Optics on AR?

[ghosttwofive]

Get's me wondering if the glass has some part of the "starburst" affect/effect? Lowering the brightness can reduce the issue.

I wrestled with the Eotech for a long time. I paid a lot of money for the set up, I had the combo with the 3x magnifier, but no matter how much I adjusted it, it was always fuzzy to me. I very much liked the Eotech reticle, so that's one feature that drew me to the Sig Romeo 5XDR, but I was very surprised how much crisper the image was and how there was no distortion whatsoever. My eyes suck, I'll readily admit that, they always have but the astigmatisms in both eyes are a wrinkle I never counted on...lol

 

[TSiWRX]

Thank you for the insightful post.
I’ll need a little more time to digest it, currently cooking for the fam.

Glad to be of-service, so no thanks needed. I'm always in for the deep-dive. I'll probably bore you to sleep, but I try to be complete!

Quickly though, I focus on target but a pretty old school guy. The files of view on Romeo, and Wotech are on point for me , the wotech is just too clunky.

If you're not averse to more product returns, I'd give the Holosun 510c that @10mmLife and @Bassbob mentioned a try - the clear-aperture/viewing window should be very close to the same between the 510c and the EOTech XPS, but the 510c specs-in at just south of 5 ounces, which is just over half the weight of the XPS (and far below half of the EXPS).

I want to like the aimpoint but when i present and attempt to acquire target I end up getting caught up trying to get that lil red dot in place , then it’s as if I am staring through a thimble to place my target. Just more of a distraction that slows me down.

I really believe that the first concern, especially, is an issue of training/practice, versus having a big enough clear-aperture or viewing window. Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception and semantics.

Please allow me to explain.......

Quite frequently, shooters complain of that first issue when they move from open, traditional iron sights to micro-RDSs on their handguns. Without the typical visual cues -specifically that "flash sight picture" as they bring their handgun up to the eyes to begin refinement of the sight package- to help coordinate that hand-eye movement as they bring their RDS-equipped handgun to full-presentation, these newer/less-experienced (with the RDS) shooters end up adjusting the gun *after* it's reached full-presentation (often seen as "twisting/flexing" the gun around), in an effort to "find the dot." This comes about due to a lack of consistency in their presentation of the gun, and if this is what you're experiencing, then I think more practice in ever more quickly mounting the gun and achieving acceptable sight-package should help you through this difficulty (i.e. "up drills.")

If you're finding instead that you are at least seeing the dot/reticle as you mount and cheek the gun, but that the dot is not well-centered in the open-aperture of the optic, whether you need to further refine your sight picture will depend on the BSA template towards which you're shooting, and this slight delay is both normal and necessary.

This is demonstrated well in the Surefire: Field Notes video that I cited in the a previous follow-up in this thread -https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/optics-on-ar.10157/page-2#post-134309 - as Doc Spears noted, at closer ranges and with a generous enough target size, as long as you can see your dot and it is "on-target," you can rest assured that wherever that dot happened to be when you broke that trigger, the shot will print, with reasonable semblance of accuracy. However, as the distance and/or target-size stretch and shrink, you'll need to spend more time refining that sight package - more carefully not only aligning the dot/reticle placement on-target, but also (as demonstrated in the Green Eye Tactical video and white-paper I cited later in that same post) to refine how you are placing your eyes behind the optic, too.

I'm wondering if, based in-particular on your very last sentence, that the second scenario isn't truly the case. It reads to me that you're actually seeing the dot, but you're struggling a bit to center it within the clear aperture, and that as that size decreases in the smaller optics, you have an increasingly harder time in achieving what you're perceiving to be that necessary sight package. Is how I'm reading this, accurate?

 

[KillerFord1977]

Glad to be of-service, so no thanks needed. I'm always in for the deep-dive. I'll probably bore you to sleep, but I try to be complete!



If you're not averse to more product returns, I'd give the Holosun 510c that @10mmLife and @Bassbob mentioned a try - the clear-aperture/viewing window should be very close to the same between the 510c and the EOTech XPS, but the 510c specs-in at just south of 5 ounces, which is just over half the weight of the XPS (and far below half of the EXPS).



I really believe that the first concern, especially, is an issue of training/practice, versus having a big enough clear-aperture or viewing window. Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception and semantics.

Please allow me to explain.......

Quite frequently, shooters complain of that first issue when they move from open, traditional iron sights to micro-RDSs on their handguns. Without the typical visual cues -specifically that "flash sight picture" as they bring their handgun up to the eyes to begin refinement of the sight package- to help coordinate that hand-eye movement as they bring their RDS-equipped handgun to full-presentation, these newer/less-experienced (with the RDS) shooters end up adjusting the gun *after* it's reached full-presentation (often seen as "twisting/flexing" the gun around), in an effort to "find the dot." This comes about due to a lack of consistency in their presentation of the gun, and if this is what you're experiencing, then I think more practice in ever more quickly mounting the gun and achieving acceptable sight-package should help you through this difficulty (i.e. "up drills.")

If you're finding instead that you are at least seeing the dot/reticle as you mount and cheek the gun, but that the dot is not well-centered in the open-aperture of the optic, whether you need to further refine your sight picture will depend on the BSA template towards which you're shooting, and this slight delay is both normal and necessary.

This is demonstrated well in the Surefire: Field Notes video that I cited in the a previous follow-up in this thread -https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/optics-on-ar.10157/page-2#post-134309 - as Doc Spears noted, at closer ranges and with a generous enough target size, as long as you can see your dot and it is "on-target," you can rest assured that wherever that dot happened to be when you broke that trigger, the shot will print, with reasonable semblance of accuracy. However, as the distance and/or target-size stretch and shrink, you'll need to spend more time refining that sight package - more carefully not only aligning the dot/reticle placement on-target, but also (as demonstrated in the Green Eye Tactical video and white-paper I cited later in that same post) to refine how you are placing your eyes behind the optic, too.

I'm wondering if, based in-particular on your very last sentence, that the second scenario isn't truly the case. It reads to me that you're actually seeing the dot, but you're struggling a bit to center it within the clear aperture, and that as that size decreases in the smaller optics, you have an increasingly harder time in achieving what you're perceiving to be that necessary sight package. Is how I'm reading this, accurate?

Every time I see a response that I have to scroll down twice to see how long it is, its got @TSiWRX as the poster.

Some sound good reading, but i have to always go back and read it later. I dont have 5 hours to digest it all.

I swear you must be an English professor or creative writer at work…

Your prepping me for my 1000 page tom Clancy novels I want to re read

 

[SaltyMonkey]

Glad to be of-service, so no thanks needed. I'm always in for the deep-dive. I'll probably bore you to sleep, but I try to be complete!



If you're not averse to more product returns, I'd give the Holosun 510c that @10mmLife and @Bassbob mentioned a try - the clear-aperture/viewing window should be very close to the same between the 510c and the EOTech XPS, but the 510c specs-in at just south of 5 ounces, which is just over half the weight of the XPS (and far below half of the EXPS).



I really believe that the first concern, especially, is an issue of training/practice, versus having a big enough clear-aperture or viewing window. Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception and semantics.

Please allow me to explain.......

Quite frequently, shooters complain of that first issue when they move from open, traditional iron sights to micro-RDSs on their handguns. Without the typical visual cues -specifically that "flash sight picture" as they bring their handgun up to the eyes to begin refinement of the sight package- to help coordinate that hand-eye movement as they bring their RDS-equipped handgun to full-presentation, these newer/less-experienced (with the RDS) shooters end up adjusting the gun *after* it's reached full-presentation (often seen as "twisting/flexing" the gun around), in an effort to "find the dot." This comes about due to a lack of consistency in their presentation of the gun, and if this is what you're experiencing, then I think more practice in ever more quickly mounting the gun and achieving acceptable sight-package should help you through this difficulty (i.e. "up drills.")

If you're finding instead that you are at least seeing the dot/reticle as you mount and cheek the gun, but that the dot is not well-centered in the open-aperture of the optic, whether you need to further refine your sight picture will depend on the BSA template towards which you're shooting, and this slight delay is both normal and necessary.

This is demonstrated well in the Surefire: Field Notes video that I cited in the a previous follow-up in this thread -https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/optics-on-ar.10157/page-2#post-134309 - as Doc Spears noted, at closer ranges and with a generous enough target size, as long as you can see your dot and it is "on-target," you can rest assured that wherever that dot happened to be when you broke that trigger, the shot will print, with reasonable semblance of accuracy. However, as the distance and/or target-size stretch and shrink, you'll need to spend more time refining that sight package - more carefully not only aligning the dot/reticle placement on-target, but also (as demonstrated in the Green Eye Tactical video and white-paper I cited later in that same post) to refine how you are placing your eyes behind the optic, too.

I'm wondering if, based in-particular on your very last sentence, that the second scenario isn't truly the case. It reads to me that you're actually seeing the dot, but you're struggling a bit to center it within the clear aperture, and that as that size decreases in the smaller optics, you have an increasingly harder time in achieving what you're perceiving to be that necessary sight package. Is how I'm reading this, accurate?

Yes your last question is accurate.

 

[Bassbob]

Yes your last question is accurate.

While the "Openness" for lack of a better word, of the 510C was a real eye opener for me, I still never had a problem like you describe with a Romeo 5. I understand the concept since I have an RDMS on a 9mm pistol and it took some self training to get the dot to be there when I draw, but on a rifle or a shotgun the dot is always right there near the middle.

I still vote for the Holosun. I love mine.

 

[Keystone19250]

Glad to be of-service, so no thanks needed. I'm always in for the deep-dive. I'll probably bore you to sleep, but I try to be complete!



If you're not averse to more product returns, I'd give the Holosun 510c that @10mmLife and @Bassbob mentioned a try - the clear-aperture/viewing window should be very close to the same between the 510c and the EOTech XPS, but the 510c specs-in at just south of 5 ounces, which is just over half the weight of the XPS (and far below half of the EXPS).



I really believe that the first concern, especially, is an issue of training/practice, versus having a big enough clear-aperture or viewing window. Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception and semantics.

Please allow me to explain.......

Quite frequently, shooters complain of that first issue when they move from open, traditional iron sights to micro-RDSs on their handguns. Without the typical visual cues -specifically that "flash sight picture" as they bring their handgun up to the eyes to begin refinement of the sight package- to help coordinate that hand-eye movement as they bring their RDS-equipped handgun to full-presentation, these newer/less-experienced (with the RDS) shooters end up adjusting the gun *after* it's reached full-presentation (often seen as "twisting/flexing" the gun around), in an effort to "find the dot." This comes about due to a lack of consistency in their presentation of the gun, and if this is what you're experiencing, then I think more practice in ever more quickly mounting the gun and achieving acceptable sight-package should help you through this difficulty (i.e. "up drills.")

If you're finding instead that you are at least seeing the dot/reticle as you mount and cheek the gun, but that the dot is not well-centered in the open-aperture of the optic, whether you need to further refine your sight picture will depend on the BSA template towards which you're shooting, and this slight delay is both normal and necessary.

This is demonstrated well in the Surefire: Field Notes video that I cited in the a previous follow-up in this thread -https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/optics-on-ar.10157/page-2#post-134309 - as Doc Spears noted, at closer ranges and with a generous enough target size, as long as you can see your dot and it is "on-target," you can rest assured that wherever that dot happened to be when you broke that trigger, the shot will print, with reasonable semblance of accuracy. However, as the distance and/or target-size stretch and shrink, you'll need to spend more time refining that sight package - more carefully not only aligning the dot/reticle placement on-target, but also (as demonstrated in the Green Eye Tactical video and white-paper I cited later in that same post) to refine how you are placing your eyes behind the optic, too.

I'm wondering if, based in-particular on your very last sentence, that the second scenario isn't truly the case. It reads to me that you're actually seeing the dot, but you're struggling a bit to center it within the clear aperture, and that as that size decreases in the smaller optics, you have an increasingly harder time in achieving what you're perceiving to be that necessary sight package. Is how I'm reading this, accurate?

Basically all your post for me do two things, lots of good information and cure my insomnia.

 

[Boomturtle]

Holosun 510c is a great option with a long battery life and it's pretty lightweight and strong because on the titanium housing.

I have 3 of these and my gf has one. These work excellently and hold zero well. I have one on my 308 and it drives tacks everytime.

 

[TSiWRX]

So..... from my question -

I'm wondering if, based in-particular on your very last sentence, that the second scenario isn't truly the case. It reads to me that you're actually seeing the dot, but you're struggling a bit to center it within the clear aperture, and that as that size decreases in the smaller optics, you have an increasingly harder time in achieving what you're perceiving to be that necessary sight package. Is how I'm reading this, accurate?

We arrive at a reply from the OP -

Yes your last question is accurate.

@SaltyMonkey252 , I'd like you to try an experiment the next time you go to the range, with whatever optic you have on your AR, it doesn't matter.

Instead of focusing on accuracy/precision, let's let things go a bit loose there, and start chasing that time factor.

Let's see what you can get away with in terms of the accuracy/precision part of the BSA template, when you really -and I mean REALLY- get after the ball and chase things for time. This will work best if you have a shot timer, but even a smartphone with a timer buzzer that's loud enough to be heard over your gunfire will do.

The idea will be for you to set a par time (let's say 3 seconds), and to shoot as many rounds as possible in that amount of time.

But instead of using a full target, *_NEGATIVE_* that target.

For example, with the typical IDPA cardboard, punch out that center "down zero" hole -

Keeping things at close-range (let's say just 10 yards, or, heck, even 7), see just how fast you can keep all your shot within the punched out center (i.e. that no shot actually prints on-cardboard) *without* the need to perfectly center that dot in the confines of the RDS's "housing." Start from any type of ready position you wish - but the farther off-target the better (as it'll get your eyes as far away from the optic for as long as possible)... high-port or low-ready would be best, something "out of pocket."

Given that all you have to do is to keep any shot from actually printing on cardboard, my bet is that you'll really be able to let things rip and totally smoke this drill. I bet you'll rocket, coming from the ready, John Wick be damned.

Keep an eye on how many shots you can place into that open circle in what kind of time span. Make note of how, at this distance and with this big of a target, you're no longer really caring where that dot is inside the window of your optic - that you're likely burning it down as soon as you see your dot, and that as you continue to shoot rapid, successive shots into that target until the timer beeps, the dot is actually dancing all around the viewing window, with little consequence.

Once you get some data points, start using the full target again, with the goal of keeping all your shots in the "down-zero" high-center-mass circle, and see if you notice any differences.

If you're slower on the full target than with the negative target, my bet is because you're trying too hard to center that dot, at a distance and with a target size that does not require that much work on your part.

I don't know if this is the best post I've ever composed (because it's not long enough? )....do you get where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to get you to do?

At about time point 14:30 to 15:20, Costa runs a demo that gets at my idea, above, in terms of the timer/shooting. You're going to be using this negative-to-positive setup for a different reason, but this shows what I am trying to get you to do, shooting wise.

 

[SaltyMonkey]

I think I am going to give this one a whirl.
I have heard many positive reviews of Primary Optics.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-rotary-knob-25mm-microdot-with-acss-5.56-reticle

 

[Bassbob]

I think I am going to give this one a whirl.
I have heard many positive reviews of Primary Optics.
View attachment 23884
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-rotary-knob-25mm-microdot-with-acss-5.56-reticle

Do you know someone who has one ? What are you basing this purchase on ? I just think by buying all these different optics you're spending a good chunk of money on something that has a 50/50 shot of being what you want.

 

[SimonRL]

So..... from my question -

We arrive at a reply from the OP -


@SaltyMonkey252 , I'd like you to try an experiment the next time you go to the range, with whatever optic you have on your AR, it doesn't matter.

Instead of focusing on accuracy/precision, let's let things go a bit loose there, and start chasing that time factor.

Let's see what you can get away with in terms of the accuracy/precision part of the BSA template, when you really -and I mean REALLY- get after the ball and chase things for time. This will work best if you have a shot timer, but even a smartphone with a timer buzzer that's loud enough to be heard over your gunfire will do.

The idea will be for you to set a par time (let's say 3 seconds), and to shoot as many rounds as possible in that amount of time.

But instead of using a full target, *_NEGATIVE_* that target.

For example, with the typical IDPA cardboard, punch out that center "down zero" hole -

View attachment 23722

Keeping things at close-range (let's say just 10 yards, or, heck, even 7), see just how fast you can keep all your shot within the punched out center (i.e. that no shot actually prints on-cardboard) *without* the need to perfectly center that dot in the confines of the RDS's "housing." Start from any type of ready position you wish - but the farther off-target the better (as it'll get your eyes as far away from the optic for as long as possible)... high-port or low-ready would be best, something "out of pocket."

Given that all you have to do is to keep any shot from actually printing on cardboard, my bet is that you'll really be able to let things rip and totally smoke this drill. I bet you'll rocket, coming from the ready, John Wick be damned.

Keep an eye on how many shots you can place into that open circle in what kind of time span. Make note of how, at this distance and with this big of a target, you're no longer really caring where that dot is inside the window of your optic - that you're likely burning it down as soon as you see your dot, and that as you continue to shoot rapid, successive shots into that target until the timer beeps, the dot is actually dancing all around the viewing window, with little consequence.

Once you get some data points, start using the full target again, with the goal of keeping all your shots in the "down-zero" high-center-mass circle, and see if you notice any differences.

If you're slower on the full target than with the negative target, my bet is because you're trying too hard to center that dot, at a distance and with a target size that does not require that much work on your part.

I don't know if this is the best post I've ever composed (because it's not long enough? )....do you get where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to get you to do?

At about time point 14:30 to 15:20, Costa runs a demo that gets at my idea, above, in terms of the timer/shooting. You're going to be using this negative-to-positive setup for a different reason, but this shows what I am trying to get you to do, shooting wise.

KF1977 right now.

 

[SaltyMonkey]

I know an individual that has a few Primary but t not this one. I am hopeful that it will give me the perks of a red dot with the larger window park of Eotech.
If not then I’ll just return it.

 

[TEXASforLIFE]

I have a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x50mm scope on my AR10. This one is very good for low light but looking for a premium pick now and here found a few options. Thinking to try the Trijicon VCOG 1-6x24 next.

I like the drops, but when they are for specific weight and velocity I'm not much of a fan. With that being said I could do a scale test against the reticle for knowing where the bullets might land. This is a little more comprehensive than standard moa or mil drop.

 

[SaltyMonkey]

Digging up old post, I really like this one. Smaller than the Pro and a price point I can handle.

 

[Bassbob]

One thing I learned yesterday when zero'ing a $70 Primary Arms scope on my .223 Wylde, a very important lesson too. If you can't see it, you can't hit it. So next up is the Bushnell Elite 4500 4-16X50. Big objective lens with side focus Parallax adjustment.

Since Salty brought this thread back to life I might as well update this.

I ended up getting a great deal on a Bushnell Elite 6500. It’s an excellent and discontinued 4-18x50. 300 yards looks like it’s about 20’ away.