View Full Version : 1-4 and 1-6 optics discussion
Colt191145lover
06-10-2015, 12:46 PM
Just like the title says ,opinions and suggestions on current 1-4 and 1-6 power optic choices.
breakingtime91
06-10-2015, 12:49 PM
I am really interested in the trijicon accupower right now. I have been mostly debating between the trijicon and nightforce offerings.
JodyH
06-10-2015, 12:53 PM
SWFA has a really nice 1-6x illuminated for right at $1000.
Colt191145lover
06-10-2015, 01:02 PM
Im personally interested in one for my version/vision of a "general purpose AR-15" and later down the road a .308 battle rifle.
Gray222
06-10-2015, 01:05 PM
My next purchase will most likely be a 1-6x leupy multigun optic. I just finished a review on a USO SR8c (1-8x) and I have owned other 1-4x optics (currently have an SR4c). It depends on what you want out of the optic and for what reason you need it.
breakingtime91
06-10-2015, 01:14 PM
My next purchase will most likely be a 1-6x leupy multigun optic. I just finished a review on a USO SR8c (1-8x) and I have owned other 1-4x optics (currently have an SR4c). It depends on what you want out of the optic and for what reason you need it.
what leupold is that?
rauchman
06-10-2015, 01:28 PM
what leupold is that?
I would guess the VX-6 with the SPR reticle.
joshs
06-10-2015, 01:56 PM
I would guess the VX-6 with the SPR reticle.
The newer VX-6 Multigun comes with the CMR2 reticle.
rauchman
06-10-2015, 02:39 PM
The newer VX-6 Multigun comes with the CMR2 reticle.
Interesting! :cool:
SecondsCount
06-10-2015, 02:42 PM
I have experience with three - The Millet 1-4x DMS, a Burris 1-4x TAC30, and the older Vortex 1-4x Razor.
The Millet was literally crap right out of the box. The scope cap fell off when I was unpacking it and would not thread back on. It was returned immediately and I purchased the Burris. For the money spent, the Burris has held up really well. It was on my "do-all" carbine for 4 years and is now on my wife's carbine. The glass is clear but not what a higher ended scope like the Vortex Razor, Nightforce, Leupold, etc. offer.
The Vortex was purchased used. It had seen a lot of use on a 3-gun rifle and it has been on my carbine for a year and a half without any issues.
I see a lot of the Vortex Viper 1-4 PST models at 3-gun matches and they seem to be holding up well.
If I could find a decent deal on a good 1-6 or 1-8x then I would probably do the upgrade.
NickDrak
06-10-2015, 07:45 PM
Very happy with my Vortex Razor HD 1-6x. I got mine when it first came out with the JM BDC reticle. If I was looking for one now I would get it with the newer MOA or MRAD reticle. Im gonna send mine in to get the JM1 BDC swapped out to the MOA reticle.
They can be found for around $1200.00-$1400.00 on Ebay and legit dealers.
On downside in my opinion is the weight.
The new Trijicon Accupoint 1-6x with either the MOA or MIL reticle looks very legit.
breakingtime91
06-10-2015, 07:47 PM
ok so this is a good point to ask. BDC, MOA, or mil dot reticle... If I am missing something like the night force nxs's reticle please let me know
also if someone could explain the advatange/disadvatage of bdc, moa, mil it would be appreciated.
Gray222
06-10-2015, 07:54 PM
The newer VX-6 Multigun comes with the CMR2 reticle.
They listened!
Gray222
06-10-2015, 07:56 PM
ok so this is a good point to ask. BDC, MOA, or mil dot reticle... If I am missing something like the night force nxs's reticle please let me know
also if someone could explain the advatange/disadvatage of bdc, moa, mil it would be appreciated.
Depends on again what you are doing...
Mil-dot is my go to, math is easy and it works for most rounds.
breakingtime91
06-10-2015, 08:00 PM
Depends on again what you are doing...
Mil-dot is my go to, math is easy and it works for most rounds.
shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 if possible
Gray222
06-10-2015, 08:25 PM
shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 if possible
Again, depends on reticle and round. I know the USO's I have used (SR8c and SR4c) the mil-dot works fine for those distances. Of course other optics have similar reticles that will allow you to do so. If you are shooting at people/animals finding a reticle that allows you to guess range based on general size of an animal or person may be something you should look into - like the swfa SS 1-4x I reviewed. It has ranging measures built into the reticle.
ok so this is a good point to ask. BDC, MOA, or mil dot reticle... If I am missing something like the night force nxs's reticle please let me know
also if someone could explain the advatange/disadvatage of bdc, moa, mil it would be appreciated.
Unless you are in your point blank range, you have to know the distance for any of them to work properly. Some reticles help you with that, but it is an estimate nonetheless. BDC's are only useful for a particular load and 1 set of environmental conditions. They may work ok for other loads and conditions, but that is dependent on your target size. Between moa and mil, there is no functional difference. As long as your turrets match your reticle, you are good to go. I prefer mil/mil setups, but I also use moa and have no issue switching around. With either, you will need to know the distance and then dial or hold for that distance. Much more precise than any BDC, sometimes not as fast though I find them to be very fast when you are used to them and understand when to dial vs. hold.
Actual mil dot reticles are obsolete today. A proper mil hash reticle like the NF MIL-R is the way to go. Most companies have their own version. Some are better than others.
None of them will read the wind for you.
SecondsCount
06-10-2015, 09:44 PM
I also prefer mil/mil because I like my turrets to match the reticle, and if you do need to adjust the knobs, there is less clicking.
Benchrest shooters like MOA because the clicks are finer...1/8 MOA click at 100 is basically .125" while 1/10th mil clicks are .360" at the same distance.
You can get a scope with a BDC reticle and use the dials but a scope with a finely hashed reticle will give you more options. You not only can use it to quickly compensate without using knobs to adjust your windage or elevation, you can also use it to measure how far off that you are when you miss your target.
Don't forget about first and second focal plane when you picking out a scope. Most scopes are SFP but you have to compensate for the reticle staying the same size even though your zoom is changing.
Clusterfrack
06-10-2015, 09:58 PM
I like my Leupold mk6 with the CMR-W reticle (http://www.eurooptic.com/leupold-mark-6-1-6x20-m6c1-rifle-scope-34mm-tube-illum-front-focal-5-56-cmr-w-115044.aspx). They also have a TMR reticle that's very nice. The scope works very well as a true 1x with daylight visible red dot.
Here's a useful review page on 1-x scopes:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/421244_The_variable__low_power_multipurpose_scope_ review_thread.html
breakingtime91
06-10-2015, 10:41 PM
So does that mean getting something with capped turrets like the accupoint or accupower is a bad idea?
Depends on what your gonna do with it. Leave them alone and maybe a hold over here and there or lots of long range were you want to dial elevation and/or wind. You need to go to snipershide.com and just start reading and I think you'd learn a whole lot.
I would be concerned about first or second focal plane as well.
If you plan on using the reticle, or heck in general.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 01:44 AM
I would be concerned about first or second focal plane as well.
If you plan on using the reticle, or heck in general.
Which is preferred?
Unobtanium
06-11-2015, 04:44 AM
I tried 1-6X optics, and found them to perform poorly at short range. THe images were blurry and so was the reticle. Or it was crisp, and then on 6X it was blurry. No compromise. Diopter shift is a bitch. I ditched them and went with a T2 and a G33 magnifier. I would, however, like to test some of the 1-4X optics as I think they may shift a lot less.1-6 is just such a HUGE range that diopter shift is almost a given with mag changes to either end of the spectrum. I am still holding out for someone to make a 1-4X that is light (15-17oz) and has a generous eyebox (like Kahles) and daylight bright illumination.
I tried 1-6X optics, and found them to perform poorly at short range. THe images were blurry and so was the reticle. Or it was crisp, and then on 6X it was blurry. No compromise. Diopter shift is a bitch. I ditched them and went with a T2 and a G33 magnifier. I would, however, like to test some of the 1-4X optics as I think they may shift a lot less.1-6 is just such a HUGE range that diopter shift is almost a given with mag changes to either end of the spectrum. I am still holding out for someone to make a 1-4X that is light (15-17oz) and has a generous eyebox (like Kahles) and daylight bright illumination.
I'm curious to know which scopes you tried. I have never seen this before. Did you adjust the focus on the ocular before anything else?
Unobtanium
06-11-2015, 07:31 AM
I'm curious to know which scopes you tried. I have never seen this before. Did you adjust the focus on the ocular before anything else?
I tried the VCOG. I also handled the Z6i and K16i. I wasn't paying much attention when I handled the K16i and Z6i to "across the room" distances, so I won't speak to that. I owned a VCOG, though. You had 2 choices: It could be perfectly in focus at 1X in your home, or it could be in focus at 200 yards. Not both. You had to dial in the diopter any time you adjusted magnification. I hated it and sold it without ever mounting it on my rifle. I took a $300 hit on that deal, and someone not as picky as I got a beautiful brand new VCOG, and I learned NOT to trust the internet, even if the people I listened to were SME's. Their eyes are not mine (20/10 with no appreciable astigmatism, as a datapoint). Optics are VERY personal.
My G33 magnifier is the same, FWIW, too. I can dial the dot in crisp across the livingroom (why?), or at distance. But not both. So I just swing the mag 100% out of the way for up close (of course), and have the diopter set for 25 yards and out.
One other person on another forum who bought a K16i has noted that they have the same issue with the K16i as I did with the VCOG. I don't think you can GET a better 1-6 than a Kahles. I am curious if 1-4's do it, too, or if it's a 1-6x thing due to the massive "Spread" in magnification.
All I know is the T2/G33 is much less annoying.
ETA: I adjusted diopter all SORTS of ways. At 1X looking at the blue sky, at a blank wall, etc. At 6x doing the same, at an item across the room, at an item across the street, always careful to make small adjustments while looking away so that accommodation did not occur. No dice.
Am I the only person in the world who wants a lighter optic, instead of going heavier with more and more mag? 4x wasn't enough...so they went to 6x. 6x isn't enough, so now we're at 8x. It seems to me like we're going down a vicious path.
My idea of perfect isn't a 2lbs optic with lots of mag. 1-4 is fine....and the max weight with mount should be 12-14oz.
JodyH
06-11-2015, 08:17 AM
I've extensively used a ACOG 3x and a Meopta 1-4×. The variables are nice but I always find myself at min or max, so my next purchase is going to be the Elcan for the binary 1.5 or 6x. I'm hoping that will solve some of the diopter focus issues and work better with my astigmatism.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 09:56 AM
Am I the only person in the world who wants a lighter optic, instead of going heavier with more and more mag? 4x wasn't enough...so they went to 6x. 6x isn't enough, so now we're at 8x. It seems to me like we're going down a vicious path.
My idea of perfect isn't a 2lbs optic with lots of mag. 1-4 is fine....and the max weight with mount should be 12-14oz.
Maybe the good ol tr24 is for you?
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 10:00 AM
I've extensively used a ACOG 3x and a Meopta 1-4×. The variables are nice but I always find myself at min or max, so my next purchase is going to be the Elcan for the binary 1.5 or 6x. I'm hoping that will solve some of the diopter focus issues and work better with my astigmatism.
How much is that gonna run you?
Beat Trash
06-11-2015, 10:10 AM
What seems to be the preference when dealing with ffp vs. sfp?
JodyH
06-11-2015, 10:13 AM
How much is that gonna run you?
A lot...
A 7.62 1.5/6x SpecterDR is around $2500.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 10:13 AM
Check out supersetca on youtube, he's has really good videos on variable optics
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 10:14 AM
A lot...
A 7.62 1.5/6x SpecterDR is around $2500.
! Let us know how it rus
Which is preferred?
Here's a quick but effective explanation I found.
FFP (First Focal Plane) scope
In a FFP scope the reticle shrinks and grows in direct proportion to the target as you change magnification settings (the reticle subtensions are thus always accurate). This allows you to estimate the range to target at any power, unlike SFP (Second Focal Plane) scopes, which have to be dialed to a specific magnification setting in order to range accurately. (The reticle subtensions in SFP scopes are only accurate at one magnification).
Because FFP scope reticles "grow" as power is increased and "shrink" as power is decreased reticles must be chosen with care. At high magnification certain reticles may appear "thick", obscuring the target, while very fine reticles may seem to dissappear at lower magnification.
SFP (Second Focal Plane) scope
In a SFP scope the reticle size remains constant as you change magnification settings. Thus no worries about the reticle appearing too thick at high magnification or too fine at low magnification. However, the trade-off is that in order to "range" accurately the scope magnification must be dialed to a specific setting (whatever magnification the reticle subtensions are calibrated at). Again, the reticle subtensions in SFP scopes are only accurate at one magnification.
Retrieved from http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/optics/17532-scope-question.html
If you're going to be using higher magnification, hold overs (like you might in action shooting) with a reticle, and broadly varying distance shots. I would think FFP would be ideal.
Any SME's see how practically SFP vs. FFP plays in the real world?
For those of you that run variable powered optics on Carbines; what eye-relief range do you guys prefer?
I'm thinking rather than discussing only Optics we like or have experience, open up the discussion to talk about what qualities are most desirable.
I also heard in the lighter/smaller scopes the 32mm seems to give better ambient light (ETA:) gathering capabilities versus 25mm; any first hand experience with this?
I'll just go ahead and say; I'm a laymen.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 12:18 PM
From what I've heard/ read guys with the Trijicon tr 24 love the 4 inch eye relief they are supposedly getting. The trade off is the reticle is just two lines with a luminated triangle at the top, which is obviously not ideal for ranging/hold overs
joshs
06-11-2015, 12:23 PM
What seems to be the preference when dealing with ffp vs. sfp?
For low powered scopes, unless the reticle is very well designed, I prefer SFP. Most FFP scopes that go to 1x have a reticle that is too small to be usable at 1x, and I only use the reticle features at max magnification, so there really isn't a benefit of FFP. There are exceptions to this, the older 1-4 SWFAs had great FFP reticles that worked really well at 1x.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 12:24 PM
For low powered scopes, unless the reticle is very well designed, I prefer SFP. Most FFP scopes that go to 1x have a reticle that is too small to be usable at 1x, and I only use the reticle features at max magnification, so there really isn't a benefit of FFP. There are exceptions to this, the older 1-4 SWFAs had great FFP reticles that worked really well at 1x.
josh have you ever messed with the accupoint at all? I am on the fence between it and the accupower (mil square reticle) or a scope that has exposed turrets.
joshs
06-11-2015, 01:10 PM
josh have you ever messed with the accupoint at all? I am on the fence between it and the accupower (mil square reticle) or a scope that has exposed turrets.
I used a TR24G for a few 3 gun seasons. I still think it is one of the best 1-x scopes on 1x. The eyebox is very large and the reticle works well. I did feel it was kind of limiting for shooting smaller targets if I had to hold over, so I often used a 300 yard zero since it was easier to hold under rather than hold over. I didn't look at the Accupower at NRAAM, but I did like the new 1-6 Accupoint. I've seen exposed turrets cause a lot of issues in matches. I prefer either capped turrets or some type of locking turret like the newer Leupold Mark scopes use.
shane45
06-11-2015, 01:20 PM
I like the FFP scope for a couple reasons. First, all my scopes are FFP so I stay with the same method of operation etc etc. There are more compelling reasons for long range scopes and high mag but in the low power scopes, I like it because when I go into red dot mode, the reticle is practically invisible. So its much like an aimpoint. This could also be considered a negative because if your dot died, then you have nothing at 1x. But just about everything I have is on QD so I could pull it and go irons.
I also prefer a good amount of eye relief as an attribute.
Unobtanium
06-11-2015, 01:39 PM
I've extensively used a ACOG 3x and a Meopta 1-4×. The variables are nice but I always find myself at min or max, so my next purchase is going to be the Elcan for the binary 1.5 or 6x. I'm hoping that will solve some of the diopter focus issues and work better with my astigmatism.
Before you do that, have you tried a T2 and G33? Seriously, grab a T2 at discount price, and a G33 off the barf.com EE, and if you don't like it, you can dump them for what you paid, or close enough to it. I tried everything before I settled on that. WIth QD mounts on both, it's about a 17oz 1x/3.25x solution, and the glass clarity is plenty nice.
Am I the only person in the world who wants a lighter optic, instead of going heavier with more and more mag? 4x wasn't enough...so they went to 6x. 6x isn't enough, so now we're at 8x. It seems to me like we're going down a vicious path.
My idea of perfect isn't a 2lbs optic with lots of mag. 1-4 is fine....and the max weight with mount should be 12-14oz.
I've been looking for a light lower power variable setup. I don't find a lot of options in that weight range.
QD mounts are out (Larue 104 is something like 7 oz). Aero Precision is about 3 oz.
Leupold Mark AR 1-4 is really 1.5-3.9 and weighs 9.6oz. Leupold VX-R patrol is ~11 oz and is also not 1x (1.3).
That's all I've found on the low weight end of the spectrum. The TR24 weighs 14 oz by itself. Nightforce 1-4 is 17. Vortex PST is 14.
It seems that higher prices bring more magnification, and more weight. I would pay more for less weight in the 1-4 range.
Unobtanium
06-11-2015, 02:15 PM
I've been looking for a light lower power variable setup. I don't find a lot of options in that weight range.
QD mounts are out (Larue 104 is something like 7 oz). Aero Precision is about 3 oz.
Leupold Mark AR 1-4 is really 1.5-3.9 and weighs 9.6oz. Leupold VX-R patrol is ~11 oz and is also not 1x (1.3).
That's all I've found on the low weight end of the spectrum. The TR24 weighs 14 oz by itself. Nightforce 1-4 is 17. Vortex PST is 14.
It seems that higher prices bring more magnification, and more weight. I would pay more for less weight in the 1-4 range.
Thing is, everyone invested in making a 1-6 or 1-8, so all the good glass and massive eyeboxes are in those optics, while the 1-4x's are all either outdated, or just get trickle-down technology and no real focus on them. Part of this is due to the current contracts up for grabs, and part of it is due to just human nature---dump the money into the new thing!
JodyH
06-11-2015, 03:44 PM
Before you do that, have you tried a T2 and G33?
Aimpoints are a "negative ghostrider".
My astigmatism turns even a 2moa dot into a 10moa cluster of sparkles.
I have to have an etched reticle.
Gray222
06-11-2015, 04:53 PM
Weight is interesting to consider with optics. I consider their function first then how heavy they are.
breakingtime91
06-11-2015, 05:03 PM
Weight is interesting to consider with optics. I consider their function first then how heavy they are.
same. I think there are ways to cut weight on a carbine but an optic or barrel should not be one. With that said I will touch on another thing bothering me in this thread, I really dislike the red dot + magnifier. I think its a band-aid for the inherit issues of a red dot (lack of magnification). By incorporating a magnifier to your set up you make your gone more bulky, you add more failure points, and you start to rival variable optics in weight. A red dot is supposed to be light, robust, and fast. Adding a magnifier defeats two of the three mission sets of the red dot. If someone wants to start a red dot + magnifier thread I would be interested to read how I am wrong but I would like to learn more about variable optics.
ReverendMeat
06-11-2015, 07:25 PM
Aimpoints are a "negative ghostrider".
My astigmatism turns even a 2moa dot into a 10moa cluster of sparkles.
I have to have an etched reticle.
Do you have an opinion on Vortex's new-ish prism scopes? Obviously more budget friendly but I kinda like their 3x
JodyH
06-11-2015, 07:58 PM
Do you have an opinion on Vortex's new-ish prism scopes? Obviously more budget friendly but I kinda like their 3x
Only Vortex I currently have is a SPARC 2 and it's just an inexpensive Aimpoint clone with all the same negatives.
00bullitt
06-12-2015, 05:33 PM
I tried the VCOG. I also handled the Z6i and K16i. I wasn't paying much attention when I handled the K16i and Z6i to "across the room" distances, so I won't speak to that. I owned a VCOG, though. You had 2 choices: It could be perfectly in focus at 1X in your home, or it could be in focus at 200 yards. Not both. You had to dial in the diopter any time you adjusted magnification. I hated it and sold it without ever mounting it on my rifle. I took a $300 hit on that deal, and someone not as picky as I got a beautiful brand new VCOG, and I learned NOT to trust the internet, even if the people I listened to were SME's. Their eyes are not mine (20/10 with no appreciable astigmatism, as a datapoint). Optics are VERY personal.
My G33 magnifier is the same, FWIW, too. I can dial the dot in crisp across the livingroom (why?), or at distance. But not both. So I just swing the mag 100% out of the way for up close (of course), and have the diopter set for 25 yards and out.
One other person on another forum who bought a K16i has noted that they have the same issue with the K16i as I did with the VCOG. I don't think you can GET a better 1-6 than a Kahles. I am curious if 1-4's do it, too, or if it's a 1-6x thing due to the massive "Spread" in magnification.
All I know is the T2/G33 is much less annoying.
ETA: I adjusted diopter all SORTS of ways. At 1X looking at the blue sky, at a blank wall, etc. At 6x doing the same, at an item across the room, at an item across the street, always careful to make small adjustments while looking away so that accommodation did not occur. No dice.
Please help me understand better what condition you are experiencing. I've used the Kahles K16i and Swarovski Z6i extensively as well as had a good bit of time behind the new VCOG, TR24 Accupoint 1-4, Nightforce NXS 1-4, Meopta 1-4, S&B 1-4 Short Dot and Zenith, S&B 1-8, Leupold Mk6 1-6 and Mk8 CQBSS 1.1-8 and a host of others.
I'm aware of what diopter shift is and have never experienced it on any of the listed optics. I do 100% agree that your eyes are your eyes and what you see is what you see. The diopoter exists to focus the reticle for varying eyesight. It cannot correct for astigmatism.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 06:04 PM
Please help me understand better what condition you are experiencing. I've used the Kahles K16i and Swarovski Z6i extensively as well as had a good bit of time behind the new VCOG, TR24 Accupoint 1-4, Nightforce NXS 1-4, Meopta 1-4, S&B 1-4 Short Dot and Zenith, S&B 1-8, Leupold Mk6 1-6 and Mk8 CQBSS 1.1-8 and a host of others.
I'm aware of what diopter shift is and have never experienced it on any of the listed optics. I do 100% agree that your eyes are your eyes and what you see is what you see. The diopoter exists to focus the reticle for varying eyesight. It cannot correct for astigmatism.
My main experience is with the VCOG.
What occurred?
Well, I took it out of the box and focused it at 6X while looking at a white wall. I got the reticle nice and crisp. Just like the manual said. Looking away often. Adjusting little by little to avoid accommodation.
Then I looked across the street on 6X. Nice, crisp reticle.
Then I dialed it down to 1X and looked at my coffee maker across the livingroom. I saw a black blob. I focused hard (with my eyes), and the reticle then turned into a furry thing and the coffee maker was crisp. I could not focus on the coffee maker AND the reticle at the same time. It reminded me of looking at the front and rear sights of a pistol, as well as at the target, and all 3 not being in perfect focus at once. Same feeling.
So, I cranked on the diopter some. I now had my coffee maker dead to rights, and could PID it by brand! The reticle was crisp and I didn't get a headache trying to see them both. So I look across the street on 6X. headache city. Same problem. Blurry reticle, or blurry target.
This went on for several hours as I tried setting diopter on 3x, tried all sorts of shit you shouldn't have to try for $2K.
Nothing worked.
So I got rid of the VCOG, and got a T2 and a G33. Now I can see my dot, and my target in the livingroom, or I can flip the mag behind it and see my dot, and my target at 200 yards. Crisp crisp crisp.
I read of one other user who has a K16i who has the EXACT same experience with it that I did with the VCOG. So now, to be honest, the hell with a variable! I'm scared of all of 'em. If Kahles has the issue, and VCOG has the issue, I'll just stick with my T2 and magnifier. It's an amazing combo anyway. Like an Elcan. Except no BDC, but far longer battery life, and a half pound lighter without an ARMS mount in sight!
00bullitt
06-12-2015, 06:17 PM
That definitely sounds like it is an isolated problem or possibly one very specific to your eyesight. I went and grabbed the K16i and the VCOG and worked with both of them from 7 yards to 320ish and no problem at all. The diopter on both needed little to no adjustment out of the box. I have uncorrected vision. Both had crisp reticles and very defined target images coincidentally. I guess that it is very possible that the diopter is out of range for that specific optic. It would require a dioptrometer and a calibrated collimator to check.
I have experienced the problem that you speak of on higher magnification optics so I am very aware of what you mention.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 06:26 PM
That definitely sounds like it is an isolated problem or possibly one very specific to your eyesight. I went and grabbed the K16i and the VCOG and worked with both of them from 7 yards to 320ish and no problem at all. The diopter on both needed little to no adjustment out of the box. I have uncorrected vision. Both had crisp reticles and very defined target images coincidentally. I guess that it is very possible that the diopter is out of range for that specific optic. It would require a dioptrometer and a calibrated collimator to check.
I have experienced the problem that you speak of on higher magnification optics so I am very aware of what you mention.
Every VCOG I have looked at did the same thing. I ordered it because of people like you (nothing personal, what I mean is "People on the internet", mainly SME's I listened to at the time about it, who convinced me it must have been my imagination or an issue with some of the first one's or some other suchl. No offense. I learned a $300 lesson, which is damn cheap for what I learned.)
That said, I have 20/10 vision, uncorrected, and the magnified dot on my T2 is so crisp I can use any edge of it as a hold-off point. I doubt I have much astigmatism, therefor.
I simply couldn't tolerate such a compromise for the money involved. If someone makes a variable that doesn't suck, I'll try it, but the MK6 I looked at did the same thing, and I have read the Kahles K16i's do, as well, although I did not pay much attention to "across the room" with them I was so busy enjoying how crisp they were looking across the street when I messed with them at the shop.
I notice the same thing on my G33, too, FWIW. I have to focus it for 25+ yards. I cannot focus it for "across my livingroom" and have it work at 25+ yards...and that's okay. I won't be using it up close. But a 1X variable, I will, so that shit won't cut it.
LOKNLOD
06-12-2015, 06:30 PM
josh have you ever messed with the accupoint at all? I am on the fence between it and the accupower (mil square reticle) or a scope that has exposed turrets.
I used a TR24G for a few 3 gun seasons. I still think it is one of the best 1-x scopes on 1x. The eyebox is very large and the reticle works well. I did feel it was kind of limiting for shooting smaller targets if I had to hold over, so I often used a 300 yard zero since it was easier to hold under rather than hold over. I didn't look at the Accupower at NRAAM, but I did like the new 1-6 Accupoint. I've seen exposed turrets cause a lot of issues in matches. I prefer either capped turrets or some type of locking turret like the newer Leupold Mark scopes use.
I'm the wrong josh but I'm a big fan of my TR24. As otherjosh said, it's really nice on 1x.
ETA: Ooops didn't realize I was replying to the bottom of the first page :/ I still like the optic tho ;)
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 06:31 PM
I'm the wrong josh but I'm a big fan of my TR24. As otherjosh said, it's really nice on 1x.
I have heard that, as well about the TR24. It is my OPINION that 1-6X is just too much optical spread NOT to have absurd diopter shift.
00bullitt
06-12-2015, 06:36 PM
I'm a big believer in you see what you see and I see what I see. Optics seem to be very personal.
I had a guy tell me he could not focus his riflescope at 25 yards because the manufacturer stated minimum focus distance was 43 yards. I asked him if he turned the magnification down and he said yes, I've used it from 3-15 and cannot focus closer than 40 yards. I laid down behind the optic, turned it down to 10x and focused on a beer can at 10 yards and read the label. He could not see it, it was blurry; he could only see the colors of the can.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 06:46 PM
I'm a big believer in you see what you see and I see what I see. Optics seem to be very personal.
I had a guy tell me he could not focus his riflescope at 25 yards because the manufacturer stated minimum focus distance was 43 yards. I asked him if he turned the magnification down and he said yes, I've used it from 3-15 and cannot focus closer than 40 yards. I laid down behind the optic, turned it down to 10x and focused on a beer can at 10 yards and read the label. He could not see it, it was blurry; he could only see the colors of the can.
Weird as hell. No wonder I get so sideways with some people about it. Neither of us are full of shit, but our eyes sure are lying to us! I guess for me it's a RDS and magnifier. I'm okay with that. I can shoot just as well at 100 yards with it as I can a 10X Leupold (again, 20/10 helps. I can see bullet holes from my 5.56 at 100 yards with the 3.25X mag on place behind my T2, when shooting white paper with black steel as the bullet-catch backdrop behind it).
00bullitt knows way more about optics than I do. He's also a USPSA GM and a very accomplished LR rifle shooter, as well as carbine and shotgun.
I have never heard of this diopter shift before, and I've used most of the optics he mentioned as well as a bunch more. My vision is far from great and I have an astigmatism. Nonetheless, a NF 1-4 works perfectly for me. As did a Vortex 1-6, Bushnell 1-6, etc. I stuck with the NF because of its combination of durability, weight, size, glass and fidelity.
I'm quite the sure the shift you are experiencing has nothing to do with the power range of a 1-6, or any other power range, and has more to do with your eyes. Having trained a lot of people on various optics over the years, I've never seen this issue with them either. However, if the scopes don't work for you, then that's all that matters. Your loss, sorry.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 06:51 PM
00bullitt knows way more about optics than I do. He's also a USPSA GM and a very accomplished LR rifle shooter, as well as carbine and shotgun.
I have never heard of this diopter shift before, and I've used most of the optics he mentioned as well as a bunch more. My vision is far from great and I have an astigmatism. Nonetheless, a NF 1-4 works perfectly for me. As did a Vortex 1-6, Bushnell 1-6, etc. I stuck with the NF because of its combination of durability, weight, size, glass and fidelity.
I'm quite the sure the shift you are experiencing has nothing to do with the power range of a 1-6, or any other power range, and has more to do with your eyes. Having trained a lot of people on various optics over the years, I've never seen this issue with them either. However, if the scopes don't work for you, then that's all that matters. Your loss, sorry.
Was unaware of who he was. TY for the insite. It does help to know where someone's opinion comes from. I am just a lay-person with a passion for shooting.
That said, the more magnification variance, the more diopter shift you will have, all things equal. Magnification shift is what causes diopter shift. I will have to play with a NF 1-4X more to form an opinion. Right now though, T2/G33 get it done for me.
Didn't mean the "Your loss, sorry.", in anything but a sincere way. Read it again and it looked flip to me.
Again, your eyes are your eyes, but 00bullitt has never steered me wrong, so I would take his advice very seriously.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 07:00 PM
Didn't mean the "Your loss, sorry.", in anything but a sincere way. Read it again and it looked flip to me.
Again, your eyes are your eyes, but 00bullitt has never steered me wrong, so I would take his advice very seriously.
This is the internet. I take everything with a grain of salt because I cannot see you, I don't know you, etc. Being butthurt over every perceived slight with zero evidence to support it never did me any good, so I grew out of it.
I am frustrated that I couldn't love the VCOG. I really am. Maybe that's why I twinged a bit, lol! However, I really have been happy with my T2/G33.
This is the internet. I take everything with a grain of salt because I cannot see you, I don't know you, etc. Being butthurt over every perceived slight with zero evidence to support it never did me any good, so I grew out of it.
I am frustrated that I couldn't love the VCOG. I really am. Maybe that's why I twinged a bit, lol! However, I really have been happy with my T2/G33.
I hear you and try to do the same. Not everyone does.
00bullitt
06-12-2015, 08:40 PM
That said, the more magnification variance, the more diopter shift you will have, all things equal. Magnification shift is what causes diopter shift.
Diopter shift may not be relative to magnification change and may also not be linear. You should not have diopter shift through magnification range on a properly developed optic. It is more critical in higher magnification scopes and much less critical in lower powered scopes. Magnification change does not cause diopter shift, but in poorly designed optical prescriptions it can expose the flaw.
I'm going to believe that there may be something going on with your eyes. The amount of focus change that you are experiencing is beyond a range that an optic can correct for. I am not an eye doctor, but given the fact that you are experiencing the same problem across a wide variety of variable optics, when several others do not, makes me question. Your perception is that it is the optic causing the problem. My experience with optics in general leads me to believe it is not the optic.
You seeing what you see does not mean the optic is the fault. Optics, no matter how well designed, cannot correct for all dysfunctions of the human eye.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 08:58 PM
Diopter shift may not be relative to magnification change and may also not be linear. You should not have diopter shift through magnification range on a properly developed optic. It is more critical in higher magnification scopes and much less critical in lower powered scopes. Magnification change does not cause diopter shift, but in poorly designed optical prescriptions it can expose the flaw.
I'm going to believe that there may be something going on with your eyes. The amount of focus change that you are experiencing is beyond a range that an optic can correct for. I am not an eye doctor, but given the fact that you are experiencing the same problem across a wide variety of variable optics, when several others do not, makes me question. Your perception is that it is the optic causing the problem. My experience with optics in general leads me to believe it is not the optic.
You seeing what you see does not mean the optic is the fault. Optics, no matter how well designed, cannot correct for all dysfunctions of the human eye.
20/10
No astigmatism
What could my issue be? PBS? (Picky Bastard Syndrome)?
If I can dial in diopter and fix it, and then change magnification and it messes up again...that's the optic, IMO Now, if I COULD NOT! dial diopter, then I would agree with you. But I can, and things are CRISP! But then I change magnification, and it goes to hell.
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but I am saying...show me? I want to understand it.
Do you have perfect vision in both eyes at various distances or just an average of 20/10. You could very well be able to see up close with one eye and distance with the other and have no need for correction. I have crappy eyes but haven't noticed the issue you're having with any of my scopes; although I generally stick with 2-10 is scopes. I also never focus using near by object. I tend to use clouds, sky or something way past Fort Dix. I've found a few times that even though I thought I was fixating in the reticle, I was actually getting a composite focus where my eye was jumping back and forth between the object and the reticle. Looking out at infinity eliminated that issue for me and I got the reticle so sharp and crisp faster. Sorry you're having issues.
00bullitt
06-12-2015, 10:03 PM
So here in lies the issue.....it works for you when you adjust and for the life of me, I cannot understand why/how. My initial thought is that your eye no longer naturally adjusts for its own diopter. As we age, our eyes lose the ability to rapidly adjust to different points of focus - hence what you are experiencing. The optical power of the human eye is about 40 diopter giver or take. A healthy young adult can adjust an additional 20 diopter. At roughly 25-30, that accommodation decreases to 10 diopter, by 40 roughly 5 and 50 by 1.
You mentioned that you have witnessed the same thing in various VCOGs that you have looked through. I have not seen the issue in a single one and I've been on the range with over a dozen at one time. No one was having a single issue with focus shift nor did I have a problem using any of them. I even tried to negatively adjust the one in my possession and still had no issue - when the target went out of focus, so did the reticle; indicating extreme end. Once properly adjusted on 6x looking at the sky using flash focus technique, it works beautifully. That is what leads me to believe you have an issue with your eye(s) and it is not the optic.
I don't know you, your physical health condition, or your age. It may be that you need reading glasses but don't know it and this is an indicator. Have you tried looking through the optic with your non dominant eye to see if the problem is still exists for you? Often eyes don't exhibit this degeneration equally.
I am 40 and have never smoked or done drugs, or drank much for that matter. I still have perfect uncorrected vision, but I do notice my eye starting to do things that I have never experienced before. It is just a matter of time.
If I come and use the optic that you have and it works fine, is it still the optic? My experience is total opposite of yours.
Unobtanium
06-12-2015, 10:09 PM
Do you have perfect vision in both eyes at various distances or just an average of 20/10. You could very well be able to see up close with one eye and distance with the other and have no need for correction. I have crappy eyes but haven't noticed the issue you're having with any of my scopes; although I generally stick with 2-10 is scopes. I also never focus using near by object. I tend to use clouds, sky or something way past Fort Dix. I've found a few times that even though I thought I was fixating in the reticle, I was actually getting a composite focus where my eye was jumping back and forth between the object and the reticle. Looking out at infinity eliminated that issue for me and I got the reticle so sharp and crisp faster. Sorry you're having issues.
20 ten both eyes. I read fine and I shoot things far away fine. Either eye. I'm am 29, male, and have no medical conditions although as a child I was farsighted. I grew out of it. I can read for hours uncorrected comfortably.
I can read for hours uncorrected comfortably.
Must not have kids:-)
Sorry, couldn't resist. I used to be able to read for hours...:-(
Unobtanium
06-13-2015, 12:18 AM
Must not have kids:-)
Sorry, couldn't resist. I used to be able to read for hours...:-(
Correct. Not a breeder.
Unobtanium
06-13-2015, 08:50 AM
I would note that the sales associate at the shop I first saw the VCOG at about a year ago or so looked through it and immediately had the same problem I did, even after he fiddled with diopter. He thought the scope was messed up, and got another VCOG. It was the same.
Beat Trash
06-13-2015, 08:57 AM
I'm stating up front that I am ignorant when it comes to magnified optics, hence the "Simpleton" type of question.
For a general purpose gun (AR) is there any downsides to going with a 1-6 vs. a 1-4 for someone new to the concept? Given the same design and quality manufacture? IF it's just a matter of an extra ounce or two of weight, I'll take the tradeoff of the extra weight for the extra magnification.
Logically, I would think that I would want a 1.6, just because... But I don't know what I don't know...
I initially got excited about the VCOG, but then listened to those on the internet complain about the weight of it. Looking at other options, I found the other options weighed less. But that listed weight did not account for the weight of the mount. So...
I am also still trying to decide if I want ffp or sfp.
The intended usage, well think of the post about the general purpose AR. (I am prohibited from using anything above 1.5x as a Patrol Rifle in my state, as my state refers to a 1x? as a "Sniper Qual", so my Patrol Rifle will keep it's Aimpoint T-1.) But for my wife and I to use on personal rifles, I have decided to ditch the Aimpoints and go with a 1x4 or a 1x6. I want a true 1 power, with some type of illuminated something to be used up close.
SFP is really the way to go on sub 10X optics.
00bullitt
06-13-2015, 11:18 AM
I would note that the sales associate at the shop I first saw the VCOG at about a year ago or so looked through it and immediately had the same problem I did, even after he fiddled with diopter. He thought the scope was messed up, and got another VCOG. It was the same.
So these were not mounted on guns? Just gun store inspected?
Beat Trash
06-13-2015, 01:16 PM
SFP is really the way to go on sub 10X optics.
Thanks...
I'm stating up front that I am ignorant when it comes to magnified optics, hence the "Simpleton" type of question.
For a general purpose gun (AR) is there any downsides to going with a 1-6 vs. a 1-4 for someone new to the concept? Given the same design and quality manufacture? IF it's just a matter of an extra ounce or two of weight, I'll take the tradeoff of the extra weight for the extra magnification.
.
IMO, the problem is that there isn't a 1-6 that is the same build quality as a NF 1-4. There are two high quality 1-6 optics out there, but they still have some fleas IME. When NF releases a 1-6 or a 1-8, I'll go with that. Until then, the 1-4 works great.
I have two NF 1-4 with the FC2 reticle, that have given me good service on a number of rifles for years, and am planning on a 1-4 with the FC3 reticle as my next scope.
Is this (http://www.amazon.com/Nightforce-NXS-1-4x24mm-FC-3G-Black/dp/B00B0BDGJ0/) the scope you are referring to?
http://www.amazon.com/Nightforce-NXS-1-4x24mm-FC-3G-Black/dp/B00B0BDGJ0/
What is the preferred reticle?
I use that one more than anything else. The reticle is not perfect, but it is very useable.
El Cid
06-13-2015, 03:19 PM
I spent a great deal of time researching this topic a few years ago. I really wanted the 1-8 Short Dot with the true 1x setting. Sadly it's still not available today.
I wanted:
- True 1x
- Daytime bright illumination
- Lightweight (relative to other variables)
- Ranging not tied to specific bullet weights/calibers
- Glass clarity
- Last but hardly least, quality
For me, the answer was the Swarovski Z6i, 1-6. The hardest part was of course the price point but I'd rather pay more now for something I know my future generations can still use than pay less and have to replace it. I don't abuse my rifles, but I don't baby them either.
The Z6i is as bright or brighter than any Aimpoint I own or have seen. The glass is crazy clear - to the point that when I let shooters at a match/range look through it, the most common statement is, "so that's what all the excitement is about" or words to that effect.
I got the BRT reticle which is basically a mil dot tree. Using it in a Defoor advanced carbine and F2S's heavy carbine class I was able to consistently get good hits out to 600. The only thing I'd change is to add more branches to the tree for longer ranges. In the F2S class we shot at 1,000 and my rounds danced around the steel because I didn't have anything to use as a hold point.
I have 2 of these optics - one on a 5.56 and one on a 7.62x51. They have worked exactly as advertised and despite the new glass that seems to hit the market daily, I would not trade them for anything else.
Not sure if the OP ever stated his price range of mission, but the only limiting factor I've found when on 1x is that it's less forgiving than a true RDS when in unusual positions (think: bottom of the 9 hole wall as an example). The FOV when on 1x and doing traditional position shooting is too impressive to be believed. During a class I switched from an AR with a T-1 to my 5.56 with the Z6i. I felt like I'd gone from looking through a soda straw to a large window.
As others have discussed - every shooter is different so it's best to look through as many options as possible before buying. Good luck and let us know what you decide.
Unobtanium
06-13-2015, 05:07 PM
So these were not mounted on guns? Just gun store inspected?
The one's in the store, yes. The one I had, I paid $2K for, and I messed with it all day. I did never mount it on a gun, but it really doesn't much matter. My eyes would not have changed just because it was on a weapon. I wanted to dial it in first. I never could. So I sold it honestly as un-mounted.
Unobtanium
06-13-2015, 05:08 PM
IMO, the problem is that there isn't a 1-6 that is the same build quality as a NF 1-4. There are two high quality 1-6 optics out there, but they still have some fleas IME. When NF releases a 1-6 or a 1-8, I'll go with that. Until then, the 1-4 works great.
What fleas does the K16i have? I don't know that one would work for me or not, but the same man who make NF what it is, is behind the K16i importation, and would put it up against a NF any day.
Actually, I do like the Kahles, but unintentionally left it out. No real issues with it. Twice the price of a NF make sit hard for me to put it in the same category, but I did leave it out without intending to. I was referring to the Vortex and the Swaro. The bushnell is pretty nice for what it is, but certainly not in the same league.
00bullitt
06-13-2015, 05:56 PM
but the same man who make NF what it is, is behind the K16i importation
Thats funny right there. That sounds as if NF is not any bigger than one person. He has been gone 4 years and the product has only gotten better than it ever was.
But I won't take anything away from Kahles. They are a great product and the company is old as dirt. I love the K16i. Its what the Z6 should be, but they are now the same company.
breakingtime91
06-14-2015, 12:08 AM
The one's in the store, yes. The one I had, I paid $2K for, and I messed with it all day. I did never mount it on a gun, but it really doesn't much matter. My eyes would not have changed just because it was on a weapon. I wanted to dial it in first. I never could. So I sold it honestly as un-mounted.
dude it sounds like you never gave it a chance and are now dead set to prove your new set up is ideal.
Unobtanium
06-14-2015, 06:46 AM
dude it sounds like you never gave it a chance and are now dead set to prove your new set up is ideal.
I gave it it a go. Didn't work. Can't be any more clear. My setup is great. For me. Ymmv.
breakingtime91
06-14-2015, 09:39 AM
So I didn't realize how many different companies made variable scopes until I started researching, it kind of surprised me.
How much does the "what works for me may not work for you" factor influence things in this area? I've been reading about 1-4x/1-6x/1-8x for a few weeks now and reviews and impressions of them seem to be all over the map. What some people say has amazing glass, true 1x, great daylight illumination and a forgiving eyebox others pan in favor of something else (or nothing because an Aimpoint T-1 is really all they like or think you'll ever need).
After obsessing for a week or so, reading everything I could come across on the internet, comparing prices, weighing options and looking at classifieds regularly, I impulse bought a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5, FFP with BTR-1 reticle because Natchez was selling them new for about $500. I know it's not the focal plane or reticle everybody seems to call best, but I also know I have almost no real experience with optics and I always learn something I wish I had known before I bought after I buy and try for a while. For me, price and a couple of drinks won the day and we'll see where I go after I've had the scope and used it a bit.
Gray222
06-14-2015, 11:32 AM
How much does the "what works for me may not work for you" factor influence things in this area? I've been reading about 1-4x/1-6x/1-8x for a few weeks now and reviews and impressions of them seem to be all over the map. What some people say has amazing glass, true 1x, great daylight illumination and a forgiving eyebox others pan in favor of something else (or nothing because an Aimpoint T-1 is really all they like or think you'll ever need).
After obsessing for a week or so, reading everything I could come across on the internet, comparing prices, weighing options and looking at classifieds regularly, I impulse bought a Bushnell Elite Tactical 1-6.5, FFP with BTR-1 reticle because Natchez was selling them new for about $500. I know it's not the focal plane or reticle everybody seems to call best, but I also know I have almost no real experience with optics and I always learn something I wish I had known before I bought after I buy and try for a while. For me, price and a couple of drinks won the day and we'll see where I go after I've had the scope and used it a bit.
A good optic is worth its weight in gold.
No one will apply the "what works for me may not work for you" with a top tier optic like a Z6i or the like. They work, for everyone. Yes the price is considerable but what you are getting is literally the best optic money can buy (in that category) and I would highly recommend finding someone near you to eyeball a top shelf optic so you know what you are looking at.
No one will apply the "what works for me may not work for you" with a top tier optic like a Z6i or the like. They work, for everyone.
I'm not arguing with you about the optics (I can't - I have no experience to argue from) but that's not consistent with what I've seen reading reviews and posts on a bunch of different sites. Even for top-tier optics, the reviews of functionality seem to vary. I am planning to get together with someone local to me who has generously offered to let me check out some of his scopes in a few weeks. So, I got that going for me.
breakingtime91
06-14-2015, 01:04 PM
I'm not arguing with you about the optics (I can't - I have no experience to argue from) but that's not consistent with what I've seen reading reviews and posts on a bunch of different sites. Even for top-tier optics, the reviews of functionality seem to vary. I am planning to get together with someone local to me who has generously offered to let me check out some of his scopes in a few weeks. So, I got that going for me.
With training a variable can be just as fast as you will realistically ever need
Gray222
06-14-2015, 01:55 PM
I'm not arguing with you about the optics (I can't - I have no experience to argue from) but that's not consistent with what I've seen reading reviews and posts on a bunch of different sites. Even for top-tier optics, the reviews of functionality seem to vary. I am planning to get together with someone local to me who has generously offered to let me check out some of his scopes in a few weeks. So, I got that going for me.
What exactly do the "reviews of functionality" vary in? In terms of glass clearness? Vignetting at maximum magnification? Red dot blur at maximum magnification? Reticle issues? What specifically is the issue?
If you check my blog, I have reviewed several optics, and will review several more as I get them, and I cannot seem to replicate the issues they have other than the limitations of the reticle or magnification.
rob_s
06-14-2015, 04:59 PM
What is it about the nightforce that seems to make it the hotness? For what specific applications is it best suited?
Unobtanium
06-14-2015, 05:08 PM
A good optic is worth its weight in gold.
No one will apply the "what works for me may not work for you" with a top tier optic like a Z6i or the like. They work, for everyone. Yes the price is considerable but what you are getting is literally the best optic money can buy (in that category) and I would highly recommend finding someone near you to eyeball a top shelf optic so you know what you are looking at.
I have seen people complain about Diopter shift from a K16i before. They always adjust diopter when also shifting magnification from 6 to 1X, to achieve unity. It's also not like my VCOG was a cheapie. YMMV applies to everything.
Gray222
06-14-2015, 05:37 PM
I have seen people complain about Diopter shift from a K16i before. They always adjust diopter when also shifting magnification from 6 to 1X, to achieve unity. It's also not like my VCOG was a cheapie. YMMV applies to everything.
Everything that has magnification has Diopter shift, that's why there is the ability to set the focus on most (if not all) magnification optics.
This is not an issue I have ever had, I set it and forget it, sometimes tape it (leupold) in place.
What exactly do the "reviews of functionality" vary in? In terms of glass clearness? Vignetting at maximum magnification? Red dot blur at maximum magnification? Reticle issues? What specifically is the issue?
Yes? The two biggest variables seem to be how forgiving the eyebox is and how bright an illuminated reticle is (daylight bright or not really, primarily). Different people will review the same optic and come to different conclusions. True 1x is right behind that (is it or isn't it?). People seem to mostly agree that if you spend real money you get good glass, but even there, some may say the Bushnell is just as clear as the Swarovski, others not so much.
Failure2Stop
06-14-2015, 11:28 PM
Daylight bright < bold reticle that works regardless of illumination
True 1x < can intuitively be used without sacrificing field of view
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 02:58 AM
Everything that has magnification has Diopter shift, that's why there is the ability to set the focus on most (if not all) magnification optics.
This is not an issue I have ever had, I set it and forget it, sometimes tape it (leupold) in place.
I have to constantly adjust it. Its unworkable for me. Ymmv.
Gray222
06-15-2015, 07:09 AM
I have to constantly adjust it. Its unworkable for me. Ymmv.
Do you wear glasses? Have you tried to tape the setting so its constant?
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 08:12 AM
Do you wear glasses? Have you tried to tape the setting so its constant?
No, my eyes are fine. Diopter shift is just a bitch. Everyone in the shop had the same observations about the VCOG. Another shop, SWFA, has taken to adjusting diopter at 3x so it doesn't totally suck a 1 or 6x. It's just very bad with the VCOG. I would have to play with the K16i to develop more of an opinion on that optic specifically.
Gray222
06-15-2015, 08:22 AM
No, my eyes are fine. Diopter shift is just a bitch. Everyone in the shop had the same observations about the VCOG. Another shop, SWFA, has taken to adjusting diopter at 3x so it doesn't totally suck a 1 or 6x. It's just very bad with the VCOG. I would have to play with the K16i to develop more of an opinion on that optic specifically.
I have no experience with the VCOG under use, so I cannot say anything as to what you are experiencing.
The optics that I have used, at least to my eyes, have not had this issue.
On the NF 1-4, why not the FC2/3 reticle?
As to optical problems on some of these scopes, can you explain exactly what the problem is? My eyes might not be good enough to notice, or I may just be less picky, but I want to be able to make the shot and not use the optic as a camera lens.
rob_s
06-15-2015, 08:43 AM
I would say that (A) holding up a scope to one's eye in a store and not actually ever mounting it and going shooting is pretty invalid but (B) everyone's eyes are different and just because one person can't replicate another's issue doesn't mean that person doesn't actually experience said issue.
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 08:46 AM
I have no experience with the VCOG under use, so I cannot say anything as to what you are experiencing.
The optics that I have used, at least to my eyes, have not had this issue.
I have never before experienced it until I got a 1-6X variable, that being the VCOG. Next time I am down South, I will play with some K16i's and the like and see if I find something nice for my eyes.
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 08:49 AM
I would say that (A) holding up a scope to one's eye in a store and not actually ever mounting it and going shooting is pretty invalid but (B) everyone's eyes are different and just because one person can't replicate another's issue doesn't mean that person doesn't actually experience said issue.
I bought it, took it home, looked all around with it. My rifles all kick ass and are awesome, but optical failures, they cannot correct via osmosis.
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 08:50 AM
On the NF 1-4, why not the FC2/3 reticle?
As to optical problems on some of these scopes, can you explain exactly what the problem is? My eyes might not be good enough to notice, or I may just be less picky, but I want to be able to make the shot and not use the optic as a camera lens.
My issue was diopter shift with magnification change. Specifically, with the VCOG. Each optic is different, here. YMMV DEFINITELY! applies.
My issue was diopter shift with magnification change. Specifically, with the VCOG. Each optic is different, here. YMMV DEFINITELY! applies.
In simple terms, can you describe what you mean by diopter shift?
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 09:04 AM
In simple terms, can you describe what you mean by diopter shift?
The scope was adjusted for unity on 1X with a clear reticle and target.
Then when switched to 6X and viewing distant targets, the reticle would blur badly, or the target, depending on which I chose to fixate on.
When adjusted for that distant use, unity was the same as that use formerly was. Blurry and headache inducing.
My Swarovski 1-6 is elsewhere, but I have NF and Leupold scopes around, that I will check.
Chris Rhines
06-15-2015, 09:56 AM
How close exactly was your close target?
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 10:54 AM
How close exactly was your close target?
15 feet. Across my livingroom. The reason you buy a 1x variable...
KevinB
06-15-2015, 12:49 PM
I got into "combat" variables around 14 years ago with the S&B 1-4x Short Dot.
Day Light Visible Dot, and FFP - so at 1x the reticle is not really visible so I can focus on the dot - I also like Mil marks to work if I am reading someone onto a target thru the scope. hence my preference to the FFP.
At the time S&B was really the only viable offering (yes the NF 1-4 was also around - but the S&B had a BCD and Mil marked turret that locked...)
In 2009 when Leupold came out with the Mk8 1.1-8x with the H27 - and then later H27D reticles - it offered a lot more, especially on a 7.62 Carbine.
I really wish they did a H27D on the Mk6 1-6x line as I'm much happier with a Mil drop than a BCD due to the various ammunition natures -- now if you only run one or two types, and the BCD is close for you, then rock on with the CMR2
The Aimpoint and Magnifier thing never worked well for me, as the whole what do you do with it when you don't need it - as the flip's seem to get the way of your FOV, or snag hazard.
For most things the Aimpoint T1/T2 can do much that you want in terms of a LE SWAT or Patrol Rifle -- I've taken to giving much more serious consideration to the Leupold DEV-O in addition - as it gives a fixed 6x behind the T (or whatever CCO you want) and in the same field of view you can rock the dot to the magnified image - and it makes target transitions much easier from near to far -- I view it as a much more viable option on a 10-12" 5.56mm gun that may need to reach out past 100m and gain some PID, than a I do the magnifiers. It is a bunch more money than many would want to spend though.
00bullitt
06-15-2015, 01:38 PM
Everything that has magnification has Diopter shift, that's why there is the ability to set the focus on most (if not all) magnification optics.
That is not technically true. A well and properly designed optic should not have any noticeable diopter or reticle focus shift through mag range. Diopter is there to accommodate varying types of vision. Typically you get adjustment range from -2.5 to +2.5. Most of the time you can accommodate adjustment to forego using reading glasses as that is the amount of range it has.
If you truly have an optic with as much shift as Unobtanium states and it is verifiable that it IS the optic and not an individual's eye issue, then something is wrong with the optic.
Diopter can add or decrease magnification very slightly from stated, so it is possible to go just a hair past true 1x (unity) at extreme ends of diopter adjustment.
I rarely if ever have to adjust diopter from a factory setting on any of my scopes.
In a design sense, not as much focus is placed on diopter travel on true 1x variables compared to that of a higher magnification variable scopes as they are not designed for glassing during long periods of time and won't generate the fatigue that higher magnification scopes are capable of.
Gray222
06-15-2015, 01:42 PM
That is not technically true. A well and properly designed optic should not have any noticeable diopter or reticle focus shift through mag range. Diopter is there to accommodate varying types of vision. Typically you get adjustment range from -2.5 to +2.5. Most of the time you can accommodate adjustment to forego using reading glasses as that is the amount of range it has.
If you truly have an optic with as much shift as Unobtanium states and it is verifiable that it IS the optic and not an individual's eye issue, then something is wrong with the optic.
Diopter can add or decrease magnification very slightly from stated, so it is possible to go just a hair past true 1x (unity) at extreme ends of diopter adjustment.
I rarely if ever have to adjust diopter from a factory setting on any of my scopes.
In a design sense, not as much focus is placed on diopter travel on true 1x variables compared to that of a higher magnification variable scopes as they are not designed for glassing during long periods of time and won't generate the fatigue that higher magnification scopes are capable of.
I do not have to adjust focus either, other than once when I banged the optic on something. Other than that I've never had to do it, and the diopter shift, even though unnoticeable sometimes is still there.
Those who have issues with it may need to try various optics or end up with a 1x rds...
00bullitt
06-15-2015, 01:58 PM
I didn't realize that the Short Dot had been out as long as it has. I picked one up in 2004-5 and found out quickly that I had no need for FFP in a low powered variable, but that I really liked the daylight visible dot. The reticle was useless below 2.5x and if it had not been for the dot, you would not have had an aiming reference. My preference quickly went to the S&B Zenith 1-4. I gave up the graduated Mil reticle, but I worked around that with a good zero and knowing POA/POI and could still dial using a home-made label BDC. I really don't see the benefit for FFP until I am beyond 6x and moreso under more specific situations. I can work with an SFP just fine up to 10x. Beyond that and the FFP starts to provide some real advantages in certain situations.
On a 1-4, If I was less than 4x, I was not using the reticle to its advantage to require FFP capability; only to improve PID, target hold refinement and still maintain a wide FOV. If I was at mid range, I was usually inside 200 yards and could deal with the target/threat just fine using a 200 yard zero. When I stretched out beyond 200 or required more magnification for a more precise shot, then I was on 4x and the reticle was true. Same with the 1-6 optics. I was sporting a Swaro Z6i before anyone else even knew what it was. 3-Gun quickly popularized the Z6i as it was the only real game in town for a semi-affordable daylight visible 1-6 outside of the ridiculously priced CQBSS with H27D reticle option that was just hitting the scene.
I was running my Z6i at the Fort Benning 3 Gun in 2009 when Dave Neth won Tac Optics with one of the prototype CQBSS 1-8's. At that match, it was advertised to be $5k but they were most definitely the first one to the dance with a 1-8 and it was all the rage then.
Granted the Z6i still dominates in 3-Gun today as the most popular optic. The Kahles is gaining popularity but the $400 price difference scares some off. It is SFP and does not hold anyone back. The Z6i has a great visible reticle, a super wide FOV, and nice glass and has proven to be robust enough to hold up to the rigors of the game. It is not a combat optic by any means; it is a dangerous game scope that was adapted and works well......in SFP.
FFP has its place and there are those that prefer it. It isn't wrong.....just different.
00bullitt
06-15-2015, 01:59 PM
I do not have to adjust focus either, other than once when I banged the optic on something. Other than that I've never had to do it, and the diopter shift, even though unnoticeable sometimes is still there.
Those who have issues with it may need to try various optics or end up with a 1x rds...
If it is unnoticeable, how do you know it is there?
Unnoticeable.....meaning it takes a dioptrometer to identify it.
StraitR
06-15-2015, 02:11 PM
I tried the Aimpoint magnifier behind a T-1 and didn't care for it, as the dot turned into a big comma. Kevin probably won't remember, but he witnessed my disdain at a local carbine match where I took about seven shots at 200yard gong before jettisoning the 3x and quickly making the follow-up shot without it. That was about four years ago, and the experience is what drove me to research low power variables. I wanted the closest thing to a red dot at 1x, and for me that ended up being the TR24. Eye box and FOV are generous, and the red triangle is just as easy to track as the dot in my T-1. Downsides, as previously mentioned, are shooting small targets at distance as there is no true reticle to speak of and the triangle is 4.2moa. I think the TR24 is still a viable option if most of your work is done at 1x, but if you do regular business at distance, I'd look elsewhere. Just depends on your needs and priorities.
I've had it mounted on two 5.56 AR's for general purpose use, an LMT MWS for hog hunting, and on a .308 Browning A-bolt for hog hunting. Overall, it's performed well, and I've been happy with it. As such, I have recommended it many times to others and still do if it meets your needs.
Once upon a time, the Noveske was painted, and the TR24 still sports the matching paint job. The MWS has since been sold off in preparation of an SR25 project, and the TR24 now sits on the SR15.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7649/16360862723_17bc507265_c.jpg
Can someone give the short explanation of first and second focal plane, and how that impacts use of the variable on carbines?
breakingtime91
06-15-2015, 02:43 PM
Im.really interested in the accupower with mil dot reticle
00bullitt
06-15-2015, 02:46 PM
Can someone give the short explanation of first and second focal plane, and how that impacts use of the variable on carbines?
SFP = Reticle stays constant in size but is only true on a calibrated magnification setting; usually max - the target magnifies against a fixed reticle causing the subtensions to change through magnification.
FFP = Reticle stays in proportion to the target throughout the magnification range. The target and the reticle magnify together (in proportion) and the reticle subtends properly through the entire magnification range.
FFP could have benefits when using graduated or BDC style reticles, but in combat variable true 1x optics, the mag range would really need to support it in my opinion. I find no benefit below 6x but YMMV.
Gray222
06-15-2015, 03:02 PM
If it is unnoticeable, how do you know it is there?
Unnoticeable.....meaning it takes a dioptrometer to identify it.
Well I have to set it first, once I do its unnoticeable.
00bullitt
06-15-2015, 04:52 PM
Well I have to set it first, once I do its unnoticeable.
Ok, then that's not diopter shift; its just setting the diopter or in laymens terms.....focusing the reticle. The purpose of diopter is to focus the reticle for the users eyes. It has nothing to do with target focus. True diopter range should take the target and reticle out of focus sequentially.
Diopter shift is when you set diopter for your eyes, but change magnification and the reticle goes out of focus (no longer crisp and sharp). Typically diopter shift is fatiguing; meaning your eyes have to compensate for both planes of focus - the reticle is out of focus when you look at it and then your eyes usually try to accommodate and bring it in focus and then the target goes blurry and when you look at the target, then it comes back in focus making the reticle blurry.
That is diopter shift.
JM Campbell
06-15-2015, 05:04 PM
00bullitt, many thanks for your continued insight/experience in this thread!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 09:53 PM
Ok, then that's not diopter shift; its just setting the diopter or in laymens terms.....focusing the reticle. The purpose of diopter is to focus the reticle for the users eyes. It has nothing to do with target focus. True diopter range should take the target and reticle out of focus sequentially.
Diopter shift is when you set diopter for your eyes, but change magnification and the reticle goes out of focus (no longer crisp and sharp). Typically diopter shift is fatiguing; meaning your eyes have to compensate for both planes of focus - the reticle is out of focus when you look at it and then your eyes usually try to accommodate and bring it in focus and then the target goes blurry and when you look at the target, then it comes back in focus making the reticle blurry.
That is diopter shift.
I can attest to this. It made me want to take a nap (I felt queezy and had a headache. I messed with it for hours. It was $2K of my money wrapped up in that thing!).
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 10:27 PM
I tried the Aimpoint magnifier behind a T-1 and didn't care for it, as the dot turned into a big comma. Kevin probably won't remember, but he witnessed my disdain at a local carbine match where I took about seven shots at 200yard gong before jettisoning the 3x and quickly making the follow-up shot without it. That was about four years ago, and the experience is what drove me to research low power variables. I wanted the closest thing to a red dot at 1x, and for me that ended up being the TR24. Eye box and FOV are generous, and the red triangle is just as easy to track as the dot in my T-1. Downsides, as previously mentioned, are shooting small targets at distance as there is no true reticle to speak of and the triangle is 4.2moa. I think the TR24 is still a viable option if most of your work is done at 1x, but if you do regular business at distance, I'd look elsewhere. Just depends on your needs and priorities.
I've had it mounted on two 5.56 AR's for general purpose use, an LMT MWS for hog hunting, and on a .308 Browning A-bolt for hog hunting. Overall, it's performed well, and I've been happy with it. As such, I have recommended it many times to others and still do if it meets your needs.
Once upon a time, the Noveske was painted, and the TR24 still sports the matching paint job. The MWS has since been sold off in preparation of an SR25 project, and the TR24 now sits on the SR15.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7649/16360862723_17bc507265_c.jpg
I agree 100% re:T1 and magnifier. To me, a full-size aimpoint is too heavy to use with a magnifier. You then have an optic as heavy as some 1-8X's. The T1/Mag is about 15-17oz, on the gun, in QD mounts.
I had a T1/G33, and saw the same as you. It was a leap of faith to get the T2, but the T2/G33 are extremely crisp. So much so that you can shoot off the edge of the dot consistently if you want to use it for a hold-off point.
Gray222
06-15-2015, 10:36 PM
Ok, then that's not diopter shift; its just setting the diopter or in laymens terms.....focusing the reticle. The purpose of diopter is to focus the reticle for the users eyes. It has nothing to do with target focus. True diopter range should take the target and reticle out of focus sequentially.
Diopter shift is when you set diopter for your eyes, but change magnification and the reticle goes out of focus (no longer crisp and sharp). Typically diopter shift is fatiguing; meaning your eyes have to compensate for both planes of focus - the reticle is out of focus when you look at it and then your eyes usually try to accommodate and bring it in focus and then the target goes blurry and when you look at the target, then it comes back in focus making the reticle blurry.
That is diopter shift.
Yeah, so, as I said, never had an issue with this.
Even when I spent several hours shooting prone at 300-600, with the sr8c, no issues with diopter shift...
StraitR
06-15-2015, 10:42 PM
I agree 100% re:T1 and magnifier. To me, a full-size aimpoint is too heavy to use with a magnifier. You then have an optic as heavy as some 1-8X's. The T1/Mag is about 15-17oz, on the gun, in QD mounts.
I had a T1/G33, and saw the same as you. It was a leap of faith to get the T2, but the T2/G33 are extremely crisp. So much so that you can shoot off the edge of the dot consistently if you want to use it for a hold-off point.
When I went shopping for a second micro back in February I was able get hands on a T-2 to see if it would be worth the price difference. I'm impartial about the casing upgrade and lens caps, but the glass and dot clarity difference were immediately noticeable, and well worth the price difference. I wouldn't buy a T-2 just to replace a T-1, but if you're buying for the first time or picking up a second or third, it's a no-brainer for me and my eyes. For that reason, and I've seen it written elsewhere as well, I think the 3x may work much better behind the T-2. I plan on trying the combo in the future, if just to satisfy my curiosity.
Unobtanium
06-15-2015, 11:18 PM
When I went shopping for a second micro back in February I was able get hands on a T-2 to see if it would be worth the price difference. I'm impartial about the casing upgrade and lens caps, but the glass and dot clarity difference were immediately noticeable, and well worth the price difference. I wouldn't buy a T-2 just to replace a T-1, but if you're buying for the first time or picking up a second or third, it's a no-brainer for me and my eyes. For that reason, and I've seen it written elsewhere as well, I think the 3x may work much better behind the T-2. I plan on trying the combo in the future, if just to satisfy my curiosity.
The combo works comic-book good (it does exactly what your child's imagination hopes it will. You know how when you were a kid and took everything so face-value and imagined ideal circumstance (I mean, unless you grew up in a 3rd world country)? that's how I found the T2/G33 to be.)
Oddly, neither I, or anyone I handed both the T1 and T2 to could tell much difference between them until a magnifier came into play.
StraitR
06-16-2015, 10:38 AM
The combo works comic-book good (it does exactly what your child's imagination hopes it will. You know how when you were a kid and took everything so face-value and imagined ideal circumstance (I mean, unless you grew up in a 3rd world country)? that's how I found the T2/G33 to be.)
Oddly, neither I, or anyone I handed both the T1 and T2 to could tell much difference between them until a magnifier came into play.
It may have to do with my two micro samples, but general eye health is always a factor as well. I'm 41, have uncorrected vision, and no astigmatisms to speak of. I was told by my ophthalmologist that I could use .25 readers if I felt that I needed them for long periods of reading paper copy, but I've yet to experience a noticeable amount of eye strain aside from staring at a monitor all day. That's my baseline so you know where I'm coming from.
My T-1 is a 4moa, and even on lower settings, I can notice flaring. When turned up to the brightness required at noon here in Central Florida, a high degree of flaring is present giving the perception of a distorted aiming point. This is irrelevant at closer distances, but for obvious reasons, the 3x magnifier makes the dot unusable for smaller targets at any range where the magnifier is helpful. It worked well for PID, but that's about it. The T-2, being a 2moa and noticeably cleaner dot to my eyes, has none of these negative qualities so I can only extrapolate those data points to better performance in front of a magnifier.
As noted, everyone's eyes are different. I'm not a MD, but I work in the nutraceutical field, and eye health is area that we've done extensive research and subsequently hold various patents on our formulations. Point being, we talk about eye health a lot around here, and the fact is, no two eyes are the same. Genetics, general health, pharmaceutical history, age related macular degeneration, macular pigment density, and overall current eye health will all play a part in what one person sees when looking through various optics. I'm not surprised at the stories of differentiation in this thread, as everyone is going to see some degree of variance if we passed around the same optic because there is no finite answer.
Unobtanium
06-16-2015, 12:47 PM
It may have to do with my two micro samples, but general eye health is always a factor as well. I'm 41, have uncorrected vision, and no astigmatisms to speak of. I was told by my ophthalmologist that I could use .25 readers if I felt that I needed them for long periods of reading paper copy, but I've yet to experience a noticeable amount of eye strain aside from staring at a monitor all day. That's my baseline so you know where I'm coming from.
My T-1 is a 4moa, and even on lower settings, I can notice flaring. When turned up to the brightness required at noon here in Central Florida, a high degree of flaring is present giving the perception of a distorted aiming point. This is irrelevant at closer distances, but for obvious reasons, the 3x magnifier makes the dot unusable for smaller targets at any range where the magnifier is helpful. It worked well for PID, but that's about it. The T-2, being a 2moa and noticeably cleaner dot to my eyes, has none of these negative qualities so I can only extrapolate those data points to better performance in front of a magnifier.
As noted, everyone's eyes are different. I'm not a MD, but I work in the nutraceutical field, and eye health is area that we've done extensive research and subsequently hold various patents on our formulations. Point being, we talk about eye health a lot around here, and the fact is, no two eyes are the same. Genetics, general health, pharmaceutical history, age related macular degeneration, macular pigment density, and overall current eye health will all play a part in what one person sees when looking through various optics. I'm not surprised at the stories of differentiation in this thread, as everyone is going to see some degree of variance if we passed around the same optic because there is no finite answer.
My datapoint is that of a reasonably fit 29 year old male who lifts on a daily basis (linked to better eyesight) and typically does 20/10 or better on eye-charts. The last time I went to an eye doc was about 1 year ago for allergy drops. I got an exam at that time, and was told that maybe 1-2 people every few years come in with vision as good as mine. This was at a Wal-Mart, so I guess he sees a fair amount of people.
No pathologies were identified other than seasonal allergies.
When I look at a T1 I see a faint star-burst surrounding the dot. Like a tiny version of the warning on a laser pen.
Same with a T2.
When I look at a Comp M4, I see a crisp completely defined dot.
when I look at a magnified T1, I see a comet. This can be lessened by moving my head so that the dot is in the far corner of the viewing window. Absolutely worthless functionally, but it does give me a somewhat-dot.
when I look at a magnified T2 with diopter correctly dialed, I see a crisp dot. It is a perfectly round, crisp dot. I can use any edge of it as a hold-off point for aiming, if I am so inclined, repeatably. This is during the day.
When I look at it at night, there is some flaring if I turn it up too high. This is noticeable when shooting from a dark area into a well lit area. It does not functionally matter as the dot itself remains crisp, but there is a bit of "halo" around it. Part of this is the diode housing reflecting in the optic. I can see wires, etc. Not bad, but I have the vision and the OCD to go along with it, and identified what I am seeing as reflection of the housing. Again, it's a non-issue. Not near like what the Trijicon users complained of with the SRS.
Literally my only complaint is that it doesn't have an etched reticle for my SHTF zombie 50 years later fantasy.
StraitR
06-16-2015, 01:26 PM
My datapoint is that of a reasonably fit 29 year old male who lifts on a daily basis (linked to better eyesight) and typically does 20/10 or better on eye-charts. The last time I went to an eye doc was about 1 year ago for allergy drops. I got an exam at that time, and was told that maybe 1-2 people every few years come in with vision as good as mine. This was at a Wal-Mart, so I guess he sees a fair amount of people.
No pathologies were identified other than seasonal allergies.
When I look at a T1 I see a faint star-burst surrounding the dot. Like a tiny version of the warning on a laser pen.
Same with a T2.
When I look at a Comp M4, I see a crisp completely defined dot.
when I look at a magnified T1, I see a comet. This can be lessened by moving my head so that the dot is in the far corner of the viewing window. Absolutely worthless functionally, but it does give me a somewhat-dot.
when I look at a magnified T2 with diopter correctly dialed, I see a crisp dot. It is a perfectly round, crisp dot. I can use any edge of it as a hold-off point for aiming, if I am so inclined, repeatably. This is during the day.
When I look at it at night, there is some flaring if I turn it up too high. This is noticeable when shooting from a dark area into a well lit area. It does not functionally matter as the dot itself remains crisp, but there is a bit of "halo" around it. Part of this is the diode housing reflecting in the optic. I can see wires, etc. Not bad, but I have the vision and the OCD to go along with it, and identified what I am seeing as reflection of the housing. Again, it's a non-issue. Not near like what the Trijicon users complained of with the SRS.
Literally my only complaint is that it doesn't have an etched reticle for my SHTF zombie 50 years later fantasy.
Good reference info. "When I look at a magnified T1, I see a comet"... I LOLed. Perfect description. For me, the two best attributes of the micros are weight and cost, because even with good, uncorrected vision and no astigmatisms I still prefer an etched reticle.
John Hearne
06-17-2015, 05:30 AM
Can anyone explain why the battery life sucks so much on the variables? Why can't someone take the LED that illuminates the aimpoints and put it in a variable? Seems like it would be the perfect solution. Daylight visible dot for fast work and normal retical when you had time.
Failure2Stop
06-17-2015, 07:45 AM
Can anyone explain why the battery life sucks so much on the variables? Why can't someone take the LED that illuminates the aimpoints and put it in a variable? Seems like it would be the perfect solution. Daylight visible dot for fast work and normal retical when you had time.
Wouldn't it be just as easy then to put the same illumination into another 1x sight? Patents and copyrights on that technology are what keeps Aimpoint at the top of the game and at their price-point. Also, the way that the internals of the optic are arrayed and aligned are different between the types, which means that many of the optics need to use a different method of illuminating the reticle/dot.
Believe me, all of the major optic players and Aimpoint are aware of the demand.
USO Did a really nice job with the illumination.
Leupold's FireDot requires a fibreoptic line to run from the LED to the reticle, causing at least one thick stadia. I don't really mind it.
SteveB
06-17-2015, 07:11 PM
Can anyone explain why the battery life sucks so much on the variables? Why can't someone take the LED that illuminates the aimpoints and put it in a variable? Seems like it would be the perfect solution. Daylight visible dot for fast work and normal retical when you had time.
My understanding is that in an Aimpoint, the LED projects a dot on the front lens, that is then reflected back to the eye and doesn't require much power. Prismatics and variables have to illuminate an etched reticle which takes more a lot more energy as do holographic sights.
Unobtanium,
I'm not an eye doctor (can't even spell ophthalmologist), but if you are seeing a starburst on a non magnified Aimpoint, you might have astigmatism. I do, and that's what I see, fwiw. Then again, maybe there is another explanation.
Unobtanium
06-17-2015, 10:12 PM
Unobtanium,
I'm not an eye doctor (can't even spell ophthalmologist), but if you are seeing a starburst on a non magnified Aimpoint, you might have astigmatism. I do, and that's what I see, fwiw. Then again, maybe there is another explanation.
When I turn the dot down, it is crisp, but it's harder to pick up. Also, I think it's the way the dot is projected. I am sure I have SOME astigmatism, as perfect isn't possible, but when I look at my Comp M4, or an Eotech, or some cheapie aimpoint clones, it is as crisp as the T2 magnified and turned up brighter. Of course, I can't see what other eyes see, so maybe my astigmatism is horrible and I just don't know? It's like explaining "blue" or "red" as YOU see it.
shane45
06-17-2015, 10:28 PM
Rotate the optic. If the starburst turns with it, its the optic, if it doesn't its you.
StraitR
06-17-2015, 11:11 PM
Unobtanium,
I'm not an eye doctor (can't even spell ophthalmologist), but if you are seeing a starburst on a non magnified Aimpoint, you might have astigmatism. I do, and that's what I see, fwiw. Then again, maybe there is another explanation.
I questioned my "no astigmatisms" diagnosis to the aforementioned eye doc on my last visit for this very reason, as I see a considerable amount of flaring in every T-1 I look through. I was assured that I had no astigmatisms to speak of. Later, not satisfied due to my experience with RDS's, I started to explain this phenomena to my doc and when he stopped writing and looked at me over the top of his glasses with a blank stare I just said, "eh, forget it".
This has brought me to pay more attention to lights in general, like the small lights on the DVR, alarm clocks, and the plethora inside my car. I notice flaring, whether that's actually due to an astigmatism, or just something I'm noticing because I'm looking for it, is yet to be determined. My overall vision hasn't changed since that exam, but I'm due for my annual in September, and I'll be seeing a different doc within the same group, just to see if he comes to the same conclusions.
Unobtanium
06-18-2015, 01:40 AM
Rotate the optic. If the starburst turns with it, its the optic, if it doesn't its you.
The starburst only happens if I turn it up.
The moon is crisp.
The sun is a starburst.
That sort of thing, on a huge scale, is what I relate it to.
IF you look up for a split second at the noon day sun, do you see a perfect glowing orb like when you look at the moon? If you do, then I got optically shafted in life and don't even know it :(
shane45
06-18-2015, 08:47 AM
It sounds to me like you are describing what most call blooming. The more I turn up the red dot, the more blooming I see. In fact if I am trying to make a precise shot, I dim the dot a lot for a more precise aiming point. The other issue im referencing, caused by eye issues is a shotgun pattern looking effect where the dot appears actually broken up. It can also be caused by a faulty unit. So the way to tell between the two is the rotation test. I never considered these two issues to be one in the same. I could be wrong.
So..... Getting back to 1-4 and 1-6 variables, does anyone have experience with the Vortex Viper PST 1-4 and it's segmented circle reticle ?
Vortex glass is decent but how is the illumination ? Is it a true 1x ?
I know it's not Nightforce/ USO quality but they have LE/Mil pricing which makes it competitive with say a Leupold VXR patrol.
Unobtanium
06-18-2015, 10:53 AM
It sounds to me like you are describing what most call blooming. The more I turn up the red dot, the more blooming I see. In fact if I am trying to make a precise shot, I dim the dot a lot for a more precise aiming point. The other issue im referencing, caused by eye issues is a shotgun pattern looking effect where the dot appears actually broken up. It can also be caused by a faulty unit. So the way to tell between the two is the rotation test. I never considered these two issues to be one in the same. I could be wrong.
No, I am definitely seeing "blooming". If I turn them down enough, they are crisp dots and I can shoot very precisely with them, except on bright days, where they MUST be turned up to see, and then you get a touch of bloom until you add the magnifier to the equation.
breakingtime91
06-18-2015, 11:53 AM
Hobby grade only.
Slg, what would you rate trijicon options
StraitR
06-19-2015, 02:22 PM
Hobby grade only.
Slg, what would you rate trijicon options
Not that I'm heading into combat with my TR24, but now I'm curious about this myself.
breakingtime91
06-19-2015, 02:33 PM
Not that I'm heading into combat with my TR24, but now I'm curious about this myself.
Strait, I am really hoping that the accupower has the generous eye-box and eye-relief of the tr 24
StraitR
06-19-2015, 03:09 PM
Strait, I am really hoping that the accupower has the generous eye-box and eye-relief of the tr 24
Not sure what model you're after, but based on the thread we're in, I'll assume it's a 1-4 (and because they don't make a 1-6 AccuPoint). Seems the RS24 has slightly longer eye relief, but not as much exit pupil as the TR24. My guess is the TR24 will have a slightly more forgiving eye box based on the larger exit pupil data*. That being said, the only way to know for sure is to try both. See benefits of large Exit Pupil HERE (http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/optics_opticpupil_061907/).
AccuPoint TR24 -
Eye Relief - 3.2 in. Constant / 81.3mm Constant
Exit Pupil - 0.69 – 0.20 in. / 17.5* – 5.1mm
PDF Spec Sheet - https://www.trijicon.com/resources/downloads/AccuPoint_SpecSheet.pdf
AccuPower RS24 -
Eye Relief - 3.5 in. Constant / 88mm Constant
0.60 – 0.20 in. / 15.0 – 5.0mm
PDF Spec Sheet - https://www.trijicon.com/resources/downloads/AccuPoint_SpecSheet.pdf
breakingtime91
06-19-2015, 03:20 PM
Not sure what model you're after, but based on the thread we're in, I'll assume it's a 1-4 (and because they don't make a 1-6 AccuPoint). Seems the RS24 has slightly longer eye relief, but not as much exit pupil as the TR24. My guess is the TR24 will have a slightly more forgiving eye box based on the larger exit pupil data*. That being said, the only way to know for sure is to try both. See benefits of large Exit Pupil HERE (http://www.shootingtimes.com/optics/optics_opticpupil_061907/).
AccuPoint TR24 -
Eye Relief - 3.2 in. Constant / 81.3mm Constant
Exit Pupil - 0.69 – 0.20 in. / 17.5* – 5.1mm
PDF Spec Sheet - https://www.trijicon.com/resources/downloads/AccuPoint_SpecSheet.pdf
AccuPower RS24 -
Eye Relief - 3.5 in. Constant / 88mm Constant
0.60 – 0.20 in. / 15.0 – 5.0mm
PDF Spec Sheet - https://www.trijicon.com/resources/downloads/AccuPoint_SpecSheet.pdf
awesome info. if you dont mind, could you pm your opionin on the tr24 and how you do your hold overs and such?
Slg, what would you rate trijicon options
I used several Trijicon optics in the early days of Afghanistan, but not since. They were rugged, but not as well made or designed as I might have liked. As an example, you had to hit the turrets to get them to take an adjustment. FOV was fairly small in the examples I had (compact 2X, as well as the bigger 3.5 and 4X SF versions). Mounting systems were not great either, though Larue made some decent ones. I'm really not up on their current stuff, so take that with a grain of salt. I know some competition shooters like them, but so far, nothing I've seen from them makes me want to ditch my NF 1-4. Once I get a NF 1-8, I will still probably use the 1-4 for certain weapons/applications.
breakingtime91
06-19-2015, 05:32 PM
I used several Trijicon optics in the early days of Afghanistan, but not since. They were rugged, but not as well made or designed as I might have liked. As an example, you had to hit the turrets to get them to take an adjustment. FOV was fairly small in the examples I had (compact 2X, as well as the bigger 3.5 and 4X SF versions). Mounting systems were not great either, though Larue made some decent ones. I'm really not up on their current stuff, so take that with a grain of salt. I know some competition shooters like them, but so far, nothing I've seen from them makes me want to ditch my NF 1-4. Once I get a NF 1-8, I will still probably use the 1-4 for certain weapons/applications.
What reticle are you using in your night force 1-4
I used several Trijicon optics in the early days of Afghanistan, but not since. They were rugged, but not as well made or designed as I might have liked. As an example, you had to hit the turrets to get them to take an adjustment. FOV was fairly small in the examples I had (compact 2X, as well as the bigger 3.5 and 4X SF versions). Mounting systems were not great either, though Larue made some decent ones. I'm really not up on their current stuff, so take that with a grain of salt. I know some competition shooters like them, but so far, nothing I've seen from them makes me want to ditch my NF 1-4. Once I get a NF 1-8, I will still probably use the 1-4 for certain weapons/applications.
Just to clarify, you are talking about ACOGs as opposed to Accupoint scopes ?
What reticle are you using in your night force 1-4
F3G.
Just to clarify, you are talking about ACOGs as opposed to Accupoint scopes ?
Correct. As I said, I'm not really up on their newer stuff as none of it has appealed to me very much.
breakingtime91
06-19-2015, 08:54 PM
F3G.
how does the BDC work for you?
It works, but the hash marks are really too small for me to use well. I prefer to dial.
texag
06-20-2015, 06:36 PM
Does anyone have experience with the Burris xtr 1-5? It looks like a great under $1k option for my 18" ar. Ideally I'd get a mk6, but that kind of expenditure isn't in the cards.
Unobtanium
06-21-2015, 08:23 AM
Does anyone have experience with the Burris xtr 1-5? It looks like a great under $1k option for my 18" ar. Ideally I'd get a mk6, but that kind of expenditure isn't in the cards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ixYAkiaVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2ixYAkiaVs
texag
06-21-2015, 01:33 PM
Thanks for the video, I've watched that a few times. Wanted to see if anyone here has first-hand experience with it.
I put a XTRii 5-25 on a rifle and it's an amazing scope. I think the quality and craftsmanship far exceeds a 1k optic. Very clear glass, very good audible And tactile turrets. User friendly zero stop aswell!
ldunnmobile
06-21-2015, 02:55 PM
I just bought a demo Nightforce 1-4 FC3G for a good price I couldn't resist. It will be here tomorrow and I'm putting in on a BCM. I've had several high-end scopes but this will definitely (should) be the nicest 1-X variable I've owned yet.
Gray222
06-21-2015, 02:57 PM
I just bought a demo Nightforce 1-4 FC3G for a good price I couldn't resist. It will be here tomorrow and I'm putting in on a BCM. I've had several high-end scopes but this will definitely (should) be the nicest 1-X variable I've owned yet.
This is one of the optics on my list to review.
breakingtime91
06-23-2015, 07:56 PM
I just bought a demo Nightforce 1-4 FC3G for a good price I couldn't resist. It will be here tomorrow and I'm putting in on a BCM. I've had several high-end scopes but this will definitely (should) be the nicest 1-X variable I've owned yet.
hows it working out?
Whiskey_Bravo
06-28-2015, 01:22 PM
Anyone here have any experience with the new Trijicon VCOG optics? It looks a really well made and versatile scope... But then again I know nothing about magnified optics. Would something like this be overkill on a standard chrome lined 14.5" mid length?
Unobtanium
06-28-2015, 04:51 PM
Anyone here have any experience with the new Trijicon VCOG optics? It looks a really well made and versatile scope... But then again I know nothing about magnified optics. Would something like this be overkill on a standard chrome lined 14.5" mid length?
I think it has terrible diopter shift. SWFA's shop employees agreed when I stopped by, and suggested setting diopter at 3X to minimize it. Another prominent retailer also agreed on the issue. They went so far as to think theirs was broken and grabbed another, which also exhibited it. Other online reviews have also stated so, as well. I am not a fan.
Andy T
06-30-2015, 09:44 PM
I managed to do some shooting with FC3G. I like it. The reticle is big/bold enough that illumination is irrelevant. I actually found it to be a bit easier to use on 1X compared to MK6 TMR. Despite having illumination, it wasn't quite bright (even on max) and the FFP reticle is a bit smallish.
Gray222
07-01-2015, 03:39 AM
Ordered an accupower grn milsq, local dealer hooked me up.
breakingtime91
07-01-2015, 09:36 AM
Ordered an accupower grn milsq, local dealer hooked me up.
nice!
Does anyone here have experience with segmented circle reticles?
I'm considering one for a 1-4 Accupower.
joshs
07-10-2015, 07:05 PM
I had the reticle swapped on my Leupold VX6 to the CMR2 reticle. I like the reticle, but I wish the horseshoe was a little bit larger. It would be more useful on 1x and less distracting on 6x. I also think it would have been nice to maintain the firedot illumination, even if it meant a slightly thicker vertical stadia line.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
I was just reading through the thread again and wanted to get a general consensus on what low power variables are considered suitable for "combat"
I saw Kevin B, SLG, and 00bullitt make mention about optics being or not being combat optics.
I assume the Nightforce NXS line and the S&B are such type optics
I want to move to a variable optic on my rifle but have a hard time switching from my Aimpoint to one unless it is a known robust optic such as the NF or S&B.
I was just reading through the thread again and wanted to get a general consensus on what low power variables are considered suitable for "combat"
I saw Kevin B, SLG, and 00bullitt make mention about optics being or not being combat optics.
I assume the Nightforce NXS line and the S&B are such type optics
I want to move to a variable optic on my rifle but have a hard time switching from my Aimpoint to one unless it is a known robust optic such as the NF or S&B.
I would add the Trijicon Accupoints and the Kahles / Swarovski offerings.
Chris Rhines
07-17-2015, 11:15 AM
The Kahles k16i absolutely is, and I'd probably take a chance on the Swarovski.
Think I read somewhere that some special ops were using vortex razor. Can anyone confirm that?
Failure2Stop
07-17-2015, 11:39 AM
Think I read somewhere that some special ops were using vortex razor. Can anyone confirm that?
An individual purchase that gets taken overseas does not qualify, so I would say no.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Odin Bravo One
07-17-2015, 02:14 PM
An individual purchase that gets taken overseas does not qualify, so I would say no.
I'm not aware of any unit issuing a Vortex Razor. That is not to say it isn't happening, as keeping up with who is using what optics this week is damn near impossible. But I concur with F2S........those in use are generally personally purchased optics.
I have used a Gen 1 Razor, and it is a tank. It also weighs as much as a tank.
NF is certainly up to the task of hard use, as are most top end manufacturers glass. I've also used a Leupold VX-6, and it held up. I am still using that optic on one of my carbines now, and am confident it will perform as needed for the duration it is needed.
Thanks for the feedback Sean M.
The razor 1-6 is in official use. The unit using it is reportedly very happy with it. Other units that have and are testing it have not been so lucky.
Failure2Stop
07-17-2015, 04:15 PM
I stand corrected.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Odin Bravo One
07-17-2015, 06:03 PM
And me too......
Given how much I've learned from F2S and Sean, I'm very pleased to have been able to provide a small data point.
DacoRoman
07-18-2015, 09:26 AM
Gents, would the new Trijicon accupower qualify as a hard use duty type optic?
breakingtime91
07-18-2015, 11:13 AM
Gents, would the new Trijicon accupower qualify as a hard use duty type optic?
Hasn't been out long enough to tell yet. There are quite a few of us who own one now so if you give it sometime you will have a pretty good idea what its capable of. I am not easy on my gear so it is getting treated just like my deployment rifle which I think qualified as a hard use weapon
texag
07-19-2015, 11:41 AM
Natchez has a deal I couldn't refuse: $499 for the bushnell 1-6.5x 2fp with the BDC type reticle. Cheapest I've seen was $775 new for the less desirable 1fp model. It should allow me to hit the goal I have for my 18" AR of being a nightstand gun and hog/coyote/deer gun all in one. I would've preferred the mil scale because I haven't been able to find anything on the actual reticle subtensions for bushnell, but for this price I can make due. I figure if i don't like it compared to my MTAC 1-4 I can keep the MTAC and sell the bushnell for a profit.
SeriousStudent
07-19-2015, 04:12 PM
I snagged one of the FFP models. I have one of those Larue 5.56 stainless barrels coming in, and this should make for a handy carbine.
Thanks for the heads up.
Failure2Stop
07-19-2015, 04:26 PM
It appears both the second focal plane (http://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-elite-tactical-rifle-scope-1-6-5x24mm-1-10-mil-adjustments-second-focal-illuminated-btr-1-sfp-reticle-matte.html) and first focal plane (http://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-elite-riflescope-6-24x50mm-ffp-illum-mil-dot-reticle-matte.html) versions on sale for $499. The SFP version shows $699 in the listing but is $499 once added to your shopping cart.
That is a really good deal.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
What's the consensus on these bushnell scopes? How's there durability and quality.
Never heard about these much?
JM Campbell
07-19-2015, 06:15 PM
Been banging mine around for a year or so. Hasn't lost zero yet and sees alot of use between 300blk and 556 rifles. I do like it alot, I would like it more if I got it for that price! Mine is sfp with the fcg3.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
For the money, the 1-6 (6.5, iirc) is a good option. Not as well built as my favorite, NF, but it's probably as good as the Vortex, and costs less.
What's the consensus on these bushnell scopes? How's there durability and quality.
Never heard about these much?
Also what is the consensus on FFP vs SFP for a 1-6x like this? I'm thinking a FFP on 1x the reticle will be so small it will basically be a dot when illuminated but if your illumination goes out you are mind of screwed ?
The FFP Bushnell was in response to a specific military requirement from a specific unit. They did not like the end result, and afaik, Bushnell has mostly stopped producing the FFP version. That may be why they are on sale, though I could be wrong about that. Either one will do the job, just depends which you prefer.
Failure2Stop
07-19-2015, 07:33 PM
Also what is the consensus on FFP vs SFP for a 1-6x like this? I'm thinking a FFP on 1x the reticle will be so small it will basically be a dot when illuminated but if your illumination goes out you are mind of screwed ?
For these, 2FP is the way to go. Nice bold reticle that illuminates acceptably. 1FP isn't much at 1-3x. This is actually the optic that made me reevaluate my staunch 1FP preference.
I've had mine for almost 2 years, and I think it's a wholly acceptable optic for a fun gun. Probably wouldn't take it overseas over a Mk6, Mk8, or NF, but that level of robustness and cost may not be necessary for most folks.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
For these, 2FP is the way to go. Nice bold reticle that illuminates acceptably. 1FP isn't much at 1-3x. This is actually the optic that made me reevaluate my staunch 1FP preference.
I've had mine for almost 2 years, and I think it's a wholly acceptable optic for a fun gun. Probably wouldn't take it overseas over a Mk6, Mk8, or NF, but that level of robustness and cost may not be necessary for most folks.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Thanks Jack. At this sale price I think it's a good choice vs a 1-4 Vortex at the same price point.
A video review on the SFP model :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZI2ahPC40A
And of course the SFP models were sold out as of this morning.
Natchez may be getting these in batches. I bought the FFP version about a month ago, same pricing, and had just missed the SFP models then.
Gray222
07-20-2015, 06:40 PM
http://i.imgur.com/L7bStl5.jpg
Accupower.
breakingtime91
07-20-2015, 06:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/L7bStl5.jpg
Accupower.
sexy scope right there :cool:
Natchez may be getting these in batches. I bought the FFP version about a month ago, same pricing, and had just missed the SFP models then.
That's good to know, thanks.
texag
07-25-2015, 07:22 AM
New scope is here and mounted. The bushnell 1-6.5 is definitely and upgrade over the burris MTAC I've been using, but I don't think I would've been happy had I paid anywhere close to MSRP.
Highlights:
-Glass is extremely clear at all mag levels, with extremely minimal fishbowl effect. It was easy to make out details at all mag ranges before sunrise.
-Mag ring is very easy to turn without breaking your cheekweld. I won't bother getting a lever for it. The burris was a much more clumsy affair.
-Illumination doesn't pop on bright backgrounds during full sun, but is visible and provide plenty of contrast where you need it.
-Illumination control is the now standard off between each setting and very tactile. I don't see it ever getting accidentally moved from where you want it.
-Decent size compared to other variable in its class. The VX6 multigun was definitely lighter, but this has better glass imo.
Lowlights:
-Turrets kind of suck. Super easy to pop up and have spin freely. Clicks aren't bad but not great. I can't ever see taking the turret caps off outside a shooting bench.
-Reticle could be better. The center dot is tiny compared to the MTAC, which will help with precision, but makes it hard to pick up without illumination. Bushnell has seen fit to not inform anyone what the actual reticle subtensions are. The outer circle is very bold, but large enough that it won't be super useful at speed. I wish this had the Burris XTR reticle.
-Eyebox isn't that bad, but it's not great. I'd say it's pretty similar to the MTAC at 1x, and 6.5x is tight but usable. Something has to give with that big of a magnification range.
All in all I'm pretty damn happy for $500 brand new. This should make it a bit easier for me to tap into more of the performance potential of the 18" ss barrel while still being useful up close.
http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy138/TexAg10/IMAG1006_zpsmmcw1nip.jpg
http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy138/TexAg10/Firearms/IMAG1008_zpsxsidksq9.jpg
http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy138/TexAg10/Firearms/IMAG1007_zpsnowrmyjr.jpg
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 04:33 PM
I'm loving having a variable on my rifle. The weight is minimal and honestly I dont carry a rifle for 8+ hours a day so it doesn't bother me. I honestly don't know why I waited so long..
StraitR
07-26-2015, 05:50 PM
I'm loving having a variable on my rifle. The weight is minimal and honestly I dont carry a rifle for 8+ hours a day so it doesn't bother me. I honestly don't know why I waited so long..
This mirrors my feelings on low power variables as well, and I also questioned why I waited so long. While shooting my SR15 at 200 yards yesterday, I was pretty disappointed when I fell outside a 6" shoot N' see with bulk AE .223. Neither the rifle, the ammo, nor the shooter are especially geared toward precision, but on 4x I felt it was hard to miss. I've shot Aimpoint micros for years, two T-1's and a T-2, but they fail to inspire the same level of confidence past 100.
My 16" carbines are used for HD, range fun, and hog hunting. For these purposes, LPV's are clearly my favorite optic here in the thick underbrush and swamps of central FL. For the record, I currently use a TR24, red triangle, but I'm looking for a second LPV and I'm watching the Accupower reviews.
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 06:01 PM
This mirrors my feelings on low power variables as well, and I also questioned why I waited so long. While shooting my SR15 at 200 yards yesterday, I was pretty disappointed when I fell outside a 6" shoot N' see with bulk AE .223. Neither the rifle, the ammo, nor the shooter are especially geared toward precision, but on 4x I felt it was hard to miss. I've shot Aimpoint micros for years, two T-1's and a T-2, but they fail to inspire the same level of confidence past 100.
My 16" carbines are used for HD, range fun, and hog hunting. For these purposes, LPV's are clearly my favorite optic here in the thick underbrush and swamps of central FL. For the record, I currently use a TR24, red triangle, but I'm looking for a second LPV and I'm watching the Accupower reviews.
I am shooting mine, albeit not high volume yet. So far so good, secondscount looked through it also and commented on the quality of the glass. I shoot like shit with a red dot, I worked on it for months and well over a thousand rounds. Sad truth was when put on a timer and using a course that was scored, I performed better with irons then a red dot. I instantly performed better with a variable for the same course of fire (Marsoc rifle qual).
StraitR
07-26-2015, 06:38 PM
I am shooting mine, albeit not high volume yet. So far so good, secondscount looked through it also and commented on the quality of the glass. I shoot like shit with a red dot, I worked on it for months and well over a thousand rounds. Sad truth was when put on a timer and using a course that was scored, I performed better with irons then a red dot. I instantly performed better with a variable for the same course of fire (Marsoc rifle qual).
I've been pleased with the quality of glass in my Accupoint, so that's one reason why I'm leaning towards the Accupower for my second LPV. I've been reading for years that variables are slower than red dots, but that has not been my experience for the last few years with the TR24. My times are the same, and vary in the same way they did when I only shot a T-1. Like with IDPA, I have good days and then days where I don't perform as well, but I've never seen this as a matter of hardware, but rather glitches in software. In my experience, I give up nothing at 0-50 yards in speed, but gain considerable accuracy past 150, and the FOV improvement is an added bonus.
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 06:52 PM
I've been pleased with the quality of glass in my Accupoint, so that's one reason why I'm leaning towards the Accupower for my second LPV. I've been reading for years that variables are slower than red dots, but that has not been my experience for the last few years with the TR24. My times are the same, and vary in the same way they did when I only shot a T-1. Like with IDPA, I have good days and then days where I don't perform as well, but I've never seen this as a matter of hardware, but rather glitches in software. In my experience, I give up nothing at 0-50 yards in speed, but gain considerable accuracy past 150, and the FOV improvement is an added bonus.
I think you nailed it because that is exactly how I feel/think about it. I think its easy to issue a blanket statement but when you put it on time and track performance, I think most would be surprised by the outcome. I have a friend that always says "red dots are faster" but I haven't seen it.
I think you nailed it because that is exactly how I feel/think about it. I think its easy to issue a blanket statement but when you put it on time and track performance, I think most would be surprised by the outcome. I have a friend that always says "red dots are faster" but I haven't seen it.
I don't mean this to be snarky at all, but how well do you shoot? What do you shoot at?
There are things that a red dot is not faster for, but for "practical" targets at close ranges, a red dot is faster. It may not be for any individual, but for guys that can go as fast as can currently be gone, there is a difference between the two. A lower level of ability may not see that difference.
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 09:23 PM
I don't mean this to be snarky at all, but how well do you shoot? What do you shoot at?
There are things that a red dot is not faster for, but for "practical" targets at close ranges, a red dot is faster. It may not be for any individual, but for guys that can go as fast as can currently be gone, there is a difference between the two. A lower level of ability may not see that difference.
Honestly I'm not sure on a carbine level but I always took high expert in the Marine Corps and I spent a bit of time/training while I was in my unit/deployed. I was thorough enough to invest/test the optic in question and found that I am not as fast with a red dot when compared to the other options I tried. That is not to say that is a universal truth and that someone with a red dot wouldn't out shoot me.. But honestly how big is that difference? .10-.5? I understand if your assaulting all the time, a close range optic will make more sense. My experience was open ground patrolling and so I guess I look at it in that perspective still. I just think the speed difference is minimal and for my needs/lower skill level a variable works. To each their own though and I am not thoroughly invested in anything. I usually shoot at ipsc targets, six inch circles (50-3 yards) and then small steel plates (200-590ish). I also have a reduced silo A/C target I shoot at 100 for "reaction" shooting.
*also I have a rough idea of your skill level and the people you served with/train so I have no reason to doubt what your saying.
Honestly I'm not sure on a carbine level but I always took high expert in the Marine Corps and I spent a bit of time/training while I was in my unit/deployed. I was thorough enough to invest/test the optic in question and found that I am not as fast with a red dot when compared to the other options I tried. That is not to say that is a universal truth and that someone with a red dot wouldn't out shoot me.. But honestly how big is that difference? .10-.5? I understand if your assaulting all the time, a close range optic will make more sense. My experience was open ground patrolling and so I guess I look at it in that perspective still. I just think the speed difference is minimal and for my needs/lower skill level a variable works. To each their own though and I am not thoroughly invested in anything. I usually shoot at ipsc targets, six inch circles (50-3 yards) and then small steel plates (200-590ish). I also have a reduced silo A/C target I shoot at 100 for "reaction" shooting.
*also I have a rough idea of your skill level and the people you served with/train so I have no reason to doubt what your saying.
I think that's a fair assessment. Up close is where you would see the difference in speed, but a good shooter won't see a huge difference. I prefer the variable for anything realistic, but I use the red dot for pure horsepower. VTAC 1-5, for example. We could spend all night discussing why most carbine training these days treats the gun like a large pistol, but that's for another time.
As I think is obvious from this thread, I am a huge proponent of variables for GP guns. I just want to give the RDS its due, and for pure raw speed up close, it is the fastest.
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 09:55 PM
I think that's a fair assessment. Up close is where you would see the difference in speed, but a good shooter won't see a huge difference. I prefer the variable for anything realistic, but I use the red dot for pure horsepower. VTAC 1-5, for example. We could spend all night discussing why most carbine training these days treats the gun like a large pistol, but that's for another time.
As I think is obvious from this thread, I am a huge proponent of variables for GP guns. I just want to give the RDS its due, and for pure raw speed up close, it is the fastest.
no doubt, you talk I usually pay attention :cool:. Do you favor eotech over aimpoint then? For pure horse power? I was honestly looking at my assessment from a wider envelope then just up close, I probably should of included that.
no doubt, you talk I usually pay attention :cool:. Do you favor eotech over aimpoint then? For pure horse power? I was honestly looking at my assessment from a wider envelope then just up close, I probably should of included that.
I prefer aimpoints. For my eyes, less clutter is good. 2moa dot is my preference. I've also found them to be many times more rugged and long term durable than the eotechs. Most of my scoped ar's have a backup T1/2 offset.
Like I said, I didn't mean to be snarky, which is why I asked what you shoot at as well as how well you shoot. Target size and distance will play a large role in choosing the best optic. From a patrolling standpoint, I'd have a hard time choosing an RDS over a variable. For CQB, the opposite is true. For GP use, especially with my vision, the variable wins again. None of this even gets into PID issues, where obviously the variable shines. I'm just talking about shooting problems, not real world applications.
breakingtime91
07-26-2015, 11:10 PM
I prefer aimpoints. For my eyes, less clutter is good. 2moa dot is my preference. I've also found them to be many times more rugged and long term durable than the eotechs. Most of my scoped ar's have a backup T1/2 offset.
Like I said, I didn't mean to be snarky, which is why I asked what you shoot at as well as how well you shoot. Target size and distance will play a large role in choosing the best optic. From a patrolling standpoint, I'd have a hard time choosing an RDS over a variable. For CQB, the opposite is true. For GP use, especially with my vision, the variable wins again. None of this even gets into PID issues, where obviously the variable shines. I'm just talking about shooting problems, not real world applications.
trackin. I honestly think were like minded on this subject. There are so many variables (hah) to consider, really is a fun topic to discuss and get other people opinions on.
SecondsCount
07-26-2015, 11:23 PM
.... We could spend all night discussing why most carbine training these days treats the gun like a large pistol, but that's for another time.
....
The zombies are going to be inside 25 yards so why not? :p
Andrew E
07-27-2015, 12:20 AM
I think that's a fair assessment. Up close is where you would see the difference in speed, but a good shooter won't see a huge difference. I prefer the variable for anything realistic, but I use the red dot for pure horsepower. VTAC 1-5, for example. We could spend all night discussing why most carbine training these days treats the gun like a large pistol, but that's for another time.
As I think is obvious from this thread, I am a huge proponent of variables for GP guns. I just want to give the RDS its due, and for pure raw speed up close, it is the fastest.
I'd be interested in that discussion. Not necessarily because I think I have meaningful input (probably don't in fact), but because I'm curious.
Unobtanium
07-27-2015, 04:16 AM
I think that's a fair assessment. Up close is where you would see the difference in speed, but a good shooter won't see a huge difference. I prefer the variable for anything realistic, but I use the red dot for pure horsepower. VTAC 1-5, for example. We could spend all night discussing why most carbine training these days treats the gun like a large pistol, but that's for another time.
As I think is obvious from this thread, I am a huge proponent of variables for GP guns. I just want to give the RDS its due, and for pure raw speed up close, it is the fastest.
I don't feel that this is even the main benefit of the rds. It is a benefit, sure, but to me the main "can't get this from a tube optic..." perk that an rds offers is the unlimited eye relief and the "if I can see through it I'm g2g" eyebox. These features make 1 armed, support side, use of cover, and other environmentally limiting situations much less of a handicap than tube optics.
Frankly, nothing is perfect. I think that 0 to 100 favors a rds, and 100+ favors a tube. Are you a marine on patrol? A police officer on a swat team? A civilian defending your home? Match the gear for the mission. Dont show up at the indy 500 in a lifted Silverado "in case of debris from a wreck on the track."
Unobtanium
07-27-2015, 04:23 AM
I'd be interested in that discussion. Not necessarily because I think I have meaningful input (probably don't in fact), but because I'm curious.
Yes, please. May we have said discussion?
breakingtime91
07-27-2015, 11:23 AM
I don't feel that this is even the main benefit of the rds. It is a benefit, sure, but to me the main "can't get this from a tube optic..." perk that an rds offers is the unlimited eye relief and the "if I can see through it I'm g2g" eyebox. These features make 1 armed, support side, use of cover, and other environmentally limiting situations much less of a handicap than tube optics.
Frankly, nothing is perfect. I think that 0 to 100 favors a rds, and 100+ favors a tube. Are you a marine on patrol? A police officer on a swat team? A civilian defending your home? Match the gear for the mission. Dont show up at the indy 500 in a lifted Silverado "in case of debris from a wreck on the track."
My experience differs from yours, my overall performance is better with a tube 0-100
...to me the main "can't get this from a tube optic..." perk that an rds offers is the unlimited eye relief and the "if I can see through it I'm g2g" eyebox.
This.
I'm assuming by the latter you are referring to the almost parallax-free quality of such sights.
Yes, please. May we have said discussion?
And this.
rainman
07-27-2015, 07:03 PM
I prefer aimpoints. For my eyes, less clutter is good. 2moa dot is my preference. I've also found them to be many times more rugged and long term durable than the eotechs. Most of my scoped ar's have a backup T1/2 offset.
Like I said, I didn't mean to be snarky, which is why I asked what you shoot at as well as how well you shoot. Target size and distance will play a large role in choosing the best optic. From a patrolling standpoint, I'd have a hard time choosing an RDS over a variable. For CQB, the opposite is true. For GP use, especially with my vision, the variable wins again. None of this even gets into PID issues, where obviously the variable shines. I'm just talking about shooting problems, not real world applications.
SLG; what mount do you use for T1/2 offset? I want to try using a backup offset on one of my ARs running a 2.5-10x Nightforce. I shoot rifle LH (I'm right-handed, but strongly left-eye dominant) so would have to be able to mount the T1/2 on the 'non-normal' side.
Many thanks.
-Rainman
Does a offset aim point not get in the way? I mean there not huge but I certainly wouldn't want one hanging off the side of my rifle?
littlejerry
08-03-2015, 10:07 PM
So this thread is now very relevant to my interests.
I've been running a 20" Colt A2 as my only AR since I first bought it. I've upgraded to a vltor A5, but I now have the itch for a lighter carbine with magnification.
Im on the budget end of the spectrum, perhpas $500 or so. Ill be mounting this on a 16" BCM ELW barrel, probably floated (the ALG handguard is so cheap... Why not?)
The Vortex PST seems to check a lot of boxes. This will get used for 3 gun, biathlons, and some hunting.
Is there anything below $750 I should keep on my radar? I'd prefer to spend around $500 but wouldn't mind stretching to 750 if there were real gains... Buy once, cry once and all. My current A2 has served as my only AR for 10 years and I expect a similar life out of my next purchase.
El Cid
08-03-2015, 10:27 PM
My experience differs from yours, my overall performance is better with a tube 0-100
But how are you employing the rifle? Standing and using both arms isn't going to net the advantages he was discussing. Have you shot a 9 Hole Wall before? I've done it with a RDS and with a very good variable. The variable is slower when shooting from unconventional positions for the reasons Unobtanium described.
As he said - its mission driven. If your needs are met with your optic then drive on. But I find it difficult to believe anyone has tried the things he mentioned and found a tube optic better.
breakingtime91
08-03-2015, 10:43 PM
like a rifle...
rob_s
08-04-2015, 05:01 AM
like a rifle...
Which means... what? Slow and from prone?
breakingtime91
08-04-2015, 09:47 AM
Which means... what? Slow and from prone?
Nope, like shooting it effectively and building off my previous experiences carrying one for a job. If you choose an optic based of something like the 9 hole drill that's cool, I don't.
rob_s
08-04-2015, 10:12 AM
Nope, like shooting it effectively and building off my previous experiences carrying one for a job. If you choose an optic based of something like the 9 hole drill that's cool, I don't.
Oh good Jesus.
Can you describe in detail what you are doing and how and not just give some "I used to be..." Response so that other people might benefit from it?
breakingtime91
08-04-2015, 10:28 AM
Besides saying what I do in previous posts, when bouncing productive posts/thoughts off SLG, (if you read the thread) there isn't much to add.
SLG; what mount do you use for T1/2 offset? I want to try using a backup offset on one of my ARs running a 2.5-10x Nightforce. I shoot rifle LH (I'm right-handed, but strongly left-eye dominant) so would have to be able to mount the T1/2 on the 'non-normal' side.
Many thanks.
-Rainman
None of them are actually that good and I think I've used them all, though in 8/15, I may be wrong. The best of the worst for me (so to speak) is the Larue. There are some issues to deal with when running offset rds, like charging handle clearance, so be careful where you put it and make sure that the mount you choose will work for your application. I have no experience with them on the offside, but I'm sure it will exacerbate the clearance issue.
Some guys like to mount them in front of the scope, and that does address some of the issues. I don't do my best shooting that way though.
joshs
08-04-2015, 10:39 AM
But how are you employing the rifle? Standing and using both arms isn't going to net the advantages he was discussing. Have you shot a 9 Hole Wall before? I've done it with a RDS and with a very good variable. The variable is slower when shooting from unconventional positions for the reasons Unobtanium described.
As he said - its mission driven. If your needs are met with your optic then drive on. But I find it difficult to believe anyone has tried the things he mentioned and found a tube optic better.
I don't find a 1-x with good eyebox to be much harder, if any harder, in awkward positions like the 9 Hole Drill. If scope shadow bothers you, and you try to get a perfect edge-to-edge image, then I can see how it would be a problem. But, I think you just have to get used to shooting through the scope shadow. I'm also relatively flexible, so I don't have a hard time getting behind the optic in the bottom two rows of ports.
El Cid
08-04-2015, 11:26 AM
like a rifle...
Nope, like shooting it effectively and building off my previous experiences carrying one for a job. If you choose an optic based of something like the 9 hole drill that's cool, I don't.
lol! You have effectively said nothing about how you employ the rifle. You seem to be implying that because you used to carry a rifle "for a job" that you should get a pass on explaining your comment. In my experience folks who do that are posturing. Perhaps you just take pleasure in being vague and difficult - which is your right. I did notice you haven't answered my question about the 9 Hole Wall - have you done it?
I haven't seen anyone here, myself included, suggest a shooter should buy an optic based upon the 9 hole wall drill. The point of the 9 hole wall is to help a shooter recognized and understand that a firearm can be employed in positions other than the long taught; Standing, Kneeling, Sitting, and Prone. As I said before, if a tubular optic works for your needs - have at it. I'm not suggesting you change. I am however interested in you quantifying your statement that your "overall performance is better with a tube 0-100." How did you reach that conclusion? With a shot timer? Scores at matches? You could be a Grandmaster shooter and 3 Gun world champ - but when people say things like "I'm better with XYZ" and don't tell us how they know that... and it is counter to the wider experience base of other shooters, I want to know why. Maybe I'm missing out on some technique I can leverage in the future.
I don't find a 1-x with good eyebox to be much harder, if any harder, in awkward positions like the 9 Hole Drill. If scope shadow bothers you, and you try to get a perfect edge-to-edge image, then I can see how it would be a problem. But, I think you just have to get used to shooting through the scope shadow. I'm also relatively flexible, so I don't have a hard time getting behind the optic in the bottom two rows of ports.
Every person is different - especially as it relates to eyesight. I have a variable with true 1x that I positively love. It's very forgiving when used as a RDS, but I have found it to be more challenging than an Aimpoint when I'm shooting from unconventional positions. If you don't notice a difference, that's awesome. I know I do, and several other shooters I have seen and know report similar findings. Maybe if I was 20 years younger I'd notice it less.
breakingtime91
08-04-2015, 12:28 PM
changed my mind, not worth it.
rainman
08-04-2015, 08:28 PM
None of them are actually that good and I think I've used them all, though in 8/15, I may be wrong. The best of the worst for me (so to speak) is the Larue. There are some issues to deal with when running offset rds, like charging handle clearance, so be careful where you put it and make sure that the mount you choose will work for your application. I have no experience with them on the offside, but I'm sure it will exacerbate the clearance issue.
Some guys like to mount them in front of the scope, and that does address some of the issues. I don't do my best shooting that way though.
Thanks for the helpful info. I've seen some mounts that put them at 12 oclock...guess that would solve the clearance problem, but no doubt cause other issues.
-Rainman
I have been trying to make 12 o'clock work for quite a while, as it does solve a lot of problems, and opens up new possibilities. It also brings new problems of its own. I have 2 well known manufacturers willing to humor me and make a variety of mounts to make it work. Not working. Probably never will for me. Others like it just fine, as is.
rainman
08-05-2015, 03:05 AM
I have been trying to make 12 o'clock work for quite a while, as it does solve a lot of problems, and opens up new possibilities. It also brings new problems of its own. I have 2 well known manufacturers willing to humor me and make a variety of mounts to make it work. Not working. Probably never will for me. Others like it just fine, as is.
Who makes a good 12 o'clock mount in your opinion?
Again, Larue has a mount that seems best. It is in military use, and has done well. Just doesn't do what I want it to do. All of them put the rds too high for me.
Unobtanium
08-05-2015, 07:01 AM
Again, Larue has a mount that seems best. It is in military use, and has done well. Just doesn't do what I want it to do. All of them put the rds too high for me.
Use it like an offset. Cant the weapon 45* and use your other eye (right shoulder, left eye, for example). Make the height work for you, ergonomically.
nycnoob
08-12-2015, 02:41 PM
It appears both the second focal plane (http://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-elite-tactical-rifle-scope-1-6-5x24mm-1-10-mil-adjustments-second-focal-illuminated-btr-1-sfp-reticle-matte.html) and first focal plane (http://www.natchezss.com/bushnell-elite-riflescope-6-24x50mm-ffp-illum-mil-dot-reticle-matte.html) versions on sale for $499. The SFP version shows $699 in the listing but is $499 once added to your shopping cart.
Back in stock
Unobtanium
08-21-2015, 01:12 AM
So, what is the consensus on the durability of these optics being discussed? Are they hunting/3-gun optics, or are they something you would take to hell and back?
Specifically:
MK6
NXS 1-4
Kahles K16i
Swarovski Z6i
VCOG
Meopta ZD
Failure2Stop
08-21-2015, 11:13 AM
Mk6, NXS, VCOG: carry to combat.
Kahles, Swaro, Meopta: take to matches.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Failure2Stop
08-21-2015, 11:36 AM
I think it's hard to rank them, depends on personal priority.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Colt191145lover
08-21-2015, 11:55 AM
Anyone have and update on Nightforce's possible 1-6 or 1-8 optics?
Wondering if I should hold out or just get the Mk6...
Unobtanium
08-21-2015, 12:20 PM
I think it's hard to rank them, depends on personal priority.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
What about the military steiner m5xi?
Failure2Stop
08-23-2015, 07:03 PM
What about the military steiner m5xi?
I have no experience with it and don't know of any test results.
Might be great, might not, caveat emptor.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
00bullitt
08-23-2015, 07:20 PM
Anyone have and update on Nightforce's possible 1-6 or 1-8 optics?
Wondering if I should hold out or just get the Mk6...
They don't appear to be in the near future, but they have something up their sleeve.
I'm not the biggest fan of the Mk6 personally. I would maybe give a hard look at the Vortex Razor G2 1-6.
Sigfan26
08-23-2015, 07:23 PM
I think it's hard to rank them, depends on personal priority.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
What are your thoughts on the Trijicon Accupoint/Accupower 1-4 optics?
Failure2Stop
08-23-2015, 07:29 PM
What are your thoughts on the Trijicon Accupoint/Accupower 1-4 optics?
I only have experience with the older models and found the reticles lacking.
They took a distinct move in the right direction with the VCOG, but not enough to get me to replace anything I currently use, thus my input is virtually useless.
Don't have anything other than internet pics for anything newer.
Sorry for not having anything useful on them.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Sigfan26
08-23-2015, 07:32 PM
I only have experience with the older models and found the reticles lacking.
They took a distinct move in the right direction with the VCOG, but not enough to get me to replace anything I currently use, thus my input is virtually useless.
Don't have anything other than internet pics for anything newer.
Sorry for not having anything useful on them.
From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff
Thanks for the fast response! Liking my Accupower so far, just wanted to see if you'd seen any glaring durability issues.
Does anyone have any experience with the U.S. Optics 1.5-6 ?
1986s4
10-04-2015, 08:36 AM
Other than price what is the considered opinion of the Elcan 1x/4x scopes?
Other than price what is the considered opinion of the Elcan 1x/4x scopes?
The negatives seem to be price, weight, and the ARMS mounting system if it doesn't fit your rail properly.
If you're buying used to save some money be aware that there are counterfeit L cans out there produced for the airsoft market. One version is easy to spot because it is not actually a variable optic and doesn't have the lever for transitioning from 1x-4x. The other version is harder to spot. One of our local gun stores got burned with one of these.
Unobtanium
10-09-2015, 04:42 PM
Just an update. I purchased the FC-2 reticle instead. Put one on lay-a-way today as I didn't want it to scoot off in the next two weeks, as they only made that model for 1 year (2013) with the FC-2 AND the PTL lever. My reasoning was that the greater illuminated area, larger reticle (2 MOA dot vs. 1.5 MOA dot) and continuous "circle of death" has GOT to be easier to pick up than either the FC-3G or the IHR. As others have already mentioned, it has 5 MOA holds built in.
joshs
03-21-2016, 08:40 PM
Leupold is finally putting a decent hold-over reticle into the VX6 1-6 that also has a "firedot." https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/vx-6-riflescopes/vx-6-1-6x24mm-30mm-multigun-cds/
I think the holds are for 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, and the top of the duplex is 600. (Assuming 200 yard zero). The horizontal stadia also look to be spaced to provide a wind hold at the given distance.
Looks pretty good, and it's cheaper than the CMR2 version.
Dagga Boy
03-21-2016, 09:41 PM
Leupold is finally putting a decent hold-over reticle into the VX6 1-6 that also has a "firedot." https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/vx-6-riflescopes/vx-6-1-6x24mm-30mm-multigun-cds/
I think the holds are for 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, and the top of the duplex is 600. (Assuming 200 yard zero). The horizontal stadia also look to be spaced to provide a wind hold at the given distance.
Looks pretty good, and it's cheaper than the CMR2 version.
The Leopold with the CMR-2 and a custom matched reticle for my 6.8 may be the hot ticket on my new rifle.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.