So just got finished building my first AR. Currently running a YHM hooded front sight and a magpul MBUS rear sight. I have discovered that the sight picture is FUCKING MASSIVE. Looking for a low magnification optic to use past 100yds that wont cost me more than the rifle
>>28394240
Primary Arms PAC4X, I'd suggest you get a Aimpoint PRO if you want a red dot.
>>28394240
PA 1-6x. I was pleasantly surprised.
>>28394240
Hey anon
You have good taste, built this one last year.
Put a cheap barska on mind, but I don't plan on shoot beyond 100yrds with this setup
To enjoy a better rear, matech buis of of eBay
Now, optic, it depends on budget and style, of which I can simply into 4 categories
>micro red dot
>red dot
>variable power scope
>fixed power scope
The best options are
>$170 PA micro red dot advanced
>$90 PA classic OR $300 on sale aimpoint aco
>PA 1-6, Leupold mk ar, weaver 2-7, all under $300 with different features, pros and cons
>Burris 332 x3
Nutnfancy did a very recent video "top 5 tactical scopes in the world" in which he did top 5 scopes he's used, 3 of which are in your price range
It's a long rambling typical nutn autism video. But its good information. That man shoots a lot. He knows what features matter and which don't, at least to him, a civilian shooter.
Like most of the scopes he shows aren't illuminated. Illumination is extra cost and extra weight. Shooters did well for years without it. Or most of the scopes aren't 100% guaranteed shock proof or even shock resistant. But that also means his scopes are lightweight. US optics scopes are bomb proof, but their heavy as fuck. And to him, weight matters.
The tl;dr is decide if you want a big optic or a little optic, and decide if you want a red dot reflex or a scope, and be prepared to buy something that isn't going to out live you or be war ready.
>>28394240
I'm fond of the illuminated reticle 1x4 scopes. They lack the high magnification to be real "sniper" rifles and aren't as good in CQB as red dots but they won't ever wash out in bright light either and can be used sufficiently at 100 yards and for relatively close combat too.
The biggest disadvantage is that you want it to sit kind of far back on your rifle so the rear back up sight is locked in the down position 100%. That's not that big a deal though if you think of it as strictly a back up sight, which it is.
Front sight posts are also visible at low power which annoys some people but yours folds down anyway.
>>28394295
Barska is garbage.
The relief on their optics sucks and their red dots wash out on even a cloudy day. They're garbage.
>>28394725
Whatever you say, sounds like you know
>>28394725
>>28394783
My .22 wears a barska. Cheap and shitty, but it does the job.
>>28394710
Well, most people mount those in qd mounts, so if scopes fail they have near immediate access to their irons. But those are expensive, and a good mount is important.
llumination is money and weight, and you'd be surprised how quick even a simple unilluminated duplex can be at 1.5x power
It really depends on OP's intended shooting too. At home Defense distances inside his home he could mount a double sided see through strawberry flavoured dildo for all I care, because within 15 yards you can point shoot a human sized target. But if he's doing 25 yard and further shooting most of the time, he seriously can do without a "true 1x" power
I think if he really wants to shoot 100m+ alot, maybe between 100 and 300, he should look at the primary arms 2.5x scope.
>>28394256
>>28394686
>>28394710
Thanks for the input guys. Really like the Primary Arms options. I can wear out a silouette at 100yards with the backups and im not looking to drive nails with the rifle. Just want a good all around optic to expand the capabilites of the rifle
Am I the only one who sees the magpul mbus to be blocky and square? I don't use them and have a carry handle instead and it's a perfect circle compared to it.
>>28394725
As someone who sells them, I agree.
>>28394783
I have and still use a 3 to 9 power Barska on my marlin 60. It's absolutely ridiculous how accurate and consistent that gun is with the cci copper plated tactical ammo and a scope. So that scope works fine but the glass is noticeably not very good and the eye relief is limited. The scope was very cheap though and holds zero so I shouldn't bash it.
The Barska red shoot i had is a whole different story, indoors the door looked fine but outside, on maximum brightness, with a fresh battery, on a cloudy day it would wash out. The thing was absolutely useless for anything but indoor shooting.
Barska is known for making cheap shit and as long as it holds zero, that's great but when you can't even see the reticle, that's no good.
I'm still triggered about it. When I had this problem i started doing research and found there were a lot of quality control issues. So, to the point, no based on my experience and also what I've read, Barska is not a quality product.
>>28397481
That 3 to 9 might be same model as this >>28395164 it holds zero and was real cheap so no real complaints about that one other than the cheapness shows when you look through it but I guess that's to be expected.
