End of the year means that I start massaging my "only one" mental exercise from a vaiety of different angles and see if the answer changes. In many ways, that's a good way to test the robustness of your conclusions: approach the problem from several different sides and see if you come up with something different every time or converge on a common solution.
This one, of course, really depends on how I set up the boundary conditions. For example, if we imagine a situation where the government goes nuts on us and all semi-auto rifles have been outlawed (kinda like the situation our esteemed turnip-in-chief Mr Biden keeps on theorizing), my perennial favourite, a 6.5Grendel AR-15, is not an option. For the time being, let's assume I can have my ARs.
'l'll theorize a different situation where the government is planning to institute a limit on how many firearms you can have. That makes it slightly less restrictive and makes me really think about the things I do with guns: I enjoy shooting long range, hunting, plinking, tactical-ish drills, etc. Not really much of a shotgunner, so to me a shotgun is just a powerful close range rifle. It does make you consider carefully what you are looking to get out of every firearm.
Every year, I wonder if I should make an effort to stick to just one gun for at least six months. I bet, I'd be a much better shot at the end of those six months. Unfortunately, I like messing with different gear a little too much.
If I were forced to have only one gun, it would still be a 6.5Grendel AR-15. I can do almost anything I want with it in a pinch. For some hunting, I would have to really be cognizant of keeping disstances moderate, of course, but it is as close as I am going to get to a "do all" rifle. 6ARC and 6.8SPC can do a lot of the same as well, but I still think that Grendel is the better balance of across the boad performance. Last year, I theorized that a modern "small large frame" AR chambered for 8.6Blackout could supplant the Grendel and I still think it might. However, a lot there depends on how the whole pistol brace situation works out in the end. At the moment, it looks like it is leaning our way, but who knows. I do not want to SBR anything, so if pistol braces remain legal, I will put together an 8.6Blackout semiauto with a 12" barrel to test that concept. I have a couple of 8.6 suppressors on backorder, so hopefully one of them will make it here as well. A 12" barrel with a suppressor makes for a pretty handy package. Since 8.6 does well in both subsonic and supersonic guises, it might be a true home defense to hunting to plinking rifle. Not sure how good of a precision rifle it would make, but maybe I'll get luck with that as well. In terms of long range accuracy with supersonics, 8.6 is less flat than 6.5Grendel, but I am willing to give that up because it does offer more pop for hunting within 400-500 yards and because I like the subsonic capability. If pistol braces go the way of the dodo, I might pin and weld a suppressor on to the barrel make it a one stamp gun.
The tradeoff between semi-auto 6.5Grendel and 8.6 Blackout is interesting at its core. If subsonic shooting is important, the Blackout is clearly the way to go. If hunting is the most important thing, 8.6 also has an edge. Aside from a faster twist, 8.6 launches a 200gr bullet at 2100fps. 6.5Grendel launches a 123gr bullete at 2500fps. Grendel is definitely a better plinking round and long range round. I have hunted with the Grendel and it has done well for me. In practical terms, it has over 1000ft-lbs of energy within 325 yads which is plenty for my purposes. My choisen 8.6Blackout load stays above 1000ft-lbs within 625 yards, so it is definitely a more powerful round.
Still, until I build and test such an 8.6 rifle, I am sticking with the Grendel. As I get older and get more involved with hunting I find myself leaning ever more strongly toward guns that are lightweight, easy to move around and do not beat me up too much. I have a couple of 6.5Grendel ARs, but neither of them folds down. They are pleasant to shoot, accurate and reliable. If I were starting this from scratch, I'd be gettins one from FoldAR. I have a FoldAR 5.56 and in terms of packaging it up for transportation, it is a markedly easier thing to do. It also ends up pretty incospicuous.
The optic for it would probably have to be the new March 1.5-15x42 https://bit.ly/4acN2at because I need lower magnification for use with thermals (I like pig hunting). I'll confirm that when March with the updated reticle gets here next week. My perenial favourite, Tangent Theta TT315M https://bit.ly/41dz6c8 works with clip-ons in a pinch on 3x, but it is not ideal. It is also notably longer than the March. Tangent is better optically, especially on higher power. The way my mind seems to work, I lean toward shorter scopes on semi-autos. For a boltgun, Tangent is absolutely my choice. For a semi-auto, for a while I ran a Tangent with an offset RDS on my 6.5Grendel. There is very little that could not be done with that gun. With offset red dots, the options are innumerable. Ultimately, I would be leaning toward a compact enclosed model. There are a few out there and more are about to come out. Aimpoint ACRO is probably the best known option. Upcoming Shield AMS might be the most compact. Holosun makes a few similar variants. I think I'll just go with Shield SIS that I already have and that I have used with the Tangent in the past. Do note that I have not yet laid eyes on Trijicon's new RCR. On a high end build, ACRO would not be out of place, overpriced and all. https://bit.ly/46Sxbej
Personally, I somewhat lean toward red dot sights that have some sort of an autoadjust mode, which is really th eonly reason I do not own an ACRO. It is a personal choice of course.
One of the more interesting questions to consider will be whether March's performance on 1.5x is good enough to not necessitate an RDS. I messed with it a little when I had it and thought the performance was encouraging. I'll revisit it. I'd still have some sort of an auxiliary sightign system on there regardless, but it might be irons if 1.5x performance is good with the new reticle.
Now that I think of it, going with FoldAR is really a money saving choice. If I build from scratch the way I want it (Proof Barrel, Q trigger, etc), it will end up a more expensive gun. I have one similar build and when I add up all the components, it is around $3k, plus scope, plus RDS, plus thermal clip-on, plus suppressor. The whole package is over $10k. Even with FoldAR, I would probably just get the upper: https://foldar.com/product/foldar-mobetta-complete-upper/ With the lower, I'd set it up my way.
Are there less expensive scope options? Yes, certainly, although that depends on what you want to do. With any of these, I really like to have a backup sighting system of some sort. Something like SwampFox Kraken, for example, would work https://bit.ly/3GnZmqs
If you are not terribly pre-occupied with low light (i.e. if you have a thermal scope or clip-on) a modern LPVO is pretty damn close to a "do all" optic. I'd lean toward one of the options that has side focus. That's either March 1-10x24 https://bit.ly/486i95y or Delta Stryker 1-10x28. Since we are getting into the somewhat more affordable possibilities, Delta for $1700 is extremely compelling https://annexdefense.com/delta-stryker-hd-1-10x28-rifle-scope-do-2517-1-10/
Delta 3.5-21x44 is one of the better options if you do not need 1x. This one is right around $1600. https://annexdefense.com/delta-stryker-hd-3-5-21x44-rifle-scope/
These two Delta scopes are really carving a niche for themselves in the $1500 range. Tract's Toric 4-25x50 is similar money, but at almost 40 ounces, I think it is intended for different applications. With crossovers use, for the time being, I think the Deltas ahve it.
Vortex PST Gen2 3-15x44 does a little bit of everything for a lot less money. https://bit.ly/489K8kZ Same for Tract Toric 2.5-15x44. PST Gen2 has wider apparent FOV, so it has almost he same real FOV on 3x, as Tract has on 2.5x.
The two above are right under $1k. Going much further down than that gets pretty iffy, because compromizes keep piling up. I am going to have to go out on a limb and assume that if you are shopping for a day scope well under $1k, thermals are probably not in your budget. In that case, we can look at some fixed power scopes and see if losing variable magnification is a viable compromise.
If you want to stay with a variable scope, Athlon Helos BTR Gen2 2-12x42 is about the right size and seems to be a well built scope. The reticle is not hugely conducive to long range, but it works. It works nicely with clip-ons though.
If you want to go with fixed power, Element Immersive 5x30 prismatics give you pretty high end image quality for less money. The compromize is that you a can have any magnification you want as long as it is 5x. Now that I have had that scope for a while, I have to admit that I can stretch it to longer distances than I anticipated. 800 yards plates are perfectly viable in good light. 600 yards is pretty comfortable most of the time. That means I can probably aim at a deer out to 300 yards or so. That sorta makes sense since I shot an elk at a hair over 300 yards a couple of years ago. The scope was a 1.5-8x32. That same shot would have been perfectly comfortable with a fixed 5x.
Perhaps, a good way to approach this is to think whether all of the optics I mention would work well with an AR-15 in 6.5Grendel. It so happens I have tried that exact setup with good success. How about with a bolt gun in 8.6 Blackout? The answer is, again, yes. How about my hypothertical 8.6Blackout semi-auto with a 12" barrel? Probably, except with longer scopes, you might not have much room to add a clip-on.
One question that comes up year after year is why I am loathe to consider large frame ARs chambered for 308Win or something similar. I have made a few experiments and decided that if I get the gun light enough, recoil control gets iffy and the gun fights me too much. 8.6Blackout is a pretty mild cartridge, so I am going to experiment with it and see if my general concerns with large frame ARs can be alleviated.
As I was deliberating through all of this, I decided to set up a different scenario. This one deviates a bit from the "only one" idea somewhat, but it is still a useful exercise.
Let's say, the Democrats manage to push through a law that limits how many guns you can have. Somehow. Let's say you can have a grand total of four firearms. How would your choices be then? That will be in the next installment of this thought exercise. Give it a little thought until then.
