Question for the guys that hunt with their AR. Do you use traditional rifle scopes or red dot type optics. Also, what is the difference between holographic & red dots? I have always had Leopold VX 3's on my bolt guns. I am starting to put together an AR and looking for good advice. Mine will be for hunting not punching paper.
Which scope on AR
- Thread starter rwald51
- Start date
jlindholm70
New member
I have a ACOG TA31F on my 18" middy, 3x9 on my dedicated 22lr upper, and 6.5x20 on my AR-10 308.
If I was buying new glass for an AR, I would pick up one of the new Burris Fullfield TAC 30 1-4 30mm scopes. SWFA has an option for both a red dot and scope with PEPR mount for $500.
Burris Tac30
I feel that red dots are best suited for close quarter/both eyes open large target stuff. A red dot/holo site isn't what I would pick for a hunting scope unless you're guaranteed to get no more than a 50 yard shot.
A VX-III is always a good choice, no matter what platform you have it on.
If I was buying new glass for an AR, I would pick up one of the new Burris Fullfield TAC 30 1-4 30mm scopes. SWFA has an option for both a red dot and scope with PEPR mount for $500.
Burris Tac30
I feel that red dots are best suited for close quarter/both eyes open large target stuff. A red dot/holo site isn't what I would pick for a hunting scope unless you're guaranteed to get no more than a 50 yard shot.
A VX-III is always a good choice, no matter what platform you have it on.
ricky_arthur
New member
Basicly the red dot and holographic scopes are for close shooting situations, although they can be usefull out a few hundred yards as well. I personaly like the Eotech because I like the 1 MOA dot and 65 MOA circle. If the aimpoint had a smaller dot I would use that because of the rediculously long battery life.
On any rifle with hunting applications in mind, I like either A 3-12 OR 4-16. Nikon Monarch is my scope of choice these days but a Burris signature or Bushnell elite 4200 both give very good value at reasonable prices.
One thing to keep in mind is that it usually requires extra high rings and sometimes a mount that moves the scope forward to get a good cheek weld. A tactical latch whenever a scope is used is also a big plus.
On any rifle with hunting applications in mind, I like either A 3-12 OR 4-16. Nikon Monarch is my scope of choice these days but a Burris signature or Bushnell elite 4200 both give very good value at reasonable prices.
One thing to keep in mind is that it usually requires extra high rings and sometimes a mount that moves the scope forward to get a good cheek weld. A tactical latch whenever a scope is used is also a big plus.
Last edited:
I have a Leupold Mark AR 3x9. It is a very good medium priced scope. I also have a new Redfield (made by Leupold) 2x7. I got it for $130. So far, I can't find anything wrong with it. Very good value! Still prefer the Mark AR but if you are on a budget, the Redfield suits my needs fine.
hylander
Active member
joshua79109
New member
I have some of both.
I prefer an Aimpoint with 3x magnifier. I have easily hit my target a little past 300 yards with this set up.
Nothing wrong with a regular scope either. The Aimpoint set up just serves multiple purposes for me.
I prefer an Aimpoint with 3x magnifier. I have easily hit my target a little past 300 yards with this set up.
Nothing wrong with a regular scope either. The Aimpoint set up just serves multiple purposes for me.
duckhunter_67502
New member
Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 with M1 turrets. I shoot more coons than coyotes so its nice to have the ability to dial down to 3.5X for close shots. Having owned VX-3's you know you can't go wrong with Leupold products. The ultimate would be a two position scope mount with a red dot on the side. Red dots are great but when you need to make a precision shot at two-hundred plus they can be frustrating. If you choose to get one, make sure it has a small MOA dot. Large dots (4 or larger), can obscure small targets at long distances, especially in low light conditions.
Roadrunner
New member
I have a Leupold 4.5-14 on my AR and put Bushnell 3200 5-15's on my boys. Still like the Leupold better but the Bushnell is not to shaby for the price. RR
Curt Barrett
New member
Any quality variable with a magnification starting somewhere between 1.5 and 4 max. For me preferably 3 or under and I hunt wide open country. Unless you hunt tight country 100% of the time I wouldn't even consider a red dot or holo sight. You aren't securing buildings in Iraq.
KillinYotes
New member
I use the Bushnell Holosight on my AR as my coyote rifle, but where i hunt most of my shots are from 50-150 yards which makes it a pretty useful setup around here. Easier for me to make effective shots on the moving targets.
aftCG
New member
Jimmie that paint job is the shiz! What is that mag well thing called?
OP: I run some of both also. On my oldest kid's AR I have one of the new Nikon M-223 2x8 (BDC). On my middle son's AR I have the Leupold AR 3x9 on a Larue mount (mildot). Both are excellent choices.
On my social purpose AR I run an Eotech. I own a magnifier but I don't like the bulk and weight of it. By itself I could make fast easy hits to 100 yards, and more careful hits to 2-300 with no problem.
There is a significant difference between red dot and holographic. With a red dot it is possible to hold the rifle such that you can hold the dot still and pivot the rifle - which means that the point of impact is changing.
With a holographic sight the actual image is well down range (nice for us 40+ guys). Regardless of cheek weld etc, if the dot is on target you will hit it. Another cool feature you can see at some gun shops is an Eotech with a busted glass. The image still shows up, possibly off center in the window. It's still on target
I agree with another poster that I would own an Aimpoint in preference to the Eotech if the dot size was smaller. My experience with a compact ACOG was that the dot covers small targets at any distance. With the Eotech they say the center is 1 MOA but I've been told that is at maximum brightness. At a more subdued setting it is more like 1/3 MOA
OP: I run some of both also. On my oldest kid's AR I have one of the new Nikon M-223 2x8 (BDC). On my middle son's AR I have the Leupold AR 3x9 on a Larue mount (mildot). Both are excellent choices.
On my social purpose AR I run an Eotech. I own a magnifier but I don't like the bulk and weight of it. By itself I could make fast easy hits to 100 yards, and more careful hits to 2-300 with no problem.
There is a significant difference between red dot and holographic. With a red dot it is possible to hold the rifle such that you can hold the dot still and pivot the rifle - which means that the point of impact is changing.
With a holographic sight the actual image is well down range (nice for us 40+ guys). Regardless of cheek weld etc, if the dot is on target you will hit it. Another cool feature you can see at some gun shops is an Eotech with a busted glass. The image still shows up, possibly off center in the window. It's still on target
I agree with another poster that I would own an Aimpoint in preference to the Eotech if the dot size was smaller. My experience with a compact ACOG was that the dot covers small targets at any distance. With the Eotech they say the center is 1 MOA but I've been told that is at maximum brightness. At a more subdued setting it is more like 1/3 MOA
armysnipper
New member
just posted a leupold mr/t mark 4 in the classifieds. I used one overseas. great all around scope out to 700. illuminated reticle for those early mornings and late evenings.