Did i mess up with AR sight vs scope

I bout my first AR recently. Ruger 566, for 549 @ GT didtributers

I wanted a sight of some sort and bought a vortex strikefire 2 from Academt, green/red dot. I like it.

Should I have gotten a scope instead I will only shoot a hog, coyote, bocat. probably only 1 shot.

Y'all's thoughts????????

I still have the receipt.

I put an expensive scope on mine, and I kinda wish I wouldve bought a red dot instead.

no right or wrong answer here...if the use is for what you said, the dot sight will work fine. it will be good for target shooting too, but don't expect great MOA accuracy with something that has a 1MOA dot as the sight...it will definitely shoot MOpig though!

I have both. Sighted in with both. QD mounts. Makes it easier.

IMO if it is only going to be used as a hunting rifle like you said, I see more benefit in a more traditional scope than a red dot. I couldn't possibly hit a pig or coyote at 200 yards with a red dot and no magnification.

You might be surprised if you tried

Hitting it is not really the issue when hunting. Hitting it in the vitals is the real issue. I don't think I can accurately hit a hot with a moa red dot sight at 200 yards. Sure I can hit it, but exactly where is the question. I believe I am a decent shot, but I am only as good as my optics and magnification is.

Who hunts hogs with an AR type weapon at 200 yards other than just throwing lead at the herd as they run off? And for that application a red dot is as good as a scope and possibly better due to increased field of view.

The typical carbine length AR is not going to be the best option of shooting out to 200 on a regular basis as a regular hunting rifle would be better suited to putting on vitals than a carbine length AR. Now if you want to get sticky and say they can I will agree, but the intended purpose of the carbine length rifle
Is shorter range than 200. If the OP has a longer bull barrel'd AR by all means feel free to put a nice scope on it, but then again, you basically have a semi auto hunting .223

I've shot a Wilson Combat AR in 308 and it's gonna hit where you aim every time past 300 easy. ARs have come a long way.

What the OP posted about was not a Wilson arms 308....just a little difference in gun, as I differentiated in my post above.

I would hope that Wilson rifle would shoot out to 300 easily...

Length and contour of the barrel don't have much of anything to do with the accuracy of a hunting rifle. Carbine length barrel with send the bullets down range with a little less velocity, but that alone doesn't effect accuracy if you know that and compensate for bullet drop.

An AR in .223 shouldn't have any problem shooting accurately at 200 yards assuming it's a quality rifle, and the Ruger is a very nice rifle. And a properly placed shot will be perfectly deadly.

As helomech said, hitting the vitals is the goal, and IMO a no magnification red dot, for me personally, loses its effectiveness at around 75-100 yards. After that I would greatly prefer a magnified scope. A 2-6 power would be great for this scenario in my opinion.

So should we all hunt long range with pistols, as long as we account for bullet drop? Of course a longer barrel affects accuracy...longer time in the rifling makes for a
More stable bullet coming out. Agree, it gives a little
More speed, but for the most part the speed is negligible for each inch...talking somewhere between 10-20 fps/inch of barrel length.

Longer barrel means more accurate, generally speaking. Faster as well, but that isn't why people get longer barrels for their weapons. It's for the increased accuracy (and weight to reduce recoil, which also can aid shooting)

And just to be clear, I am not saying an AR (even a carbine length) won't shoot accurately past 200 yards...

Longer barrel does not mean more accurate. Maybe back when barrels where smooth bore, but not now. I can cite many places that actually say the opposite. The only place length may come into play is if using iron sites, and the distance between sights.

I disagree totally with this. Longer barrels are generally choosing because of the increase in velocity not for accuracy.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10...y-and-accuracy/
Quote from above article.

"Belief: a long barrel is required for accuracy when shooting at long distance.

Fact: In no part of our testing was barrel length a determining factor in accuracy. At a distance of 100-540 yards, there was no discernible difference in accuracy between various barrel lengths. This performance translated over to unknown distance shooting with all barrel lengths at ranges out to 900 yards. At no point in the testing was a short barrel a hindrance once marksmanship fundamentals were observed and proper flight data was applied."

I will give you that, just read that same thing on my phone. I am wrong about the barrel length relating to strictly accuracy. However, as that study said, there is much more to good shooting and accuracy than just barrel length and velocity.

Yes, there are lots of things that go into accuracy. Lots of times the gun can out shoot us. I know for a fact, my gun is more accurate than I will ever be. A couple years ago my shooting was starting to suck, come to find out I had high blood pressure and that was why I could not hold the cross hairs steady. Started working out and eating better, and my shooting improved a lot, still no expert though.

SS 1-6X Mil/Mil FFP mounted to a 16" .223 carbine

On 1X I can literally see the barrel and get a crystal clear sight picture at 10 yards. On 6X I have pinged the steel at 400 yards and have hit hogs at 300 yards with it. I suspected the 1-6X was "the" ultimate carbine scope and it 100% absolutely is. Up close or a quarter mile it flat works! SS and Burris were my considerations and I got the SS from an individual.

I do. 200 yards isn't even a big deal with my scoped 6920.

I use the MTAC 1-4, and I have the same sentiment.

To the OP, as stated above only you can be the judge. I'm only good with a red dot out to 50 yards max - if I want precise shot placement and I do. YMMV. I also believe for around $150-$200 you can purchase a significantly higher quality scope than red dot. I first purchased a scope for my AR and a year later when I had enough money I bought a decent quality mini red dot to go with the scope. My scope is a 2-7 so I feel I've got the bases covered from super close out to 300 yards on coyotes. My AR has an A2 stock and 20" barrel which I feel helps me.

Yes you could.

I couldn't either. How can you possibly speak for him unless you have seen him shoot and he made the statement tongue in cheek?

He's shooting pigs! Don't you just gut shoot them, so they can run onto your neighbors property and die?

If you plan to shoot and harvest pigs with a .223/5.56, accuracy is critical. IMO a scope would be a better choice.

Yes regular scope. You aren't clearing buildings

Man, couldn't have said it better than that. A red dot is for close quarters target acquisition. Even if I was shooting at 15-20 yards from a tree stand, I'd want a 1x scope with a crosshair. Doesn't mean a red dot can't get the job done well, I just don't think it's the right tool for the job.

As for the couple of guys trying to tell me I could shoot animals at 200 yards with a red dot if I tried, I ask why would I bother trying something that puts me at a massive disadvantage. The number of guys who could hit an animals in the vitals at 200+ yards with a red dot CONSISTENTLY is going to be pretty low. Is it possible? Absolutely, but its a pretty risky way to hunt.

I have an Eotech 312 I have sighted in to 50 yards. Night hunting with a green Mini-Sniper hog light on my rifle is a lot of fun that way. After 25 to 50 yards I prefer a scope. I have a 4X tactical scope for that. Like previously stated. I swap them as needed and thus far they have returned to zero as long as I'm shooting the load they were sighted in for.