Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
mrd

1-8x single scope vs. 4-12x + offset red dot for IPSC Rifle/3-gun?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I presently use a 1-8x variable magnification scope as the single optic on my gaming rifle and the matches I shoot have targets up to 350 yards away. I feel higher magnification really helps in longer range shooting. I've seen many sport shooters using red dots in 45 degree offset mounts together with a scope. Now I'm thinking about trying out a lightweight higher magnification scope like 4-12x for medium-long range and an offset red dot for closer targets. Weight would be about the same for both setups, whereas I would get higher magnification in the scope for longer range targets and retain fast target aquisition in close range with the red dot. I almost always use 1x, 4x or 8x on my present scope, never anything in between. So a dual optic setup would give me more magnification options without really giving much up, i hope. 

 

Haven't really seen much on the subject so I'm looking for your experiences here. What are the pros and cons? Is the double optic setup slower than the single scope one? What would be preferable for matches with targets at 350 yards? Is it a disadvantage to tilt the rifle for aiming with the offset red dot? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by mrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Add a 2nd optic like a reddot= open division.

Which means you can use a Reddot on your pistol and shotgun. And use a boxmag fed shotgun, no mag size limits on any guns.

 

Or you can learn to use your 1x8, which is really a lot of scope for 400 (which isn't really long range, just seems like it to a lot of 3gunners that shoot in square berms) and in. Quite a few shooters use 1x4 Scopes and do fine with them. Also, a downside to a higher magnification is the field of view is smaller, making finding targets a bit tougher and sequencing to the next tougher...

 

My open AR15 has a 1x8 and a Reddot, and a rarely use 8x...my HeMan scope AR10 has a 1x6, my HeMan irons has a 1x, and my wife uses a 1x4 AR15. Just for examples...

Edited by RiggerJJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop over thinking this and spend a solid 3 practice sessions learning how to build stable positions. Start with favorable targets at 200 yards and work out to 400. Once you've realized you CAN hit the target, practice until 400 is easy. Then start adding a timer in to see how quickly you can build a position and get first round hits.

There's no reasonable multigun target you need more than 8x in an optic particularly within 400 yards. Even in the situation of hidden black / lead gray targets hidden in a shaded woods in the early morning 8x has been plenty of magnification to identify and hit any target. Heck, even the iron sight shooters managed to pick them out eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8x at 350 yards is like shooting at 43 yards without a scope.

I've shot my pistol at 50 yards.

 

Going to 12x is like going to 29 yards, BUT:

    -  more wobble

    -  less field of view 

 

If you're having trouble hitting targets that appear to be 43 yards away,

then a 12x might be a solution - but most shooters feel like 8x is 

enough at that distance.

 

As Darqusoull13 mentions, I'd try practicing at 350 and see what happens.

 

How much experience do you have shooting at 8x at 350 yards ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm already shooting in Open division so that's not an issue. I think you misinterpret my reasons for asking - I'm not trying to solve a problem, I know I dont NEED more than 8x power. I'm just thinking about what is the most optimal setup. 

 

I'm thinking that with a dual setup, 1x with red dot is always at hand with a tilt of the rifle, should be faster than backing off the power with the lever. Or in reverse, tilt from red dot to the pre-set magnification on the scope suitable for the long range targets on the stage. So less need to run the power lever during stage. Also, I would like to have higher magnification at hand, just a general personal preference and it would be nice for the recreational  long range precision shooting I sometimes do.

 

But maybe no-one is doing this and for good reason? Still I see shooters running off-set red dots with their scopes. What are their reasons for this? Why not take the concept one step further and run a higher magnification scope with the red dot? 

Edited by mrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is doing it because it would put you at a disadvantage. The higher power your scope is dialed to, the slower your transition is to the next target.  This is the same reason that 90% of the rifles at a PRS match are 5-25x (or thereabouts) but virtually everyone reports staying between 12-16x for most of the match.  Zooming in too far just slows you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you shooting IPSC rifle matches, or are you shooting U.S. style 3-gun? Big difference in those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scope in a higher magnification range and with a bigger objective should give you a more generous eye box (bigger exit pupil) at any given magnification. This assumes you can live with the red dot at all ranges too close for the scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kurtm said:

Are you shooting IPSC rifle matches, or are you shooting U.S. style 3-gun? Big difference in those two.

 

IPSC Rifle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not shot IPSC rifle, but I tried a 2-10 plus red dot for a year. It worked okay, but SFP sucks more than I thought it would and rarely did I use 10x. Maybe for getting points and smaller target of IPSC it would be worth trying for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a 2.5-10× with an offset red dot. Matches in my area mix bay and natural terrain out to 500 yards. The 10x is a definite advantage in the 100-500 yard situations. In bay shooting, I turn down to 2.5x and use it for plate rack, head shots or targets covered by no-shoots, red dot for hosing. Works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 12:05 PM, ClangClang said:

This is the same reason that 90% of the rifles at a PRS match are 5-25x (or thereabouts) but virtually everyone reports staying between 12-16x for most of the match.  Zooming in too far just slows you down.

 

A lot of them have switched to the Nightforce 7-35x actually. Most do probably keep it under 20x though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOV and eye relief are more critical than X power then add it the quality of the glass.  FFV?

 

Swaro 1-8 FOV is about 100 ft at 100 yards with a generous eye relief. Plus great glass.

IOR, narrow FOV and eye relief but great glass.

See the trade offs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 1:34 AM, pjb45 said:

FOV and eye relief are more critical than X power then add it the quality of the glass.  FFV?

 

Swaro 1-8 FOV is about 100 ft at 100 yards with a generous eye relief. Plus great glass.

IOR, narrow FOV and eye relief but great glass.

See the trade offs?

 

I also think you mean eye box, not eye relief, but you are answering a question that I did not ask. know this, that's why I presently run the Swaro Z8i 1-8x24 BRT on my rifle. It seems to be among the best for the single optic setup and I'm very happy with it. But I'm always looking for ways to improve my setup. Perhaps you can read my posts again and see if you have any input on what I actually ask? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, eye relief is correct.  "Eye relief is the distance you must hold your shooting eye from the rear (ocular) lens of a scope in order to see the entire image produced by the scope."

 

I run a Swaro 1.7-10x with a BRT type reticle.  It is not a FFP/V.  So changing the X-power changes the POI.  Since most my competitions are either at 1.7 or 10x it is not that big of a deal.  The couple of times I forgot about that and tried to use 5x the pain was severe.

 

Your Swaro 1-8x is ideal for my type of shooting.  8x was great at RM3G and SMM3G distances.  Swaro  only offered the 1-6x when I got my scope.  The clarity is great for the early morning, late afternoon and targets in the shadows. Both competitions put targets out past 500 yards. RM3G has targets in shadows at different times.  The clarity of glass is more important than X power.  I have pounded steel at 800 yards with my 10x without major issues.

 

I did read your post.  Many out here use a second optic but my observation from being a RO/CRO is the second optic appears to be a slight advantage for the less experienced shooters.  They seem to be on target slightly faster.  At 1.7x and 90+ft of FOV I have no problems but I am just a duffer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pjb45 said:

No, eye relief is correct.  "Eye relief is the distance you must hold your shooting eye from the rear (ocular) lens of a scope in order to see the entire image produced by the scope."

 

I run a Swaro 1.7-10x with a BRT type reticle.  It is not a FFP/V.  So changing the X-power changes the POI.  Since most my competitions are either at 1.7 or 10x it is not that big of a deal.  The couple of times I forgot about that and tried to use 5x the pain was severe.

 

Your Swaro 1-8x is ideal for my type of shooting.  8x was great at RM3G and SMM3G distances.  Swaro  only offered the 1-6x when I got my scope.  The clarity is great for the early morning, late afternoon and targets in the shadows. Both competitions put targets out past 500 yards. RM3G has targets in shadows at different times.  The clarity of glass is more important than X power.  I have pounded steel at 800 yards with my 10x without major issues.

 

I did read your post.  Many out here use a second optic but my observation from being a RO/CRO is the second optic appears to be a slight advantage for the less experienced shooters.  They seem to be on target slightly faster.  At 1.7x and 90+ft of FOV I have no problems but I am just a duffer.  

 

Thanks, good input. I think in the end I might end up trying both setups and see what I like the best. But as someone pointed out, I might be overthinking this. I have a good setup and it would probably be to leave it as is and just shoot. But it's also fun to try out different setups! 

 

Sorry if this is nitpicking, my understanding of the terms is that eye box refers to the space where you can position your eye and still see the whole picture in the scope - a generous eye box makes head placement less critical, good when leaning and shooting different position, weak shoulder etc. As I understand eye relief it refers to the mean distance from eye to ocular on the scope while being able to see the entire image. Thus eye relief has more to do with how to mount your scope at the proper distance from the shooter whereas eye box is more about how forgiving the scope is to head placement. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the mrd

Take Swaro or Zeiss 1-8 and use it alone or get secondary 1x magnification red dot on side.

Rifle World Shoot open division winner had combo system and silver medalist had only 1 scope. Both systems are good to go.

 

Personally I prefer 1 scope system because I do not want to learn new shooting style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...