Optics Selection

[monty]

I just picked up a 6-24 FFP mil/mil from aaoptics. It looked brand new when I pulled it out of the box.

I debated between the 4-16 and the 6-24 for a while before deciding on the 6-24. After taking it to the range the other day I am glad I got higher power one. My old eyes are not what they used to be!

[jhoyda]

I have that exact model, go for it you won't regret it

Does this come with MIL turrets? The AA listing has the adjustment range listed in MOA.

[zcostilla]

There is no way around it, unless you go with one of the fixed power SWFAs that will take even .50 BMG semi-auto abuse and like it, but those scopes don't offer the hunter any flexibility in the low magnification range because they are fixed 10x.

This does not allow for the SWFA SS fixed 6X scope, which has all the ruggedness of a fixed scope, but is designed for a more intermediate range, assuming you subscribe to the 1X per 100 yards (or meters) idea, which seems very sensible to me. This is actually the scope I’m saving for, and then will regift the Vortex 2-7 my teens got me for Christmas back to my youngest son who will be building a custom 10/22 setup (with my help, of course) over the spring and summer. I only wish they offered it with the HD glass. It might then rival some of the other higher-end tactical optics.

[Ian01]

I agree with the Vortex recommendation at your budget. I’m personally going to spend a little more and get the “Viper PST gen 2” model. They make a FFP mil/mil 5-25 power.
Vortex has an amazing lifetime warranty with no question repair/replace. In my mind, depending on the intended use, you can’t go wrong

[nathan197]

If you go with an moa reticle it has moa adjustments and if you go with the mil reticle it has mil adjustments. I went with mil/mil

[LRRPF52]

In the last 20 years I have been doing this what you have typed I have NEVER seen. I have more trigger time behind more scoped Ar15, Ar10, SR25 and others then most.

I have has a total of 6 optics fail on me.

2x SS 10x42mm
1x Leupold MK4 16x
1x Vortex PST's 2.5x10x32
2x EO Tech's

All of them due to pure wear and tear from hard use. everyone was replaced and we moved on.

I think your point of view is more accurate with Airguns due to the reverse recoil they have.

John

AR10s are known to be one of the hardest rifles on optics due to the mass of the BCG when it slams back into battery.

In fleet results among certain units, they were breaking scopes at a much higher rate with the SR25s and SCAR-Hs, to the extent that SOCOM put out a reduced life memo pamphlet for optics and Electro-optical aiming systems, especially on the SCARs.

There have also been g meter readings taken comparing just the SCAR-16 vs AR15, and you could clearly see the spikes generated by a weapon with higher impulse events on the return stroke of the action. It doesn't take a physics major to conclude that impacting the action with a heavier mass will shake whatever is attached to it more.

If a scope does not have the optical elements retained permanently, they will get beaten loose by an AR10 or an AR15 chambered in something larger.

A RLGS .223 AR15 pushing lighter loads with very well-behaved cyclic rate is pretty mild, but still has the return stroke impulses of the bolt and carrier impacting the breech and barrel extension that do not exist on even magnum bolt guns. An AR15 or other self-loader that is gassed hard will put more of a beating on the optics than one that is well-balanced.

These are just a few off the top of my head and does not include all the Machine Gun Optics I've seen break.

Magnified Optics I've seen take a dump on M16s, M4s, AR15s or AR10s include:

Colt 4x scopes left over in the Arms Rooms. I think the mount was more of the issue, as they would never hold zero.
GRSC Korean made 1-4x, ocular piece loose (shot on a MLGS ARP 15" .223 Wylde barrel with a stupid .100" gas port, recoils like a ragged 7.62x39 or 9mm blowback)
Nikon Tactical, ocular piece loose
Barska: Everything breaks, sometimes out of the box, after telling people repeatedly to never purchase this garbage, they still couldn't pass up that gun show deal.
I've seen a lot of backlash on some of the popular scopes from the 1990s-2000s, chasing impact all day, including Weavers, Leupold, Springfield Armory, Leatherwoods, and Nikons
IOR Valdata: Ocular piece comes loose after being shot on AR10 within 700rds.

Optics on bolt guns:

Schmidt & Bender PMII run hard on a daily diet of .308, .300 WM, .338 LM, Side Focus took a dump, FOV looked like fog
Leupold Mk IV, fell over, entire windage assembly sheered off and rolled away from a very light tip over
I will say that most Leupolds have performed reliably if they are within certain models and construction. The M3A was built like a tank, for example. Outdated, but still capable if you're ok with 10x, Mil dots/ MOA windage.
I think every scope I've seen where the rifle was dropped and landed on the elevation assembly resulted in a broken scope, including Schmidts, Hensoldts, and especially Zeiss.
An optics vendor friend of mine told me in private that Zeiss scopes they sold had about a 19% warranty-related return rate (this was in the mid-2000s).

Non-magnified optics:
Lots of Aimpoint Comp Ms, (especially in the 82nd where they habitually abuse them by dropping them down flights of stairs when new soldiers are loaded up with a stack of weapons in his arms and told to turn them in for his entire squad)
You'd be on the Qual range, and all of a sudden, the dot goes out right as you go to engage the 300m sils. The washers coming loose under the knob was the biggest cause of that I found, easy fix.

Any of the cheap RDS from Asia. Something usually goes wrong with the electronics or basic housing of the unit.

What I learned from LR1955 is that it's a good idea to ask attendees of a course what they will be bringing in terms of rifle, optics, mount, and ammo well in advance of the course. If you see any of the known failure scopes, it gives you the opportunity to nip that in the bud before it shows up, because it will cause nothing but problems throughout the course if it even makes it through the first half of Day 1.

By notifying attendees in advance of the brands or models that I've seen problems with, and which ones have performed well, it saves people a lot of headache and frustration that are easily avoided.

For example, I have not seen NightForce crap the bed yet.

I personally have not had any issues with any of my Vipers, Vipers PSTs, or Viper HSTs, and I shoot a lot. I just dropped my Lilja 318/Viper PST 2.5-10x32 on a concrete floor at the range the other week after forgetting to zip up the range bag, so we'll see how it holds zero or not. Funny thing, my old Weaver fixed power steel tube with the blade and wire reticle that spent 50 years on the .270 Winchester never gave us any problems. Sight picture is like looking through yellow wax paper, but it's reliable.

[Frontier Gear]

AR10s are known to be one of the hardest rifles on optics due to the mass of the BCG when it slams back into battery...... An AR15 or other self-loader that is gassed hard will put more of a beating on the optics than one that is well-balanced.

Very good points. You are making me think. (Dangerous I know as it usually has an impact on my wallet) A lot of guys can't afford over $300-$500 for a scope. Especially for hunting which is my personal interest in the AR15/6.5 Grendel. With that in mind, there must be a good scope/rifle configuration. Obviously it won't be the ideal $1,200 scope, but for a "good" low budget hunting set up, what would be best combination?

The first thing that I see is that the Grendel has a pretty good advantage to start with.

• It is AR15 based and not AR10 based. (less bolt mass)
• The Grendel isn't excessively heavy (around 123 grains) and has a "mild" recoil as compared to some of the other AR15 hunting choices such as the 450 Bushmaster.

So if you were setting up a hunting rifle and you had a scope budget of $300-$500 How would you configure it?

• Mid-length gas?
• 18" Barrel?
• Don't use a reciprocating side charging bolt (less mass)? This is sad for me personally since I like reciprocating side chargers, but oh well.
• What buffer or buffer system?
• What Scope mount?
• What Scope?

[Bigs28]

I've seen used vortex viper pst gen1 2.5-10x32 for around $500 on ar15.com. With the lifetime warranty I wouldn't worry about them being used.

[LRRPF52]

Very good points. You are making me think. (Dangerous I know as it usually has an impact on my wallet) A lot of guys can't afford over $300-$500 for a scope. Especially for hunting which is my personal interest in the AR15/6.5 Grendel. With that in mind, there must be a good scope/rifle configuration. Obviously it won't be the ideal $1,200 scope, but for a "good" low budget hunting set up, what would be best combination?

The first thing that I see is that the Grendel has a pretty good advantage to start with.

• It is AR15 based and not AR10 based. (less bolt mass)
• The Grendel isn't excessively heavy (around 123 grains) and has a "mild" recoil as compared to some of the other AR15 hunting choices such as the 450 Bushmaster.

So if you were setting up a hunting rifle and you had a scope budget of $300-$500 How would you configure it?

• Mid-length gas?
• 18" Barrel?
• Don't use a reciprocating side charging bolt (less mass)? This is sad for me personally since I like reciprocating side chargers, but oh well.
• What buffer or buffer system?
• What Scope mount?
• What Scope?

There are several hunting scopes in the 300-500 dollar range with capped knobs, less moving parts, lower magnification, made by reputable brands who crank out a simple, reliable piece of glass.

I like some of the Leupold and Vortex models in that price range, although I'm not a big fan of the thick duplex reticles in the Fire Dots, but the Fire Dots are one of the only daylight visible red dots in that price range.

The problem for me (that might not be there for many shooters) is that when I turn around to try to use those same scopes for target shooting, the reticles and turrets are simply unacceptable.

I'm currently getting ready to use the Bootleg Adjustable Gas carrier, which I got recently. My Lilja 318 build would probably benefit from it the most.

BCG mass is ok, as long as it isn't returning with insane spring rate and excessive velocity.

More BCG mass helps a lot with reliability because we're hitting that friction of the cartridge pressed against the feed lip, right as the action spring is reaching its maximum length of extension.

This is why I like the JP SCS, but I've found that you really have to tune the spring for the ammo you're shooting, unless you use adjustable gas. For a budget build, I would stick with a standard carbine or H1 buffer and adjust the gas.

For barrel length, I'm all about matching the rifle to the shooter with optimum balance. Even though I don't see a lot of difference in mv between 16" and 18", some people like the feel of the 18" for handling.

Looking at the numbers, an 18" Grendel hits the 12" Grendel mv at around 75yds unsuppressed. I'll get some suppressor boost with the TBAC Ultra 5, but performance really won't be that different.

Both have over 2000fps impact speed at 200yds with the 123gr SST, and over 1000ft-lbs at that range.

One of the LaRue VFZ mounts would work.

[Frontier Gear]

LRRPF52,
Thanks for the input.

• Ok so my reciprocating side chargers are still in
• Standard buffer with adjustable gas block, got it. I'm a big fan of the JP SCS as well, but they are not "budget' minded.
• If we say that 16"-18" barrels are recommended for hunting (which makes sense for a number of reasons), which gas length? Does gas length matter if you have an adjustable gas block? I will say this, some manufactures don't give you an option for gas length. Odin and BCA come to mind. With BCA, all of their 16" Grendel barrels are carbine gas and all of their 18" barrels are mid-gas. Would this play a factor in barrel length selection as well?
• Which Leopold and Vortex scopes would you recommend? I'm in the market for two right now and would be willing to try some different ones out. For the past few years I have been using the Redfield Revolutions and really like them. https://www.redfield.com/riflescopes/. Made by Leopold in the Leopold Oregon USA factory with Leopold parts and come with the same Leopold warranty. You can pick them up on Amazon or Optics Planet for $200 or less. Do you have any input or experience with them? I have never used their "TAC" scope, but the Accu-Range reticile is nice for hunting. It is not meant for target shooting though as you pointed out.
• LaRue VFZ mounts - Ouch, same price as the scope. Anything under $100? $50 would be better. Any reason not to use this one if it is staying on the rifle for the life of the scope? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...sc_act_title_2 That mount with this scope would only be $200 total. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...sc_act_title_1 Again, I hate sounding cheap, but guys around here usually have a budget of $500-$600 for scope, mount and rifle total. Just getting them into a Grendel is a stretch on the budget.

[Redomen]

[Redomen]

The suggested retail was $599 and $699 I believe!

[Bigs28]

Their suggested retail seems to be about 30%above actual retail

[Frontier Gear]

Just saw this video that LRRPF52 posted in another thread. If I'm not mistaken, that is a Leopold scope on a 6.5 Grendel.

Scope.jpg

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52,
Thanks for the input.

• Ok so my reciprocating side chargers are still in
• Standard buffer with adjustable gas block, got it. I'm a big fan of the JP SCS as well, but they are not "budget' minded.
• If we say that 16"-18" barrels are recommended for hunting (which makes sense for a number of reasons), which gas length? Does gas length matter if you have an adjustable gas block? I will say this, some manufactures don't give you an option for gas length. Odin and BCA come to mind. With BCA, all of their 16" Grendel barrels are carbine gas and all of their 18" barrels are mid-gas. Would this play a factor in barrel length selection as well?
• Which Leopold and Vortex scopes would you recommend? I'm in the market for two right now and would be willing to try some different ones out. For the past few years I have been using the Redfield Revolutions and really like them. https://www.redfield.com/riflescopes/. Made by Leopold in the Leopold Oregon USA factory with Leopold parts and come with the same Leopold warranty. You can pick them up on Amazon or Optics Planet for $200 or less. Do you have any input or experience with them? I have never used their "TAC" scope, but the Accu-Range reticile is nice for hunting. It is not meant for target shooting though as you pointed out.
• LaRue VFZ mounts - Ouch, same price as the scope. Anything under $100? $50 would be better. Any reason not to use this one if it is staying on the rifle for the life of the scope? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...sc_act_title_2 That mount with this scope would only be $200 total. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...sc_act_title_1 Again, I hate sounding cheap, but guys around here usually have a budget of $500-$600 for scope, mount and rifle total. Just getting them into a Grendel is a stretch on the budget.

Absolutely do NOT use that cheap Chinese mount with the single ring fasteners and the 3-piece sandwich base. This is a recipe for failure, and I have personally witnessed it more than once.



* For 16-18" barrels for a hunting rifle, the MLGS has a lot of benefits, even in the 18" gun. Reason is that most medium game hunting is done in colder temps. The extra dwell time of an 18" MLGS helps with that, so make sure not to adjust your gas to barely lock back in the summer, then expect the gun to cycle in the winter. This is one of the problems with adjustable gas that people fall into temptation with that does have possible negative consequences for the fall/winter hunter. Good thing that most people zero once season starts, so that gives you another set of opportunities to make sure your gas system is running reliably and not on the ragged edge.

* I've found that the 16" MLGS properly cut Grendel barrels are pussycats in the cold (below freezing), and still lock back reliably. It's been that way with my original AA barrel, Lilja 316 Wasp barrels, and the newer AA fluted lite barrels. I have found no reason to use adjustable gas with them.

18" MLGS will give you more back-pressure on the action because of the added plug dwell, so I do think that adjustable gas can be helpful here.

My position is that a budget build should allow you to spend what you need to on the mount.

The question I have is how much is it worth to you to rest easy that you will have at least 4 fasteners on each ring, aligned channels for the scope tube so there isn't binding and residual stress, quality alloy that won't strip out on the cross bolts that secure the base to the rail on the upper, and will it hold?

If you're ok with scratching your head at the range and doubting your system, or thinking that you can't shoot, or wondering if it's your barrel when it's a weak mount made in China, then look for the $50 price point on $5 cost mounts sold to distributors here who make a killing on the margins. After a few trips back and forth to the range in gas money, range fees, ammo cost, and frustration, you may decide to stick with the more "budget-minded" optic mount, while you have exceeded the cost already of a quality US mount, with no real conclusive results from your wasted range sessions, unless you're just function-testing the gun.

You "saved" maybe $40-$60 dollars on that cheap, foreign-made mount that used recycled aluminum of unknown quality, soft critical points of interface with the fastening systems, and now have spent $40+ burning rounds in some type of pattern on the target, gotten your hand stamped a few times for $5-$20 a pop, and burned up whatever it takes for you to go back-and-forth to the range, plus your precious time off work.

Most people on a tight budget just want a nice, reliable rifle that will serve them well and can't afford the time more than anything to go through this repeating process, and they will almost always blame the barrel or the ammo when it is a crappy mount with non-aligned rings, incrementally-resolving binding on the rings with the soft imitation/poor anodizing over soft alloy, and fasteners that gall a lot before snapping with just a touch too much torque.

This is one of the reasons why I do recommend Warne or LaRue VFZ as the bottom end of what to get. If it's a 1" scope tube, the Aero Lightweight mount might work, but we did have a member break at least 3 of them.

Short story: Only wealthy men can afford cheap things.