Help me find a suitable LPVO for my AR15.
Weight is not a concern. Must be around 1x at lowest and 4 is minimum at max power. But I would like 8. I plan on using this rifle to kill coyotes.
I want an MOA reticle (I do not want a BDC)
I'd like to stay around 1200 bucks
Ones I've already looked at: Trijicon accupower 1-4, 1-8, Steiner P4XI, and a few others.
I'm really considering the 1-8 Triji.
>MOA reticle
>not MIL reticle
Why?
I should also mention that my eyes are not great, and I would like to be able to use the scope without them.
My main concern here is with FFP scopes. If the reticle is too small on 1x then I won't be able to see it without my glasses.
Also illumination is not even a concern to me. I'll probably scarcely use it, even at night.
Because I don't feel like it would matter what I use and I already know how to use MOA.
I typically think in yards, inches, and feet, so I feel like ranging certain animals would be easier for me to do in MOA.
If this is way outdated and I'm overthinking Mils please tell me.
>i ThInK iN yArDs AnD rAnGiNg WoUlD bE eAsIEr
Stop thinking about it in terms of yards, inches, meters, centimeter, whatever, and think about it in terms of angular measurements, you fucking mong. Hell, if you really wanted a good hunting reticle, look into the ACSS from Primary Arms. Their 1-8x platinum is my absolute favorite LPVO and I've used it to take deer, hogs, coyotes, peccaries, and rabbits out to 600 yards (that was a hog.)
If you MUST have a mil reticle, they also make a 1-8x mil, but it is significantly less intuitive than their ACSS. Also, the Trijicon is shit. Okay, it's not shit, but it is vastly disappointing. The glass is weirdly dim for such a well-regarded optics-maker.
Ok but how do I think in a viler measurements instead of inches and yards instead of millimeters and meters.
If I’m 1 inch low at 100 yards it’s 1 Moa. How much easier can it get man ?
Use your scope to see what adjustments are necessary. Say you're shooting at 300 yards and miss by some amount. Instead of trying to estimate the distance of your miss, use your scope to see the difference between the POA and POI to know EXACTLY what adjustments are necessary instead of estimating. It makes distances irrelevant, math goes out the window and you just look and read. For that reason I still think you'd be better served by a BDC. Not because they're better, but because you're not as well-versed as you think.
You get the 1-6 Accupoint
You do this
You do it now
When you shoot coyotes they make double the babies
>I plan on using this rifle to kill coyotes.
just get a fucking vortex
If you're talking about anything lesser than the Vortex Razor I'm not interested.
I have both strike eagles and both have exceptionally poor glass quality.
That's kinda the point. I want more targets lmfao.
>my eyes are not great, and I would like to be able to use the scope without them.
You want a braille scope?
Razor 1-6x
lmao I meant without glasses.
How do you range an animal without thinking about it in terms of some reference to distance?
Are you fucking retarded?
You still range animals using mils by knowing how big they are on average.
If you know a coyote is about 30 inches on average rump to snout, if he measurings 8MOA in your scope, a 1st grade equation tells you he's 375 yards away, and if you know your dope that still gives you a better potential to hit the animal than using a BDC.
BDCs are standardized for specific loads, and as a civilian I don't have to use those loads.
I'm not going to change the way I think about distance because I occasionally want to kill animals at MAYBE above 400 yards.
Its a 5.56 rifle, and I don't need mils. I am not a long distance shooter, and I can already hit torso targets decently well out to 500 yards by guessing.
I just don't see a point in switching to mils when it doesn't offer that much more to me.
I'm probably going to just tape a dope card to my stock and memorize shit from that.
You can do exactly what you just said using an MOA reticle. Are you fucking retarded or just baiting?
BOTH ARE FORM OF ANGULAR MEASUREMENT.
No fucking shit, retard. I don't have a gripe with him using MOA, I have a gripe with him equating 1 MOA to 1 inch. Thinking about it in terms of angular measurements is easier, and the reason I recommend Mils instead of MOA is so that his smooth-brained mong brain doesn't fall back to 1 MOA = 1 inch as a shorthand for actually fucking learning how to shoot using non-linear measurements.
What do you do with the dead coyote after you shoot it? Leave it there? Take it to a trash can?
Are you aware that there are these nifty little things called ballistic calculators? If you weren't, you should look into them, they're real fucking neato and allow you to tailor BDCs to different loads by changing things such as zero distance, zero offset, BC, SD, muzzle velocities, etc., to make BDCs work pretty damn great with a variety of loads. Will they ever be as good as MOA/mil reticles? No, of course not. But with a little bit of leg work on your part you can make a good match for A LOT of different loads.
I will concede that you are correct about ranging an animal requiring linear measurements, and will agree that MOA is a perfectly viable system for range estimation. However, I still think ranging using mils is infinitely easier since I can just do (x unit of measurement * 1000)/size of target in mils to get the exact distance to target. If I do inches, I can just divide by 36 and get distance in yards. If I do centimeters, I can just divide by 1000 and get distance in meters.
>exceptionally poor glass quality.
this is either hyperbole, or 'high quality' glass is some kind of magic lens
They're "eh" in all ways. Good enough for about 400-600 yards, but the contrast just isn't there for it to be a truly great optic. High quality glass truly is worlds away from entry level stuff, but a lot of people seem incapable of grasping that.
I’m gonna put this in a way you can understand.
The glass is exceptionally poor in my strike eagles.
1-8 and 1-6
On the highest magnification they are so muddy and unclear that I could probably better identify targets with a 4x scope with clearer glass.
Also I just don’t like either reticle option they have.
They’re just sub par scopes at best.
OP says no BDC. Why do you continue to recommend BDCs?
If OP doesn’t want to carry around a ballistic calculator or just wants to have a more versatile scope for ranging different animals on the fly, why can’t you just recommend one and stop being a faggot?
Leave em.
No good for eatin.
I have eaten one before. Slow roasted barbecue recipe.
Just tasted like stringy pork. I would eat it if I had to.
At the distances we are talking about, you CAN equate MOA to 1 inch and STILL get closer POA to POI hits than with a BDC.
Even out to 500 yards you could equate MOA to inches and still maintain relatively close hits within a half inch if your rifle can do it. Hell even further than that.
OP is talking about an AR15 in 5.56. This isn’t a one mile rifle where that shit matters.
To clarify,
I do not mean group size within a half inch.
ARs are just not capable of half inch groups at 500 lmao.
I always feel bad about leaving meat.
This. I shoot competitively and zero my rifles in MOA. Yes, there is a difference. No, you won't be shooting in a manner where it would matter. At fucking 900 yards it's off by half an inch. Like, come on.
>
>I always feel bad about leaving meat.
Didn't finish my statement. I cut coyote meat with pork and either make chili or sausage. The pelts are mostly worthless. Flavor differs wildly depending on where you're at and what kinds of trash they get into.
I dont think a human can even accurately range things at those distances well enough to see that kind of difference.
I remember reading somewhere that even people who are really practiced are often off by about 1-2%
Basicle the guy I’m arguing with is monke.
Pretty much reversed his entire statement. Lmao.
Now. To the goddamn point of the thread.
Do I want the Trijicon Accupower 1-8 in MOA? Or is there a better option with equal or greater glass in that price range?
I've used one. I liked it fine. The glass and internals are made in Japan.
nightforce is more expensive but probably lighter which makes for a better free hand shooter. I do t like how fat the center dot is though.
Honestly dont see the hate in the strike eagle other than the bdc shit btw. Maybe mine got sent with better glass but I wont use it on my nice rifle just because I dont want to get bullied. And its heavy too. I have the 6x
>I should also mention that my eyes are not great, and I would like to be able to use the scope without them.
Are you retarded or something ?
I spot that t91, buddy
>Weight is not a concern.
Accupower 1-8 is really nice, but I have to tell you that middle cross is THICK, and your other eye sees 1x, so there will be no brain picture overlap like when looking through sights. Maybe it's good for shooting humans, but if you are trying to hit very middle of a paper target at 200-300 yards, it will be an issue, unless you dial down and aim with crossing +4 MOA.
>I always feel bad about leaving meat.
There's a channel on YT that reviews mousetraps and the dude sometimes leaves carcasses as large as squirrel and they get recycled overnight.
How dare you use the word retarded , he is just slow