Scout Rifles: Jeff Cooper on Red Dot Sights, 1994

[Kendal Black]

Some recent discussions here have pointed out--correctly in my opinion--that a good red dot sight will do a lot of scoutish things very well. It is faster than a ghost ring and capable of pretty darn good accuracy. If you need more target discrimination you can mount a magnifier behind the dot. The fastest rifle sight I know about is a red dot mounted aft, but far enough forward that it cannot possibly hit me in the eye. When the rifle comes up and I point it in the direction of the target, the aiming pip shows up in my visual field while my view of the world around me remains my natural one, which means no loss of situational awareness.

So there is no reason not to favor the dot sight for scout rifle applications, it's a natural. But it was not always so. Here is Cooper writing in the Commentaries in 1994:

Through the good offices of General Denis Earp, we were shown an attempt by Musgrave to produce a competition rifle for IPSC. This was in the form of a straight Musgrave Mauser in 308 mounted with a Tasco red dot sight high and forward. When we had all shot this weapon, the consensus was that while that red dot was indeed handy for coarse shooting at short range, it obscured the entire target at distance. If that red dot were superimposed upon a conventional reticle, however, it might have some advantages. Naturally we all had doubts about a fighting machine that needed a battery to make it work. The rule about batteries is that they are usually dead when you need them.

Well, yes, if your opinion is formed by looking through a 1990's Tasco, your opinion of dot sights is going to reflect the limitations of what you see. We now have better dot sights and more insight into how to use them. For example, you can shoot at a small target by indexing it atop the dot as you would when using a bead sight. If it is a long way off you can index it to the bottom of the dot. Or you can turn the brightness down so that your two-eyed view shows the target through the dot. Or you can buy a sight with a smaller dot.

Many dot sights now have clever circuitry to extend battery life, and in this age of ubiquitous electronics, carrying a spare battery does not seem like quite the burden it did. Because we are now accustomed to keeping our portable telephones charged, doing the same for a sight does not seem all that onerous.

For the stated purposes of a scout rifle, the red dot sight is a winner, but one can see why Cooper did not think so a quarter-century ago. Anyhow, I found the quote interesting as an indication of why scout development took the direction it did.

 

[Hasaf]

I had a red dot on a rifle back in the 90's. As I recall, it was an aimpoint. It was later stolen, along with the Ruger 77/44 that it was on.

Frankly, as I recall, it really wasn't a good optic. Modern bargain optics, like the Bushnell TRS-25, are significantly better than than mid-tier red-dot sights from back then.


I had initially said Tasco. I have no idea why I got that wrong as I have a TRS-25. I suspect it was the 'T' in the model number; but I have corrected my post.

 

[WrongHanded]

I seem to recall the scout rifle requirements including backup iron sights. So the battery doesn't seem to be a big issue, particularly considering the lengthy battery life red dot sights now seem to have.

I agree with you about the dot obscuring the target not being a major issue. For the type of work upon which the scout rifle concept was created, it seems that 3-4 MOA would generally be enough (though obviously, less would be preferable). And as you point out, there are a number of options to deal with this issue.

Really the only concern from my perspective, is training one's self to turn it on as it is brought up to a shooting position, in situations where unanticipated action was demanded.

 

[Hasaf]

Really the only concern from my perspective, is training one's self to turn it on as it is brought up to a shooting position, in situations where unanticipated action was demanded.

This is part of the reason that I have changed the Red-Dot on one of my guns to one with movement sensing activation. It is also solar powered.

 

[WrongHanded]

This is part of the reason that I have changed the Red-Dot on one of my guns to one with movement sensing activation. It is also solar powered.

That definitely addresses my concern. How does it effect battery life? I assume if you were walking with the gun, the sensors would be tripped almost constantly, and so the sight would be on?

 

[Kendal Black]

Really the only concern from my perspective, is training one's self to turn it on as it is brought up to a shooting position, in situations where unanticipated action was demanded.

The nice thing about this battery current hoarding technology is that if action is possible on Wednesday, you can activate your sight on Tuesday and leave it on. There may be better answers. I like the idea of a sight that lights up the dot using ambient light, like the Mepro or Meopa, but switches to battery power when it's dark. Don't see why that's not the common setup.

Edited to add: Aimpoint is claiming tens of thousands of hours continuous use on one battery change...

 

[chicharrones]

As everyone knows, red dots are superior to aperture sights in low light. I've personally wanted a 3x prism red dot on a low mount for some time, but alas that is really the world of ARs. Due to that, the illuminated dot/reticle low power variable scope is certainly the able successor to a red dot with swing away magnifier.

As far as "scout" type red dot usage, I've tried it. It works just fine, but lacking magnification is a problem with a bolt gun not used as a CQB auto-loading carbine, IMO.

View attachment 797799

View attachment 797800

 

[Jackal]

Quality red dots are pretty hard to beat for 0-300m practical use. Battery lives that measure in years, rugged enough to stand up to jarheads and becoming seemingly more affordable by the day.

 

[somethingbenign]

What about a OEG sight like the ones Armson makes? I use one in paintball but I know they were designed with firearms in mind. No battery and uses ambient light. Forces two eyes open shooting too which for the "scout" role seems like it would fit the spirit of things. I know they don't work for everyone but I enjoy it for quick aimed shooting with paint. Doesn't add much over normal red dots but does eliminate the need to turn anything on.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I defy anyone without bad astigmatism issues to acquire a top quality red dot sight such as an Aimpoint with a 2 MOA dot, get a top quality mount, and put it on their pet carbine and not end up liking it. I don’t care if it’s an M4, a short bolt gun, a lever action, or a single shot.

Turn the sight on, zero it, leave it turned on all the time at a mid level setting. Change the battery whether it needs it or not on your birthday.

I have an old Comp M2, that is about 14-15 years old. It’s an Iraq war vet like me. Beat to hell, ugly, glass is scratched.... still works perfectly.

The newer red dots are even better, use more common batteries, and cost relatively less than before. I’ve shot my dot sight out past 300 yards with few issues on real targets, I’ve used it in combat. I trust it with my life.

At some point I need to pick up a Comp M5, played with one and even with my slight astigmatism the 2 MOA dot was tack sharp, the sight is light as a feather, and runs common AAA batteries with something like a 50,000 hour battery life.

 

[Kendal Black]

As far as "scout" type red dot usage, I've tried it. It works just fine, but lacking magnification is a problem with a bolt gun not used as a CQB auto-loading carbine, IMO.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anything you can hit with iron sights you can hit with an unmagnified dot. There are, of course, those swing-aside magnifier units, about 3x IIRC, that you can mount behind the dot if you like.

 

[chicharrones]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anything you can hit with iron sights you can hit with an unmagnified dot.

Agree, with the nod going to the red dot in low light.

There are, of course, those swing-aside magnifier units, about 3x IIRC, that you can mount behind the dot if you like.

Then we're talking rifles with the optic sight line high above the bore. When it comes to anything other than a modern autoloader, something that high above the bore is hard to get cheek weld without taping a pillow to the buttstock. So, for most bolt guns and lever guns, we're back to low powered variable scopes with an illuminated center dot or reticle that can mount in any height scope ring.

 

[Kendal Black]

What about a OEG sight like the ones Armson makes? I use one in paintball but I know they were designed with firearms in mind. No battery and uses ambient light. Forces two eyes open shooting too which for the "scout" role seems like it would fit the spirit of things. I know they don't work for everyone but I enjoy it for quick aimed shooting with paint. Doesn't add much over normal red dots but does eliminate the need to turn anything on.

Here is a writeup I did, some years back, on a similar sight.
https://shootery.blogspot.com/2010/07/moldy-oldie-review-singlepoint-sight.html

As I note in the article, the big problem is that the dot can wander off the point of aim due to the effects of visual phoria. Because both eyes cannot see the target, the brain can lose track of where the dot belongs. That does not happen with more modern types of red dot sights, because you can see through them.

The discussion in the comments is at least as interesting as my article. Use the Armson if you like it, but watch out for the wandering dot problem.

 

[Kendal Black]

Agree, with the nod going to the red dot in low light.



Then we're talking rifles with the optic sight line high above the bore. When it comes to anything other than a modern autoloader, something that high above the bore is hard to get cheek weld without taping a pillow to the buttstock. So, for most bolt guns and lever guns, we're back to low powered variable scopes with an illuminated center dot or reticle that can mount in any height scope ring.

That strikes me as a problem with commonly available mounting hardware, which might be solved with a bit of fiddling. A lot of what is out there is AR-centric and puts the optics in the air.

Used without a magnifier, the red dot is friendlier than a scope because there is no critical zone of eye relief and some margin for error in eye placement off the axis. For fast coarse work, if you see the dot you're good to go.

I think a good many jobs can be done with the dot but without the magnifier. How far can one shoot without magnification? I am sure that depends on the target--its size and definition against its background.

But the magnifier has its uses. Perhaps mountings of this sort are not too terrible. At the least, they give us ideas. (Low for an AR, but not, perhaps, as low as we would like.)

 

[shoobe01]

I am 100% on the RDS+magnifier camp. I sold my LPVOs. But get an RDS that works with your eyes, and a quality magnifier. Buy it like you would a scope.

I recall the Cooper discussions of RDS in the late 90s and was among those who disagreed even at the time. Dunno what sight he saw, but Tasco PDPs mostly were 2 MOA or so, so not much obscuring of the target. AND.... front irons obscure things, too. So if you want to be crazy, zero like irons so the aiming point is at the top of the dot for all I care. People have done this. Or, just try both eyes open, and you get a half-visible target anyway.

These are all solvable problems but the RDS is so clearly superior in so many ways it's hardly worth worrying about.

...Then we're talking rifles with the optic sight line high above the bore. When it comes to anything other than a modern autoloader, something that high above the bore is hard to get cheek weld without taping a pillow to the buttstock. So, for most bolt guns and lever guns, we're back to low powered variable scopes with an illuminated center dot or reticle that can mount in any height scope ring.

An RDS (or magnifier) is just an optical tube. No bigger than a magnified scope. You can absolutely mount many of them very low. I've personally seen them so low on MP5s (when they were the cool thing) you could see the iron sights through them.

The Aimpoint Comp M4S is specifically designed to mount to the Swedes AK5 (FNC) and AK4 (G3) rifles with zero height mounts. They come with tall mounts and even riser blocks to make them co-witness with the iron sights for AR15s. A number of RDS are designed to be low-mounted; the Z-point is marketed specifically to hunting rifles, and is very low, as one example:

 

[Kendal Black]

I am 100% on the RDS+magnifier camp. I sold my LPVOs.

I sold my LPNVO's. (Leupold M8's). I was slower than you to embrace the red dot concept, and have not yet gotten to the magnifier.

The basic idea here is an old one, if we see the dot sight as being the same in concept as the heads-up gunsights that began appearing in aircraft sometime around the 1930's. The advantage is the same whether you are aiming a Spitfire or a rifle, a quick and unambiguous aiming reference when time is short.

 

[taliv]

hmm... i went the other way. from swing away magnifiers to low power variables. i don't think there's any comparision. the 1-6x swaro, vortex are awesome. the 1-8x USO is too and i'm dying to get some more quality time with the 1-8x NF

what i found was that the low power variables obscure LESS of the target.

 

[JeffG]

Red dots are great. Scout rifles are great....for CQB, and people targets. They lack something in the woods. Specifically, accurate (fine) shot placement at distance, finding a hole in the brush to shoot through, and trophy judging. If you are shooting gongs or targets, or enemy soldiers, fine. If you are trying to pick the boar out of a group of writhing, rutting hogs, no. This was supposed to be the boar. I had him all lined up and ready to shoot. Somebody wiggled, I missed it in the 2x EER scope, and I shot the sow; tasty, but not the one I wanted.

 

[Gordon]

As the new Century advanced so have optics making a 90s statement of the Good Colonel somewhat dated. I was shooting an M2 Aimpoint on a handle mount Swan goose neck before the turn of the century and it was OK for CQB but lacking. I started putting the hunting Aimpoints on my Kevlar 600 scouts even before then and was not satisfied. The tritium and daylight magnified sights were a leap forward and very rugged with no batteries but are not in the category of an illuminated low power scope we have today . And today at 1-8 or better they are not low powered ! The Leupold Scout VXR is a miracle Scout concept scope which the good Col. would have thought so too IMHO.

 

[Chuck R.]

hmm... i went the other way. from swing away magnifiers to low power variables. i don't think there's any comparision. the 1-6x swaro, vortex are awesome. the 1-8x USO is too and i'm dying to get some more quality time with the 1-8x NF

what i found was that the low power variables obscure LESS of the target.

Same here, I found that the LPV 1-6 or 1-8 works better that a RDS and magnifier. A carbine class in the rain clinched it. Keeping 2 lenses clear sucks, keeping 4 clear is a real PITA. I have a 1-6X on my 3 gun rig and it works extremely well for both the close and distance shots. I'd be hard pressed to say I'm slower with it than a RDS on the close stuff.

 

[Kendal Black]

At least everyone seems to agree that a 1x optic, which superimposes its aiming reference on your normal view of things with both eyes open, is a good thing. I would say that kind of heads-up aiming is a big advance over iron sights, however you achieve it.

The red dot seems to me the more functional gunsight if 1x is all you want, or what you principally want. The swing-in 3x magnifier is an afterthought at best, though a useful one. Choosing the red dot says that you expect most needs for shooting to get recognized and sorted without magnification. If you mount the dot sight without a magnifier, which seems to me a much cleaner and simpler setup, thus more desirable for field use, of course that means you are going to address all your shooting challenges with 1:1 view of things.

 

[SharpDog]

Annnd everyone still ignores the1.5-5x Leupold Firedot that I have linked repeatedly, sigh!

 

[alsaqr]

Several years ago i tried red dot sights. My experience was not good and the sights went away. The thing that did it for me: i was sitting in a tree stand in the shade looking at buck in the open 30-35 yards distance. Could not see the buck well enough to shoot.

 

[chicharrones]

Several years ago i tried red dot sights. My experience was not good and the sights went away. The thing that did it for me: i was sitting in a tree stand in the shade looking at buck in the open 30-35 yards distance. Could not see the buck well enough to shoot.

My first couple of red dots from not even a decade ago came with tinted glass to provide enough contrast for the low powered LED in the sight. Those red dots were not good in low light at all in terms of seeing low contrast targets.

It seems all quality red dots now, even the cheapies, have bright enough LEDs to be visible in bright sunlight with untinted glass. The clear glass in the current crop of red dots sure makes it a whole lot easier to see low contrast targets in the shady woods, compared to the tinted glass red dots.

 

[Kendal Black]

Some years back you could buy fixed power 1x riflescopes, conventional scopes with no magnification, from Nikon and others. I do not think any are being built today. These scopes were pleasant to use, for they had plenty of eye relief and no noticeable distortion.

These days, dot sights have won out for the 1x fixed role. The conventional scope has the advantage of needing no batteries, but the rest of the advantages belong to the dot.