actually never lost zero the barrel got bent, they thought the opposite happened during filming.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfojMy1MWok&feature=youtu.be

 

Another great optic. But if you're not using night vision you'd be better off buying the H-1.

There is a tendency in most things involving male humans to think that buying the most expensive equates to buying the "best" (usually for no purpose other than bragging rights). This is not always the case. Sometimes increased cost is related to increased quality, other times it is due to added features. The added features that you are (over) paying for with the M4 is essentially night vision, a greater waterproof depth rating (and in the case of the PRO the depth rating is the same), and (slightly) better switching, none of which are likely to matter to the typical civilian shooter who would be MUCH better off with the 1-2k rounds of ammo that the price differential will buy. The PRO is every bit the optic that the M4 is but with fewer features, not reduced build quality or anything else. Again, there is no such thing as a bad Aimpoint (manufacturing defects aside).

In fact, buying an optic with night-vision settings when the buyer owns no night-vision has a negative side effect of adding switching positions to the range that the buyer will NEVER SEE.

More expensive does not necessarily equal better because better is dependent on end-use. Is the Tundra a "better" truck than the Tacoma simply because it costs more?

Some may find this chart helpful.

 

And you are exactly right. I am often guilty of thinking people are on the same level as me when it comes to my firearms. I do have plans for NV sometime in the future. Right now I am on an SBR/suppressor kick, so when that subsides I will start saving up for NVS of some type. You are correct in saying that someone would be better off with more ammo than NV capabilities. I do carry my weapons to work with me as I am a part time repo man that works in the country. The possibility of me having to depend on my carbine is a strong one especially considering that most people out here own rifles more than pistols. When you are driving down a long driveway in ECBF you kind of get this sinking feeling in your stomach because you never know what you will encounter at the end of the driveway.

 

I also have the Aimpoint H1, I am used to running an EOTECH at work.

WAY better battery life, easier brightness adjustment on the fly, and at a comparable price. I got mine from Larue with their tall mount, and have loved it ever since!

 

How would this compare to a Holo? I've used a holo before and those are pretty sweet.

 

Holo sights are not magnified, acogs are x4 magnification iirc.

 

ACOGs are sweet for it's purpose but I would not want one for close quarters engagements but that's just one man's opinion.

 

There are workarounds. The first is training with it. if you use it a lot, you get used to it. The second is to keep a lens cap snapped down on the front for close range and only snap it open for long-distance shots. Works great. Both eyes open, obviously.

The TA33 series is the best of the ACOGs IMHO. Compact size, good eye relief, good reticules, and the front of the optic body is a tube so it easily takes the cap.

However, I agree that I wouldn't put one on my under-bed gun.

 

Rob nailed it on the head, training and a closed front cap works wonders for the close in work. I am working on getting an ARD and front lens cap as we speak. I have done work in a shoot house with my 18" DMR and ACOG and ran the second fastest time of the day, familiarity goes a long way in being effective with your equipment.



Oh and my underbed gun is the M70 Yugo AK. I want the person to stay down.

 

To be fair, even Trijicon knows that they have a disadvantage at close range/indoors. They produced this abortion to try to compensate for it but it is a non-starter in my experience because the mini red dot is WAY to high above bore. While this can be "zeroed out" to some extent by zeroing the dot at shorter range than the ACOG, the issue is really that the high height above bore means extreme variation of POA at various ranges. I have yet to see anyone run one effectively.

There are, however, more and more people taking a page out of the 3-gunners and running a mini red dot sight (MRDS) offset from the primary optic. Whether an ACOG or 1.x-Y, or a full "sniper" type optic, putting the MRDS at 45* to the boreline/primary-optic line on the shooter's strong side.

I think that the variable-power scopes are where the future lies, however. I don't think they are "there" just yet, as evidenced by how many people still run offset MRDS with them, but I see innovations that are headed in the right direction. From the newer variants that are 1.x-8 power, to optics that are either/or not anywhere-in-between (meaning they are 1 OR 4 not 1 THROUGH 4). My suspicion is that Aimpoint is very close to an either/or solution given the fact that they have a magnifier that is relatively compact and they have the T-1/H-1 I think it's pretty close for them to be able to make a 1-or-4 or a 1-or-3 variable optic in the size of the M4, in which case I would see a benefit to the added cost. Right now I think the low-power variables are too heavy, the battery life is too short, and the tubes are still too long meaning they have a very limited range of head positions behind the optic. I'd like to see Leupold continue to refine-down the CQT to a smaller form factor, lighter weight, and longer battery life.

This is one of those things where I think all of the technology already exists, it's just spread across too many different companies. I want the ACET of the Aimpoint, the size of the Aimpoint, the reticule of the Eotech, the glass & magnification of the Leupold, and the fiber-optic/tritium backup of the ACOG.

 

I think you just divided by zero

 

yo guys got a quick question....my neighbor has a colt ar-15 and another ar but not sure of the make...the colt is prob 5-10 years old....you know how much something like it would go for??? id prob end up customizing it anyway but i dont wanna low ball him

 

pics? model? preban?