Best scope choice?

[Kim]

I'm trying to decide between a 1-8x or 2-10x scope for my AR-15
The furthest I'll be going is 300 yards so I like the option of 1.1x magnification

I'm currently thinking about the Steiner GS3 Scope 2-10x42 or something like a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24mm

Definitely looking for an illuminated reticle though

 

[dennishoddy]

I'm trying to decide between a 1-8x or 2-10x scope for my AR-15
The furthest I'll be going is 300 yards so I like the option of 1.1x magnification

I'm currently thinking about the Steiner GS3 Scope 2-10x42 or something like a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24mm

Definitely looking for an illuminated reticle though

I have one scope with an illuminated reticle, and In my honest opinion it's not needed, although I recognize some situations may be different than others especially if your planning on using it for home or property defense.
The Nikons and Vortex have some really good light gathering capabilities.
Perhaps if you let us know what the intended purpose is for the rifle/scope combo, we can offer more opinions.

 

[That Guy1]

No complaints on my strike eagle 1-6 and everyone I know with a 1-8 loves them.

 

[k4ylr]

If you're going for small groups and precision, get more magnification than an LPVO. Something in the 2-10 or 4-14 range would be more than adequate for shooting for groups 300 and in. If you want to just make hits; an LPVO is perfectly fine. Strike Eagles are nice, they have a tight eyebox at higher magnification that makes it harder to get a good sight picture. The 1-8 will suffer from this more than the 1-6.

Primary Arms has a very good reticle, good warranty (with Gen III) and great features for the price in their 1-X scopes as well as their higher magnification glass. Around that price point you also have Athlon Optics which has a Vortex-like warranty and good features for the price.

The be all/end all deal of deals is snagging a Steiner P4xi when they pop up for sale and are marked down. Arguable one of the best deals on the budget-er end of the LPVO options.

FWIW, I can make good hits out to 550y with 77gr and a 4-14 FFP on 2'ish MOA gongs with my 20" gas gun. I've made easy hits with a 1-4x out to 300ish on a 9x20 piece of steel on my 16" gas gun.

 

[Plene Paratus]

If eyebox is important to you, the Vortex Razor HD II 1-6 has the most forgiving one I have found. For 300 yds and in, 1-6 is more than adequate.

I'd suggest waiting until after SHOT, if you are looking at 1-8 or 1-10. There are some rumored optics coming out then that may be of interest.

 

[KurtM]

I'll fix it for you, for 600 yards and in IRON SIGHTS are pleanty adequate for 4moa sized targets. The only reason I could ever see to put a 10x anything on an AR would be for Prairie Dogs.

 

[Plene Paratus]

I'll fix it for you, for 600 yards and in IRON SIGHTS are pleanty adequate for 4moa sized targets. The only reason I could ever see to put a 10x anything on an AR would be for Prairie Dogs.

I'll fix it back. For PID, I'll take some magnification.

 

[dennishoddy]

I can’t see iron sight anymore effectively. I know Kurt can but he is a babe in the woods. Lol.

 

[KurtM]

Not being a young 60 years old and not being able to see iron sights any longer doesn't mean you need a 10x scope!

 

[Plene Paratus]

Not being a young 60 years old and not being able to see iron sights any longer doesn't mean you need a 10x scope!

Since when is "need" subject to someone else's judgement? I've hit 1000 yds with irons before. Which is just fine, if that's your thing (simply "hitting," or aiming at a target which you are 100% familiar with - ie a given paper or steel target). That is a far cry from being comfortable with hitting a suspect at 100 or 200 yards in failing light, that I have to be 100% sure is actually a threat. Different purposes require different equipment..Also, different eyes require different aiming solutions.

 

[KurtM]

And what do you suspect them of doing at 100-200 yards in faing light? Wasn't talking need, nor want, but when we start talking utilize in the confines of action shooting you really can't effectively "use" lots of excess magnification.

In the confines of failing light at 100-200 yards, if you don't have 100% certain facial recognition, taking such a shot would be highly suspect.

 

[Plene Paratus]

And what do you suspect them of doing at 100-200 yards in faing light? Wasn't talking need, nor want, but when we start talking utilize in the confines of action shooting you really can't effectively "use" lots of excess magnification.

In the confines of failing light at 100-200 yards, if you don't have 100% certain facial recognition, taking such a shot would be highly suspect.

I've been on multiple perimeters where I have been between 100 and 200 yards away. On situations where I absolutely needed to both identify who the person coming outside was, and whether or not the item in his hand was a gun. That has occurred at all hours of the day (and night).

As far as action shooting goes, 1-6 is getting ridiculously popular. 1-8 is not unheard of.

The military just got onto both the 1-6 and the 1-8 train.

To quote the late Pat Rogers, "Mission drives the gear train." I understand that some people will never see a use for anything but irons, just as some are perfectly served by a plain red dot. Others have a very solid use for LPVO's, and still others benefit from high magnification optics (which 10x is not). And all of those uses can be in regards to use on an AR15.

The OP stated he was interested in a 1-8, or a 2-10. He has determined that need for himself. Just as he determined a desire for an illuminated reticle (something that I personally have never felt a need for, under any circumstance). Telling him he doesn't "need something" isn't exactly helpful, particularly when you have no idea what context he is thinking about using the rifle in.

 

[KurtM]

I never told the original poster that he didn't need anything. I pointed out that really high magnification wasn't the end all and be all and that in the grand scheme of things it wasn't necessary. I did say "I" couldn't see any use for 10x except for prairied dog. Then in response to my friend Denis I told him he didn't need 10x....not the orriginal poster. Denis and i like to kid each other about being old.

As for mission driving gear, far too often, especially in the "manly,tough, live on the razors edge of countless encounters at 100-200 yards and beyond" world of law enforcement, I find that the exact opposite is true. The I've got the best new toy and now we need to find a notch to use it in dominates, not the what really works and do we need it. Everyone wants to be a sniper/SWAT/SERT......BUT just having all that cool gear doesn't make them that, nor does justifying our "toys" with countless long range midnight encounters. Throwing out a instructors name to justify an opinion of how you think things are, opens one up to all the other instructors who have a different view points, to include the person who started the school Mr. Rogers ended up teaching at.

In the end what you get, like, use, really doesn't impact anyone other than you, but if you ask for opinions on an open forum, you are going to get them. Only you can decide if they are valid for you or not.
The problem with touting all the countless call outs/ low light/ tough split second life and death decision, stuff is you never know who you are typing too, and you may be coming off as boreish at best. BTW this is more of a competition based forum. I am sure there are pleanty of "tactical forums", that would revel in in your posts.

 

[Plene Paratus]

You keep making sweeping generalizations. As you said, the problem with saying stuff on an open forum is that you don't know who you are talking to.

I'm well aware of Pat's meaning behind what he said. I actually knew him fairly well. Well enough to know that referring to him as "Mr. Rogers" would have earned his ire, and the reply of, "My father was Mr. Rogers. I'm Pat." I also knew him well enough to know he didn't "end up" teaching at any school. He was an instructor and Rangemaster at Gunsite for several years, but spent the last decade + teaching for himself. Quite successfully. ETA: Also, giving credit to the man for a quote is hardly "throwing an instructor's name out to justify an opinion..." I didn't say how the Colonel (or Pat, for that matter) thought about the topic at hand - the use of optics. I know I did have conversations with Pat regarding the Razor 1-6, but that has zero to do with his quote. I also know the man was a stickler for answering the question that was asked. I can't speak for the Colonel's feelings.

1-6 is extremely common in competition. As is 1-8. I would not be surprised at all if 1-10 became so, as the current crop of optics is released/refined. Being able to see better is never a bad thing, and let's face it, that's all an optic does.

There is nothing manly or tough about the world of law enforcement. Not all of us want to be SWAT (far from it). What DOES exist in law enforcement, particularly in larger agencies, is constant exposure to real-world scenarios/incidents. If you work the streets for long enough, it's pretty hard not to have a plethora to choose from. They also tend to come in all conditions - daylight, night time, transitional lighting, snow, rain, fog, etc. It also teaches you that simply seeing a "target" doesn't mean you should shoot it without additional information. That additional information is often gathered visually. In terms of distances, 100-200 yards is nothing on a perimeter. That is probably a fairly average distance to be when it comes to the old time/distance/cover adage. That correlates to multiple other disciplines, including some competition, and hunting.

Again, the OP never said a thing about WHY he wanted an optic. He simply asked for opinions on a 1-8 or a 2-10. I admit, my reply about the Razor 1-6 wasn't 100% in-line with that. It was a bit more in-line than "for 600 yards and in, IRON SIGHTS are plenty adequate for 4 moa targets." Obviously the OP had determined a need for an optic for 300 yards and in. Just like thousands of hunters, competition shooters, cops, military, and plinkers before him.

I get it, you're a forum OG, and a competition shooter. Color me impressed. If a mod or admin wants me to leave for other forums, I'll be happy to do so. For you? Not so much.

 

[KurtM]

You make my point quite nicely.

I never said I was a competition shooter, I said this forum is competition based.

I never met Mr. Rogers, he came to.A.P.I. after I stopped teaching there when Col. Cooper sold A.P.I. to Richard Gee.

Col. Cooper detested high magnification scopes....if you are interested in his mindset on optics.

Seeing "better" is a small part of building a good shot, and I have met many a steely eyed men that couldn't hit a barn from the inside with their 3.5-16X optic sighted rifle from the bench, let alone actual field conditions. I stand by my statement that higher magnification is not the end all and be all, and most folks are better served by less.

 

[Plene Paratus]

You make my point quite nicely.

I honestly haven't seen you make one.

I never said I was a competition shooter, I said this forum is competition based.

So, you're not a competition shooter? If you are who I think you are, it would be disingenuous to say you weren't.

I never met Mr. Rogers, he came to.A.P.I. after I stopped teaching there when Col. Cooper sold A.P.I. to Richard Gee.

Col. Cooper detested high magnification scopes....if you are interested in his mindset on optics.

I'm always interested in history, and although one can learn from it, those lessons are rarely in the equipment realm. The Colonel was also a huge fan of the Weaver and 1911's - neither of which are particularly germane to either the competition or tactical realm today. I would also guess his feelings on high-magnification scopes were dependent on the use of the gun they were attached to - something we have not determined ref the OP.

Seeing "better" is a small part of building a good shot, and I have met many a steely eyed men that couldn't hit a barn from the inside with their 3.5-16X optic sighted rifle from the bench, let alone actual field conditions. I stand by my statement that higher magnification is not the end all and be all, and most folks are better served by less.

Nobody has said anything about optics of any kind being the "end all and be all."They have their place. Unless you know the OP's abilities with a gun, or why he wants the optic, nobody - not you, me, the Colonel, or Pat, can possibly say what he would be "better served" with. Ref your continuing obsession with "steely-eyed" men, I've met a ton who weren't the best shooters who still managed to get the job done when they weren't shooting at steel. I've also met plenty who have crapped the bed. The same applies to plenty of men who were excellent shooters, when it came time to do work.

 

[KurtM]

Au contraire, I indeed did make a point...."and you may be coming off as boreish at best", from my previous post......The point you are making for me nicely.

I do shoot competitively, but that is hardly all I do and I don't identify myself in such a narrow relm. I also do quite a bit of teaching for military and police both here and abroad, but I don't identify myself as an instructor, it is something that I like to do. I have very few worries about "crapping the bed".....I'm not that old yet. I learned long ago that discussing my background with people in an open forum is an abject lesson in futility and makes one seem boreish at best.

 

[Plene Paratus]

Ah, I got it now. It's boorish to state that there are, in fact, times when you might want magnification, in fairly common situations. Situations which thousands of people encounter often. I guess it would be less-boorish to say something like, "That is a far cry from being comfortable with hitting a suspect at 100 or 200 yards in failing light, that I have to be 100% sure is actually a threat." But then it becomes boorish when someone replies with "And what do you suspect them of doing at 100-200 yards in faing light? Wasn't talking need, nor want, but when we start talking utilize in the confines of action shooting you really can't effectively "use" lots of excess magnification. In the confines of failing light at 100-200 yards, if you don't have 100% certain facial recognition, taking such a shot would be highly suspect," and I reply answering the question. I'm not sure if this word means what you think it means.

You don't need to answer, but I'd be interested in just how many tactics you actually teach (and if you teach any, if you have actually done them), and if you have actually been contracted by any high-tempo agencies or teams? I know...answering would be boorish. I have absolutely no doubt that you are a highly accomplished shooter - no doubt better than I am. What I have not seen, anywhere, is actual real-world experience using those skills. If you have, then you know as well as I do, that shooting is only a piece of the equation. You also know that TTP's are in constant flux. And since you train these organizations (and have presumably actually done the things you teach, for real), you probably also realize that "seeing" is actually huge in disciplines outside of the narrow confines of competition. Depending on the type of competition (PRS for example), it can be pretty important there. ETA: BTW, this is honestly not meant as a call out. There are a ton of agencies and units that hire excellent shooters to teach shooting. Those people are not generally in-tune with exactly with how those skills will be deployed. To carry on with my boorish perimeter example, a department might hire an excellent shooter to teach their officers to reliably hit targets at distance. That person will have absolutely no input in how perimeters are set up, how DMR-certified officers are employed, or in how the skills are actually used. Much like Jerry Miculek and Rob Leatham have been hired to teach members of various units to shoot, but have not the slightest clue of how those units assault aircraft.

We still haven't heard exactly why the OP feels the desire to have magnification (and why they have decided 8 or 10 is the appropriate upper limit of it). That is truly the only thing that matters. If they are under the mistaken impression that such magnification is necessary or helpful in 3-gun, then your position is absolutely correct. If they want to shoot tiny targets at distance, if they are training for PRS, if they want a rifle that is optimized for defending their property in a SHTF scenarion, if their eyesight is such that they require magnification to just plink, or, if it just boils down to the fact they want magnification, your assertion that "for 600 yards and in IRON SIGHTS are pleanty adequate for 4moa sized targets." was not exactly helpful. But that may just be me being boorish :scratchhead:

 

[KurtM]

It wasn't exactly harmful either if it gets the O.P. to really think about what they want.

It does appear that I do in fact need more magnification on my spell check, because I can't spell that well and I trust it way too much. Perhaps a 3.5 - 20X checker???

 

[Scott Hearn]

I stand by my statement that higher magnification is not the end all and be all, and most folks are better served by less.

This is absolute truth.

I have "old eyes". Can't see irons. Or...When I can see irons with corrective lenses, I can't see the target. Aimpoint to the rescue! My old Comp M2 mounted on my bone stock M&P15 would ring a MGM flasher at 300 EVERY.SINGLE.TIME as long as that 4mil dot was covering the target. I use Aimpoint PROs now so I can see a bit of target around that dot. Now when you are jittering like a squirrel on meth from drinking the amount of coffee that I do? Well, no optic can help with that. Past 300 requires a little magnification and is mandatory for me. 20X just isn't needed for mortal men. How many years did the Marine Corps snipers use fixed power 10s?

I guess the moral to this post is that different tasks require different tools.