I don't want to throw too much money when choosing my optic for my 15-22. I'm trying to keep it under $150.

So far, I'm comparing the Bushnell TRS-25 and the Primary Arms Micro Dot. The TRS-25 is less expensive - is the PA any better?

Do I need a riser for both of these? Maybe a UTG Medium Profile Riser Mount with 3 slots?

ive seen most people recommending the PA over the bushnell, not sure about the riser though sorry.

__________________
od: xd9 3"&4", 15-22, 1911 .22

For most purposes, the TRS-25 and PA MicroDot are the same. As far as the mount... the TRS has a fixed base and the PA has a removable base. Both require risers for an AR platform. Primary Arms also sells the TRS, and has a choice of risers for these optics.

I had picked up the TRS-25. No complaints with it so far.

I did pick up a riser so that I could flip up the folding MBUS sights and still use them through the TRS-25 if need be. The UTG Medium Profile Riser Mount with 3 slots was the perfect height.

This is from another thread.
No risers required.
Newbie, looking to add a nice inexpensive 3 or 4x red dot scope to 15-22
Regards,
BM1

A couple weeks ago I picked up a like new Vortex Strikefire red dot only off ebay for $125.




I have one on my M&P15 5.56 and am happy with both.

Personally I'd rate the Primary Arms quality control higher than the Bushnell. It is also closer to an H-1's design.

The PA magnifier is also easier to line up than the Bushnell. The PA's also gave nice bundle packages.

PA has done great on my M&P 15 OR. I'll be getting the micro for mt 15-22 and 2 micro reflex for my pistols. Outstanding customer service and the CEO is responsive when he's in country. Shipping freaks everyone out it's so fast.

I have a Bushnell 1x MP sight on mine as does my wife. A mini sight would be nice, but the MP does not require a riser and is built like a tank. Old reviews show some problems, but they have apparently been corrected.

Personally I'm really happy with my purchases from Primary Arms. I have a PA M3-style optic for my M&P15 and a PA Micro Dot for my Beretta CX4. Both do what they were advertised to do... and didn't cost me an arm and a leg.

The only thing I don't like about the Micro Dot are the bikini covers. I know that I can fit a Butler Creek scope cover on the objective side of the Micro Dot. Unfortunately I've not yet found anything that will fit securely on the eyepiece side of the Micro Dot.

+1 on the PA M3. I'd tried a friend's red-dot, and wasn't sure I'd ever like one. I DEFINITELY like the M3.

I'm new to optics - what advantages does the M3 style have over the Micro Dot?

Bushnell TRS-25

Subjective. Personally I prefer the smaller diameter tubes because they weigh less, clutter your overall view less, and you can use them as semi decent rear ghost ring sights if the dot goes down at close range.

They are a smaller tube though, which lets through less light, there is more clutter where you are actually looking, they lack certain things like the built in sun shades on the larger sights.

I have a PA M4 red dot on my 15-22, over 2k rounds with it on my riffle and it kills everything I put that dot on and still holds zero

i have the Bushnell TRS-25 and am happy with it.

Love the TRS-25.

I went with the TRS-25 and UTG medium riser. 120 reviews at Optics Planet and it got 4.7/5 stars - good enough for me.

I don't know if you know but red dots are good for close to medium range targets. Tuning down the red dot (smaller) you may be able to have good shots out to 100 yds. Red dot sights are used for quick acquisition of a target and actually took the place of iron sights when it was first introduced. If your battery takes a dump, all you're going to have is an empty tube unless you can find a red dot to fit your 15-22 that co-witnesses. Hey, you didn't ask for this info now, did you? LOL

Palmento state armory has vortex strikefire red dot on ale for 119
Use coupon code strike

Yes, thanks. The UTG medium riser is supposed to co-witness the TRS-25 perfectly.

Red dot sights can be used for ranges exceeding the capabilities of .22LR. While they do dominate in close in they are not restricted to 100 yards. The main problem is the original H/T 1 was a 4 MOA dot, and things like the RMR's were up to 8. This pretty much means you are stuck with that sort of inaccuracy. The new crop of 2 MOA H/T 1's more or less alleviates that problem.

I have no idea what the Prmary Arms or the Bushnell dot size is but there are a coupleof 2 MOA dot sizes available from Aimpoint. With most bulk ammo the M&P 15/22 isnt 2 MoA capable.

Remember, magnified opticts dont let you shoot better, they let you SEE better.....

And, if you can SEE better.....

I can't imagine anyone who can't see, and shoot, better with a scope than a red dot. Doesn't mean red dots don't have their place, or aren't a lot of fun. Basically, at 100 yards, I'll shoot (and do better with) the scope. That doesn't mean that I shoot entirely within the 2 MOA dot; it means I can see exact areas of the target much better with the scope. I use a lot of the 5-bullseye targets, that have a bout an 8" center, and four 2-3" centers. At 100 yards, I can't see the small centers without magnification, so using the red-dot, I'm just guessing on their location. With the scope, I can not only see them, but I'm aiming at their centers. Obviously, hits at that distance are much better using the scope.

I use always the red-dot at 25 yards, and of course it's much quicker for target acquisition.

I have a Strikefire on my 16" AR 15, no problems there. I wouldn't hesitate putting one on my 15-22 in place of the 3-9x42 on it currently.

You can see better. Read your post again. Nothing in it talks about shooting better. Shooting relies on things like trigger control, breathing, reading range and wind correctly and a myriad of other things. One thing it does not rely on is SEEING better.

All a magnified optic does is allow you to see what you are shooting at better. The accuracy is still up to your shooting skill.

KBK

I guess I still disagree, and that's okay. I feel if you can't see it, you can't shoot it. One example would be a golf ball at 100 yards. Neither my shooting buddy or I can see it without a scope, and therefore have no way of hitting it. With a scope, we can hit it a good bit.

Without a scope, I'm aiming at a big, black dot, and trying to judge where the center is, or where the corner bulls are; with a scope, I'm picking which area of the target to shoot at.

Maybe your groups are no better with a scope; mine certainly are!

Again you are only talking about see-ing better.

You obviously have the skill to make the shots. That's shooting. Being able to see the target clearer means you can see better. It does not improve your ability to move the trigger backwards without disrupting your sight picture.

My groups are better with a scope, but that does not mean putting a scope on magically makes me able to shoot better. It just means I can see what I am shooting at clearer.

I guess you could argue it is semantics, but buying a scope and installing it will not make you a better rifleman. If you mess up the fundamentals it doesn't matter if you have the Hubble Telescope mounted on your rifle, you won't be able to shoot properly.

KBK

Okay, well, I obviously wasn't talking about buying a scope, yet still not being able to shoot, and expecting good results. Trigger pull, steadiness, sight picture, breathing, ammo, rifle, scope/sights, they all make a big difference. Any ONE of them will not make a great shooter. But if you've got a number of them down right, then any one of them will help.

I don't really think it's semantics. Saying a scope will not make a better shooter is like saying a good trigger pull will not make a better shooter. All other things being equal, they will. And it's simply a way of improving one of the many variables.

Good way of putting it. But I have met people who believe a better scope = a better shooter. If you do not do your part then no whiz bang part will help you.

Generally throwing money at bad shooting won't help unless you are paying for ammo and a trainer.

The greatest marksman in the world would make a terrible shot if he couldn't see what he was shooting at.
The farther away the target is the more control and accuraticy is required. At 200 yards a 2" target will be impossible to see without a scope but will be impossible to hit without control.

Red dots for quick close shooting and scopes for accuracy at longer ranges. Like has been said - the better you can see the better you can shoot! This is especially true for us with older eyes.

It does. I had the UTG/TRS-25 earlier, then switched to a MARCQ QD riser, which also co-witnesses perfectly.