In a recent post on Rastoffs new ACOG JaPes posted this and in respect to that OP I did not want to drift the thread in there. I am not picking on Rastoff. For my money for the most part I agree with his statements but I am not sure they are universally true. So please consider the following:

It got me thinking. I have owned and shot high end optics. Trijicon, ACOGs, Tri-powers, Aimpoint, Pros, H1s, T1s T2s etc... but I have also owned Primary Arms & Vortex which I consider some of the better lower end type Chinese Optics.

When money is no object I am all for high end optics. On my go to rifles I have Aimpoint T2 and Aimpoint Pros. I know they will hold up to whatever I throw at them and I cam shoot them accurately enough out to 300 yards. This is the range that I shoot 99% of the time and it is the range I believe that I will have to engage if SHTF. However not every rifle I own will be called upon to fill a SHTF role. I keep 2 rifles one for myself and one for my wife setup for TEOTWAWKI the others are glorified toys.

I have other guns that I use for daily self defense. I have used an AR15 has a house defense gun but that really does not tax them too much. They are not abused in this roll. They were not exposed to desert sand, mud, water, thousands of rounds without cleaning etc... They don't ride around in a patrol car or the back of a truck on a daily. They are in a controlled environment and ready for use but in the end they were babied.

I am not a 1000 yard rifle shooter. I am not shooting submoa from a bench in competition. I don't shoot 3 gun. From the results of this unscientific poll I shoot recreationally like most of the people on this board. The vast majority of the people who responded shoot their AR15s under 300 yards off hand or from a bench/rest for fun. Basically most peoples AR15s are plinking rifles.

How do you shoot your M&P15 or other AR15?

I mainly fall into that plinking category in that I shoot for fun and to test my skills. I hope to develop enough skill to be able to defend myself should I ever be called upon to do so but if I am being honest with myself that is not the primary reason I own AR15s. I have attended both pistol combat rifle classes from high end instructors but in the end I keep coming back to the same thoughts.

What does my Aimpoint T2 do that my Primary Arms Advanced Micro dot or Vortex Sparc AR doesn't in terms of my use? All have 2 MOA dots. All are waterproof at a reasonable depth I would find my rifle and myself in. They all can be left on for 50,000 plus hours straight without changing the battery. They all can be mounted low, absolute co-witness or 1/3 cowitness. They are not all night vision compatible but I don't own night vision equipment. They all will keep working if I drop them 3 feet off the bench I am sitting at or drop them to the ground from a standing position.

When I take them to the range I can shoot the same groups from the same rifles with any of the optics. I am a decent shooter but I am no marksman IMHO. So my question is am I "cheating on optics" when I am punching paper at the range with a Primary Arms scope? Is having one on my home defense AR15 "cheating".

In one respect yes. No matter how you slice it the PA is not an Aimpoint T2 but do I need one? Durability an quality of the materials and glass are what I keep telling myself everytime I buy one. I need the best. LOL

I see this mentality all the time when people talk about AR15s even more than other types of guns. The need to be "tactical" and have duty ready battle proven gear drives huge segments of the commercial market. I have argued here that some rifles are plinking rifles and some are more serious "duty" type weapons only to be shouted down by some of the people who in the ACOG thread are proclaiming that only the best will do when it comes to optics but the $600 Sport II is more than enough rifle for "most people".

I am all for high end optics and I am in no way saying they are not worth what we pay for them. However, I see people all the time not shooting to save money or worse over spending their budget because someone on the internet told them they have to have an Aimpoint or they are "cheating" themselves. I see people with $2000 AR15 setups who can't afford to buy 1000 rounds of ammo to feed the beautiful beast they have. I try to tell people all the time to get some ammo get to the range and shoot your iron sights for 1000+ rounds before you buy anything for your rifle if its your first AR. How on earth can you know what to change or add if you don't know how to run the basic platform. I see so many people decking the gun out before they have ever really put it through its paces.

Does everyone need high end optics? Does everyone need what Aimpoint or Trijicon offers over PA or Vortex? Why is there money must be no object mentality when it comes to optics? So I ask the S&W forum are we giving bad advice?

While I generally agree with you ALL my rifles are multi purpose. They are fun at the range but they are also my SHTF rifles. I own 2 ARs, one FAL and the rest AKs. They are all configured the same not counting folding stocks or wood/plastic handguards. Not all of them have optics but instead of spending $200 x 2 for two rifles Id rather spend $400 once for one optic. I can't afford ACOG but MRO and PRO I can. Honestly I can afford the ACOG but I'd rather get the Aim point, which is still excellent quality, and a case of ammo.

Reason being is that I'd rather just buy once. Plenty of guys like to fiddle with their firearms. Paint in letters, have door breaching muzzle brakes, buff and polish....etc.. Im not into that. My guns are like work trucks. Not concerned about shine or cool looking gear. Just want it to work.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I judge by results within my needs. I use a red dot sight on my AR15. I can hit a 10in round steel plate at 300 yards. That is my need. Yes, I could do that with a $400 dollar red dot. But, I have been doing that with a $120 dollar red dot, just fine. I could shoot sub-MOA with a $500 dollar 16-24 power scope. But, I have been doing that with a $90 dollar 16-24 by Field And Stream. I don't need super quality optics when I can meet my needs with less expensive stuff. YMMV.

Why is there money must be no object mentality when it comes to optics? Optics are the one area where there are no cheats. Quality optical glass, materials, parts, seals, assembly, labor, the lot of it isn't cheap.

Does everyone need high end optics? No. Does everyone need what Aimpoint or Trijicon offers over PA or Vortex? No. Why? Not everyone sets up their rifle to survive until the 2nd coming of Jesus. They're just merrily plinking away on a one way range, shooting off a bench, posting pictures of little group. That is their happiness and joy. There isn't anything wrong with that.

If you're setting up your rifle for a SHTF, WROL, Cuban & Russian para-troopers are falling from the skies, Zombie Apocalypse, or 2nd Civil War as most here claim to be doing while thumping their chests to Ted Nugent's Wango Tango, then a Primary Arms, Vortex, Busnell, etc will not do. Why? You are setting up your rifle to be the tool you can rely on to defend and preserve your life and the life of your loved ones. You want both your rifle and your optic to be the best you can afford because money is inconsequential when your life is on the line.

Are we giving the forum bad advice? Depends on who "we" are. If you mean the "we" that strenuously defend and prop up dime-store to mid-range optics to be "just as good as", then yes. They are giving bad advice.

Now some will always suffer from acute gluteal discomfort due to the fact that they can not immediately afford an Aimpoint, Trijicon, Leupold, etc. That was me. Phil counseled me to just buy an Aimpoint. I experienced sudden onset of acute gluteal discomfort and decided to prove Phil wrong. (If I remember right, I used to fight Arik on this too.)

• Wally World Purchased Busnell
• Bushnell T-Dot
• Primary Arms M4 clone
• Primary Arms Micro Dot
• Primary Arms Magnifier
• EoTech (Until the settlement with the government, I thought EoTech was tops)
• EoTech G3 Magnifer
• Assorted quick disconnect mounts.

When I add that all up, I should have just bought an Aimoint or even a used Trijicon ACOG. I should have controlled myself, delayed gratification, scrimped and saved. I should have just bought an optic just one time. No. I had to learn the hard and expensive way. This is what I want the new people to understand. The buy in price of an Aimpoint, Trijicon is a punt to the nuts. Once you take punt to the nuts, it's done. You have a battle proven, durable, rugged optic that you can hold onto for a lifetime. Your rifle may change, but your optic won't. I went from a home built AR-15, to a S&W M&P 15-Sport, to an IWI Tavor. If I had just purchased an Aimpoint and been done with it, that Aimpoint would have followed my rifle progression.


The other component of surviving an acronym worthy calamity is your own physical health, physical fitness, and training. We won't talk about those because then the reality sets in, ruining the fun of an internet forum. Lord knows I don't want to admit that I feel like puking when I try to jog (not run) a mile, that I enjoy fried foods too much, that I'm on daily medicines to control my blood pressure, that I've developed a slight cardiac arrhythmia, or that at age 43 I don't recover as fast as I did just 4 years ago, that over the past 25 years going to the gym transitioned from recreational activity to masochistic endeavor ... all of which decreases my physical condition which in turn decreases the probability of surviving an acronym worthy calamity. Nope. I'll just take solace in my Aimpoint and the few carbine classes I'm able to attend every now and then and falsely believe I'll pull through a disaster like Rambo.

__________________
-John

Why doesn't that apply to the AR15 itself? Put a ****** buffer tube on your $400 build and drop it and see if it is as good as a Colt, FN or Daniel Defense. Cheap rails don't hold up as well as quality rails like BCM or Aero. Triggers don't even get me started on triggers. Why is it just optics? Your answer IMHO applies to rifles as well. Clearly YMMV

I think you are giving bad advice when you assuming that other people have the same intent an purpose for their rifle that you have for yours. I also think you are setting up strawman and misrepresenting what people say about inexpensive optics like PA and Vortex.

I don't see people telling other people that PA or Vortex are just as good as Aimpoint and Trijicon what I do often see is people suggesting that for the intended purpose, which for most people on this forum seems to be plinking, low priced budgets optics might be good enough. That if you are not in harms way in extreme conditions that a Vortex Sparc AR or a PA advanced dot might serve a shooter well. That it is even capable of use as a home defense optic where is it not pushed by the elements. I personally believe this to be reasonable especially if there are real world $$ constraints. I would always advice someone to buy a Vortex dot and 1000 rounds of ammo vs a Aimpoint Pro and no ammo.

You are also wrong when you say that if you buy high quality optics they will stay when the rifle will change. I have bought and sold 3 different ACOGs, a Tri-Power, Eotech (before they were caught cheating the Govt) and several Aimpoints. I have also bought and sold Vortex and PA scopes. What has not been sold are the Colt 6920, the BCM 14.5", the BCM 16", the Yugo AK47 and the WASR 10 to name a few. They have all stayed and at different times they have all worn different shoes.

These days I stick with Aimpoint Pros, Aimpoint T2s, PA Micro Dots and Vortex stuff. I have bought and sold tons of optics over the years.

I however would never assume that someones purpose for the rifle or their means economically are the same as mine. There are good quality optics at lots of price ranges that are "good enough" to get the job done for what most people are doing with their rifles. Most people do not have thousands of $$$ to setup a true combat defense rifle for something which has a .00001% chance of actually happening in a way that will require and combat rifle for survival. I think that you are assuming too much.

I am sorry that you lost money and time buying things you ended up not liking. That has not been my experience. I have bought and sold high end optics and lower end optics and have found that if you buy smart, often LNIB or on sale you can buy and sell without losing much if any money. I have bought Vortex Sparc IIs on sale NIB and sold them for basically what I had in them minus shipping to the new owner. I have done the same with ACOGs. I could have bought a NIB Trijicon ACO for $380 but passed because I didn't need one. Buy smart at every price point and you can sell used without heavy loses. My experience with ACOGs is that they are great optics but they are not for me and the type of shooting I do so they did not stick around.

As for your video about the Aimpoint that survived a fire you can find similar torture tests of cheaper optics like Vortex which when you look at their price point are going to survive 99% of what most people are going to dish out but I always like to point out X=1 is not a universal truth or any sort of logical proof. It is an example which may or may not hold true for you.

Vortex SPARC II: The Dot That Would Not Die | RECOIL

In the end I think you have really reinforced my initial belief that most people claim that one must buy expensive optics or they are cheating themselves because that is the choice they have made. It is a valid choice one I have often made myself but I am not blind to the fact that does not make it objective.

I just operate from the stand point that it must be able to operate in it's intended use or stated intended use. Then factor in if there is a stated price point and try to match the best choice with that.

Heck, getting people to spend $300-$400 can be a chore, let alone the price of an Aimpoint or an ACOG. Many won't spend the $700 I put into one of my scopes and that isn't really considered an excellent scope, only a "good bang for the buck" scope.

This may read the wrong way but no ill will is meant. It's easier to spend someone else's money than our own. Not to say the recommendations aren't justified but me telling you to spend $1,000 (or there about) for a scope is a heck of a lot easier than me actually spending the money myself. Regardless of how smart a buy it may be in the long run.

Sig,

My rifles are used primarily as target rifles, but they can serve double duty. I have 4 ARs, each decked out for different missions. For example:
- Colt HBAR Match Target - iron sight service rifle, 1:7" - NRA matches
- Franken AR LR - Bushmaster lower, White Oak Match upper, 1:8", bipod, Weaver T10 - 1000 yard
- Franken AR SR - Bushmaster lower, Rock River Varmint upper, 1:8", bipod, irons - up to 600 yards
- CQB AR - Aero Precision lower, homebuilt upper (PSA upper, 16" SS barrel, 1:9"), BUIS, BSA relex optic, forearm laser - close quarters M4 type rifle

I was brought up with the philosophy of the more complex, the more that can break. My CQB rifle cost me no more than $530, I built it on the cheap. I am a veteran when it comes to iron sights, and a newbie with scopes. Shooting F class has introduced me to scopes.

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

I see it's pretty much already been said, but I'll reiterate...

If the gun is just for fun, get whatever you want. I have a 10/22 with a $50 Simmons scope on it. It's just for plinking. I actually chuckle a bit when I see a nice optic on a "fun gun" like those .22 MP5 clones.

If your life depends on it, get the best and most reliable optic you can get. I think the OP is on the right track, you can get a lot of optic for $400-$800. Aimpoints, Meprolights, Leupolds, Trijicon Accupower, etc.

If it's for long range shooting, generally you get what you pay for. There are some scopes for less that match up to the Swarovskis and Hensoldts out there, but they're not $200. As with anything, if you skill doesn't match the capabilities of the equipment (rifle and optic), it really doesn't matter, any more than putting me behind the wheel of an F1 car would make me a great driver.

Very good discussion. The only thing I might add is that if your eyes are ok with iron sights they can't be beat for toughness and are accurate enough for any use I have ever had including RVN. Even if your eyes aren't great they allow for the use of less expensive sights for most of us. Thought I would add that I think the military uses dot type sights to train troops because they are easier for beginners who might not be shooters to use well quickly. If you know what you are doing iron sights can be used for effective range estimation and adjusted accordingly for use where needed.

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

The Vortex Sparc AR that you own and describe is a much different one than Vortex describes on their website.

According to Vortex, the Sparc AR doesn't operate for 50,000 hours. Vortex describes the Sparc AR failing at 300hrs. If left on the lowest setting up to 5,000hrs.

They also describe the Sparc AR as having an auto shut-off at 12hrs, not continuous operation for 50,000hrs.

And unlike the T2, I don't see a submersible rating on the Vortex, only moisture and dust.

You mentioned that this type of optic is suitable for defense absent extreme conditions. The automatic shut off automatically disqualifies it from consideration as far as I'm concerned. That's the entire reason for having a longer battery life. It's not to be eco-minded or save money on batteries, it's to have an optic that is ready when you are, not fiddling with buttons to get it working. No thanks.
Recreational use? Sure.

Vortex Optics - SPARC AR Red Dot 2 MOA dot

-------

As far as Primary Arms... I think Cypher's post summed it up well.

---------

I put optics in two categories -

A Duty worthy
B Recreational worthy

Advice?

Confusing the two, as Vortex does with their definition of the Sparc as a "Duty rifle" red dot, is the worst kind of advice.
Do you consider the Vortex Sparc AR a "Duty rifle" worthy red dot?

I definitely do see that. Typically I try to stay out of AR discussions. It's like the 1911 vs Glock threads. Usually someone asks something like..... "Just got an AR. What's the best red dot" ....and at least half the answers are something like....."get X it's the best $100 you'll spend" ...or...."Y. $100. Nuff said".

Back in July there was a thread about optics. Kinda went like that. X is just as good as Y.



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I'm all over the board with optics...........my philosophy is to try to match the tool to the job.................

I shot irons in High School and College..... but at 60+ I need a scope or red dot...........................

that said IMHO ARs and Aimpoint go together like peanut butter and jelly......the PRO is the best bang for the buck for the off chance we ever face a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI Zombi Apocalypse . The PROs battery life is only what? 30,000 hours vs 50,000 on the latest generation........I can live with that; extra batteries have a 10 year shelf life!!

My "PDW/home defense/s----and giggles at the range" guns; Beretta CX-4 9mm carbines have little Bushnell TRS-25s ( $100 or less).... which were originally an experiment (small and light) but have worked and held up well for 10+ years....upgrading to Aimpoint is a $600 proposition.

Most of my bolt guns (mostly CZs) wear Leupold Scopes.....1-4X20s on my "walking in Penn's Woods" guns...... and up depending on intended purpose........most of my shooting in Pa. is 100 yds or less.

My "Utility guns" a Ruger 77/357 and a Ruger NRA Mini-14...... are topped off with little Weaver 1-3x20 shotgun scopes.......about $170-180.......
The little Weaver has a good rep in 3-Gun and mine are on"grab and go" standby on 1X but 3X is available if I need a 100 yd shot on a "Varmint"

Match the tool to the job and the punishment/abuse it might face.............

I stand corrected on the battery life quoted. I agree that the auto shutoff is not the best feature but it is a single button to turn it on. IMHO they should have a way to deactivate the feature. There are ways to make it work but I agree it is not ideal. The battery life is shorter on the Sparc AR because it uses AAA batteries IIRC.

The waterproofing on the optic is rated at .5 meters for 30 minutes the same as the Sparc 2 which is not as good as the T2 but that is not what I am saying is it. You are creating a strawman argument and misrepresenting my thoughts and positions in order to prove your point. I have stated time and time again that Aimpoints and other higher end optics are excellent and perform better than the cheaper optics. That is not the question I am asking or the topic really being discussed. I am asking can something else get the job done for people who have budget constraints.

I am asking is a PA or Vortex dot good enough for basic home defense in a home environment? I personally run defense guns with a 1/3 co-witness with sights up all the time so that if the T2 for some reason fails I can go straight to irons. One could do the same with the PA or Vortex. I think we both know that there are ways to train around the shortcomings of equipment even high $$$ equipment.

I understand that mentality and in general apply a similar mindset but then again I a fortunate enough to have the means to do so. As I have stated before I run Aimpoint Pros and T2s on defensive ready rifles but I consider myself fortunate to be able to afford them. In all honesty my AR15s are not my go to defense guns. There are other guns which perform that roll.

You often quote Marshall Lerner and his statements about his optics but IMHO it has to be taken with a grain of salt. He is selling a good product that is known for inconsistent QC. If you get one that works it works great if you get a bad one he quickly replaces it. I take his statements as CYA as much as anything else. If I were in his position I would do the same especially since I sell other high end "duty" optics.

I think it is wrong to tell people that if they are not putting a $400 optic on a $500 rifle that they are "cheating" themselves. Everyone has a budget and if people are educated and informed as to what they are buying then I do not see it as "cheating". Maybe it was just the verbiage that bothered me.

I guess I still don't see why a Vortex or PA dot cannot be used in a home defense environment when $$$ are tight. It is not a Aimpoint but it will cost you about 1/3 NIB of the lowest priced NIB Aimpoint. In the best of all possible worlds people would save up but that is not always possible.

First and foremost always make sure you can hit your target with only the Irons if need be.
Because regardless the Brand or price shi* happens and never when one expects it... ...
So be prepared.....

I like how you write. I found myself smiling as I read your post.

On your last point, at 58 I am keenly aware of what you are talking about. However I will take wisdom, intelligence and training over fitness every time. Reminds me of what they called Samuel Colt: The Great Equalizer.

MMA champion against me with an AR? I'd step into that ring.

Yup I think the buy only "duty" quality optics are hedging their bet but in the end there are no guarantees that even the best gear is going to work. There is a bit of snake oil selling going on IMHO. People are told if you buy $600+ optics you will survive the zombies.

I have to agree. Bottom line is a good set of iron sights and knowing how to properly use them (not to mention a MUCH better field of view over any optic). No dead batteries to contend with or any parts that can fail due to mechanical failure or unintentional abuse. With a little practice you can hit anything within the intended "limited" 300 yard range of 223/556 ammo and a 16-18 in barrel on "most" entry level Modern Sporting Rifles.

Optics beyond iron sights, are nothing more than a luxury for the most part. Just as swapping out any accessories like butt stocks, grips, handguards. Anything more than actually enhancing the functioning action of the working weapon are nothing more than trinkets.

__________________
THIS WE'LL DEFEND ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I don't know why using optics on an AR15 would be "cheating" for any use other than violating a rule or using it in the wrong category for competition.

The fact is, as many get older, their eyes lose elasticity, and thus focus range. I am badly farsighted now, and usually have to wear glasses to see iron sights unless I'm in a very bright environment like high noon in the desert or sage brush country. In dim light without glasses, forget it. Can't make out even the front sight.

Currently my optics equipped AR15 is a Remington R15 18" carbine with a Leupold 3-9x on it. This is not my fecal matter hitting the oscillating air movement device gun, but could be used for that purpose. It's a dedicated coyote hunting gun and is never used for plinking, though I will practice on varmints.

Considering a S&W M&P 15 Sport II flat top and setting it up for either a red dot or a low power scope with illuminated reticle for low light use. Need to jump on this soon, as the liberals here believe they have the votes for a state ban in early 2017. I like that the Sport II has a non-M4 barrel. I don't like the M4 barrel and personally feel the reduced diameter "notches" are unnecessary and possibly a detriment to accuracy when the barrel gets hot. I'd probably replace the front sight with a railed or folding sight. The Sport II is attractively priced.

In respect to the OP, let's leave opinion at the door and discuss the purpose of any sight: to show you point of impact at a given distance from your muzzle.

Magnified optics: for when your target is far away from where you are, makes things look bigger and puts a nice precise marker on the target.

Red dot: short range, point and shoot, red dot marks the spot of impact at 50 yards (or less). (yes you can use it for farther zeros but remember - purpose)

The way I see it WV is wondering if Aimpoint, Trijji, Raytheon, or EOtech are really what a board should reccomend to the guy/gal that comes on a board and says "I just got my AR, what sight should I get?".

I wonder. If that person has to ask at all I'd more than likely say no. If a person needs the quality of the above brands or those like them, they already know that; and will be asking weather brand A(impoint) is better than brand T(rijicon). An Aimpoint is indeed good for anything you throw it at (even literally ). Then again, a bushnell is perfect for an AR newborn.

So, since they are asking for advice on that brand new AR that they probably haven't even shot their first ten mags through... then it would seem to me that whatever they want would be fine. I can't say that buying a cheap optic first is a bad investment at all. That wouldn't be true. Using that cheap optic would teach a new owner all kinds of things that just reading this thread would never and can never teach.

I love how WV tries to explain up front every time that the intended purpose of the firearm should drive the decisions of the end user, and thus should drive the advise of the forum. It shows a concern for the poster most don't ever take the time to consider. So many times I've seen folks post about how "You should go get X model because they just better, and don' let anyone tell you otherwise neither, cuz I'm just wizer then em, and you'll just end up wastin money, and you'll come around to my way of thingin eventually innywayz." So go big or go home? I think thats bad advice

I would advise in almost every case that the individual who has to ask if "Aimpoint is what they should use", use that money to go buy and then shoot $500 of ammunition. (this was my dad's advice to me) The skills they learn from doing so are worth far more than any American made or otherwise red dot they decide to put on their rifle. And no red dot or magnifier, regardless of where its made, what its made out of, and how much it costs will cover for the lack of those skills.

OP, I wonder the same exact things every time I read these threads. (Which I do because) I have been wieghing whether to buy high end first (buy once cry once)- or "settle" for a lowly Vortex or Holosun and then try to wear it out. By the way, Vortex has this really nice warranty... And you're right in another way - having the "duty ready" mindset doesn't mean you necessarily have the budget for it either. I for one must put my life on the line in the Vortex segment; I'll always have my BUIS watching over my red dot anyway. After that I leave it in God's more than capable hands.

__________________
Here, a grain of salt.

I am fortunate enough that I can still run irons and keep myself in practice using them. Regardless of what optic I get, there is a provision setup for me to quickly transition to iron sights if needed. Either using a QD scope mount or mounting the iron sights on a 45 degree off set.

Anything can fail, even iron sights but if used often enough to make sure they are still in good working order, they should be good when you really need them.

Plus, I prefer to set my rifles up for longer ranges. If the target is too close for the optic, there is the irons to fall back on. My .308 rifles have higher power optics because of the range capabilities the round has. When I get something for my 5.56 rifles, it probably going to be a 1-6 or a 1-8 scope since that is all that rifle should need with shorter barrels (16.5" and 18"). I figure 600 yards would be pushing it with either of them, thus the scope choice. That is my preference, so with that and about $1.50, one can get a cup of coffee to decide if that concept works for them.

It does. I never said it didn't. The topic of discussion is optics and I stayed on track. If we stray into the topic of individual AR-15 parts durability/quality v.s. price, then there will be sudden acute onset of gluteal discomfort amongst many here. I really don't want to go down that road.


First of all you can think whatever you want. I never assume that other people have the same intent with their rifle. I even stated so in my post.

I'm not saying that PA and Vortex are bad optics. They will never be as good as.

__________________
-John

No.

My Savage Axis bolt action rifle (in .223) came with no sights at all. I added a Weaver rail to the top of the receiver and a $30 red dot that I got from CDNN Investments, a liquidator of gun parts and accessories.

So far, that cheap red dot has allowed me to repeatedly put a bullet in the side of a milk jug at 200 yards; which approximates the vital area of the local white tail deer.

I will probably shoot ten to twenty rounds a year through the gun hunting and keeping up my skills and at my age, I expect to be shooting for about an other 20 years. If that red dot lasts 200 to 400 rounds, it will have done everything I asked of it - and more. If not, then I will not mourn wasting $30 and will go get a more expensive sight.

I know this had to do with a bold gun and not an AR, but I have another of those $30 red dots for my AR that I plan to install in place of the auxiliary iron sights that came with the gun.

I used to think like you, then I got older.

You see I can no longer use the ghost ring and post iron sights on my rifle. My eyes are such that the rear ring is so blurry, I can barely make out the outline of it. For 50 yards and closer, I can hit a man sized target with them. However, for more precision or longer shots, I need some kind of optic.

This is one reason I finally went to the ACOG. It requires no battery and has a little magnification. Using the Binden Aiming Concept (BAC) it has a much broader field of view than you might think.


About expense, Phil and I have gone rounds over this one a few times. Here we go again...

I don't subscribe to the idea that a cheap optic is fine for just plinking. My theory goes like this: I want to have fun while shooting. If my optic is giving me trouble, I'm not having fun. So, spend enough to ensure your optic is going to work for your particular activity.

I've owned cheap optics. I've spent as little as $30. To date, every el-cheapo optic has been a disappointment. They either don't hold zero or quit working altogether. Some are just terrible and aiming because of mediocre glass or reticles. This is truly a case of you don't know until you've OWNED a decent optic.

Now there are cheap optics and there are not so cheap optics. I've had very good service from my Primary Arms Advanced Microdot. It can be had for $170. I would highly recommend this over the TRS-25 even though it's $100 more.

Phil will tell you that mid-range optics are a waste of money. That if you're going to spend mid-range money, just save up for the high end optic. I don't agree. I find the mid-range optics far better than the el-cheapo stuff and yet good enough to put up with some serious use.

I think we all agree, if your life depends on it, second best isn't the right tool. Even so, there is no need to say the absolute top is the only way to go.

An Elcan is probably the best of the battle scopes. They run $2k if you can find a deal. An ACOG is every bit as tough and has every bit as good glass, as far as I can tell, for a lot less. A used ACOG can be found for less than $1K if you look. So, I think you can get a good optic, that will take real punishment, without trading in your car.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I have a New Ar 15 T Sport II. Had it a couple weeks or so. I picked up a cheap TRU GLO red dot from bass pro for about $100.00 or so. Now this is my first AR and first time using a red dot optic. I must say I followed the instructions on the red dot set up and have no issues at this point after running about 400 rounds in two different sessions. In the 2nd session my son and another friend shot it using the red dot and we all shot very well with it. We also used the battle sites that came with the rifle and sot pretty good too. now I'm not sure if I did the right thing but I can not complain about my purchase of the TRU GLO red dot. And definitely can not complain about buying the S&W SPORT II...BTW.. the first time shooting it was from a bench with a rest. The second time was in a gravel pit all standing. And shooting anywhere from 30yrds to 100 yrds .

I stated in an earlier post that I've used the TRS-25 for about 10 years on my Beretta Pistol caliber 9mm carbines...... w/ good results shooting out to about 75yds .....mostly 50 yds max (home range limit)...... rapid fire fist size groups.

What are the advantages of the Primary Arms Microdot?

For starters, to offer 'advice' about optics (that's your OP bottom line) it would be helpful to have at least a basic understanding of the most fundamental operations on what's being lectured. Your post misrepresented the Sparc AR on the points you chose to illustrate. Pretending or otherwise mischaracterizing an optic to be that which it is not is at the heart of the issue.

Of course a person may use whatever they like. However, if they ask for advice on choosing an optic that will be relied upon in life and death situations my suggestions don't include Primary Arms or Vortex red dots for those purposes. I've offered my reasons for this more than once.

To your question, my answer is....... no. Here is a recent example.

OP

My Reply
-------> Vortex advertises the Sparc AR to meet the needs of a "Duty rifle". Do you agree with that?

I bought two Vortex scopes for my Sport II and 15-22. I was going to get an entry level Crossfire (great reviews) but saw the Diamondback (step up) with a $40 rebate so I grabbed it. Gander Mountain price matched Cabelas, who at the time had the 2-7 on sale for 130, so I ended up with that scope for under $100.

While looking I spent a little more and bought the Strike Eagle 1-6 for my AR. Another price match at $249.

I wanted a higher dollar Aimpoint or Eotech but did I really need to invest that much in safe queens? My ego wanted that badass red dot, but my wallet said no. I think for the prices I paid, I did get a quality scope for each of my applications. I can always get my money back out of them as well.

__________________
Sport II Kimber UC2
SA XDM2

I'm by no means a "spring chicken" when it comes to age. I'm happily retired. I had new lenses put in both eyes a few years back after cataract surgery and when the Doctor asked if I wanted distance or close up vision, I opted for distance. I can read normal size print fine, small print I get out the cheaters. So iron sights aren't a problem for me and I can still keep em' all in the black at 300 yards.. Good iron sights are my (fail safe) bottom line on any weapon scoped or not. Also how and what I use teaching beginners.

Nothing against scopes. I (too), do believe you get what you pay for. Especially shooting long range. Long range (300+ yards), I prefer a higher caliber. That's what will really set some "junk" lower/mid range scopes apart from the higher end ones and the harder "beating" they get from the harder recoil.

When it comes to quality, price doesn't bother me too bad. Just need to shop around and do some good ol' fashion horse trading. Not really into buying used when it comes to anything weapon related unless I really know the person. I prefer a good warrantee and product support if there are issues or problems.

Would I put an ACOG on my entry level Sport, T, or Ruger? No. But it does look nice and works great on my DDM4 V7. )

__________________
THIS WE'LL DEFEND ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The main advantages are durability and battery life. The 50K hour battery life makes it a decent enough self-defense optic. You don't want to fumble with anything when your life is potentially on the line. So, a sight that's always on is a good thing.

Another thing is the Primary Arms customer service. They are as good as any company I've ever worked with.

You're a better shot than I am. I can keep them in the black at 300 yards, but from a rest and with a magnified optic. I've only tried 300 yards with irons once. Let's just say the paper wasn't scared.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.