Optics Chat

[Mr. E. Monkey]

I've got astigmatism and most red dots are a bit blurry for me. On my AR, if I look through the rear peep sight, the dot is crisp and clear. Without the rear sight, the dot is blurry and kind of star shaped.

I get the same thing.  Prism optics are crisp and clear for me. 

[Raptor]

Raptor, I was about 8 or 9 when I got sprayed in the face with carburetor cleaner. The damage was minor and my mother was able to keep the cleaner from doing more damage by rinsing it off my face and away from my eyes.

I would say you have waited long enough for any improvement to occur, disregard my comment.

I've also found explaining to the doctor you need it fixed in case of zombies or aliens doesn't go over well.

Telling them you want to travel and are concerned about issues in developing nations works much better.

But when it comes to astigmatism, the best optices are eyeglasses. 

Normally for things like this (i.e. getting an RX for desired pharmaceuticals) that is exactly what I say; "travel to developing nations".
I used to do this and my regular MD who has since retired was very accommodating within reason.

My new MD is a whole lot less accommodating and is on the "soon to be replaced" list.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

I've got astigmatism and most red dots are a bit blurry for me. On my AR, if I look through the rear peep sight, the dot is crisp and clear. Without the rear sight, the dot is blurry and kind of star shaped.

I get the same thing.  Prism optics are crisp and clear for me. 

As soon as I can afford one, I'll probably pick up a prism optic to replace my red dots.

[MacWa77ace]

Which optic would be better suited for someone with blurry vision caused by either an eye injury or astigmatism?

Red dot or a prism ?

Do you need correction and don't have it, or its messed up even after correction?

I have astigmatism and am a bit near sighted for which i use corrective lenses; but I use pretty much every kind except holographic and they're fine.

But on large MOA RDS, while not blurry, are sometimes oval shaped in the direction of the astig. The small dots, 1 MOA, or if I adj the brightness down to make a small dot I can't notice. But I'm usually wearing corrective lenses. If I don't wear correction, then its a little blurry and lot oval shaped.

My prismatics, and riflescopes, are fine. If they have a diopter, i might have to adj that to my eyes. Even without correction the reticle is fine although the target might not be.

So as long as I wear my scripts every kind of site is fine except long gun iron sites. That is a challenge even with correction. Pistol Irons are ok uncorrected.

That peep site thing is a trick. You can put a pinhole in a piece of paper and put that behind your glasses for target shooting, that will make everything crisp.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Which optic would be better suited for someone with blurry vision caused by either an eye injury or astigmatism?

Red dot or a prism ?

Do you need correction and don't have it, or its messed up even after correction?

I have astigmatism and am a bit near sighted for which i use corrective lenses; but I use pretty much every kind except holographic and they're fine.

But on large MOA RDS, while not blurry, are sometimes oval shaped in the direction of the astig. The small dots, 1 MOA, or if I adj the brightness down to make a small dot I can't notice. But I'm usually wearing corrective lenses. If I don't wear correction, then its a little blurry and lot oval shaped.

My prismatics, and riflescopes, are fine. If they have a diopter, i might have to adj that to my eyes. Even without correction the reticle is fine although the target might not be.

So as long as I wear my scripts every kind of site is fine except long gun iron sites. That is a challenge even with correction. Pistol Irons are ok uncorrected.

That peep site thing is a trick. You can put a pinhole in a piece of paper and put that behind your glasses for target shooting, that will make everything crisp.

Iron sights are just fine for me. A little blurry, but not as much as when I use an RDS. I've got glasses, but they're mostly for reading and don't really make a difference with blurry red dots.

A regular riflescope is fine as well. I've got to adjust the eye relief a bit to get everything in focus, but other than that I've got no issues.

It's just red dot optics that are odd.

[MacWa77ace]

Iron sights are just fine for me. A little blurry, but not as much as when I use an RDS. I've got glasses, but they're mostly for reading and don't really make a difference with blurry red dots.

A regular riflescope is fine as well. I've got to adjust the eye relief a bit to get everything in focus, but other than that I've got no issues.

It's just red dot optics that are odd.

do they have adj brightness? maybe dial down the brightness.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

Iron sights are just fine for me. A little blurry, but not as much as when I use an RDS. I've got glasses, but they're mostly for reading and don't really make a difference with blurry red dots.

A regular riflescope is fine as well. I've got to adjust the eye relief a bit to get everything in focus, but other than that I've got no issues.

It's just red dot optics that are odd.

do they have adj brightness? maybe dial down the brightness.

I'll try that and see if it helps.

[Lodewijk]

Taking a big left turn and looking hard at LPVOs. Had intended to pick up a T2 but after looking at anticipated use I'm considering a Leupy Mark 6.

Trying to figure out what reticle will be more use:

556 CMR-W, calibrated for 62-gr:



Or a TMR-D, which is just mils.



Where I live actually has big enough country for distance shooting, so either will get use. This will be me switching from MOA to MRAD, and it's going on a do-everything AR in 5.56. I like the range/hold/shoot concept a lot, and that I only have to think in mils to get range (i.e. I theoretically don't have to also think through trajectory in mil terms). I do not really anticipate using turrets to dial elevation on a carbine. I have a couple of 700s for that.

Too good to be true?

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

The bottom reticle looks like it's more streamlined and probably easier to use.

The top on just looks really busy with all the dots and lines and other stuff. In actual use, though, it may be less noticeable than it is as a pic on a screen.

Also, I'm used to just a very basic crosshair, so reticles like the top one seem odd to me.

[Mr. E. Monkey]

If you don't want to (or don't plan to) dial turrets, the top reticle makes sense.  I'm not a big fan of calibrated reticles in general, though--what if I want to shoot 55 grain bullets?  Or put it on a rifle in a different caliber entirely?  Now I have to compare ballistic charts and see where it lines up.  (I actually have a setup where I had to do just that.  It's not that difficult, but it's one extra thing to keep track of, and some days I think my brain is running out of room for some of that stuff.)

That said, if it lines up with your intended use, it would probably be an excellent way to go.  I am running a Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x on my "do-all" 5.56, and picked the reticle with the windage and elevation marks in MOAs, instead of the BDC.  The holdover built in to the reticle gets 5.56 out to around 600 yards or so without dialing turrets, which is nice (though I have moved to a place where there is very little chance of shooting anywhere near that far), so I'm sure either of those will do what you need.

I guess the biggest question, for me, would be which reticle is more useful at 1x?  With a FFP, they're bound to be pretty small at 1x.  I know that would definitely influence my decision, personally.

[MacWa77ace]

This one has a built in rangefinder/estimator also. Built in windages.
All for fast firing solutions [once you get used to it].

[Lodewijk]

This one has a built in rangefinder/estimator also. Built in windages.
All for fast firing solutions [once you get used to it].

Yeah it looks pretty usable.

The main downside is cost... I might flex down (lol) and take a T2 in order to keep moving kn other projects.

[MacWa77ace]

This one has a built in rangefinder/estimator also. Built in windages.
All for fast firing solutions [once you get used to it].

Yeah it looks pretty usable.

The main downside is cost... I might flex down (lol) and take a T2 in order to keep moving kn other projects.

There are LPVO's starting at under T2 prices, you're looking at Leupold for crissake.
For example: https://www.primaryarms.com/search?keywords=lpvo
their ACSS versions have similar ranging and windage on the prism as that Leupold. At the very least, at those prices you can see if you like 'em before springing for the name brands.

[Lodewijk]

This one has a built in rangefinder/estimator also. Built in windages.
All for fast firing solutions [once you get used to it].

Yeah it looks pretty usable.

The main downside is cost... I might flex down (lol) and take a T2 in order to keep moving kn other projects.

There are LPVO's starting at under T2 prices, you're looking at Leupold for crissake.
For example: https://www.primaryarms.com/search?keywords=lpvo
their ACSS versions have similar ranging and windage on the prism as that Leupold. At the very least, at those prices you can see if you like 'em before springing for the name brands.

Yeah, I understand that I am bypassing the lower end of the market.

[RoneKiln]

I've got one of those incredibly complex reticles on my "primary" AR in 5.56. I've not played with the complexities to get used to them, but I found it very easy to tune them out when doing close quarters drills.

So I've not yet gotten any benefit from them, but they've done me no harm either. I really need to dedicate an evening going over the manual and fiddling with it, and then an entire weekend to getting out somewhere with a wide range of shooting distances.

[MacWa77ace]

This one has a built in rangefinder/estimator also. Built in windages.
All for fast firing solutions [once you get used to it].

Yeah it looks pretty usable.

The main downside is cost... I might flex down (lol) and take a T2 in order to keep moving kn other projects.

There are LPVO's starting at under T2 prices, you're looking at Leupold for crissake.
For example: https://www.primaryarms.com/search?keywords=lpvo
their ACSS versions have similar ranging and windage on the prism as that Leupold. At the very least, at those prices you can see if you like 'em before springing for the name brands.

Yeah, I understand that I am bypassing the lower end of the market.

Leupold SALE! @ MidwayUSA https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1023059389

Here's your LPVO with rebate and free shipping in your pricepoint. Just doesn't have that reticle.

[Lodewijk]

Ha, TTAG just reviewed the Mark 3HD.

Stepped back and took a realistic look at what my needs will be relative to time availability, which is never pleasant. I'm going to take a T2 here, bump up to a better light than I was looking at (younger, broker me finally gets the coolguy combo he wanted), find a couple of classes, and put the rest of my attention on a long-term 700 build.

Definitely appreciate the input though.

[MacWa77ace]

This Just in:

My 1x prismatic. No battery required but does illuminate with a 2032 @ 29000 hours on medium brightness. Bought it with a 12% off coupon from Primary Arms and it has their ACSS reticle.
I've been looking for one of these for a really long time, a 1x prismatic, the closest I got was my Trij Micro ACOG at 1.5x



Now I really need to start my next build because I don't have a gun to put this on. 

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

This Just in:

My 1x prismatic. No battery required but does illuminate with a 2032 @ 29000 hours on medium brightness. Bought it with a 12% off coupon from Primary Arms and it has their ACSS reticle.
I've been looking for one of these for a really long time, a 1x prismatic, the closest I got was my Trij Micro ACOG at 1.5x



Now I really need to start my next build because I don't have a gun to put this on. 

Neat.

What did that optic run you, Mac ?

[Mr. E. Monkey]

That new Cyclops is