Last Time, I swear...FAL Optic

[Nightcrawler]

Okay, I'm still debating which optic to get for my FAL carbine. I have, but haven't tried out, an IOR Valdada 4x M1 scope. It's a rugged scope, overbuilt and heavy, but I don't think a fixed 4x is what I really wanted,

So what's the deal? Well, my FAL is a custom 16" DSA carbine. .308 out of a sixteen inch barrel I'd consider a 400 yard gun, give or take. We'll see how much long ranged shooting I actually get to do, but there it is.

I'm not willing to remove the rear sight to mount the scope. (I wish somebody'd make a metric folding rear sight like they made for L1A1s.) So the scope can't be of the type that protrudes rearward too much.

Also, mounting long eye relief scopes on a FAL is tricky, so just a normal to medium eye relief scope.

The optic has to be good at short ranges. I'd honestly like to have my cake and eat it too, have a scope that can be used at across the room distance and out to a couple hundred yards. Fortunately, there are options on this.

I'm making a poll of the options I'm considering. Please vote, or, if you don't think any of those are that great, make your own suggestion. Price range...well, that depends. Some of the scopes I"m looking at are pricy, some aren't. I'm really interested in a low power variable, but I want something that'll hold up to the beating of a .308 rifle. FALs can be hard on scopes.

Last time I'll whine about this, I swear.

 

[kfranz]

Why not use an inch folding sight? Get a taller front and you'll be OK

 

[usp_fan]

I was just thinking the same thing while reading NC's post. NC, the para sights are cool, but if your optic will be the primary sight, you'd likely be best off with an inch folder with taller front and whatever optic you like mounted with a quick release mount. The FAL is a perfect carbine for a variable power optic. If you can find something you like that is built stout you'll be golden. I'd be looking for something with illuminated aiming point and 1x to 3x or 4x power. Will the accupoint take the beating? If so, that might be your best bet.

--usp_fan

 

[Nightcrawler]

I don't think the inch folding sight will fit the metric lower receiver. Will it?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Okay, the first thing that pops into my mind is the Leupold Mk IV CQB 1-3x. Black reticle with scope turned off, red with adjustable brightness settings (including, I think, NVD settings if that interests you), and the ability to go from unmagnified red dot to 3x red dot. It looks kinda bulky and might protrude back too much, but I think the optic is right up your alley and deserves a look.

The 1.5x24 or 2x20 Compact ACOG might work really well too.

 

[SnakeEater]

Ask and ye shall recieve. IOR 1.5-8x26 Tactical 35mm. CQB reticle, Illumin., 3.5" eye relief, Glass from Schott, Germany. This bad boy is going on my PTR-91 to meet the same needs as you described, although it'll reach out a little further.

 

[Nightcrawler]

How does that 1.5x magnification, with both eyes open, work at very close ranges? Is the distortion distracting, or does it matter? Is it close to being as fast as, say, an Aimpoint? Do you have a regular 18" PTR-91 or a 16" K-model?

 

[Lebben-B]

Have you thought about the Trilux? It's small, but solidly built and some models have a lighted reticle. The reticle itself is a single post at 6 o'clock. They can be had used for around $120-150 and like new for about twice that. One of my bro's has an FNC with one and it was very nice set up.

Mike

 

[Nightcrawler]

Trilux

A Trilux can't be mated to a metric receiver without modifying the dust cover mount they come with. Then they're not compatible with iron sights, which is why L1A1s had fold-down rear sights. (The British came up with the idea of a folding BUIS long before it was in vogue in the States.)

I'm wondering if perhaps just a traditional magnifying optic might simplify things. I like the 4x32 ACOG, for instance, and in truth the vast Utah wasteland lends itself more to long shots than to "CQB".

Still, I really like the idea of a low power variable. That new Valdada 1.5-8x looks pretty tight, too.

 

[Father Knows Best]

NC, I'm going through the same thing you are. I have an SA58 Para Congo with the 16.25" barrel, and want to put optics on it, but I also don't want to give up my iron sights completely.

I love the IOR Valdada line, and my first choice right now would be the 1.5-8x version mentioned by SnakeEater. I would have bought it already if I knew how to deal with the backup sight issue.

 

[kfranz]

I don't think the inch folding sight will fit the metric lower receiver. Will it?

Yes it will

 

[Chuck R.]

IMHO one of the biggest problems with scoping a FAL is the weight in conjunction with what you’re going to use the rifle for. My DSA SA58 Para started out at about 8.75 lbs empty, added the extreme duty scope mount, now a little over 9lbs, added a Trijicon Tripower in a Larue mount, and I’ve now hit the 10lb mark….empty. I added an adjustable ITC Cheekrest to my stock tube and made the height just about right for between the irons and the Tripower. When I bear down on the stock I can use the irons and with heads-up position I can use the scope thanks to the lack of parallax.

The Tripower works very well for CQs stuff and “OK” at a distance due to the Chevron reticle. I have no problem staying on a reduced steel silhouette on my 200 meter range and can hit full size enough for confidence at 300 meters in field positions. The scope is “slightly” more accurate than the irons in my hands, but much faster than irons up close.

For what you want, I’d look at the Leupold Mk IV CQB 1-3x. A friend of mine has one on his M4 and it really is a nice scope. Typical Leupold quality and their awesome warranty should you ever need it. The only problem is the weight, it’s a heavy scope, and it will be added to a heavy rifle.

Chuck

 

[mmike87]

I held up the 1.1-4x IOR scope next to an ACOG and despite the IOR's "Schott" glass - the ACOG's image was brighter and clearer, hands down. My wife doesn't know squat about optics and what to look for and even she immediately noticed the difference.

Mind you, the IOR optics were good - but the Trijicon glass is simply exceptional. I don't know who makes their glass, but it's fantastic.

The ACOG is of course a fixed power sight.

 

[HankB]

I've been singularly unimpressed with the IOR 'scopes I've seen - they all imparted a yellow cast to the image, and I wasn't able to get both the image and reticle in sharp focus at the same time.

(BTW, there's nothing magical about "Schott" glass - other manufacturers such as OHARA and HOYA make equally fine glass; the differences you see probably come from the optical design, grinding & polishing of the lens elements, assembly, and the AR coatings. Glass brand, from any major manufacturer, is a miniscule consideration.)

No personal experience with Trijicon 'scopes, but I've heard they're OK . . . not real common out there.

I don't personally like chevron reticles.

Burris optics are generally good, but when I see something with a label like "Xtreme Tactical" I immediately think "Overpriced or underperforming."

I have a standard-size DSA StG-58 and added a DSA mount, Leupold quick-release rings, and a matte Leupold 3.5-10 Vari-X III 'scope. I'm happy with this setup.

You might consider a Leupold 6x42 with heavy crosshairs. It's bright, quick, has 4 1/2" of eye relief. I've used one on my .375 and it's worked on game from Cape buff inside of 20 yards to other game 'way out there . . .

 

[Father Knows Best]

Burris optics are generally good, but when I see something with a label like "Xtreme Tactical" I immediately think "Overpriced or underperforming."

I had the same reaction. My general policy is not to buy anything called "tactical" or "extreme", and especially not anything where the manufacturer intentionally misspells "extreme."

That said(tm), I have a Burris Signature Select 4-16x 44mm LRS, and I've been very happy with it. I also have an older Signature 3-9x model that is very good. Burris does generally make good optics at reasonable prices.

 

[mmike87]

they all imparted a yellow cast to the image

Actually, that is exactly how I would describe what I noticed when viewing the IOR optics ...

 

[Nightcrawler]

You might consider a Leupold 6x42 with heavy crosshairs.

No. Fixed 6x magnification is far too much for what I'm looking for.

I don't know why everyone is ragging on IOR. I have a Valdada 4x M1 scope that's as clear as anything else I've used. I'm just not sure that a traditional fixed scope is the best match for this rifle. I do like the illuminated reticule, though.

One thing I don't like about the ACOG, in any case, is the BDC. I'm using a 16" .308 carbine. That means nominal muzzle velocity with ball ammo is about 150 feet per second slower than "standard", and on top of that I'm just as likely to use 150 grain and 168 grain ammo as 147 grain ball. Basically, the BDC will then be all out of whack. (Just like the one on my Valdada scope, which is calibrated for 168 grain .308 at standard velocities, and is essentially useless on a carbine like mine.)

Fortunately, for the ranges I'm using this carbine for, a little bit of holdover will work just fine. The main reason I'm not looking real hard at the ACOG is, as I've said, I'm not sure I want a fixed scope.

If the price were lower ($1,100 is steep), I'd be looking real hard at that Valdada 1.5-8x. What I really like about their new 35mm tube scopes is how compact they are for the magnification you get. Look at that 3x scope they make!

I don't know about the CQB reticule, though. Maybe a little too busy for my taste.

As for the Leupold 1-3x...nah. It's big, costs like fourteen hundred bucks, has a tiny 14mm objective, and for the life of me I don't understand why they put rails on the scope itself.

Anyway, for scopes that have normal eye relief, a folding rear sight might not be required. I used to have mounted on my FAL a cheapie Bushnell 3-9x scope on Leupold medium height quick release rings. I'd mount the scope so the eyepiece was just in front of the rear sight. The scope was high enough above the sights so that the rear sight didn't interefere, but not so high that you couldn't get cheek weld. If you'll look on your DSA rail mount, you'll notice that the aperature of the rear sight clears it just barely.

 

[usp_fan]

If you get worried about wieght on that rifle, you can find aluminum mags and purchase an aluminum lower. These will make a felt difference in overall poundage. Here's another possible solution...

What about the aimpoint mounted forward and the new 3X magnifier mounted to the rear when needed?

--usp_fan

 

[Nightcrawler]

Aimpoint? Nah. I don't like the big 4-MOA dot. I'd rather have a triangle or chevron reticule, so you can use the point as kind of a front sight post.

Tell me more about these Burris scopes. I don't know much about them, but posters have said good things about them here. The big thing they've got going for them is the comparatively low price and the fact that you can get them with an illuminated reticule. That's a plus in my book, as I really want an illuminated reticule.

I'm digging that 1.75-5x Safari type. Anything that's meant for a .375 H&H rifle will hold up to the beating delivered by a FAL. I like that Fast Plex reticule. Probably not real precise at range, but if the dot in the middle is 1 MOA it'd be fine, I think.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Burris

I'm no scope expert. All I can tell you is that I've been pleased with the two Burris scopes I have. To my eyes, they compare favorably to Leupold at a slightly lower price point. They're not up to the standards of some of the best Euro glass, but they're also less than half the cost.

Burris has a confusingly broad catalog, however, from somewhat expensive (like the XTR "Xtreme Tactical" series and Black Diamond series) to the downright cheap (Fullfield II). In between, you have the Signature Select line. Frankly, I don't know what the difference are.

I have a current model 200772, which is the Sig Select 4-16x 44mm with the lighted "ballistic plex" reticle (basically, a bullet drop estimator). It has a bright, clear image, the adjustments worked well, and it has held zero just fine on my PTR-91. The lighted reticle is neat, but of limited practical value. It's a fairly large and heavy scope.

I also have an older Signature Series (predecessor to the Signature Select line) 3-9x 40mm with a standard reticle that I got for a song at a "scratch and dent" sale a gun shop was having. I don't have a rifle to put it on right now, but have been saving it for the day when I finally get around to building a knockabout hunting rifle. The glass isn't quite as sharp as that in my 4-16x Signature Select, but still looks good to my decidely non-expert eyes.

I think I paid around $500 for the 4-16x from Midway, and less than $100 for the 3-9x.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Burris

I hear you on the price. I can get a Burris 1.5-6x for about the same price as I paid for the 4x Valdada. I can get the 1.75-5x for about $444 (from SWFA). That's about half the price of an ACOG. Won't hold up to being dropped on concrete like an ACOG, but heck..that's why you've got back up irons!

Just wondering if 1.75x magnification isn't too much for close range, both eyes open. Then again, if there's any range where that's too much, you're probably close enough for point-shooting anyway...

 

[Scottso]

Have been hearing very bad things about IOR's customer service, terrible. The Acogs a fine optic have the TA01 NSN on my M4 eye relief hovever is problem on the FAL. Aimpoint has 2MOA dots for your info great service and quick pickup. Have am M3 with 2 moa dot, with the 3X magnifier on flipover mount on my 18" M1A, nice setup. Pricey though. If you Purchase an Illuminated Scope, anyone's, and close front scope cover, you have a red dot site with both eyes open and no worry about magnification on the scope. Think Armson Occluded Eye Gunsight. Have one on an AR and its a nice setup.Personally on a 16" barreled anything I would not go with a big scope,weight and holdover make it a bit unnescessary. What about a Leupold 1.5-4X40mm have one on my Remington Model 7 in 308 w/ 20 inch barrel. about $369 I believe.Compact fairly light, eye relief is good. your choice to make!!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I like the Accupoint, I actually consider it a better design than the ACOG in a lot of ways. It isn't as bombproof as the ACOG; but it is plenty tough and having the sliding cover over the fiber optic lets you adjust reticle intensity without relying on batteries.

I like variable scopes as well. A nice 1-4x variable adds a lot of flexibility to any weapon and is more useful than irons.

 

[rockstar.esq]

I've heard other complaints about the "yellow" picture of an IOR and all I can figure is that it must be something some folks can see and others can't. I looked through all the manufacturers scopes that you've listed and the IOR had as good or better image as the others. One thought that comes to me is that the shops lighting where you were shopping may have influenced that impression. I took it outside because I use my rifles outside
That said, if you're looking for mall ninja tactical entry you'd probably want to take it to a dirty restroom to see how those optics work in their intended enviornment. The IOR's I looked at were possessed of burly click knobs that felt and continue to feel solid, the stadia reticle is a VAST improvement over mildots etc. Keep in mind that ballistic holdover is a shortcut that depends on specific weights and velocities whereas rangefinding coupled with the ballistic chart of a particular load in your gun will result in a first time hit if you do your part. I know "entry" stuff obsesses over short range engagements however there's no reason you couldn't use this same rifle out to significantly longer ranges by dialing in the appropriate dope.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I wouldn't discount Aimpoint right off the bat either. I think I just read on their site that the Comp M3 is available with a 2 MOA dot. Plus they off that quick detach 3x monoscope. So you can have the red dot mounted and use that for the close stuff, then if you get out far enough where an unmagnified 2 MOA dot isn't doing it for you, you can click on the 3x monoscope and use that.