What is the best .308 "battle rifle" optic setup?

Uzi with 42x thermal optics

>>28319907
/thread

>>28319854
The best anything depends on application. Given that you used battle rifle and not precision or designated marksman or similar terms, I'd guess a decent optic for your probable engagement ranges would be, in order from cheapest to priciest, primary arms acss gen ii 1-6, vortex viper, trijicon, SWFA SS, NightForce, us optics, schmidt & bender....

>>28319854
This all depends OP.

I've been in this same situation for the past 3 years. I started with a plain ol red dot sight for my 17s. I realized pretty quickly I wanted some magnification for this sucker. I then went with a SS 3-15, which I realized was too long and so took that off and threw it on an ar15. I then went with a Bushnell 1-4 I had laying around, and liked the compact nature of it but didn't like the top end at being only 4x. I took that off and put it on a spare 223 bolt gun I had laying about. I then got a Burris xtr2 1.5-8 and put that on, and it was fantastic until I went with nv stuff because it too was too long for my nv laser. So now I'm looking at either getting a NF 2.5-10x24 at 9.9" or a Leupy mk4 1.5-5 at 9.8".

I figure for my 17s the best I'd be doing with that 16" pencil bbl is about 5-600m, so the 5 on the top end would be enough for hitting steel on a full torso target. the nf top end of 10 would be mainly for shooting groups at 100m and testing out ammo. The nf is about twice the cost of the leupy, so im unsure if I want to drop dosh on another optic I may grow tired of and the thing that worries me is that the 10x with the 24mm obj lens may not pull enough light for me to be happy with that optics choice.

File: fal.jpg (1MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1840px

>>28320527
Felt the same way about my FAL. Started out with a eotech, wanted magnification so I added a magnifier. Now I'm wanting more range but I've never been a fan of scopes on my rifles, so I'm kind of in limbo as where to go next with it

>>28319854
People often mistake Battle Rifle with DMR. There's actually a pretty distinct difference. The BR is meant to be more mobile and easily fired unsupported. Battle rifles don't usually use bipods and big-ass scopes. Whichever optic is on there, the most important thing is that it can hold zero even if the firearm was dropped on it's optic otherwise it wouldn't be worth it. Secondly, the optic should be low profile and uncumbersome. No point in having it if it makes the rifle harder to carry.

TLDR: BRs are meant to be mobile.

File: specter-1-3-9.jpg (8KB, 480x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x247px

http://www.armament.com/specter-tr-139

This is what I paired with my Keltec RFB 7.62. I have always been an Elan and Trijicon fan, but this is the best I have seen for simplicity of transition from CQ to mid to long.

^ Elcan

>>28319854

Either an ACOG TA11 or fixed-power Elcan. The Spectre DR's are pretty pointless and just add weight. From personal experience you're never going to use 1x because it sucks, so might as well get the 4x from the start.

>>28321506
>>28321548
>>28321570

Welcome to 4chan.

>>28319854
Got a NF 2.5-10 on my 17s right now. Got a JP offset mount, gonna pick up a T2 to put on it. Might pick up a 1-8 to try out, but I might also go with a NF atacr 4-16, depends on how much I dig the 2.5-10.

4x in CQ is foolish. Blurred acquisition, and narrower FOV. Precisely why 1x is so very important.

>>28321614
which 2.5-10?

File: IMAG0088.jpg (3MB, 5376x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5376x3024px

This is also a very high quality, robust battle optic.

>>28319854

I have an ACOG. It's fucking beautiful.

Zero adjustments to transfer from targets at point blank all the way out to 1200 yards.

There's notches for everywhere between 100 and 1200 yards. I've personally made shots at 1000 with an 18" barrel.

The ACOG 6x is what I replaced with the Specter. The ACOG can is huge, so a kit fuck getting in and out of vehicles and tight passage. Specter 139 is low profile. A little bit heavy, but worth the extra few ounces for its thumb latch from 1x to 3x to 9x. No rotational focus required. It is for engagement, not plinking.

>>28321665

BAC, newfriend. Been used since ACOGs have been around. Works infinitely better than some buster ass 1x with eye relief.

>>28321665
Found the noguns