Why does /k/ hate this setup?

>>32369847
Awkward

>>32369847
gay

>>32369847
Fake

>>32369847

the concept is pretty good, you end up with basically an FFP optic,so it works well with chevrons, the eotech reticle and bdc/ACSS horseshoe

execution is awkward and fragile due to moving parts

>>32369847
Daily reminder that a an EOTech XPS3 and a G33 magnifier are lighter than a 1-4x Vortex PST with QD base, takes up the same amount of space, is modular, and has less way less parallax.

>>32369847
If you already have a red dot and then later want some more multi-use out of it, I guess it's decent. I saw a unit in Afghanistan where they already had Aimpoints and rather than spend a ton of money refitting them with ACOGs, they refit a far larger number of rifles by adding magnifiers. It certainly performed the job it was intended to.

But if you're going from the ground up, it's just kind of an awkward setup that ends up being heavy and giving you a less than ideal FOV, light gathering, or reticle when it comes to magnified shooting. A dedicated magnified optic with a micro-red dot optic piggybacked or offset accomplishes everything the sideflip does, but it gives you a better magnified experience, it's easier to switch between them on the fly, and no moving parts.

>>32369847
because magnifiers are more expensive than we think they should be.

File: DSC03212.jpg (1MB, 1965x1104px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1965x1104px

>>32369879
use a better QD base.
it also has like 1/4 the eye relief and FOV.

File: Crystal Clear Trijicon Glass.jpg (321KB, 1168x778px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1168x778px

>>32369847

>>32369879
how much does a 1-4x vortex PST w/ QD base weigh??

My Accupoint + beefy bobro QD weighs 23 oz.

>>32369913
But it gives you an inferior red dot.
If shooting red dot under 100yds is your priority then a magnifier on a QD make sense.

>>32369847

Fuck what people think. I have this setup on my shotgun.

>>32369950

just like on my shotty... nice.

File: 1480573303690.png (136KB, 620x278px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 620x278px

>>32369847
I've have an Eotech Magnifier(whatever the 2014 model is). I've used it with:
Aimpoint Comp M2
Eotech 556
Eotech 553
Insight MRDS

I found it to be awkward and heavy with everything but the MRDS. However the MRDS did take a couple tries to set up with different risers and mounts to get it to the cowitness with the Magnifier.

That being said I also have a Vortex Razor 1-6 with a Burris FF2 mounted at 45* which I like more.

I also have an ACOG TA01 with a Trijicon MRDS and I also like that more than the Magnifier combo, although I may move the MRDS to a 45* mount.

Magnifiers are allright but at the cost of variables and ACOGs/other glass its a tad bit outdated.

>>32369996
I guess it depends on what your priorities are. I always speak from the point of view of looking at it like a general purpose combat rifle. I've found much preference for having a good magnified optic on that, as magnification has proven very handy.

If I have a rifle with a red dot, but find myself desiring magnification to the point where I consider putting a flip magnifier on it, that's territory for getting a good magnified optic IMO.

But then again I still use ACOGs with occluded eye shooting as my preferred close quarters red dot method, so maybe I'm just old.

>>32369950
And the EOTech has unlimited eye relief and way better FOV at 1x.

>>32369950
Go ahead, find a QD base that would put a Vortex PST 1-4 at less weight than the EOTech EXPS3 and G33.

>>32370163
Clearly he was talking about with magnification.

>>32369987
>Vortex PST 1-4x24 16.2 ounces + ADM AD Recon mount 8.4 ounces= 24.6oz

File: DSC03615.jpg (772KB, 1962x1101px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1962x1101px

>>32370163
thats not the benefit you're talking about when using a magnifier though.
>>32370182
Aero precision QD mount
3.37 oz total of 19.57 oz with the vortex
eotech EXPS+magnifier is 22.4 oz
did you even try?

>Variable magnification optics have come a long way
>RD + Magnifier is heavy, clunky, awkward
>Distorts the dot

>>32370182
>>32370213
Actually Aero still hasnt made one, closest would be the ADM at 7.1 oz putting the vortex at 23.3
though this is kinda a biased point since you're picking a beefy scope at 16.2 oz I could easily just use a Trijicon accupoint 1-4x and be lighter than the eotech by about an oz.

>>32370163
don't forget the wandering zero

>>32370307
The point I'm making is that people say the RDS+magnifier is heavier meme when it factually isn't

magnifier and reddot is actually the same optic setup ive wanted to do for one of my ARs. ive never had range time with one so i dont know if id ilike it or not. although just a guess, id probably wouldnt like it.

File: DSC00417.jpg (312KB, 1781x998px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1781x998px

>>32370401
>it factually isnt
except you know, it is because I just pointed out too you it weighs more than a Vortex+Aero mount by like 3 oz. or about 2 oz if you do use a QD mount and a different scope.

I'm a support MOS for Army Special Forces, hanging around the guys a lot, with and the vast majority, favoring the setup shown. Most with EOTech, some with Aimpoint. Granted some do run other optics, but as I said, they seem to like the magnifiers.

>>32370448
what acog mount is this?

I have been wanting to move my Trijicon MRDS to a 45* for a while.

>>32370513
Does that have to do with the fact that they run NODs?

I heard when wearing night vision most guys like using an Aimpoint/Eotech on a riser with the ability to QD the magnifier as it gets in the way when the NODs are on.

File: DSC00456.jpg (584KB, 1000x1784px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1000x1784px

>>32370521
its the standard ACOG mount, I just bought a DD offset 45 pic rail

>>32370552
very nice I did this with a Knights mount on my Vortex, but I think I like how sleek the DD mount is.

DD mount seems a might smaller.

>>32370552
what adapter did you end up using to mount the MRDS to picatinni btw?

>>32370535
So, as I support guy, I'm often the dude who gets shot with Sim Rounds playing the bad dude. Anyways, and this is true with the SEALs that have too used the same areas of training.
Nobody stares down their optic with NODs, they are already dealing with narrow fields of view, they will simply on and off a IR laser for all night firing. Not completely shouldering the guns. This occurs, inside a house and outside too

>>32370591
makes sense with the PEQ's and all that fun shit you guys get to fun around with.

So most the guys that run this set up would you say run it with the Mag flipped on or off?

File: DSC02002.jpg (739KB, 1781x998px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1781x998px

>>32370564
probably, I tried runnign a straight knights adadpter. did not go well.
>>32370576
just the standard picatinny mount? it was picattiny to picatinny

>>32370448
>or about 2 oz if you do use a QD mount and a different scope.
My claim was against a Vortex PST and QD mount.

>Daily reminder that a an EOTech XPS3 and a G33 magnifier are lighter than a 1-4x Vortex PST with QD base, takes up the same amount of space, is modular, and has less way less parallax.

It gets guaranteed replies because it goes against the 1-4x being better categorically than a RDS+mag meme. A RDS+mag will be better for close/medium range and a variable optic will be better for medium/long.

File: 81320467191.jpg (40KB, 586x781px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 586x781px

wtf i hate magnifiers now

>>32370624
seems to vary, I can think of one guy, that uses it for targets as close as 5 meters away, and others normally don't use them until shots exceed 25m or more.
There are guys that use Elcans, and microdots, in SF is really user preference on what they use.

I just wanted to state, that Mags are not nearly as terrible as some are claiming. These guys have options to other optics, and even when not deploy, I've been a 'bad guy' for one of their month long training events, and they are shooting 1000+ rounds or more A DAY, so anyone found flaws to them, they would.

>>32370552
mm that's a nice rifle.
is the gas block pinned on, or set-screw?

>>32370857
set screw.

>>32369847

Because most of /k/ is dildos.