Red Dots vs. Magnified Scopes: Which Tactical Optic Is Right For You?

[Taurian]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/red-dots-vs-magnified-scopes-tactical-optic-right/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160704_BlogDigest_179&utm_campaign=/blog/red-dots-vs-magnified-scopes-tactical-optic-right/

[oldranger53]

Interesting.

I'm partial to the Trijicon optic listed, but the price tag makes me like iron sights that much better.

Good thing there are less expensive, and yet acceptable alternatives!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[Taurian]

Interesting.

I'm partial to the Trijicon optic listed, but the price tag makes me like iron sights that much better.

Good thing there are less expensive, and yet acceptable alternatives!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

I like the red dot for most work.  With that said, I also have a 1-4x32 that I can slap on a MSR if needed and it would be suitable for MOM (Minute Of Man) work at 100-yards if I could do what I need to do.

The issue with magnified optics, as I see it, is eye relief.  With some magnified optics you may have 3' - 3.5" of eye relief and there is no guarantee that you will be able to achieve that under duress and under different shooting positions.  If you are too far away from a magnified optic, the optic may be useless.  With a dot sight, there is no eye relief to worry about.  Add a flip-magnifier, if needed.

While most of the articles like the linked one like to expound on high-end optics with a brief mention of low-end optics, I would like to see article for those of us who are low-budget and optic challenged.  The problem with high-end optics is that you want to place them on a high-end, military-grade firearm. Most of us don't have the budget to play "buy and try."  We search Amazon.com for the 'Ford Pinto" optic that will give us "Lamborghini" performance.

Us older guys who have seen the elephant did so without optics. The newer breed are more used to optics and running them is more acceptable.

[oldranger53]

Very well said Taurian!

I love the Corvettes of the world but when all is said and done, a Ford Pinto will get me to the grocery store just as well...well, good enough.

Short of an extended battle against professional soldiers, a less expensive equipment set will probably do well enough to keep me and mine alive and functioning.

I'll never forget what one of the Airborne School Cadre said while training us for unintended water landings.
I had a problem with the idea of jettison the weapon before hitting the water...why? because we would need it to fight with.
He said, "just kill somebody, and take their weapon".
He was completely serious.  I never forgot that notion.

Relating to optics and military - grade weapons...well...you can see where this point is taking us, eh?

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[CR Williams]

Red dots below about 150.00 are suspect for me for use on fighting weapons. In the 150-200 range, Lucid, Vortex and Primary Arms have some dot-sights that I believe to be worth looking at.

[oldranger53]

Red dots below about 150.00 are suspect for me for use on fighting weapons. In the 150-200 range, Lucid, Vortex and Primary Arms have some dot-sights that I believe to be worth looking at.

Fair enough.

Would you elaborate, please, as to the nature of that suspicion?  I respect your opinion, and will give it due consideration when choosing a red/green dot optic!

Thanks!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[Taurian]

The Lucid HD7 is supposed to be a good red dot sight at a good price (around $250).  The Vortex SPARK II also has good ratings (around $200).

Primary Arms has a couple of magnified Prism scopes that might be worth looking into (around the $250 range).

[CR Williams]

Red dots below about 150.00 are suspect for me for use on fighting weapons. In the 150-200 range, Lucid, Vortex and Primary Arms have some dot-sights that I believe to be worth looking at.

Fair enough.

Would you elaborate, please, as to the nature of that suspicion?  I respect your opinion, and will give it due consideration when choosing a red/green dot optic!

Thanks!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

I don't see a 30.00-100.00 dot-sight as being at all durable enough to trust on a fighting gun. Simple as that. I'm not happy staying at 200.00 either, to be honest. I've thrown the Trijicon RMR corner first onto carpet-covered concrete without it affecting operation. Given I won't be doing tours in any sandboxes Lucid or PA or Vortex will likely do what they want. And one PA red dots supposedly has as much battery life as Aimpoints (however: had my first one run out after about seven or eight months). I can't be sure any of the ones I list can handle even one drop from shoulder height. But I'm less sure of the less expensive alternatives.

[oldranger53]

Red dots below about 150.00 are suspect for me for use on fighting weapons. In the 150-200 range, Lucid, Vortex and Primary Arms have some dot-sights that I believe to be worth looking at.

Fair enough.

Would you elaborate, please, as to the nature of that suspicion?  I respect your opinion, and will give it due consideration when choosing a red/green dot optic!

Thanks!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

I don't see a 30.00-100.00 dot-sight as being at all durable enough to trust on a fighting gun. Simple as that. I'm not happy staying at 200.00 either, to be honest. I've thrown the Trijicon RMR corner first onto carpet-covered concrete without it affecting operation. Given I won't be doing tours in any sandboxes Lucid or PA or Vortex will likely do what they want. And one PA red dots supposedly has as much battery life as Aimpoints (however: had my first one run out after about seven or eight months). I can't be sure any of the ones I list can handle even one drop from shoulder height. But I'm less sure of the less expensive alternatives.

Thanks CR.

I tend to agree on all points.

Optics are so "new" to me that I'm kinda learning what to trust and not to trust, as I become familiar with the "new age" of gunfighting.

Hitherto the here and now, I was an "iron sights only" kind of guy.

Thanks again!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[CR Williams]

I know there are still many who think iron sights are da bomb, but any fighting rifle today needs an optic, at least a dot-sight, on it. It gives you advantages that you don't want to give up to an adversary.

[Taurian]

I know there are still many who think iron sights are da bomb, but any fighting rifle today needs an optic, at least a dot-sight, on it. It gives you advantages that you don't want to give up to an adversary.

Agreed!  The common theme these days is to use the dot optic and to use iron sights as backup (co-witnessed or not) to the dot optic.  It is always good to be able to use iron sights proficiently. As "Quigley" would say in today's time, "I said I never had much use for iron sights. Never said I didn't know how to use them."

[M1911A1]

My iron sights never run out of battery power, and they are a whole lot sturdier than glass in an aluminum tube.
However, if I'm trying to make an accurate shot at greater than about 200 yards, I really, really am glad that I have a 'scope.

I have successfully competed, man-vs.-man, at 600 yards using iron sights, and I have made useful hits at 1,000 yards with them too. All it takes is practice and concentration...and good technique.
Could I do the same today, more than 20 years later? Nope. I don't think so. I've no place to practice, which has made my skills pretty rusty.

[Taurian]

My iron sights never run out of battery power, and they are a whole lot sturdier than glass in an aluminum tube.
However, if I'm trying to make an accurate shot at greater than about 200 yards, I really, really am glad that I have a 'scope.

I have successfully competed, man-vs.-man, at 600 yards using iron sights, and I have made useful hits at 1,000 yards with them too. All it takes is practice and concentration...and good technique.
Could I do the same today, more than 20 years later? Nope. I don't think so. I've no place to practice, which has made my skills pretty rusty.

You still have the knowledge, although the skill may not have been exercised in some time.  Most (including me) have not gained the knowledge (or experience) in LD shooting. While I have made 300 yards shots, and know roughly how much holdover is needed, I can only say that I hit the target but not where I hit the target.

My reality, today, is 100 hundred yards and inward and I can live with a 1-4x32 optic for the most part.  If I can deliver a 4" group at 100 yards these days, I consider it an excellent experience for someone with a 1 MOA rifle and a 10 MOA trigger finger. 

[CR Williams]

My iron sights never run out of battery power, and they are a whole lot sturdier than glass in an aluminum tube.
However, if I'm trying to make an accurate shot at greater than about 200 yards, I really, really am glad that I have a 'scope.

I have successfully competed, man-vs.-man, at 600 yards using iron sights, and I have made useful hits at 1,000 yards with them too. All it takes is practice and concentration...and good technique.
Could I do the same today, more than 20 years later? Nope. I don't think so. I've no place to practice, which has made my skills pretty rusty.

Your capability does not reduce the utility and usefulness of the dot-sight for the majority of shooters, however.

[Taurian]

Are we over-driving our headlights, here?

Even the article states."The red dot can be great for some situations, but not for all." For  fast and fluid operations, the dot sight may be the way to go in that the aligning of front and rear sight is mitigated.  For longer ranges and less fluid action, a magnified sight is far more useful to me.  Granted, there are flip up magnifiers and than can used in conjunction with a dot sight, but I have yet to figure out why I need to magnify the dot at the same time I am magnifying the target. I would rather the dot remains the same and my target appears closer.

Every type of sight has strengths and weaknesses.  A 4x scope is useless within a certain distance for the majority of shooters.  A 1x dot sight is useless beyond a certain distance for the majority of shooters.  Any sight is only as utilitarian or useful as the operator is when using it.

As for the majority of shooters that frequent the club that I belong to, no manner of sight will help them become better shooters because most of them can't hit a damn thing because they  do not adhere to, or have not learned, the basics of marksmanship.

Ya'll are on your own from here!

[CR Williams]

There are variable-magnification optics that have an illuminated dot. Besides that, dot-sights are usable out to at least 300 yards without magnification. Magnification is not necessary for shooting as Steve and others have proven. Magnification in a fighting context is most useful for target identification and classification. Once you have that, you can shoot without it.

That said, environment will determine usefulness. My environment does not include a line-of-sight beyond 150 yards unless I'm on a straight street. Magnification is still useful to me for the reasons sighted but given the likelihood I'll be in and out of buildings in a city the size of a magnified optic doesn't make as much sense as the smaller dot-sight. If you're in a rural area on on the border of suburban and rural magnification will be more useful.