Optics, what's your preference for your rifles?

[Molon]

A Compilation of Red-Dot Sight Evaluations


Precision Shooting With an Aimpoint

First and foremost, the Aimpoint red dot sight is a combat sight. Its primary purpose is for use in situations that require “reflexive shooting” at multiple targets, at close ranges. The Aimpoint excels in this type of shooting because it easily allows you to shoot with both eyes open and to focus on the target while shooting. All of my self-defense AR-15s have Aimpoints mounted on them. However, should the need arise (for example, making a head-shot on an aggressor at 100 yards who has most of his body behind hard cover) the Aimpoint sight is certainly up to the task of making precision shots.

There are those on this website who claim that when using an Aimpoint sight with a four minute of angle dot, that it is not possible to shoot groups that are smaller than four minutes of angle in extreme spread. One such person has gone so far as to claim that groups shot from 100 yards using an Aimpoint with a 4 MOA dot will be “greater than 4 inches. Usually much greater.” As we shall soon see, such statements are completely false.

To determine the level of precision obtainable when using an Aimpoint sight with a 4 MOA dot, I mounted an Aimpoint ML2 with a 4 MOA dot on one of my Krieger barreled AR-15s. This AR-15 is easily capable of producing consistent sub-MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards when using a high magnification scope. Shooting with the Aimpoint sight was done from a bench-rest at a distance of 100 yards using NRA 200 yard High Power type targets that I scaled-down for 100 yards. (The aiming black is approximately the same width as a human head.) Sighting was done using the whole dot centered on the bullseye. Three 10-shot groups were fired in a row for evaluation.

Zeroing the Aimpoint sight at 100 yards was conducted during a down-pour with 20-25 mph winds. The first two 10-shot groups were also fired under these conditions. The first 10-shot group had an extreme spread of 1.41”.

With another couple clicks of windage and elevation adjustment, the second 10-shot group had all shots going into the X-ring. The extreme spread for this group was 1.19”.

Just as quickly as the down-pour had started, the rain stopped, the winds died down and the sun began shining again. I posted a new and dry target on the 100 yard backer and continued shooting. The third 10-shot group had an extreme spread of 1.14”. The average extreme spread for all three of the 10-shot groups was 1.25”.

...

Here’s a little demonstration of the “practical accuracy” obtainable when using an Aimpoint with a 4 MOA dot. For this exercise, I used a 14.5” chrome lined, NATO chambered carbine. Shooting was done from the prone supported position. From a distance of 50 yards, I fired ten quick shots at an FBI “Q” target. The results . . . ten “bullets in the brain pan, squish!”

The 10-shot group has an extreme spread of 1.18”, which at 50 yards is equivalent to 2.26 MOA; far smaller than the 4 MOA dot on the Aimpoint. Again, this disproves the spouted nonsense that “practical accuracy” is not possible when using an Aimpoint with a 4 MOA dot.

.........

continued . . .

 

[Molon]

Observations On The Effect Of Parallax Error
When Shooting With an Aimpoint Comp M5, a Trjicon MRO and an Aimpoint T2

Some manufacturers of red-dot sights have made claims that their red-dot sights are “parallax free“. Most of us are already aware that this is simply not true at all distances. Inherent parallax error with a red-dot sight is typically greatest at CQB distances (MOA wise) and decreases as the distance to the target increases.

In this ballistic exercise we’ll be looking at the amount of parallax error occurring during objective, controlled, live-fire testing at the distances of 7 yards, 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards when shooting with an Aimpoint Comp M5 and a Trijicon MRO mounted on a precision AR-15. The Aimpoint Comp M5 has a 2 MOA red dot, as does the Trijicon MRO.

All shooting for this exercise was conducted from my bench-rest set-up using one of my precision AR-15s. This AR-15 has a 20” Lothar Walther barrel with a 223 Wylde chamber and a 1:8” twist and it routinely produces 0.75 MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards (with a high magnification scope). The ammunition used for this exercise was one of my match-grade hand-loads topped with the Sierra 52 grain MatchKing. Wind conditions on the range were monitored using a Wind Probe. The set-up was very similar to that pictured below.

The barrel . . .

10-shot group at 100 yards . . .

The Wind Probe . . .

The Details

The methodology for this ballistic exercise was as follows . . .

Shooting from the bench-rest set-up with the Aimpoint Comp M5 atop the precision AR-15 at the initial distance of 7 yards, an 8-shot control group was fired with the red-dot centered in the sight window. Next, 8-shot parallax test-groups were fired in the following manner:

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 12 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 3 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 6 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 9 o’clock position of the sight window.


Additional 8-shot parallax test-groups were then fired sequentially at 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards in the manner described above. This simple methodology is illustrated in the two pics shown below. The solid black dot on the target was the point-of-aim.




The 8-shot control group at 7 yards . . .

The 8-shot parallax test-group at 7 yards . . .

Aimpoint Comp M5 Results

The 8-shot control group fired at 7 yards had an extreme spread of 0.039”, which at 7 yards is 0.53 MOA. The extreme spreads of the parallax test-groups are shown in the table below.

Trijicon MRO Results

I repeated the ballistic exercise described above using a 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results are shown in the table below.

I also conducted the 50 yard portion of the parallax test using an additional 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results were nearly identical to that of the first MRO. The extreme spread of the 8-shot parallax test-group was 7.46”, which at 50 yards is 14.3 MOA.


Comparisons

The tables and graphs below show the results from both the Aimpoint Comp M5 and the Trijicon MRO, side-by-side, for comparison.


Results in inches . . .

Per Aimpoint, the objective lens of the Aimpoint CompM5 has a diameter of 18mm. Per Trijicon, the objective lens of the MRO has a diameter of 25mm. Therefore, the objective lens of the MRO is 1.38 times larger than the objective lens of the CompM5. The parallax error of the MRO at 50 yards (7.73”) is 8.3 times larger than the parallax error of the CompM5 (0.93”) at 50 yards.



Results in minutes of angle . . .

...



Aimpoint T2 Parallax Error At 50 Yards

An 8-shot parallax test-group fired from 50 yards using an Aimpoint T2 had an extreme spread of 0.907", which at 50 yards equates to 1.7 MOA.


.............


The target shown below is the actual 50 yard parallax-test target for one of the Gen-2 Trjicon MROs that I tested. The parallax error is 7.7 inches. The target also clearly demonstrates the asymmetric parallax pattern of the MRO. I’d like to see someone do the trigonometry for those "hold-offs", on the fly, in the urban prone position.

Now, let’s superimpose the above parallax-test target on a realistic training target at 50 yards, for both a head-shot and an upper thorax shot. Only three shots out of eight shots hit the head of the target when using the MRO. Only two shots out of eight shots hit the upper thorax of the target when using the MRO.

Here's the 50 yard parallax-test target for an Aimpoint T2 superimposed on the realistic training target along with the MRO. Every single shot fired using the Aimpoint T2 hit the head of the target and the upper thorax of the target.

…......

continued . . .

 

[Molon]

Head Shots With Red Dots

For this ballistic exercise, I did a brief comparison of the level of accuracy that I was able to obtain when aiming with four different “red-dot” sights. The following four optics were tested:


> Aimpoint CompML2 with a 4 MOA dot

> Aimpoint T1 with an advertised 4 MOA dot

> Aimpoint CompM4S with a 2 MOA dot

> EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot





All shooting for this ballistic exercise was conducted from the bench at a distance of 50 yards using my Lothar-Walther barreled AR-15 and match-grade, hand-loaded ammunition. The head-targets used for this exercise were reduced in scale to simulate aiming at distances beyond 50 yards.

The testing was conducted at 50 yards in order to mitigate the variable of wind-drift that would have been significant if testing had been conducted at actual distances and to remove the vertical variation of the points of impact that would have occurred due to bullet drop at actual distances. The objective here was to determine what the limitation on accuracy was, due to aiming with the various red-dot sights, not how well I could dope the wind and distance. Each optic was zeroed for POA=POI at 50 yards prior to testing using 10-shot groups. All aiming was conducted with the entire dot of each optic placed over the head-target. (No aiming was done using just the bottom or top of the dot or holding the entire dot above or below the head-target.)


The targets used for this exercise are copies of the head portion of the Front Sight Official Training and Qualification Target. The Front Sight target is an “accurate representation of human dimensions taken from medical cadaver studies and 3000 x-ray studies.”

Only the head portion of the target was used so that no visual cues could be obtained from the larger body portion of the target. The full-sized head-target is approximately 6” wide by 9” high. The targets were sequentially reduced in scale to simulate the full-sized head targets from 75 yards to 600 yards (at the actual distance of 50 yards), in 25 yard increments. (Again, all shooting was actually conducted at 50 yards.)

The simple test procedure for this exercise was as follows: one shot and one shot only was fired at the head-targets in increasing simulated distance (smaller and smaller targets.) Testing for each optic ended when I missed a target on the first shot. The entire exercise was conducted twice, with the same results each time.

To establish a control base-line of accuracy, I tested a NightForce NXS 1-4X with the NP-1 reticle prior to testing the red-dot sights. Using the NightForce scope (set at 4X magnification) I was able to make first-round hits on the simulated 600 yard head-target (the farthest simulated distance that I used for this exercise.)

Aimpoint Comp ML2

Using the Aimpoint CompML2 with the 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 225 yard head-target.

Aimpoint T1

Using the Aimpoint T1 with the advertised 4 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 250 yard head-target.

Aimpoint Comp M4S

Using the Aimpoint Comp M4S with the 2 MOA dot I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 400 yard head-target.

EoTech 551

Using the EoTech 551 with the 65 MOA ring/1 MOA dot reticle (and aiming with the 1 MOA dot) I was able to obtain first round hits on the simulated 375 yard head-target.

…

 

[Cap]

I'd love to have an opinion on this topic, but I don't have any place to shoot that would require anything more than irons or a 1x red dot as far as distance is concerned. That said, I am very curious about Primary Arms SLx 1X prism scope and may end up picking one of those up.

I used one recently up to 300yd at a ridgeline course. Worked well for me. Eye relief / eye box is generous.

Its a good alternative for those of us with astigmatisms. Red dots on low intensity work fine with my glasses on, but with glasses off its no longer a 2moa dot.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

I used one recently up to 300yd at a ridgeline course. Worked well for me. Eye relief / eye box is generous.

Its a good alternative for those of us with astigmatisms. Red dots on low intensity work fine with my glasses on, but with glasses off its no longer a 2moa dot.

They just came out with 3X versions for those who prefer an ACOG like vibe, but in a smaller package (preemptive, that's what she said).

 

[sieveboy]

Was out in the rain (monsoon-type) with my Eotech in a fast paced training situation, luckily targets weren’t shooting back, I’d have been dead. Only iron on combat-type rifles from then on.

 

[Artifact]

I have tried just about everything. Conclusion, eotech plus magnifier does everything better for MY needs.

Or, if Russian conscripts invaded tomorrow that would be my optic of choice on a AR/platform.

 

[PappyM3]

Was out in the rain (monsoon-type) with my Eotech in a fast paced training situation, luckily targets weren’t shooting back, I’d have been dead. Only iron on combat-type rifles from then on.

Care to elaborate?

Though, there are a lot of guys who spend significant time in triple canopy jungles, who choose to run iron sights when in that extremely humid and wet environment.

 

[1776]

 

[sieveboy]

Care to elaborate?

Though, there are a lot of guys who spend significant time in triple canopy jungles, who choose to run iron sights when in that extremely humid and wet environment.

It was relentless teeming rain all morning and we just said f*** it and went ahead with our event as there had been a lot of setup and people had travelled there. My Eotech lenses were spotted with water droplets and the eyepiece was filling up with water when low ready and when slung. I'm figuring that it was likely related to indices of refraction and water bubbling issues. I simply could not view the image and the red dot properly. I was kind of amazed that anybody would take this thing into combat after that.

Maybe these things got popular because of recent desert warfare, I don't know. After my experience I view the Eotech as only as a range novelty. No way I'd have that thing on my rail if my life was on the line. I learned shooting many years ago with iron sights and always felt good about them, now I feel even better. With a $500 optic sitting in the box I never investigating anything else for my black rifles.

 

[PappyM3]

It was relentless teeming rain all morning and we just said f*** it and went ahead with our event as there had been a lot of setup and people had travelled there. My Eotech lenses were spotted with water droplets and the eyepiece was filling up with water when low ready and when slung. I'm figuring that it was likely related to indices of refraction and water bubbling issues. I simply could not view the image and the red dot properly. I was kind of amazed that anybody would take this thing into combat after that.

Maybe these things got popular because of recent desert warfare, I don't know. After my experience I view the Eotech as only as a range novelty. No way I'd have that thing on my rail if my life was on the line. I learned shooting many years ago with iron sights and always felt good about them, now I feel even better. With a $500 optic sitting in the box I never investigating anything else for my black rifles.

Optics are good in lots of environments. And are used often enough at military bases with major rain storms and such. Including the Eotech. But yes, they can have issues in very wet and humid environments, or extreme cold. As I mentioned, it’s not uncommon for units operating in jungle environments to switch to iron sights.

All that said, you can try using cat crap anti-fog treatment, or maybe some rain-x to encourage the water to bead away.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Rain isnt that big of a deal with eotechs, i honestly found heavy snow was more difficult. I much prefer aimpoint or a good scope in that kind of weather, but never iron sights.

 

[Dench]

Rain isnt that big of a deal with eotechs, i honestly found heavy snow was more difficult. I much prefer aimpoint or a good scope in that kind of weather, but never iron sights.

Did you learn to shoot with irons or optics?

I learned with irons and I always find myself gravitating back towards irons. The M16A2 I learned on was just a factory setup. I think years later they started to train with optics in basic, which probably gives people a lot better initial introduction to them.

I never fell in love with my TA31 ACOG. Sure I could use it reasonably, but I never felt good with it. It is sorta awkward with the eye relief also.

I recently bought a mini acog, the TA44 which I found to be significantly easier to use and probably on par with my comfortability with irons. great eye relief and it's only a 1.5

 

[Golddiggie]

Anyone running the Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x FFP optic?? Looking at getting that for my short AR10 build (12.5" barrel). My eyes are pretty crappy without help. OK, so I'm farking blind without either contacts or glasses. I figure the 1-8x aspect would be good overall for my use case on this one. I do see some 1-8x and 1-10x optics out there from solid makers as well. I'm not sold on the first focal plane deal, so I could go with second focal plane too. Chances are, I'll be zooming in at anything close to (or over) 100 yards away anyhow.

Brownells has the Vortex optic at a decent price currently. Includes a mount.

 

[paul73]

Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x FFP optic

the arrowhead 1-10x is better optically than a strike eagle, but has no vortex warranty.
a 1-6x vortex pst2 is much better than a strike eagle, but is only a 6x. you'll need to look at all that glass yourself to decide.

ps. the FFP on the LPVO makes very little sense to me, but, whatever. is it going to be a 308 with a 12" barrel? again - if it is a short barrel build, what does it shoot - 1,2,3 minutes? depending upon factual accuracy - choose the optic that makes you see that target MOA angle circle at the required distance. with a 3MOA the 3x prism may be more than enough. etc.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Did you learn to shoot with irons or optics?

I learned with irons and I always find myself gravitating back towards irons. The M16A2 I learned on was just a factory setup. I think years later they started to train with optics in basic, which probably gives people a lot better initial introduction to them.

I never fell in love with my TA31 ACOG. Sure I could use it reasonably, but I never felt good with it. It is sorta awkward with the eye relief also.

I recently bought a mini acog, the TA44 which I found to be significantly easier to use and probably on par with my comfortability with irons. great eye relief and it's only a 1.5

Both, i didnt learn to shoot in the military, but when i did learn in the army we were trained on irons and then with optics. I remember qualing expert with irons at benning and the sr drill running out of the tower and screaming down "lane xx where'd you learn to shoot?" I told him something and he told me nobody cared to go f*** myself, then i had to peer coach all the losers for the rest of blue phase or whatever we were in.

 

[Dench]

Both, i didnt learn to shoot in the military, but when i did learn in the army we were trained on irons and then with optics. I remember qualing expert with irons at benning and the sr drill running out of the tower and screaming down "lane xx where'd you learn to shoot?" I told him something and he told me nobody cared to go f*** myself, then i had to peer coach all the losers for the rest of blue phase or whatever we were in.

We had a guy who decided he had enough of basic and was pretending he was so bad at shooting he couldnt even zero. it worked.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

We had a guy who decided he had enough of basic and was pretending he was so bad at shooting he couldnt even zero. it worked.

Lol, genious. We had some retard saying he was gonna shoot us all when he got live rounds, they gave him live rounds anyways, then kicked him out weeks later for something dumb

 

[Artifact]

It was relentless teeming rain all morning and we just said f*** it and went ahead with our event as there had been a lot of setup and people had travelled there. My Eotech lenses were spotted with water droplets and the eyepiece was filling up with water when low ready and when slung. I'm figuring that it was likely related to indices of refraction and water bubbling issues. I simply could not view the image and the red dot properly. I was kind of amazed that anybody would take this thing into combat after that.

Maybe these things got popular because of recent desert warfare, I don't know. After my experience I view the Eotech as only as a range novelty. No way I'd have that thing on my rail if my life was on the line. I learned shooting many years ago with iron sights and always felt good about them, now I feel even better. With a $500 optic sitting in the box I never investigating anything else for my black rifles.

Hmm, I have used them in pouring rain, very high humidity, snow you name it and with zero, I mean zero visibility issue. Dot is projected inside the glass and if used with both eyes open like they are supposed too it should never be an issue. I haven’t heard anyone in my circle that has used them around the world have that issue. Bizarre really.

If you have one and not a Chinese knockoff just bring it to your kitchen sink and let the water flow on top of it. You will see the dot just fine without being impacted.

Perplexing really

Also, for anyone that has shot irons for more than a day especially the mil monkeys such as myself will tell you that irons suck in the pouring rain. Water droplets clog the rear pip all the damn time. Maybe they are better sight designs nowadays but on all mil hardware that was always an issue, workable issue however.

I mean sure you might get some fogging from temp changes but it’s very minimal especially on red dots. Mag sights on the other hand is a different story.

If water becomes an issue with a red dot you can always block the front of the sight with your hand or whatever and still engage the target with both eyes open.

 

[TheArizonan]

Both, i didnt learn to shoot in the military, but when i did learn in the army we were trained on irons and then with optics. I remember qualing expert with irons at benning and the sr drill running out of the tower and screaming down "lane xx where'd you learn to shoot?" I told him something and he told me nobody cared to go f*** myself, then i had to peer coach all the losers for the rest of blue phase or whatever we were in.

When I was issued the A1 in OSUT, took me 18 rounds to zero it. When I got to my first line unit that had the A2, it took me 24 to zero. I was not used to those sights. Decade later when I was first issued the M4 which was the XM4 to us because the Army's first M4's had fixed handles, it took 96 rounds exactly for me to zero and the kicker? I needed three more than the other guy, the rest were still going at it, LMAO. The short sight radius was throwing us all off.

Anyway, when I was in anyone that tried to mount a Colt scope to the handles was looked at like they had committed a cardinal sin. When I had gotten to Hawaii it felt like I had escaped the lands that time had forgotten. Alice gear was no more, molle was it's replacement. The A2's had M68 Aimpoint M2's on cantilevers meaning optics on our rifles meant we were no longer frowned on and not long after that our saw's had para stocks and the A2's themselves were phased out with brand new M4's that had flattops. Hot damn.

 

[Golddiggie]

the arrowhead 1-10x is better optically than a strike eagle, but has no vortex warranty.
a 1-6x vortex pst2 is much better than a strike eagle, but is only a 6x. you'll need to look at all that glass yourself to decide.

ps. the FFP on the LPVO makes very little sense to me, but, whatever. is it going to be a 308 with a 12" barrel? again - if it is a short barrel build, what does it shoot - 1,2,3 minutes? depending upon factual accuracy - choose the optic that makes you see that target MOA angle circle at the required distance. with a 3MOA the 3x prism may be more than enough. etc.

Looking at the SFP more now due to how the FFP reticle shrinks a lower magnification levels. My old eyes need the help.
I was looking at the Arrowhead as well. Just trying to figure out which reticle to get. Mil dot, MOA dot, or BDC.
My [current] plan is to get one, try it out and then decide what I'll do for other "short range" builds. I'm putting dots on the pistol caliber items (either AR15 pistols, or the Stribog pistol) since those are much shorter ranged items. The barrel in the AR10 build is good to at least 600 yards (accurately) due to independent testing performed.

 

[paul73]

looking at the Arrowhead as well. Just trying to figure out which reticle to get. Mil dot,

i would say a mil dot only as it is the most usable one, for that scope.
i did not test their drops in BDC with 308 - only with the M855 and did not like it, it was not a good match. and it did not match well with neither 50/200 zero nor 100 zero. dunno why.
MOA for some reason also differs from MIL and does not have a full cross. MIL is good - i got rid of BDC and have it now, it is a keeper.



PS. i still got to say - as with most of those new companies selling (sometimes not bad at all) chinese glass at the edge of the margin - it is a BIG question, for how long are they going to be afloat, and what kind of support you can expect for your optic in, say, 10 years time.
vortex will probably still be around, and its lifetime warranty as well.

 

[TheArizonan]

If you're determined to buy a Chinesium, at least take a look at the PA ACSS LPVO's, they make ranging stupid easy to do.

 

[paul73]

If you're determined to buy a Chinesium, at least take a look at the PA ACSS LPVO's, they make ranging stupid easy to do.

PA does not make 1-10x. and its glass is worse a bit than arrowheads` - the same price segment SLx ones.

 

[PappyM3]

Hmm, I have used them in pouring rain, very high humidity, snow you name it and with zero, I mean zero visibility issue. Dot is projected inside the glass and if used with both eyes open like they are supposed too it should never be an issue. I haven’t heard anyone in my circle that has used them around the world have that issue. Bizarre really.

If you have one and not a Chinese knockoff just bring it to your kitchen sink and let the water flow on top of it. You will see the dot just fine without being impacted.

Perplexing really

Also, for anyone that has shot irons for more than a day especially the mil monkeys such as myself will tell you that irons suck in the pouring rain. Water droplets clog the rear pip all the damn time. Maybe they are better sight designs nowadays but on all mil hardware that was always an issue, workable issue however.

I mean sure you might get some fogging from temp changes but it’s very minimal especially on red dots. Mag sights on the other hand is a different story.

If water becomes an issue with a red dot you can always block the front of the sight with your hand or whatever and still engage the target with both eyes open.

I’ve had issues with snow in the rear aperture, but never water. But never had issues with the M68 or ACOG in heavy rain either.

 

[Admin]

Observations On The Effect Of Parallax Error
When Shooting With an Aimpoint Comp M5, a Trjicon MRO and an Aimpoint T2

Some manufacturers of red-dot sights have made claims that their red-dot sights are “parallax free“. Most of us are already aware that this is simply not true at all distances. Inherent parallax error with a red-dot sight is typically greatest at CQB distances (MOA wise) and decreases as the distance to the target increases.

In this ballistic exercise we’ll be looking at the amount of parallax error occurring during objective, controlled, live-fire testing at the distances of 7 yards, 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards when shooting with an Aimpoint Comp M5 and a Trijicon MRO mounted on a precision AR-15. The Aimpoint Comp M5 has a 2 MOA red dot, as does the Trijicon MRO.

All shooting for this exercise was conducted from my bench-rest set-up using one of my precision AR-15s. This AR-15 has a 20” Lothar Walther barrel with a 223 Wylde chamber and a 1:8” twist and it routinely produces 0.75 MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards (with a high magnification scope). The ammunition used for this exercise was one of my match-grade hand-loads topped with the Sierra 52 grain MatchKing. Wind conditions on the range were monitored using a Wind Probe. The set-up was very similar to that pictured below.

The barrel . . .

10-shot group at 100 yards . . .

The Wind Probe . . .

The Details

The methodology for this ballistic exercise was as follows . . .

Shooting from the bench-rest set-up with the Aimpoint Comp M5 atop the precision AR-15 at the initial distance of 7 yards, an 8-shot control group was fired with the red-dot centered in the sight window. Next, 8-shot parallax test-groups were fired in the following manner:

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 12 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 3 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 6 o’clock position of the sight window.

2 shots fired with the red-dot positioned in the extreme 9 o’clock position of the sight window.


Additional 8-shot parallax test-groups were then fired sequentially at 15 yards, 25 yards and 50 yards in the manner described above. This simple methodology is illustrated in the two pics shown below. The solid black dot on the target was the point-of-aim.




The 8-shot control group at 7 yards . . .

The 8-shot parallax test-group at 7 yards . . .

Aimpoint Comp M5 Results

The 8-shot control group fired at 7 yards had an extreme spread of 0.039”, which at 7 yards is 0.53 MOA. The extreme spreads of the parallax test-groups are shown in the table below.

Trijicon MRO Results

I repeated the ballistic exercise described above using a 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results are shown in the table below.

I also conducted the 50 yard portion of the parallax test using an additional 2nd-generation Trijicon MRO with a 2 MOA red-dot. The results were nearly identical to that of the first MRO. The extreme spread of the 8-shot parallax test-group was 7.46”, which at 50 yards is 14.3 MOA.


Comparisons

The tables and graphs below show the results from both the Aimpoint Comp M5 and the Trijicon MRO, side-by-side, for comparison.


Results in inches . . .

Per Aimpoint, the objective lens of the Aimpoint CompM5 has a diameter of 18mm. Per Trijicon, the objective lens of the MRO has a diameter of 25mm. Therefore, the objective lens of the MRO is 1.38 times larger than the objective lens of the CompM5. The parallax error of the MRO at 50 yards (7.73”) is 8.3 times larger than the parallax error of the CompM5 (0.93”) at 50 yards.



Results in minutes of angle . . .

...



Aimpoint T2 Parallax Error At 50 Yards

An 8-shot parallax test-group fired from 50 yards using an Aimpoint T2 had an extreme spread of 0.907", which at 50 yards equates to 1.7 MOA.


.............


The target shown below is the actual 50 yard parallax-test target for one of the Gen-2 Trjicon MROs that I tested. The parallax error is 7.7 inches. The target also clearly demonstrates the asymmetric parallax pattern of the MRO. I’d like to see someone do the trigonometry for those "hold-offs", on the fly, in the urban prone position.

Now, let’s superimpose the above parallax-test target on a realistic training target at 50 yards, for both a head-shot and an upper thorax shot. Only three shots out of eight shots hit the head of the target when using the MRO. Only two shots out of eight shots hit the upper thorax of the target when using the MRO.

Here's the 50 yard parallax-test target for an Aimpoint T2 superimposed on the realistic training target along with the MRO. Every single shot fired using the Aimpoint T2 hit the head of the target and the upper thorax of the target.

…......

continued . . .

It amazes me how bad the MRO is

 

[Golddiggie]

Brownells also has their own LVPO optics available. Made in Japan, so no Chinesium in the product. Theirs is a 1-8x at $800 (with mount). I think I'll pick up the Athlon first and see how it works out. I've been leaning towards the mil dot due to the graduations on both axis. This is what they have for the reticle:


Not 100% sold on that one.

There's also the Swampfox Tomahawk optic (1-8x) for not stupid $$. Plus a Bushnell 1-8x in the same range as the Athlon (more after you get a mount for it though).

Too many damned choices these days. I don't want to spend a mint, but I'm also not looking to skinflint for this. The $800 Brownells is really more than I'm looking to drop on the setup currently. Not to say that I won't get a $1000+ optic at some point, but I'm not there yet. IMO, I'm not shooting the distances where such an optic would be of a benefit.

 

[PappyM3]

PA does not make 1-10x. and its glass is worse a bit than arrowheads` - the same price segment SLx ones.

They’re currently releasing a 1-10x SFP in their SLx line. Should be a 1-10 FFP GLx coming out soon too, but it got delayed due to QC issues.

 

[paul73]

They’re currently releasing a 1-10x SFP in their SLx line. Should be a 1-10 FFP GLx coming out soon too, but it got delayed due to QC issues.

i have 2 3-18x SLx from PA. it all works, of course, but, it depends what to compare them against. they are not stellar at all, but i liked the reticle - apollo/aphena.
if they will manage to make their 1-10x better than arrowhead - it would be nice to have options.

 

[PappyM3]

i have 2 3-18x SLx from PA. it all works, of course, but, it depends what to compare them against.
if they will manage to make their 1-10x better than arrowhead - it would be nice to have options.

The GLx should have pretty good glass. Not sure about the SLx 1-10 though.

However, the appeal of a 1-10 LPVO has kind of faded for me.

For how great the Razor Gen III is, it still has image clarity issues out at farther ranges. As you get higher magnification, adjustable parallax becomes more important. Even with the small objective lens. They help when using a fixed parallax, but they’re not miracle workers. I’m thinking that I may limit myself to an 8x top end if an optic doesn’t have adjustable parallax.