It’s clear that I prefer a rifle like an AR-15 for home defense. I’ve still got my shotguns, I’ve still got my handguns, but if there’s an ability to have a preference, AR-15 is it.
I feel my main AR is fairly well set up as a “fightin'” gun for home needs, including things like having a light on the fore-rail. The one thing I feel I is missing is a good scope/sights. I do have iron sights on it and they work well enough, but I really want to get a red-dot scope such as an Aimpoint. The reason is simple: target acquisition is faster.
So what model to get? Well, I don’t need night vision. I like the optic to be rugged. I want it to be simple (thus the Aimpoint over the EOTech) I do like the battery life as the point is to be a gun always at the ready, so turn it on, leave it on, and when/if I need the gun it’s ready to go no need to have to waste time turning on the optic; just change the batteries once a year. I was originally leaning towards the ML3 because I could get it in a 2 MOA dot. The M4 or M4S would be awesome: best design, uses a common AA battery and has amazing life, but wicked expensive. Tom Givens said all the top 3-gun competition guys were using the ML2; I don’t know why, but my guess is it’s least expensive and the 4 MOA dot is good enough in terms of precision but also a bigger dot means your eye picks it up a lot faster and thus you can get to shooting sooner. That’s some food for thought. The more I pondered that, the more I felt that yes, a 4 MOA dot would be better for my particular purpose of a home-defense/fighting rifle. I doubt I’d be taking shots beyond 100 yards. This is not a sniper/accuracy rifle, and 4″ at 100 yards is still minute-of-dead-bad-guy. If I was taking a shot inside the home, 25 yards is probably my longest shot, with more common distances maybe 10 yards give or take 5 yards.
So as of this writing, my feeling is to get the ML2. Or if for some reason I want the ML3, at least getting it in the 4 MOA configuration. I should say for the longest time I wanted the 2 MOA because I’ve got this thing about precision. People say you can buy the 2 MOA version and crank the brightness up until the dot “blooms” and then it’s bigger: you can make a 2 MOA dot a 4 MOA dot, but you can’t make a 4 MOA dot 2 MOA. There’s something to that, but when I look at a bloomed dot it’s “fuzzy” and distracting. Might be fine for some, but not for me. I can’t make the gun into an “everything” gun. It has a purpose, I need to build for that purpose and have a good rifle for that purpose, instead of a tool that’s half-assed for any/every purpose.
But…
I’m reconsidering getting any sort of sight/scope/optics.
The main reason is money, but also priority.
After taking the Combined Skills class, one thing Tom Givens made clear was that home invasions (where there’s a victim in the house) aren’t as frequent as we might think. Rather I should say, in his years of research, most violent crimes — especially where a gun is used to defend the victim — tend to happen at not-home: on the street, parking lots, etc.. Why are most of the stories of “person defends themselves with a gun” home invasion stories? Because at home is where most people in the USA have access to a gun. Something like half of the households in the USA have a gun in them. How many private citizens are legally allowed to carry a handgun on the street? About 3% of the population. Thus, when you hear the stories, you have to think of it in that context.
It’s not that I don’t want to have a good home-defense gun. But rather, I already have a sighting mechanism on my AR and it’s a good sighting mechanism. I get hits just fine with irons. But perhaps my money (the $500 it will cost for the Aimpoint plus a LaRue Tactical mount) might be better spent on a couple cases of ammo and more time at the range with my handgun. So, where to prioritize? Getting more gear for one thing, or spending the time/money on continuing to hone another thing.
I don’t know. This thought only just occurred to me this morning in the aftermath of the Combined Skills class. It’s something to think about. Not like I’ve got the money right now anyway… gotta think about braces for Oldest. 😯
Stuff From Hsoi 
More gear vs. more training?
In my book, more training always wins that argument. And I have been accused of being a gear junkie too. YMMV
Oh I agree.
Shooting is an interesting activity in that there’s no question gear has a direct relation to how well you shoot. Crappy gear, you’ll shoot crappy. Good gear, you’ll shoot good. Better gear, you’ll shoot better. At least, in theory. Best gear in the world doesn’t make you an awesome shooter… you still have to do your job, and a great shooter with crappy gear will likely shoot better than a crappy shooter with top-of-the-line gear. But no question, this is an activity where gear can affect performance.
So I tend to agree that training wins. But it can’t always win, else I’ll never get the gear. 🙂 So, it’s a matter of prioritizing it. I’ve gotten along this far without the Aimpoint, I can continue to get along with out. I think right now, training wins. Eventually tho, the gear will win. We all like new toys now and again. 😉
Erf. Best of luck with that – after ten years of braces, I can honestly confess to how much fun that is not.
At any rate, when it comes to sights and a home-defense situation, I am definitely leaning towards a well-zeroed laser pointer for myself… Odds are, I am not going to have the time to raise whatever firearm I am using to get a good sight picture, so I will either be indexing it (a touchy proposition, unless you train with it a lot, or you are named “Applegate”), or relying on some other form of indication of where my point of aim is – in this case, a cute little red dot. Is it ideal? Not really. But if I practice with it some more, it will be pretty darned close.
(This is not to knock indexing, but in an apartment setting, it is even farther from ideal.)
Yeah I know… the braces. It will be an adventure. And he’s just kid #1 of 3….
I do think the red dot is the way to go, for the reasons you mention. I mean, look at our active military. Do they use irons? No, they use Aimpoints and EOTech’s and the like. When the fur flies, the red dot gives you a big advantage.
So this isn’t that I don’t want one, it’s a matter of priority. And I think right now that $500 may be better spent on ammo and thus more training. I mean, now we can actually buy ammo! Still kinda expensive, but at least you can find it. 🙂
Hm. Did not make myself clear – I was referring to an honest-to-God laser pointer, not a laser sight. AN-PEQ-2 kind of thing, only civilian-legal. Granted, they are not a whole lot cheaper than the Aimpoints you are looking at, but every little bit counts, right? 🙂
You know, as I was replying, I did wonder if that’s what you meant.
Me, I don’t care for those. I’ve used them and all I find myself doing is playing “where’s the dot?” It shifts my focus from my sights to “something out there” (typically the target) and spending time trying to find and ensure the dot is where I want it… fire… recoil… where’s the dot? They just don’t work for me.
I’ve shot lots of guns and with lots of sighting systems. On a personal level, I see the advantage of an optical sight and the reasons why one would use optics on a gun, even inside the house. An Aimpoint or EOTech sight would be very effective for fast target acquisition, but the real question is it any faster, at realistic inside the house/yard distances you will encounter? Does it help you focus on a target better by allowing you a bright point to focus on?
Perhaps, you could think of upgrading your irons, instead of going to an optic? Is your front post Tritium? How wide is it? How big? I’ve used the huge tritium front posts on M1A Scouts and the thinner non-trit posts on M1A Squads. The difference is important, the Scout allows for faster, easier, but less accurate hits at 25-75 yards, but the thinner post allows for better accuracy at 100+. It’s something to think about, kind of that Big Dot vs. Normal Dot on the XS Sights.
Given a short range fight, like a defensive scenario is likely to be, I’ll take a big bright post over smaller post any day of the week.
The other thing I don’t like about most of the optical red dots is that you have to turn them on somehow. If you need that gun RIGHT NOW…I want something that is RIGHT NOW fast to aim with…and those are irons.
Just some more thoughts.
-Rob
PS: Spending money on ammo is ALWAYS preferable to gear, unless you need a sling, holster, or magazines. You ONLY need gear that you need to run the gun, magazines and ammo is it, everything else is supplimental.
On my one fightin’ AR, the front post is just your standard post on your standard F-marked front sight base. The rear is a A.R.M.S. #40L-P.
There is no question in my mind that the faster you can clearly pick up your sights, the better. And of the two sights, the front sight is the most important to pick up since that’s what you want to focus on. The sights on my main handgun are Dawson Precision sights, plain black rear and a post front with a red fiber optic insert. That fiber optic makes all the difference in drawing your eye where it need to be. The flat back rear works well to keep the sight picture simple… no dots or other things back there to distract and confuse the picture. I tried the XS Big dots on that handgun. I didn’t like them. I understand where the design comes from and there’s a legit fast-acquisition factor to them. But I’m just not sold on them. I just don’t think you can be accurate enough with them (yes, I’ve seen the YouTube video of James Yeager hitting a pepper popper at 100 yards, so?). Spent enough time with them, dumped them. Went to the Dawson’s, and I’m faster and more accurate with them. YMMV.
Admittedly, while I’ve thought about things like painting front sights on handguns, I don’t know why I didn’t think about just using a little red paint on the front post of my AR. That may be useful as a stop-gap measure for now. Ultimately tho, I’d rather have the Aimpoint. It’s not a question of if I’d get an Aimpoint or not… it’s a question of when. Is the $500 better spent now on the Aimpoint? or $500 better spent now on more ammo so I can practice all the stuff Tom Givens drilled into my head this past weekend? The adult in me says I should buy ammo and practice, but the kid in me still wants the frosting side of the Aimpoint. 🙂
Battery life is one reason I prefer the Aimpoint over the EOTech. Even the worst Aimpoint battery life lets me turn it on and leave it on for a year. If I haven’t touched the AR in a year’s time to notice and/or replace the batteries… then I’ve got bigger problems in my practice regimen. 🙂
As for distances, while sure most defensive uses may be very short range, what happens if you have to engage at a longer range? You don’t know what distances you’ll have to work with, and your situation may be that statistical anomaly of a longer range. Having something that works regardless, I’d prefer that. Again, it’s why I prefer the Dawson’s over the XS.
Hsoi, there are lots of great reasons to go for an optic, the battery life on the Aimpoint is a nice factor and yes you can probably leave it on for eternity and it will still function.
For me, I guess I’m on the KISS principle and think…if I had $500 to spend, I would buy..1) More ammo, magazines, and range time. 2) Aimpoint. Since, I don’t have $500 to spend on anything gun related at this time, I’d settle for none of the above, but if I did, more ammo is always preferable. We need ammo and mags to train and fight.
You’re working on your irons for long range shooting too, right?
One thing about combat rifle sights, they are all designed to function well at short and long ranges. In some cases they are a compromise of both, but the AR sights are actually some of the best out there. I know that when the Armed Services started issuing Aimpoints that hit rates went up something like 120%, but I think that’s an issue of training and practice, versus anything else. If we train less, an optic can help us cheat to be better. If we train more, either one can be equal, theoretically, if we train more with the optic as a “cheat” then we become even better, but I’m not sure you can transcend into that plane so to speak.
I dunno, more wondering out loud here. I can appreciate optics on a platform for shooting and it makes sense, but since I’ve always shot irons, I guess I always shoot irons. Some day, when I’m less poor maybe I’ll make that red dot transition.
-Rob
Battery life… heck, the Aimpoint CompM4 line… 80,000 hours claimed life. That’s like 9 years on a single AA battery. I’d still probably change it every year, but conceptually that’s amazing.
But you see, what you say is exactly why I hum-haw about spending the money on the Aimpoint. I have sights on the AR… the irons. I shoot “good enough” with them. They work just fine. So do I really *need* the additional optics? I’d say no, I don’t *need* one, but I do *want* one. 🙂 There’s no question you can hit better with red dot optics; look at competitions for a qualitative measure of this.