Fang
11-15-2009, 01:20 AM
I'd like to put a scope on my Springfield M1A, as the primary obstacle to my accuracy is my ability to see the target. I've narrowed what I want down to a single make and model: the Leupold Mk. 4 MR/T 1.5-5X. The question is which version to get, the one-inch bare-bones version (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/mark-4-mrt-riflescopes/mark-4-1-5-5x20mm-mrt-one-inch/) or the version with the illuminated reticle and M2 turrets (http://www.leupold.com/tactical/products/scopes/mark-4-mrt-riflescopes/mark-4-1-5-5x20mm-mrt-m2-illum-reticle/).
It would probably inform the debate to explain how I want to use this rifle and scope. One of the reasons I like the M14 platform is because it's versatile. Although not a long-range rifle, it is ballistically viable and accurate enough to go to 600 yards; while too long and heavy to be ideal as a close-range carbine, it is semi-auto and could function in that role in a pinch. So I'd like a scope that doesn't get in the way of either one of these activities--hence the choice of a low-power variable. 5x magnification is sufficient for 600 yards, especially if you're used to iron sights. 1.5x is low enough magnification that the scope can be used for a close target, or even with both eyes open. One additional fact that may be relevant is that I shoot high power matches with this rifle, so the scope is likely to come off and go back on now and then.
On to the comparison!
Optics
Optically, the M2 version has a couple advantages. It's a 30mm tube with a slightly larger objective and eyepiece, so it should provide a brighter picture.
Otherwise, the two are identical. Same reticle, same magnification, same eye relief.
Adjustment
The M2 also has some advantages when it comes to usage, because its elevation and windage are adjustable without unscrewing caps to get at the adjustments. That could be a two-edged sword if the turrets get bumped (you know, during all that CQB I do) but could also make rezeroing a lot faster and easier after removing and reinstalling the scope and mount.
You can also get a bullet-drop compensating scale etched for the adjustment dial on an M2 turret to allow dialing in to a given range, but this can be compensated for using the vertical markings on the reticle to do hold-over.
One downside to the M2 is the illuminated reticle and battery assembly, which is another thing to adjust and/or worry about. Kind of a minor pecadillo, though.
Weight and Size
Aside from the tube diameter difference, the M2 weighs 15 ounces to the plainer version's 9.7 ounces--a big difference. I haven't handled enough scoped rifles to be able to predict whether or not that would be significant, especially atop a heavy gun like an M1A with a medium contour barrel.
Close-range Use
This is where the M2 shines, so to speak, due to its illuminated reticle. The lit reticle means it could function like a red dot sight at low magnification, or as an occluded-eye sight with the front lens cap down.
Cost
The M2 costs 40% more than the version without all the bells and whistles; about $700 vs. $500. This is a consideration, but not an overwhelming one: I prefer paying more to get exactly what I want, even if it means saving up for a while longer.
So that's my dilemma. The M2 costs more and is a lot heavier, but is slightly more versatile for close-range shooting and for tweaking zero. Am I missing anything? Which route would you go?
It would probably inform the debate to explain how I want to use this rifle and scope. One of the reasons I like the M14 platform is because it's versatile. Although not a long-range rifle, it is ballistically viable and accurate enough to go to 600 yards; while too long and heavy to be ideal as a close-range carbine, it is semi-auto and could function in that role in a pinch. So I'd like a scope that doesn't get in the way of either one of these activities--hence the choice of a low-power variable. 5x magnification is sufficient for 600 yards, especially if you're used to iron sights. 1.5x is low enough magnification that the scope can be used for a close target, or even with both eyes open. One additional fact that may be relevant is that I shoot high power matches with this rifle, so the scope is likely to come off and go back on now and then.
On to the comparison!
Optics
Optically, the M2 version has a couple advantages. It's a 30mm tube with a slightly larger objective and eyepiece, so it should provide a brighter picture.
Otherwise, the two are identical. Same reticle, same magnification, same eye relief.
Adjustment
The M2 also has some advantages when it comes to usage, because its elevation and windage are adjustable without unscrewing caps to get at the adjustments. That could be a two-edged sword if the turrets get bumped (you know, during all that CQB I do) but could also make rezeroing a lot faster and easier after removing and reinstalling the scope and mount.
You can also get a bullet-drop compensating scale etched for the adjustment dial on an M2 turret to allow dialing in to a given range, but this can be compensated for using the vertical markings on the reticle to do hold-over.
One downside to the M2 is the illuminated reticle and battery assembly, which is another thing to adjust and/or worry about. Kind of a minor pecadillo, though.
Weight and Size
Aside from the tube diameter difference, the M2 weighs 15 ounces to the plainer version's 9.7 ounces--a big difference. I haven't handled enough scoped rifles to be able to predict whether or not that would be significant, especially atop a heavy gun like an M1A with a medium contour barrel.
Close-range Use
This is where the M2 shines, so to speak, due to its illuminated reticle. The lit reticle means it could function like a red dot sight at low magnification, or as an occluded-eye sight with the front lens cap down.
Cost
The M2 costs 40% more than the version without all the bells and whistles; about $700 vs. $500. This is a consideration, but not an overwhelming one: I prefer paying more to get exactly what I want, even if it means saving up for a while longer.
So that's my dilemma. The M2 costs more and is a lot heavier, but is slightly more versatile for close-range shooting and for tweaking zero. Am I missing anything? Which route would you go?