Rifle Scopes Burris 1x’s and why

[mheimer_45]

Hello I’m currently looking for a 1x for a home defense rifle. I’ve narrowed reticle choices down to either the Burris mtac 1-4 or the RT-6, which is a 1-6. I’ve read both are made in the phillipines, both have the same reticle. Main objective is home defense. Would like to test ammo at 100 for groups. Currently rifle has an eotech but looking for more. So which one?? Rifle has a light and mbus. This will be there for when the FNS with the streamlight isn’t enough.

 

[koshkin]

RT-6 is a newer and better scope.

ILya

 

[308pirate]

Keep the EOTech. Or better yet, replace it with an Aimpoint. Then you don't have to worry about battery life. If you want to stay with a holographic sight, check out the Vortex UH-1.

The back to back drills I've run using the same rifle with an Aimpoint PRO and a Trijicon RS24 demonstrate convincingly (the timer doesn't lie) that the reflex sight is just plain faster. The results on target also show more accurate and consistent shot placement to go along with the faster times of the reflex sight.

Now if the Trijicon had a different reticle that also has daylight-bright illumination and a higher mount (so that my head position was the same between it and the Aimpoint), I might change my tune.

But until I try those changes, I am not onboard the LPVO craze. Not when I consider what my carbine is going to be used for and how.

It doesn't hurt that I took my carbine along with some bolt guns to Thunder Valley yesterday and that hitting completely greyed-out plates at 230 and 315 yards (and in a grey overcast day) was pretty much a 100% thing and that stretching it to 370 yards I was still 50 - 60% hit rate. With a 2 MOA Aimpoint.

I know 3 gunners love them, I don't play 3 gun so irrelevant. Same for the special .mil, I'm not an assaulter.

 

[diverdon]

Vortex Razor gen II 1-6 on sale at EuroOptic for under a grand. That may be more scope than you are looking for, but it is a good enough deal that it might be worth it to consider what else you could do with your rifle.

 

[308pirate]

In my opinion, the weapon's role dictates the sight that goes on it. Not the other way around.

For the stated mission of home defense, a reflex or holographic sight + a WML provides more capability than anything else short of NODS and a IR laser illuminator designator. On top of that, the same rifle is far more capable beyond CQB distances than most people either give it credit for or know how to employ.

 

[ddavis]

FYI I've had a Burris TAC30, a couple of MTAC's and an RT6. I like the RT6 reticle better than the MTAC reticle, the glass is good and the scope isn't stupid heavy. In fact I had a choice between the RT6 and a Razor G2 1-6 and sold the Razor. The glass on the RT6 was equal if not slightly better. I set both at 6x and attempted to read small print at around 100 yards. Color, etc. is pretty subjective so I won't bother. The RT6 seems to be true 1x where the Razor seemed zoomed out at 1x, more like .75x, and it's not an anchor. A 24 oz scope on a lightweight carbine is not cool.

 

[308pirate]

I like the RT6 reticle better than the MTAC reticle

The Ballistic AR reticle that comes in the RT-6 is also available on the MTAC. You must have had an MTAC with the other reticle available for it (Ballistic CQB or something like that)

A 24 oz scope on a lightweight carbine is not cool.

Agree

As far as I know neither the RT-6 nor the MTAC have daylight bright reticles. I think some of the XTRs may, but I'm not sure about that either. Personally, that is a deal breaker.

 

[koshkin]

FYI I've had a Burris TAC30, a couple of MTAC's and an RT6. I like the RT6 reticle better than the MTAC reticle, the glass is good and the scope isn't stupid heavy. In fact I had a choice between the RT6 and a Razor G2 1-6 and sold the Razor. The glass on the RT6 was equal if not slightly better. I set both at 6x and attempted to read small print at around 100 yards. Color, etc. is pretty subjective so I won't bother. The RT6 seems to be true 1x where the Razor seemed zoomed out at 1x, more like .75x, and it's not an anchor. A 24 oz scope on a lightweight carbine is not cool.

If your Razor looked zoomed out, it is most likely that the eyepiece was not adjusted to your eye.

I do agree that RT-6 punches well above its weight class, but it is not in the Razor category.

ILya

 

[Basher]

On top of that, the same rifle is far more capable beyond CQB distances than most people either give it credit for or know how to employ.

^This. I'm still running an old 4MOA T1 on my carbine, and I'm good to at least 300 yards on an IPSC target without a magnifier. For a defensive carbine, I find an RDS to be ideal, and with practice, easily employable to distance.

 

[mheimer_45]

Maybe I need To get some ipsc sized targets and try. I do agree the eotech is faster to deploy and when I bring the rifle up I’m on target. But I’m a group junkie and I get frustrated when I don’t have little bitty groups. I’ve tried several attempts at a 2MOA dot drills at 100 and more times than not I miss the dot. Maybe I just need bigger targets. I was ringing the 12” gong at 200’ the other day with it.

 

[Basher]

Maybe I need To get some ipsc sized targets and try. I do agree the eotech is faster to deploy and when I bring the rifle up I’m on target. But I’m a group junkie and I get frustrated when I don’t have little bitty groups. I’ve tried several attempts at a 2MOA dot drills at 100 and more times than not I miss the dot. Maybe I just need bigger targets. I was ringing the 12” gong at 200’ the other day with it.

You need to develop realistic expectations for your rifle and it's uses. Tiny groups are great, but a defensive carbine isn't really designed for them. In actual use, you'd be employing the rifle under duress, standing, while driving through a ton of adrenaline. Add in the fact that many of them use a light weight, chromed barrel and a red dot or open sights, and accuracy expectations should be more along the lines of several MOA. If I can repeatably hit an IPSC at 300 while standing, and on the clock at a competition, that's good enough for me. "Minute of man" to a few hundred yards is where a carbine usually belongs. I'm interested in reliability and practical accuracy from my carbines, as opposed to 1/2MOA groups. I have different rifles for that.

Is it possible to build one that'll hold MOA or better? Sure. But it probably won't be very light or handy, aspects of a carbine that I find critical. It boils down to using the right tool for the job, and having realistic expectations of that tool. You're at least half of the equation as well, but be realistic of what your equipment can do.

 

[308pirate]

You need to develop realistic expectations for your rifle and it's uses. Tiny groups are great, but a defensive carbine isn't really designed for them. In actual use, you'd be employing the rifle under duress, standing, while driving through a ton of adrenaline. Add in the fact that many of them use a light weight, chromed barrel and a red dot or open sights, and accuracy expectations should be more along the lines of several MOA. If I can repeatably hit an IPSC at 300 while standing, and on the clock at a competition, that's good enough for me. "Minute of man" to a few hundred yards is where a carbine usually belongs. I'm interested in reliability and practical accuracy from my carbines, as opposed to 1/2MOA groups. I have different rifles for that.

Is it possible to build one that'll hold MOA or better? Sure. But it probably won't be very light or handy, aspects of a carbine that I find critical. It boils down to using the right tool for the job, and having realistic expectations of that tool. You're at least half of the equation as well, but be realistic of what your equipment can do.

This post is money

 

[308pirate]

I was ringing the 12” gong at 200’ the other day with it.

Goal achieved

 

[Pointman308]

Viper or razor for the win

 

[ddavis]

If your Razor looked zoomed out, it is most likely that the eyepiece was not adjusted to your eye.

I do agree that RT-6 punches well above its weight class, but it is not in the Razor category.

ILya

It's certainly possible. I played around with it but maybe it's just tricky to get set up like the T5xi scopes. I didn't want to come out and say the RT6 is better optically because I know it will ruffle feathers but the RT6 I've got was definitely better than the Razor I had. Sample size of 1 may have been the issue and it's possible I had a lower end of the spectrum Razor and a really good Burris. Seems like optic quality is probably a bell curve within a scope line and some are on either far end. I had an HDMR2 that had unacceptably bad glass and replaced it with a PST2 that just blows it out of the water for less money. Surely the average HDMR2 has better glass than that, I think I must have just got a bad one.

The bigger takeaway is that I've been very happy with all the Burris 1-? scopes I've had. Except for a crappy illumination button on the Tac30 (I rarely use illumination) they have been flawless.

 

[koshkin]

With any scope that starts at 1x, you have to spend some quality time setting up the eyepiece on 1x.

ILya

 

[diverdon]

If your Razor looked zoomed out, it is most likely that the eyepiece was not adjusted to your eye.


ILya

Ilya if you dug out all the simple nuggets of information that people often over look you would have enough good reading for a sticky thread. Thanks for the reminder that even SFP scopes need to have the eyepiece adjusted to work best.

 

[mheimer_45]

Well damn now I think I’m going to keep the eotech. I did build my father a supper lightweight upper with a faxon match pencil barrel. Spose I could build another one with the receiver I have laying around and throw a 1x on it. Maybe the 1x is just an itch and will pass. I’ve never had one but always wanted on. I just liked the Burris reticle choices.

 

[308pirate]

Go ahead and scratch the itch. Nothing wrong with that.

If I can, let me give you some lessons learned from my short trip down the same road:

• I would suggest a scope with a daylight-bright center dot. The most affordable, legit choice in that category (from what I've read on various forums) is the Steiner 1-4X PX4i. People call its center dot "Aimpoint bright". Another good choice would be the Trijicon 1-4X or 1-6X Accupoints with the post/triangle reticle.
• Look for the simplest reticle possible. IMO, Trijicon is seriously missing the boat by not including the BDC from the ACOG under the triangle reticle in its Accupoint 1-4X and 1-6X scopes. Even without the BDC, I'd take the simple post+glowing triangle reticle on the Accupoint over the unnecessarily busy reticles on the Trijicon Accupower and many other LPVS.
• Most cantilevered scope mounts are 1.5" tall from the top of the rifle's rail to the centerline of the rings/scope. If that is the mount that you buy and the centerline of your EOTech sits higher than that (as it typically does when the irons are in lower 1/3 cowitness), order a cheap 1/2" picatinny riser from somplace like Midway or Brownell. That way you can try having the scope at the more traditional height and at a height that is similar to your current sight. Believe me, when going for fast target acquisition, that difference in head position over the stock matters. If you end up liking the higher setup, it's easy to unload the 1.5" high mount and then buying one that is 1.93" tall.
• Don't dump your EOTech just yet. With quality QD mounts both optics will RTZ with enough accuracy that you can run different drills on a timer back to back with both sights. What one thinks is faster may not always be. The timer doesn't lie. Then decide.

 

[308pirate]

Update

I bought a pair of cheap 1/2" picattiny risers and just got done dry firing and doing some mount drills with carbine and a Trijicon Accupower 1-4X.

Let me tell you the higher scope really cuts down on reticle acquisition time. Still not as fast as an Aimpoint, but the gap is really small now.

HOWEVER, when you add a LPVO and the typical cantilever mount, you're adding about 12 - 24 ounces of extra weight (compared to a reflex or holo sight) to your rifle and you're adding it to the top of the rifle. The cantilever also moves the rifle's cg a little bit fwd of where it was with an RDS or holo sight mounted just over the ejection port.

That extra weight really changes the dynamics of the gun, and not for the better.

I'm probably going to keep the Trijicon Accupower and the mount I got it with because I got a smoking deal on them, but they'll likely sit in the box until I find another use for it. I'm not going to burn any money on a 1.93" mount nor on another scope with a better reticle when they basically crap the handling of my carbine.

Bottom line, IMO the LPVS adds nothing to a carbine that is meant for defensive use. If I have to use it during normal times when my actions are answerable to the law, the visual enhancement from the magnifying scope is useless since any legally defensible action will take place at a distance where the naked eye is more than sufficient for threat discrimination. If things get to the point where I need to use the rifle to defend myself against a threat a couple of hundred yards away, society has degraded to the point where no one cares about the law anyway.

 

[308pirate]

And the two I have looked through are definitely daylight bright illumination.

This is the first time I've seen someone call it that. My definition of daylight bright is that the illuminated portion is as bright as an Aimpoint in full daylight. Meaning no overcast and the target fully exposed to the sun with no shade.

 

[koshkin]

RT-6 illumination it's daylight visible, but not daylight bright. There is a difference.

The reticle stands out nicely even without illumination though.

ILya

 

[308pirate]

RT-6 illumination it's daylight visible, but not daylight bright. There is a difference.

A big difference. Illumination brightness is also only half the equation. The other is reticle simplicity.

The reticle stands out nicely even without illumination though.

How do we define "stands out nicely"? That's why I decided to run timed drills back to back between what I have for a reflex sight and LPVO and the LPVO lost.

 

[308pirate]

So @mheimer_45, and @Basher a little experiment this evening.

The farthest I can reach at my closest range is 160 yards, and that spot faces SW from the firing line. At around 5 PM, the setting sun is nearly in your eyes and the heavily vegetated berm creates a good shadow. This is what the target (full size USPSA metric target) looks from the firing line, zoomed in as much as my phone would go:

I laid prone in the grass using only the magazine for support, put the ol Aimpoint right between the shoulders, and started flinging a total of 21 rounds. Fire, watch dot settle, fire....one round every 3 seconds or so.

This is a pic of target as soon as I put my stuff away and went downrange. By then the setting sun was really blazing

Turned it around to get a better view

17 alphas, 4 charlies. I can live with that.

Truthfully, doing that 100 yards farther away would not have been much more difficult and I see no point in saddling my rifle with a heavy scope that will not do much better.

I did cheat a little by wearing a ballcap.....

 

[Basher]

By definition, you possess an accurate rifle. It may not be precise, but it's accurate!

In all seriousness, this illustrates the point quite well. A distance of 160 yards is well beyond what I think 99.999% of people would consider to be a defensive distance in normal circumstances. If the SHTF then that's a different story, but from I can tell, an 81% A-zone hit percentage for a working rifle using an unmagnified RDS is acceptable. Even the B-zone hits were pretty much just outside the center, except for that one you dropped low. I'd consider all of those to be center of mass, and completely workable for a "social carbine" in field conditions. I'd call that good shooting.