The Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm and the Defensive Carbine

[NH Shooter]

I've been posting about this scope for a while, here is the most recent thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?44468-MPBR-Zero-and-the-Civilian-AR) where I cover some basics about the scope, and why I'm now using it after trying many different optics over the years. I will not rehash that info in this thread, but I would suggest reading my original post to fully understand how I ended up with this scope. For those of you intrigued by this rather offbeat optic selection, I hope you find the forthcoming information useful.

The purpose of this thread is to share my honest assessment of this scope in its role as an optic for a civilian defensive rifle. It's obviously a somewhat unique selection for an AR, as it is most commonly used on lever actions, hard-kicking dangerous game rifles, slug guns, etc.

https://i.ibb.co/R9KQ2fg/ar-1.jpg


Before I start sharing my observations and experience with the scope, I feel I need to define what I consider a "civilian defensive rifle." While there is plenty of expert advice on what optics work best in a combat role, whether it's door-kicking or engaging the enemy from mountain tops, I find that the advice dosen't always translate well to civilian needs. The standard equipment advice is to equip one's rifle with a RDS and a white light, then get plenty of training. Certainly excellent advice, but due to it coming from those whose primary experience is with RDS and LPVO, I think it may leave some other viable sighting options unexplored.

From my POV, the defensive rifle for the civilian would be deployed under the very same set of legal constraints as an EDC pistol. All of the same standards for the justifiable use of deadly force would apply. If you think on that for a moment in the context of current events, a clear picture of how and under what circumstances the rifle might be used should emerge.

Why not a RDS?

No doubt a red dot sight is an excellent choice for the civilian defensive carbine. In combination with a WML, it covers those needs very well. But one rarely-considered downside of the RDS is that due to zero magnification, it does nothing to help with identifying a threat, or confirming that what you're seeing through it is a threat at all (again, think about this in the context of current events). While the top brands offer a very clear view, none of them do anything to enhance the view. To get any enhancement at all, one needs to use at least some magnification.

The other well-known issue is for those who suffer from astigmatism, the dot is not well defined. While this is not an issue at extreme close range, it becomes so as range increases depending on how bad one's astigmatism is. For me, I don't do any better from a precision standpoint with a RDS that I do with irons.

Then of course there's the battery thing and how bright should I set dot.

Why not a LPVO?

This is the one I still struggle with. The top models with illuminated reticles offer the same advantages of a RDS with the ability to dial-up the magnification to get a much enhanced view of the threat. I have many times (and to this day) been tempted to click the Buy Now link on models that I know would serve my purposes extremely well...but have yet to pull the trigger. It's not a money issue (though I don't have unlimited discretionary income either), but I always come back to what I like so much about the FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm and my unwillingness to give it up...

The Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm ("https://www.amazon.com/Leupold-FX-II-Ultralight-2-5x20mm-Duplex/dp/B000GU67AQ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=FX-II+Ultralight+2.5x20mm&qid=1601564484&sr=8-1)

You can read the specs through the link above but this is what has me hooked on this scope;


Light weight. At 6.5 ounces, I do not believe there is a lighter tube-style scope on the market. The typical LPVO will add three quarters of a pound or more of weight to my rifle in the least desirable location - above the bore axis.
Compact size. At only 8-inches long, a 1-inch body and only 1.4-inches in diameter at the ocular, it's downright tiny compared to the typical LPVO.
Long eye relief. At a constant 4.9 inches, the scope mounts more forward than others leaving the charging handle completely in the open.
Forgiving eye box. Lots of latitude fore and aft, more than enough side-to-side. With the stock properly indexed to my shoulder, I can rapidly bring the rifle up from low-ready have alignment with the optic. It is NOT fussy at all in this regard.
Good optical quality. Though not quite as good as something like a Vortex Razor, it's not shabby either with the simple fixed-power design working very much in its favor. The edges are a bit soft, but the view of what I'm looking at is sharp, clear and bright. Most importantly, it enhances my view of the threat far better than any RDS could do.
Excellent build quality. It's a Leupold, and the volumes of user reviews online confirm this is a quality product with very high user satisfaction.
Simple point-and-shoot. As rob_s is so fond of saying, there's no fiddle-fucking around with magnification settings, dot/reticle illumination levels, etc. Just shoulder and shoot, nothing else to think about other than the task at hand.

So the cart gets filled with the latest & greatest tactical optic that I think would be a step up, only to realize I might be better off spending the not-insignificant amount of money on something else.

More installments to come covering my observations on actual use of the scope.

https://i.ibb.co/7j48Zjp/rifle-3.jpg

[Borderland]

I had an FX 4x20 (https://www.amazon.com/Leupold-FX-II-Ultralight-2-5x20mm-Duplex/dp/B000GU67AQ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=FX-II+Ultralight+2.5x20mm&qid=1601564484&sr=8-1) on a carbine for awhile. It worked great but I realized it was more than I needed. Because I mostly shoot 100-200 I felt a RDS might be more appropriate. I'm currently evaluating this with a Vortex Venom (https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Optics-Venom-Red-Sight/dp/B00S2P2J90/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2WZCMRVSV9616&dchild=1&keywords=vortex+venom&qid=1601564547&sprefix=vortex+ve%2Caps%2C163&sr=8-2). The jury is still out and I may put the scope back on it but it's working out better then I thought it might. Hitting 12" plates at 200 isn't a problem.

I'm fairly new to the world of RDS. This is the first one I've had on a rifle, having nothing but ghost rings or scopes before this it was a bold move for me. I can fully understand now why the military has so gone over to dots on carbines. For a novice shooter I think there's an advantage. I love good quality glass though and always will.

Looking forward to some more evaluations.

[wanderinwalker]

NH Shooter, what mount are you using there? I admit, I've been considering throwing my 2.5x Leupold onto my Colt 6920 after reading some of your posts about using this optic. Right now it's on a CZ527FS in .223, and I have an Aimpoint PRO on the Colt. But I like the clarity and target resolution of a compact scope, especially as I have a slight astigmatism.

I've used the Colt/PRO combo a fair amount out to 200 yards on my range. We used to have a 12-14" plate at 200 yards and it was no trick to hit it offhand with this combo. It wasn't difficult to hit the same plate with my 18.5" Marlin 336 with Williams receiver sights either. l should also mention I used to shoot NRA Highpower, had a Master-classification and could shoot a 95-96 score offhand most days.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

This makes a lot of sense to me. Does Leupold still offer reticle changes? This with holdovers would really appeal.

[NH Shooter]

I had an FX 4x20 on a carbine for awhile. It worked great but I realized it was more than I needed.

The actual magnification of the 2.5x20 is 2.2x.

While I often yearn for more magnification for greater precision and longer range effectiveness, the I find the 2.2x magnification a good compromise for a fixed power: it works well for two-eyes-open close-quarter engagements yet provides an overwhelming edge over a RDS at distance in terms of target resolution and PID. If my eyesight was perfect, the RDS would no doubt be a more viable solution for me.

FWIW, though I wear corrective lenses for distance, I do not use them for shooting. I find I can adjust the ocular of a scope to render the reticle ("aiming point") perfectly sharp and the magnification renders the target sharp. None of that happens for me with a RDS, with or without glasses.

[NH Shooter]

This makes a lot of sense to me. Does Leupold still offer reticle changes? This with holdovers would really appeal.

They did, but evidently their custom shop is closed - supposedly for improvement. I do hope it reopens as they also had the finger-click adjustment option for the 2.5x20mm.

Give me the 2.5x20mm with a FireDot Duplex and their Custom Dial System to dial-in hold overs - it would a few ounces heavier, but IMO perfect.

When we hit the range you'll need to give mine a try.

[HeavyDuty]

They did, but evidently their custom shop is closed - supposedly for improvement. I do hope it reopens as they also had the finger-click adjustment option for the 2.5x20mm.

Give me the 2.5x20mm with a FireDot Duplex and their Custom Dial System to dial-in hold overs - it would a few ounces heavier, but IMO perfect.

When we hit the range you'll need to give mine a try.

Looking forward to it!

[NH Shooter]

I thought I'd share this too - the scopes I've recently seriously considered.

This one was in the cart and I was in the check-out process;

https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-Credo-3-9x40-SFP-w-Green-MOA-Precision-Hunter-1-in-Matte-Black-Riflesco.aspx

This one still tempts the hell out of me. I love the reticle, it has the features I want, will fit my existing DD mount (which I really like). It's not outlandishly expensive, has a decent FOV on low power and it's "only" 10.5 ounces heavier than the 2.5x20.

This next one may seem like another "WTF?" non-traditional choice, but the glass is highly rated as clear, sharp and having tremendous light gathering capability. It's fixed power (which I like) and could be pretty interesting if paired with a Delta Point Pro in an offset mount. With the removal of the current MI offset BUIS (3.4 ounces), the total weight gain would be limited to just under eight ounces and would make ringing that distant steel (and viewing the night time riots in the ambiance of burning buildings) a lot more fun;

https://www.eurooptic.com/66815-Leupold-FX3-6x42mm-Matte-Wide-Duplex-66815.aspx

If this scope was available with the Custom Dial System, the deal would have already been done.

Moving up the ladder to even more capable optics bring a pretty substantial weight (and cost) penalty, but these would be on the short list too;

https://www.eurooptic.com/Leupold-VX-5HD-30mm-CDS-ZL2-Side-Focus-Metric-Matte-Illum-FireDot-4-Riflescope-1.aspx

https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-Credo-25-15x42-SFP-w-Red-MRAD-Center-Dot-30mm-Matte-Black-Riflescope-29.aspx

Though I lust for sexy glass, along with the larger size and heavier weight the cost-to-benefit ratio of above two truly eludes me. For a total investment of $420 for my current setup ($570 including the offset BUIS), it's a value proposition that's going to be hard to beat.

[Borderland]

This makes a lot of sense to me. Does Leupold still offer reticle changes? This with holdovers would really appeal.

Reticles are important. I don't have a mil dot scope because I don't need one but that's a pretty fast way to go farther down range without cranking on knobs. I've considered putting one on my CZ-455 to go out to 200. I just guesstimate the hold over now because the dial probably wouldn't get me there.

[BillSWPA]

How do you find the view through the scope and visibility of the reticle in low light?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MGW]

I like this. Reminds me of a semi-auto lightweight scout rifle.

[littlejerry]

The more the "ideal" version of this optic is described, the more it sounds like the Primary Arms Glx 2x prism.

[NH Shooter]

How do you find the view through the scope and visibility of the reticle in low light?

If there is enough light to discern the target, I can see the reticle. Having used illuminated reticles in the past, I've found there is a very narrow window of when illumination would be useful with enough light left to see and reasonably identify the target. But I really do want one of these (https://www.nightvisionguys.com/atn-ps28-wpt-night-vision-clipon-sight).

In the meantime, in low light something like this really makes the reticle pop;

https://i.ibb.co/XVDskgr/G2-1.jpg

[NH Shooter]

The more the "ideal" version of this optic is described, the more it sounds like the Primary Arms Glx 2x prism.

Reticles Matter

I could definitely dig it with a more traditional reticle, but the horseshoe/chevron thing doesn't do it for me. I very much like it otherwise, and for those who like the reticle, I agree with your assessment.

[NH Shooter]

Something as simple as this would be IMO quite useful;

https://i.ibb.co/86gnN8y/Wide-Duplex-Ret-BDC.jpg


With the 2.5x20mm scope, hash marks from top to bottom (ranges for the Speer 75 GD load from a 16-inch barrel, 200 yard zero);

- 8 MOA (430 yards)

- 16 MOA (600 yards)

- 24 MOA (725 yards)

^ 32 MOA - top of post (825 yards)

With the FX III 6x42mm, those marks become much more useful;

- 3.5 MOA (300 yards)

- 7 MOA (420 yards)

- 10.5 MOA (480 yards)

^ 14 MOA - top of post (550 yards)


Without the hash marks, visually dividing the space between the center cross hair and the top of the bottom post is not terribly difficult but the smallest error with the 2.5x results in substantial hold-over miscalculation. The hold-over estimation with the 6x scope IMO becomes much more doable as the total drop from center to the top of the bottom post is 78 inches vs. 274 inches (nearly 23 feet) with the 2.5x.

Additionally, 550 yards is about as far as I'd want to take a shot with this rifle anyway.

[MGW]

I think for me and my vision a set up like this with a red dot instead of a reticle would be perfect. I spent the weekend at a two gun match that was all about precision under time constraints. Engagements with the rifle were from 200 to 25 and several shooting positions were used. I had a zero magnification Aimpoint on top of my rifle and it worked very well for me. A little bit of magnification would have been outstanding though. 2.5 to 4x would be all I would need I think.

[ASH556]

Magnification is overrated, especially when paired with good glass. I don't mean you don't need magnification, it is certainly helpful. However, anything over about 3-4X comes with tradeoffs and IMHO is less than ideal on anything but a dedicated precision rifle. I've had some fairly high end scopes on AR's over the years (Nightforce 2.5-10 and NX8, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10, other hunting class Leupolds). I've shot my tightest 10-shot 100yd groups (.8-1.0 MOA) with a 3.5X TA11 ACOG. Glass quality trumps magnification.

I also agree with the points made herein about simplicity and not spinning the mag dial. I've written elsewhere in more detail about it, so I won't re-hash it all here and sidetrack the thread, but count me in the simple fixed-power optic camp, although my personal preference has become the ACOG with piggyback RMR. I couldn't care less about the tritium, but the FO Illumination, glass quality, reticle quality, size, weight, and durability all make it a winner for me. I can run it pretty quickly up to about 25yds, but inside 25yds I start losing speed. Sure, fast COM hits are still do-able, but for a civilian situation where every bullet hits something, I'd rather not just YEET rounds off through an occluded sight picture. That's where the RMR comes in.

[NH Shooter]

I also agree with the points made herein about simplicity and not spinning the mag dial. I've written elsewhere in more detail about it, so I won't re-hash it all here and sidetrack the thread, but count me in the simple fixed-power optic camp, although my personal preference has become the ACOG with piggyback RMR.

A fixed, mid-power quality optic with an offset dot is something that intrigues me. For 50 yards and in, the "bunch of grapes" dot is still small enough to get the job done.

I too prefer a fixed power optic.

[NH Shooter]

I can run it pretty quickly up to about 25yds, but inside 25yds I start losing speed. Sure, fast COM hits are still do-able, but for a civilian situation where every bullet hits something, I'd rather not just YEET rounds off through an occluded sight picture.

This IMO is a real strength of the 2.5x20mm - I find that between the 2.2x magnification (39.5' FOV @ 100 yards) and the forgiving eye box, with two eyes open from low-ready I don't feel a great difference in target acquisition speed down to maybe 10 yards. Even viewing a target 10 feet away, the view through the scope remains more than sharp enough to place the reticle on where it needs to go.

I remain 100% convinced this is a solid 10 - 300 yard optic using a MPBR zero. Inside 30 feet is still very doable, and the optics are sharp enough for use well beyond 300 yards. The learning curve for me are the hold overs beyond 300 yards, which is arguably well beyond "self defense" distances anyway.

[littlejerry]

This is interesting to me because my current go-to rifle had an NXS 2.5-10x32 with a piggy back MRDS. It's a great rifle setup and allows me to be competitive from 5-600 yards down to 2MOA targets.

I always assumed that it was a compromise in terms of performance and recently put together a 12.5" with 1-6.5 LPVO. I don't have much time on it, but it feels like I'm giving up the rapid transition capability (for close to long range) that I grew to love with the 10x/MRDS combo.

So now that I'm considering putting an offset MRDS on my 12.5 with a LPVO... What's the point of having an LPVO? I'd rather have an optic designed primarily for use in the 2-3x range, maybe even with the ability to crank up to 6-10x.

[NH Shooter]

This is interesting to me because my current go-to rifle had an NXS 2.5-10x32 with a piggy back MRDS. It's a great rifle setup and allows me to be competitive from 5-600 yards down to 2MOA targets.

I always assumed that it was a compromise in terms of performance and recently put together a 12.5" with 1-6.5 LPVO. I don't have much time on it, but it feels like I'm giving up the rapid transition capability (for close to long range) that I grew to love with the 10x/MRDS combo.

So now that I'm considering putting an offset MRDS on my 12.5 with a LPVO... What's the point of having an LPVO? I'd rather have an optic designed primarily for use in the 2-3x range, maybe even with the ability to crank up to 6-10x.

Yes, exactly how I look at it too. With all of the offset mounts now available (I especially like the Arisaka), having 1x LPVO and offset/piggyback RDS on the same rifle would be IMO redundant.

Even with my astigmatism, I can certainly maintain adequate precision for A-zone hits out to 50 yards with a RDS/MRDS. Teaming it with a fixed-power scope has appeal to me as switching between the two would seem faster than having to reach up and fiddle with a mag lever. I've learned with using 45-degree offset BUIS that switching between the two is mighty quick, must be even faster/easier with a 30-degree mount that requires less roll.

[ASH556]

This IMO is a real strength of the 2.5x20mm - I find that between the 2.2x magnification (39.5' FOV @ 100 yards) and the forgiving eye box, with two eyes open from low-ready I don't feel a great difference in target acquisition speed down to maybe 10 yards. Even viewing a target 10 feet away, the view through the scope remains more than sharp enough to place the reticle on where it needs to go.

I remain 100% convinced this is a solid 10 - 300 yard optic using a MPBR zero. Inside 30 feet is still very doable, and the optics are sharp enough for use well beyond 300 yards. The learning curve for me are the hold overs beyond 300 yards, which is arguably well beyond "self defense" distances anyway.

I may be splitting too many hairs here, but just for the sake of conversation:

Static me + static target = no issues with speed through fixed 3.5X at 7yds
In-line moving me + static target = no issues with speed through fixed 3.5X at 7yds
Static me + transitions across multiple static targets = no issues with speed through fixed 3.5X at 7yds

Off-line moving me (diagonally, figure 8, etc) inside 25yds operating at MAX speed is where things start to break down. It comes down to a 100% repeatable cheekweld that all magnified optics require. With your body in perfect position, you can still pull it off, but turning your body and moving at the same time creates just enough flex (at lest for me) that the cheekweld breaks down just enough that I have to slow down a bit to ensure hits (talking Upper "A" zone 100% confirmed hits) at MAX speed. So, now that we've defined accuracy, how much speed am I giving up? 0.1-0.2 sec on something like a 7yd F2S. For me with the RMR that's a high 0.6's, low 0.7's endeavor with something like a .35 reaction, a .12 body split, and a .20 head transition (upper "A").

Is it a huge deal? Probably not huge, but I'll say this too: working through a dark house, improvised positions, lighting, etc, I am just more CONFIDENT in the RMR for that job than a fixed or even an LPVO on 1X. For me, the RDS is really more about positional forgiveness than 1X magnification.

[randyho]

It strikes me that you've found a cheap acog alternative.

[NH Shooter]

It strikes me that you've found a cheap acog alternative.

Truth be told, I don't believe the 2.5x20mm is a viable alternative to an Acog for someone who really wants one. But at least I can adjust the diopter and make the reticle sharp, something I truly wish could be done with an Acog. If the the 2.5x20mm reticle even had some basic BDC hash marks it would be nice.

Fixed power scopes are out of style and the lack of models currently available makes that painfully evident.

[ASH556]

Truth be told, I don't believe the 2.5x20mm is a viable alternative to an Acog for someone who really wants one. But at least I can adjust the diopter and make the reticle sharp, something I truly wish could be done with an Acog. If the the 2.5x20mm reticle even had some basic BDC hash marks it would be nice.

Fixed power scopes are out of style and the lack of models currently available makes that painfully evident.

Unfortunately so, right along with gloss finishes. That said, I'm in the market for a new scope for my '06 and a 3X Gloss Leupold would be top of my list if I could find one at a decent price.

[stomridertx]

Redacted, I was wrong about this scope being discontinued.

[LHS]

That's how the reticle in my Steiner P4xi is set up, basically:

https://www.steiner-optics.com/sites/default/files/3TR%20reticle.png

I've become a big fan of it.


Something as simple as this would be IMO quite useful;

https://i.ibb.co/86gnN8y/Wide-Duplex-Ret-BDC.jpg


With the 2.5x20mm scope, hash marks from top to bottom (ranges for the Speer 75 GD load from a 16-inch barrel, 200 yard zero);

- 8 MOA (430 yards)

- 16 MOA (600 yards)

- 24 MOA (725 yards)

^ 32 MOA - top of post (825 yards)

With the FX III 6x42mm, those marks become much more useful;

- 3.5 MOA (300 yards)

- 7 MOA (420 yards)

- 10.5 MOA (480 yards)

^ 14 MOA - top of post (550 yards)


Without the hash marks, visually dividing the space between the center cross hair and the top of the bottom post is not terribly difficult but the smallest error with the 2.5x results in substantial hold-over miscalculation. The hold-over estimation with the 6x scope IMO becomes much more doable as the total drop from center to the top of the bottom post is 78 inches vs. 274 inches (nearly 23 feet) with the 2.5x.

Additionally, 550 yards is about as far as I'd want to take a shot with this rifle anyway.

[HeavyDuty]

I seem to recall Leupold even offered a truly custom reticle service before, I hope that comes back. One of these with a simple reticle with accurate 400 and 500 holdovers would be more than I ever needed on a 5.56 carbine, or even my lightweight bolt gun (a Stevens 200.)

[Casual Friday]

The purpose of this thread is to share my honest assessment of this scope in its role as an optic for a civilian defensive rifle. It's obviously a somewhat unique selection for an AR, as it is most commonly used on lever actions, hard-kicking dangerous game rifles, slug guns, etc.

Is there more than one version of this optic? On the Leupold website it's listed under rimfire scopes.

[NH Shooter]

Is there more than one version of this optic? On the Leupold website it's listed under rimfire scopes.

Just one, they list the category as Rimfire/Ultralight Rifle Scopes - https://www.leupold.com/scopes

Since there are only two scopes in that entire category, I guess it makes sense to combine them.

Edit to add this link - https://www.chuckhawks.com/leupold_ultralight_2-5x20.htm

[MGW]

Magnification is overrated, especially when paired with good glass. I don't mean you don't need magnification, it is certainly helpful. However, anything over about 3-4X comes with tradeoffs and IMHO is less than ideal on anything but a dedicated precision rifle. I've had some fairly high end scopes on AR's over the years (Nightforce 2.5-10 and NX8, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10, other hunting class Leupolds). I've shot my tightest 10-shot 100yd groups (.8-1.0 MOA) with a 3.5X TA11 ACOG. Glass quality trumps magnification.

I also agree with the points made herein about simplicity and not spinning the mag dial. I've written elsewhere in more detail about it, so I won't re-hash it all here and sidetrack the thread, but count me in the simple fixed-power optic camp, although my personal preference has become the ACOG with piggyback RMR. I couldn't care less about the tritium, but the FO Illumination, glass quality, reticle quality, size, weight, and durability all make it a winner for me. I can run it pretty quickly up to about 25yds, but inside 25yds I start losing speed. Sure, fast COM hits are still do-able, but for a civilian situation where every bullet hits something, I'd rather not just YEET rounds off through an occluded sight picture. That's where the RMR comes in.

Ive seen a lot of TACPs running ACOGs with red dots on top. I deployed with an ACOG several years ago and liked it. My problem is I don’t use it enough now to be comfortable with an ACOG. Too much going on for me. I’m better off if I don’t need to think much.

[MGW]

NH Shooter are you aware of an optic similar to your Leupold that is red dot only? I’m really intrigued by what this optic offers but I’m convinced that I want to stick with a single red illuminated dot.

[NH Shooter]

NH Shooter are you aware of an optic similar to your Leupold that is red dot only? I’m really intrigued by what this optic offers but I’m convinced that I want to stick with a single red illuminated dot.

Some of the prismatic low power fixed scopes (such as the various Primary Arms models) offer unique reticles, though not strictly a dot. The Steiner P4xi features a fairly simple cross hair reticle with a daylight-bright dot, but it weighs three times more than the 2.5x20mm.

Perhaps the only real option for that is a RDS with a magnifier, assuming your eyesight can render the dot as a dot.

[stomridertx]

Some of the prismatic low power fixed scopes (such as the various Primary Arms models) offer unique reticles, though not strictly a dot. The Steiner P4xi features a fairly simple cross hair reticle with a daylight-bright dot, but it weighs three times more than the 2.5x20mm.

Perhaps the only real option for that is a RDS with a magnifier, assuming your eyesight can render the dot as a dot.

I think the RDS + Magnifier combo is underappreciated, and is seeing a resurgence now that newer models with more eye relief and better eyebox characteristics are hitting the market. It seems like Chinese manufacturers have cracked the code on decent prism glass, which is why some of the less expensive prism optics have gotten so good.
I think you could do better with the dot than you realize. I've made several posts on this lately, but my astigmatism also is the type that makes me see a cluster of dots when I stare at it. With my BCM 16" carbine, good match ammo, and a rest I can pull off a 1.5-2 MOA group at 100 yards unmagnified. With standard 5.56 55gr M193 type ammo it opens up to 4 MOA. I correct my astigmatism with hard GP contacts, which cleans up the dot but still doesn't render a perfect dot. With those on I really don't tighten up any. If I'm target focused I don't notice the dot shape at all, I just put red in the center of the target. That said, when trying to get the best 100 yard zero I can, I do turn down the dot intensity and look through the rear aperture, which cleans up the dot and eliminates parallax the same way it does on iron sights. I got the chance to try out another shooter's Vortex magnifier last week, and that thing is fantastic and makes it shoot like one of the PA low power prism sights with a simpler reticle. I'm getting one with the intention of slapping it on any time the rifle goes from home defense mode to out the door .
All that said, you are spot on about the Leupold Ultralight 2.5 fixed scope. I ran the VX Freedom 1.5-4x Duplex reticle scope for a while, and I found myself actually leaving it halfway in magnification at about 2.5 most of the time. With a bright white light, no problems seeing the reticle in low light. I was totally happy with this setup until my I took a red dot to my optometrist, found out he was a shooter and understood the issue, and he hooked me up with my current contacts. My vision is now corrected so well that I like the zero magnification view of the red dot the best for a defensive carbine.

[okie john]

Magnification is overrated, especially when paired with good glass. I don't mean you don't need magnification, it is certainly helpful. However, anything over about 3-4X comes with tradeoffs and IMHO is less than ideal on anything but a dedicated precision rifle. I've had some fairly high end scopes on AR's over the years (Nightforce 2.5-10 and NX8, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10, other hunting class Leupolds). I've shot my tightest 10-shot 100yd groups (.8-1.0 MOA) with a 3.5X TA11 ACOG. Glass quality trumps magnification.

You can do surprisingly precise work with a 4x and it can be fast up close.

http://i.imgur.com/xBkNTdE.jpg?2 (https://imgur.com/xBkNTdE)

http://i.imgur.com/dppGRQa.jpg (https://imgur.com/dppGRQa)

The real limit of a lower-powered scope is range. The old rule of thumb for big-game rifles was 100 yards for each 1x of magnification, so a 4x scope was good to 400 yards. The Brits managed to get by with a 3.5x scope from WWI to the Falklands and it wasn't until Viet Nam that the US military went much beyond 4x.


Okie John

[littlejerry]

No doubt, low or zero magnification doesn't limit group size. Just look at service rifle matches for tiny groups shot with irons.

Magnification enables you to identify, engage, and make calls on small targets. Shooting a 2-4 MOA group is not the same as hitting a 2-4MOA low contrast target. Add in field conditions (wind, UKD) and magnification becomes even more valuable at intermediate ranges.

As with anything it's important to identify what your specific needs are. If your standard is hitting silhouettes at 3-400 yards, you'll need substantially less magnification than someone who needs first round hits on 10" plates at 5-600 yards. Likewise someone who primarily cares about HD/SD at <100 yards will have different standards.

I'm not at all saying low fixed mag optics are useless. They are quite versatile and probably a good choice for many uses. But I don't at all agree with the notion that >4x magnification isn't beneficial or needed.

[theJanitor]

NH Shooter are you aware of an optic similar to your Leupold that is red dot only? I’m really intrigued by what this optic offers but I’m convinced that I want to stick with a single red illuminated dot.

Aimpoint used to make the 30mm ML2 in 2x power. I believe it's been discontinued

[HCM]

Ive seen a lot of TACPs running ACOGs with red dots on top. I deployed with an ACOG several years ago and liked it. My problem is I don’t use it enough now to be comfortable with an ACOG. Too much going on for me. I’m better off if I don’t need to think much.

Assuming you deployed with a 4x ACOG. The IME the 3.5x TA 11 makes a much better do all optics.

[HCM]

I seem to recall Leupold even offered a truly custom reticle service before, I hope that comes back. One of these with a simple reticle with accurate 400 and 500 holdovers would be more than I ever needed on a 5.56 carbine, or even my lightweight bolt gun (a Stevens 200.)

Leupolds custom shop is temporarily closed for "improvements." No ETA for it's return.

[HeavyDuty]

Leupolds custom shop is temporarily closed for "improvements." No ETA for it's return.

Improvements rarely are...

[NH Shooter]

No doubt, low or zero magnification doesn't limit group size. Just look at service rifle matches for tiny groups shot with irons.

Magnification enables you to identify, engage, and make calls on small targets. Shooting a 2-4 MOA group is not the same as hitting a 2-4MOA low contrast target. Add in field conditions (wind, UKD) and magnification becomes even more valuable at intermediate ranges.

As with anything it's important to identify what your specific needs are. If your standard is hitting silhouettes at 3-400 yards, you'll need substantially less magnification than someone who needs first round hits on 10" plates at 5-600 yards. Likewise someone who primarily cares about HD/SD at <100 yards will have different standards.

I'm not at all saying low fixed mag optics are useless. They are quite versatile and probably a good choice for many uses. But I don't at all agree with the notion that >4x magnification isn't beneficial or needed.

I agree with these points.

The 2.5x20mm is awesome for hitting the A-zone of an IDPA target from 10 to 300 yards, even 400 yards with careful hold-over. But smaller targets and/or longer distances become problematic.

My carbine has been equipped with a Geissele SSA trigger from day-1 and now that I have improved precision capability with the new barrel, I'm feeling compelled to make better use of that capability without having to add a lot of weight. Not an easy task when the scope I'd be replacing weighs only 6.5 ounces.

[HCM]

Magnification is overrated, especially when paired with good glass. I don't mean you don't need magnification, it is certainly helpful. However, anything over about 3-4X comes with tradeoffs and IMHO is less than ideal on anything but a dedicated precision rifle. I've had some fairly high end scopes on AR's over the years (Nightforce 2.5-10 and NX8, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10, other hunting class Leupolds). I've shot my tightest 10-shot 100yd groups (.8-1.0 MOA) with a 3.5X TA11 ACOG. Glass quality trumps magnification.

I also agree with the points made herein about simplicity and not spinning the mag dial. I've written elsewhere in more detail about it, so I won't re-hash it all here and sidetrack the thread, but count me in the simple fixed-power optic camp, although my personal preference has become the ACOG with piggyback RMR. I couldn't care less about the tritium, but the FO Illumination, glass quality, reticle quality, size, weight, and durability all make it a winner for me. I can run it pretty quickly up to about 25yds, but inside 25yds I start losing speed. Sure, fast COM hits are still do-able, but for a civilian situation where every bullet hits something, I'd rather not just YEET rounds off through an occluded sight picture. That's where the RMR comes in.

Magnification may be over rated for hitting identified targets, but for any sort of field use, magnification also provides target location / identification. In general 1x per 100 yards / meters to hit things but you need 2x per 100 to locate or positively ID them IME.

The TA-11 has great glass but there are LPVOs with glass just as good or better.

[stomridertx]

Likewise someone who primarily cares about HD/SD at <100 yards will have different standards.
I think that's the type of rifle we are talking about here. I think OP is correct that the 2.5 Ultralight is a very wise choice in this category, and Leupold would do well to read this thread and consider adding their very bright firedot illumination to it. They seem to be going the opposite direction as they just discontinued a bunch of their FX scopes. If someone has their ear, tell them that their fixed power line needs reticle upgrades, not extermination.
i do think that the "I need a magnified optic with an etched reticle because astigmatism" line of thinking is making a mountain of a problem out of a pebble and encourage shooters with this mindset to revisit it, making sure they are using the red dot as designed and not putting hard focus on the dot. The red dot plus flip to side/detachable magnifier is very valid in this role as well and now is the best time ever to try it. At the very least, invest the >$1000 high end LPVO money in your eyesight before deciding red dots or cheaper fixed power optics don't work.

[HCM]

Aimpoint used to make the 30mm ML2 in 2x power. I believe it's been discontinued

Didn't AP or someone make a 30mm RDS which had a modular magnifier (2 or 2.5x) that could be screwed into the rear of the optic ?

[NH Shooter]

I think OP is correct that the 2.5 Ultralight is a very wise choice in this category, and Leupold would do well to read this thread and consider adding their very bright firedot illumination to it. They seem to be going the opposite direction as they just discontinued a bunch of their FX scopes.

Yes, they (like any other manufacturer) put their R&D $$ into the products that sell. I've spent plenty of time researching what is currently available in fixed power, and it's obvious that they're in serious decline across all makers.

At the same time, the variables seem to be benefiting from the R&D dollars as there is a growing selection, and older models are getting updated (like Trijicon Accupower to Credo). Leupold appears to be doing the same, for example updating VX-3 models with features and optical improvements found in new models. I've got to admit, this one (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/compact-scopes/vx-3i-3-5-10x40mm-cds-zl) checks most of the boxes for me (including minimal weight gain).

[okie john]

If someone has their ear, tell them that their fixed power line needs reticle upgrades, not extermination.

Where could Leupold improve? Let me count the ways:

Get the discontinued things off of your website OR move them into a clearly marked Archive. Do NOT mix them with current products.
Put caps on more turrets.
Bring back the Ballistic Firedot and Boone & Crockett (illuminated AND non-illuminated) reticles.
Bring back a good 4x with the Ballistic Firedot reticle. Hell, ANY 4x at this point.
Make the tube on the fixed 2.5x longer to it will fit on a 30-06 length action with more spacing options.


Okie John

[stomridertx]

Yes, they (like any other manufacturer) put their R&D $$ into the products that sell. I've spent plenty of time researching what is currently available in fixed power, and it's obvious that they're in serious decline across all makers.

At the same time, the variables seem to be benefiting from the R&D dollars as there is a growing selection, and older models are getting updated (like Trijicon Accupower to Credo). Leupold appears to be doing the same, for example updating VX-3 models with features and optical improvements found in new models. I've got to admit, this one (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/compact-scopes/vx-3i-3-5-10x40mm-cds-zl) checks most of the boxes for me (including minimal weight gain).

As much as I've been singing the praises of the red dot in this thread, the points brought up about target identification are resonating a bit and now I'm drawn to this option: https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/vx-freedom-1-5-4x20-ar

I could see myself embracing the red dot on pistols and sticking with scopes on the rifle since my Glock 19 is most of my world as a civilian. I'm turned off by really heavy LPVOs, but Leupold really has some lightweight options going for them.

[JHC]

The actual magnification of the 2.5x20 is 2.2x.

While I often yearn for more magnification for greater precision and longer range effectiveness, the I find the 2.2x magnification a good compromise for a fixed power: it works well for two-eyes-open close-quarter engagements yet provides an overwhelming edge over a RDS at distance in terms of target resolution and PID. If my eyesight was perfect, the RDS would no doubt be a more viable solution for me.

FWIW, though I wear corrective lenses for distance, I do not use them for shooting. I find I can adjust the ocular of a scope to render the reticle ("aiming point") perfectly sharp and the magnification renders the target sharp. None of that happens for me with a RDS, with or without glasses.

I think it's a great scope and I've been trying to find a place to hang one a long time. Where I deer hunt (woods), I've used 1-4x, 1-6x, and 2-7x and invariably (accidental pun) they all get set to 2X.

And its so light.

[TWR]

I had a reply wrote out and when I read it I thought it was going too far away from the 2.5 Leupold so I dropped it but now you're into a 3.5-10 and I'll add a little.

As I said in the other thread, I have 2 of the Trijicon 1-4's with the red segmented circle dot reticles, they also have BDC out to 800 yards which is too far but it's there. I love these scopes and they work better than my VX6 1-6 with the Firedot reticle, it was just too thick. But the 1-4 is very fast up close and at 4x, I can make good hits out to 500 yards. I also could care less about the illumination. The glass is clear and sharp and I can define detail to see what's what out to 500 and beyond.

I also have had 3.5-10's on my AR's along with a 3x ACOG, fixed 4x, 6x and 10x's, 2x7's 1.5-5's and even higher magnification scopes. Problem is staying with the light weight theme.

The 3.5-10 is a good scope, you just need to see what you want to do with the carbine, it's real easy to add a bipod, scopes with knobs that track well, ranging reticles and all of a sudden you"re in a different world than you started out in. For me the 16" 5.56 carbine is best suited as a RECCE with a LPVO. But I also have one with an SWFA 3-9 HD on it that will stretch the cartridge well beyond it's useful range and back. Nevermind the 19 oz. it weighs without the mount, I don't know what the bipod weighs, I really need an 18" or 20" barrel, well you see where I'm going...

[stomridertx]

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-2-5-10x32-ultralight-rifle-scope-1.html?___SID=U

The SWFA Ultralight seems to fit this category pretty well.
- 9.5 oz
- Bold duplex reticle with 5.56 BDC
- same 2.5 power at low end
- acceptible eye relief
- exit pupil not listed, but I'll bet the eyebox is good on this one.

[HeavyDuty]

I just got off the phone with Leupold. The tech said that the old “Custom Ballistically Matched Reticle“ service which provided a truly custom reticle tailored for your load and gun may or may not come back.

[okie john]

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-2-5-10x32-ultralight-rifle-scope-1.html?___SID=U

The SWFA Ultralight seems to fit this category pretty well.
- 9.5 oz
- Bold duplex reticle with 5.56 BDC
- same 2.5 power at low end
- acceptible eye relief
- exit pupil not listed, but I'll bet the eyebox is good on this one.

I've tried this one.

PRO

It's definitely light.
It tracks like it should so zeroing is just as explained in textbooks. Clicks are also crisp and easy to use.
The small objective bell diameter means that it fits in extra low rings which is nice for making fast offhand hits with a bolt gun.
The BDC is simple and easy to use quickly. The infantryman in me appreciates that. The dot in the middle was problematic on some types of targets so I started using a different type of targets.
Exit pupil is 12.8mm on 2.5x and 3.2mm on the high end. FWIW, the formula for that is objective lens diameter in mm divided by power.
Eye relief is short on paper but usable in the real world.
Eye box is tight but usable.


CON

Optical quality is not what it could be and gets worse as you increase power. It's usable to about 6x but I stopped at 8x when testing for groups, and that was on plain targets in bright sunlight.


Okie John

[littlejerry]

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-2-5-10x32-ultralight-rifle-scope-1.html?___SID=U

The SWFA Ultralight seems to fit this category pretty well.
- 9.5 oz
- Bold duplex reticle with 5.56 BDC
- same 2.5 power at low end
- acceptible eye relief
- exit pupil not listed, but I'll bet the eyebox is good on this one.

Agree, the SWFA is very tempting. At one point they did, or were going to, offer a Mil Quad reticle in it. That would push it into ultimate "GP" status for me, so I wouldn't have to fudge their BC holdovers into other applications.

ETA: the SWFA with a quality mount and offset MRDS would weigh less than most of the common 1-6,8,10 LPVOs on the market.

[stomridertx]

The standard exit pupil formula doesn't always apply anymore with modern optics. It can vary quite a bit between scopes that on paper have the same magnification range and objective size.

[OfficeCat]

Magnification may be over rated for hitting identified targets, but for any sort of field use, magnification also provides target location / identification. In general 1x per 100 yards / meters to hit things but you need 2x per 100 to locate or positively ID them IME.


I have found this to be true. This thread drew my attention because I put this very scope on a 6.5 Grendel AR I built a few years ago as a compact, lightweight woods hunting rifle. Worked just fine for target shooting, and I found myself having the same thoughts as NH Shooter, wondering why this scope might not be a better choice than a red dot for a lot of things people use red dots for. Once I took it into the woods and started using it as I had intended, though, I had to be honest with myself and admit that I really needed some more magnification for my purposes. I used a fixed 6x scope for a long time, and found it to be plenty of magnification for the longest shots I would ever consider taking while not being too much for the shots I actually did take, which were anywhere from 10 to 100 yards. I found that at 50 to 100 yards, in poor light, in thick woods, the lower magnification of the 2.5x scope was slowing me down because it was too hard to ID my target. I wasn't confident I would be able to quickly discern antlers against a backdrop of tangled branches, or pick out a deer's shoulder in a small opening between bushes. Didn't take any shots with it but "counted coup" enough times to make that determination. I found a compact 6x33 Leupold that was apparently a limited run and put that on the Grendel and it's working much better for me. I still think that 2.5x20 would be a fine optic on a defensive carbine, however.

[HCM]

I have found this to be true. This thread drew my attention because I put this very scope on a 6.5 Grendel AR I built a few years ago as a compact, lightweight woods hunting rifle. Worked just fine for target shooting, and I found myself having the same thoughts as NH Shooter, wondering why this scope might not be a better choice than a red dot for a lot of things people use red dots for. Once I took it into the woods and started using it as I had intended, though, I had to be honest with myself and admit that I really needed some more magnification for my purposes. I used a fixed 6x scope for a long time, and found it to be plenty of magnification for the longest shots I would ever consider taking while not being too much for the shots I actually did take, which were anywhere from 10 to 100 yards. I found that at 50 to 100 yards, in poor light, in thick woods, the lower magnification of the 2.5x scope was slowing me down because it was too hard to ID my target. I wasn't confident I would be able to quickly discern antlers against a backdrop of tangled branches, or pick out a deer's shoulder in a small opening between bushes. Didn't take any shots with it but "counted coup" enough times to make that determination. I found a compact 6x33 Leupold that was apparently a limited run and put that on the Grendel and it's working much better for me. I still think that 2.5x20 would be a fine optic on a defensive carbine, however.

I always liked the original AUG 1.5x Doughnut of death. It and the 2.5x are improvements over irons but there are better options for a now general purpose 5.56 carbine. I do kinda want a 2.5x for my 10/22 though.

[NH Shooter]

I still think that 2.5x20 would be a fine optic on a defensive carbine, however.

Based on my own experience, it absolutely is. If my carbine was to be used exclusively for that purpose, the 2.5x20 is IMO 100% up to that task.

For recreational shooting, which for me involves ringing steel out to about 500 yards, the fixed low magnification does take a bit of the joy out of that activity. Since I'm probably 99.9% more likely to have fun with the rifle vs. using it for an actual defensive event, I'm open to trying a variable. The challenge is to find something that (1) maintains the same low-magnification qualities that I admire about the 2.5x20; (2) something that will give me enough magnification along with exposed turret and/or ranging reticle to more effectively engage targets beyond 300 yards; (3) to do so without adding a ton of weight and (4) diminishing the current defensive-use qualities of the rifle.

For certain every optic selection requires compromise, and it truly does come down to intended use.

[TWR]

A buddy of mine has the Leupold 1-4 compact or Rimfire version, I’m not sure which but he had them put a German #1 post in it and I really like that one. But until they open the custom shop back up, there’s nothing I know of that’s as light.

But you might look around at a 1.5-5 Leupold, seems like they had a Boone and Crockett reticle available at one time.

[jrbway]

I wonder if the new Trijicon Ascent 1-4 (https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/at424-c-2800001) is an improvement on the Leupold 1.x-4 sans illumination...Anyone had time with this one?

[NH Shooter]

I'm thinking more in terms of a mid-range variable (2-3x to 8-10x) used in conjunction with either offset BUIS or MRDS for the very close stuff.

[littlejerry]

I'm thinking more in terms of a mid-range variable (2-3x to 8-10x) used in conjunction with either offset BUIS or MRDS for the very close stuff.

That's where my head is at as well. I'd like to find a light weight 2-7 with a decent reticle.

For me I still prefer a mil-based reticle vs BDC. It's much easier when transitioning between rifles/optics. A mil is a mil regardless of what you're shooting.

[okie john]

I wonder if the new Trijicon Ascent 1-4 (https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/at424-c-2800001) is an improvement on the Leupold 1.x-4 sans illumination...Anyone had time with this one?

I haven't but I want to fix that soon.

My main issue is the 5 MOA spacing on the BDC. From a 200-yard zero, a 308 doesn't drop 5 MOA until 370 yards. 2 MOA strikes me as being far more useful. 5 MOA also isn't very useful for wind calls, which is probably more important.


Okie John

[okie john]

But you might look around at a 1.5-5 Leupold, seems like they had a Boone and Crockett reticle available at one time.

They did, but that reticle has been discontinued. Sadly, the used market is your best bet.


Okie John

[NH Shooter]

That's where my head is at as well. I'd like to find a light weight 2-7 with a decent reticle.

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on this one - https://www.sportoptics.com/leupold-vx-3i-rifle-scope-177823.aspx


3.5x on the bottom, a little more than I want still workable with offset BUIS or MRDS
10x on the top
standard duplex but with their CDS-ZL turret for easy dialing-in of drops
best of all, only 13 ounces

My finger is hovering above the "Buy Now" button....

[littlejerry]

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on this one - https://www.sportoptics.com/leupold-vx-3i-rifle-scope-177823.aspx


3.5x on the bottom, a little more than I want still workable with offset BUIS or MRDS
10x on the top
standard duplex but with their CDS-ZL turret for easy dialing-in of drops
best of all, only 13 ounces

My finger is hovering above the "Buy Now" button....

One of the things I struggle with is "how light is light enough?"

My current setup is an NXS2.5-10 x32 which is ~17 oz. And bulletproof. And has good usable turrets. But it's not in production anymore so I'd have to hunt one down used for $1100-1300.

The various Leupold 3-9s are tempting in the ~12oz range. I still may just order the SWFA to see for myself if its usable.

[NH Shooter]

I still may just order the SWFA to see for myself if its usable.

I read on Optics Talk that unlike the other SWFA SS scopes, the lightweight scope is not designed for dialing, but rather set it and forget it and use the reticle for hold overs. If they were to offer that scope with their mil-quad reticle, I think that would be OK.

BTW, their 10x40 HD is very good;

https://i.ibb.co/584Lss8/PR-1.jpg

[okie john]

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on this one - https://www.sportoptics.com/leupold-vx-3i-rifle-scope-177823.aspx

A buddy of mine is a distributor for gear that inspires serious coveting. He considers this the best general-purpose glass on the market right now.

I don't care for exposed turrets, but otherwise I'm not sure that I can disagree.


Okie John

[TWR]

I got an email notification this morning that the Trijicon Credo 1-6 is back in stock and on sale for $9somethng. More than I’m gonna spend.

I’ve had plenty of Leupolds and though things are different now they have always performed well for me. But I wouldn’t do much dialing with a new one. Just no faith in a light scope that was redesigned to be cheaper (VX3i series).

[okie john]

Just no faith in a light scope that was redesigned to be cheaper (VX3i series).

This sums up sooo many of Leupold’s woes in a single sentence.


Okie John

[stomridertx]

I think this discussion about a fixed 2.5x optic with good eye relief and eye box may have brought about a revelation in how LPVOs are used. Current groupthink with LPVOs is you are either on the lowest or highest settings without dwelling in between. Now I wonder if they are being underutilized. Part of the reason that LPVOs are favored over ACOGs or other prism optics is that they usually have better eye relief and eyebox characteristics across their range, with most having 3.5-4" of eye relief. With OP finding that 2.5x is very fast with it's forward mounting, with good target ID capability, I wonder if we are really finding a use for the middle magnifications of the LPVO. Perhaps they should be left on 1x in the house or enclosed urban areas, moved to 2.5-3x when the environment is more open, and higher magnification reserved for supported shots past 300yds. I may get one and run the CSAT rifle qual with it set to 2.5 and compare it with 1x to see what's up.
This does bring back memories of a force on force training I got to do a few years ago with a red dot on a carbine in an open area, and I remember being frustrated at not being able to identify friend from foe at 50 yds. I'm rethinking my loyalty to the red dot for sure.

[littlejerry]

I think this discussion about a fixed 2.5x optic with good eye relief and eye box may have brought about a revelation in how LPVOs are used. Current groupthink with LPVOs is you are either on the lowest or highest settings without dwelling in between. Now I wonder if they are being underutilized. Part of the reason that LPVOs are favored over ACOGs or other prism optics is that they usually have better eye relief and eyebox characteristics across their range, with most having 3.5-4" of eye relief. With OP finding that 2.5x is very fast with it's forward mounting, with good target ID capability, I wonder if we are really finding a use for the middle magnifications of the LPVO. Perhaps they should be left on 1x in the house or enclosed urban areas, moved to 2.5-3x when the environment is more open, and higher magnification reserved for supported shots past 300yds. I may get one and run the CSAT rifle qual with it set to 2.5 and compare it with 1x to see what's up.
This does bring back memories of a force on force training I got to do a few years ago with a red dot on a carbine in an open area, and I remember being frustrated at not being able to identify friend from foe at 50 yds. I'm rethinking my loyalty to the red dot for sure.

This definitely works. My first LPVO was a PST 1-4. I left it on 2x for an entire run'n'gun race once. It seemed to work well for the typical 50-500 yard scenario. That scope had exposed turrets so I dialed for the 500 stage but left it at 2x.

[okie john]

I think this discussion about a fixed 2.5x optic with good eye relief and eye box may have brought about a revelation in how LPVOs are used. Current groupthink with LPVOs is you are either on the lowest or highest settings without dwelling in between. Now I wonder if they are being underutilized.

The real value of that rule is having one less thing to think about during a fight. It does risk underutilizing LPVOs for skilled individual practitioners like the people on this thread, but when you're managing groups of armed people whose skill level and interest in shooting varies, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I were a platoon sergeant, then I'd probably preach "high end when the bad guys are a long way off, low end for everything else" until it became a drinking game for the knuckleheads in my care. Everyone would know when to crank up the power and it would be easier for the squad leaders to keep their asses in line.


Okie John

[NH Shooter]

With OP finding that 2.5x is very fast with it's forward mounting, with good target ID capability, I wonder if we are really finding a use for the middle magnifications of the LPVO.

No doubt the 2.5x20 is excellent in this regard for a magnified optic. I attribute that to its 4.9 inches of eye relief, forgiving eye box, 40 foot FOV at 100 yards and the overall small profile of the scope.

I've owned several 1x - 4 LPVO scopes and was never impressed with the 1x setting. My conclusion is that if I'm going to give up the primary attributes of a RDS (unlimited eye relief, generous eye box) I may as well roll with some magnification. In this regard, I think the current crop of 2x - 8/10 scopes in combination with offset BUIS or MRDS offers much more capability than just a RDS. Of course, there is a significant weight penalty doing so.

I want to thank everyone who have participated in this thread, your comments have provided much useful insight and have spurred some broader thinking on my part.

[NH Shooter]

The latest contender...

https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/cr940-c-2900044

What a great job on a duplex reticle!

https://www.trijicon.com/uploads/product-uploads/product-downloads/Credo_Standard_Duplex_Reticle_2900043_2900044.pdf

[Bratch]

If you are starting to look at heavier 3-9 the SWFA could be a contender

https://www.swfa.com/swfa-ss-hd-3-9x42-tactical-30mm-riflescope.html?___SID=U

[TWR]

I think the 3-9 SWFA HD is the best choice in a 3-9. Mil Quad reticle, 30mm tube, accurate repeatable dials, clear glass and only 19 oz.

[HeavyDuty]

NH Shooter, what mount are you using there?

Did this ever get answered?

[NH Shooter]

Did this ever get answered?

Good catch, I missed that question!

It's a Daniel Defense mount (https://danieldefense.com/daniel-defenser-1-optics-mount-double-ring.html) and I really like it. I have tried a few AR scope mounts (Larue, GG&G, Aero) and this one checked all the boxes for me;


Reasonably lightweight at 5.5 ounces. I tried the Aero for maximum weight savings and broke it at installation. My fault, but IMO that mount is way too fragile.
Snag-free. No nuts or levers protruding from the sides (I have no need for QR).
Aesthetically pleasing, I like the sculpted design.
Nicely made as one would expect from DD.
Price seems right for what I got.

The mount seems solid and robust without being too heavy. Highly recommended if the points above are of value to you.

[NH Shooter]

I think the 3-9 SWFA HD is the best choice in a 3-9. Mil Quad reticle, 30mm tube, accurate repeatable dials, clear glass and only 19 oz.

I have the SWFA 10x40 HD on my bolt gun and it has proven to be rock solid. The 3-9 version is very tempting (especially at $469 for a demo model) and got a close look, but for this application I'm leaning toward low-covered turrets and a more-simple reticle.

The aspect of a duplex reticle I really like is the way it pulls the eye into the center over the target for quick, closer range shots. I find this attribute very desirable and is one of the reasons I like the 2.5x20. While the "ranging" reticles are perfectly suited for long range shooting and hold overs, I find the designs do not pull the eye to center the way a well-designed duplex does. Since this rifle's primary purpose remains SD, I need to retain that attribute if I'm going to make a scope change to better facilitate long range engagements. Additionally and IMO, second focal plane design makes a lot of sense with a duplex reticle, but not some much with a dedicated ranging reticle.

What I like about the Trijicon duplex (https://www.trijicon.com/uploads/product-uploads/product-downloads/Credo_Standard_Duplex_Reticle_2900043_2900044.pdf) is the way they break the fine inner lines from the heavier outer posts and sized those inner lines to exactly 20 MOA (10 MOA from center) at 9x. It turns out that the drop for the 75 GD load with a 200 yard zero and the XM193 load with a 100 yard zero is right at/around 10 MOA at 500 yards, which is the distance I want the rifle to remain fully effective. So for the bank of steel plates (of various sizes and shapes) my range has set up at 480 yards, I simply hold on top of the lower post with the scope set at 9x, a definitive aiming point with no dialing required. I like that they designed this duplex to have some ranging capability which in my case I can put to use, and the illumination of the fine inner lines is a nice touch.

I also like what Trijicon has done with their low-covered turrets on this model. With the covers removed, the dials remain large enough and well marked to be fully usable for dialing. I also like the method for resetting zero, which involves unscrewing the top retaining cap, lifting the dial off the post and setting it to the desired zero (no set screws). With this method, there is zero chance of accidentally changing the zero setting that I envision might happen with the lift-and-spin style.

For my needs, the combination of their duplex reticle/covered turret designs would seem prefect for what I'm looking for. Other than the 17-ounce weight, I like what I'm seeing.

[LittleLebowski]

Excellent thread, thank you.

[BillSWPA]

This thread definitely has me rethinking my optic choices. I can definitely see the merit of a 2x-3x fixed magnification optic, particularly with a good eyebox and a reticle that is sufficiently visible in low light.

[Exiledviking]

I ran a lightweight Minox 1.5-8x on an AR for a few years and I really like having the instant choice of magnification. Just over 17 ounces with the mount.

[NH Shooter]

Trigger pulled (https://www.amazon.com/Trijicon-3-9x40-Riflescope-Precision-Reticle/dp/B083C5D199). I will share my impressions.

[littlejerry]

Trigger pulled (https://www.amazon.com/Trijicon-3-9x40-Riflescope-Precision-Reticle/dp/B083C5D199/). I will share my impressions.
Cool! That one's caught my attention multiple times.

I like the look of the mil square

[TWR]

Looking forward to hear your thoughts. Particularly on the illumination. If it’s Aimpoint bright, I might entertain the 1-6 again.

[NH Shooter]

Looking forward to hear your thoughts. Particularly on the illumination. If it’s Aimpoint bright, I might entertain the 1-6 again.

I will definitely share my initial thoughts upon receiving, then more after I spend some time with it at the range.

FWIW, the only time I can envision using reticle illumination is at dusk and dawn, and even then I might be more inclined to fire up the WML. I did watch one YouTube review that stated that it's definitely NOT "daylight bright" when the reviewer placed the reticle on the side of a white truck in full daylight and the illumination was not bright enough to make the reticle as visible as when it was not lit up. Call me dense, but the benefit of illuminating a perfectly visible etched reticle in bright daylight conditions eludes me... :confused:

Here is a review by a more credible source on the older Accupower 3-9 version of the scope. The only obvious difference vs. Credo that I saw in this review is the turret style - the Accupower used the lift-and-spin method to re-zero whereas the Credo requires unscrewing a retaining cap to lift and reset zero. Otherwise I'd imagine much of what is discussed in the review pertains to the Credo version as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QWhv3e_xs

[TWR]

Ya I’ve seen reviews say both at least for the red. I could see the price boost if they changed their illumination but I rarely use it on my 1-4 Accupowers so I doubt it would get used much unless it was Aimpoint bright and I was doing drills. (Speaking of the 1-6)

[stomridertx]

Believe or not I'm now reconsidering a heavy 1-6 LPVO. I live in the Texas panhandle, everywhere I look I can see past 500 yards. This land is flat and wide open. The more I look at my environment and what I would use my rifle for, the extra weight is justified. Also, one of the big reasons I'm a red dot fan is because I'm cross dominant, left eye right hand. I used to run scoped rifles left handed, but a 1x image and bold reticle allows me to shoot right handed with both eyes open for fast shooting. It makes gear setup a lot easier. I wouldn't mind running an LPVO at 1x and squinting my left eye for distance shots. Unfortunately my range only goes to 350 yards, so I would need to find a way to train longer distances at 6x. Maybe just reduced targets for now.

[TWR]

I went out this morning to hunt a place that is wide open for this country (SE OK) and I grabbed the 3-9 scoped carbine. I was surprised I never turned it over 5x and I hated how big it was. I came home and decided to either sell it or build a rifle it would be more at home on. I wound up posting it for sale so we shall see and I stuck my EOTech back on that carbine.

You can know that while I was walking up and down hills I was thinking about this thread and there’s a lot to be said about the choice of a 6oz 2.5x scope.

[ffhounddog]

I have an Accupower that is 1-4 with illuminated green with the duplex and it works well.

[NH Shooter]

The best part of this discussion is it has us all thinking outside of the normally accepted optics. There really are some great choices beyond the typical LPVO or RDS that seem to have become entrenched as the standard look-no-further optic recommendations for the AR.

In any discussion about AR weight, there is a list of items that one needs to keep an eye on if they want to keep their rifle from becoming ridiculously heavy. IMO, each of the following should be carefully selected where ounces can add up to pounds on a finished rifle;


Optics
Optic mount
BUIS
Barrel
Muzzle device
Handguard
WML
Stock
Buffer weight

If you start looking at the weights of any of these, you'll discover they vary dramatically. For example an A2 birdcage weighs under two ounces, a SF Warcomp 3.8 ounces. An Aero scope mount weighs 3.4 ounces, a Spuhr 9.4 ounces. The Magpul PRS stock weighs 28 ounces, the MOE Carbine Stock 8 ounces. You can chose an optic that weighs 6.5 ounces, or one that weighs north of 1.5 pounds. Accessories such as a WML will typically add 5 to 8 ounces (which is why mine is set up in a QD mount). It all adds up mighty quickly so chose wisely.

What I'm discovering in my current exercise is that to gain the desired longer range precision is going to cost 22 ounces/1.375 pounds between the barrel and optic. The rifle will end up weighing 8.5 pounds, which isn't terrible but certainly can be felt compared to its former 7.2 pounds. But I believe that the added (and carefully considered) weight gain will be worth it in terms of the improved precision capability and range-time fun factor.

Finally, a photo of a former configuration before I had learned all of this the hard way. It would peg a 10-pound capacity scale with me still holding some of its weight (probably weighed around 12 pounds) and had less precision capability (same barrel but 1 - 4 optic vs. 3 - 9) than my current 8.5 pound rifle;

https://i.ibb.co/x3g1vDy/recce-1.jpg


If you don't want to end up with a boat anchor like the one above, watch those ounces!

[Borderland]

Earlier in this thread I said I was going with a RDS on my carbine. I went to the range on Friday and tried my new Vortex Venom on my Ruger Mini again. I had previously tried an old Venom and it worked OK on a cloudy day. It was sunny on Friday and it sucked at 100 and 200 yds. I guess my eyes aren't as good as I thought they were. When I got home I put the 1-4x VX-2 back on. You just can't replace good glass.

Now I have a Venom that's going to set in a box because I have nothing to put it on.

[NH Shooter]

The Trijicon 3-9 Cedo showed up today and I mounted it (leveled the reticle to a plumb line). Initial impressions are very positive.

My main concern and the first thing I compared is the performance of the new scope set on 3x to the 2.5x20mm Leupold. I was concerned I would be giving up "usability" compared to the Leupold. I am almost embarrassed to state that there is no comparison:


The Trijicon on 3x is brighter (expected with the 40mm objective) and shockingly sharper with greater resolution and contrast
Set to 3x, the eye box is at least as forgiving as the 2.5x20mm (but becomes more constrained at higher magnifications)
While the 2.5x20mm always has a bit of shadow at the edges even with perfect alignment, the Trijicon is sharply defined
The reticle is finer (especially the inner sections), which is preferable for the precision work but the outer posts still draw the eye into the center
The reticle illumination IMO is excellent, though those who want "daylight bright" at high noon on snow-covered ground will probably be disappointed
It's a lot bigger and heavier

I will be sighting-in the scope this weekend and evaluating it at the 9x setting. I will start a new thread dedicated to this scope so not to derail this one. And photos, of course.

[littlejerry]

The Trijicon 3-9 Cedo showed up today and I mounted it (leveled the reticle to a plumb line). Initial impressions are very positive.

My main concern and the first thing I compared is the performance of the new scope set on 3x to the 2.5x20mm Leupold. I was concerned I would be giving up "usability" compared to the Leupold. I am almost embarrassed to state that there is no comparison:


The Trijicon on 3x is brighter (expected with the 40mm objective) and shockingly sharper with greater resolution and contrast
Set to 3x, the eye box is at least as forgiving as the 2.5x20mm (but becomes more constrained at higher magnifications)
While the 2.5x20mm always has a bit of shadow at the edges even with perfect alignment, the Trijicon is sharply defined
The reticle is finer (especially the inner sections), which is preferable for the precision work but the outer posts still draw the eye into the center
The reticle illumination IMO is excellent, though those who want "daylight bright" at high noon on snow-covered ground will probably be disappointed
It's a lot bigger and heavier

I will be sighting-in the scope this weekend and evaluating it at the 9x setting. I will start a new thread dedicated to this scope so not to derail this one. And photos, of course.

Glad to hear. Looking forward to it.

I'm happy with my NXS currently but may pick up a Credo 3-9 for a 16" grendel.

[OlongJohnson]

If you don't want to end up with a boat anchor like the one above, watch those ounces!

The first one I built, the flat top came out to 5 lb., 10 oz. I had been reading about weights and that was supposed to be incredibly light, based on what I was seeing. All I did was pick a lightweight barrel profile (16 in.), the OG BCM KMR, and a CTR stock. Not even any special effort toward lightness. I still think it's a nice rifle, though I've built others with somewhat heavier parts. Still in the safe as the lightweight option.

[stomridertx]

This is your fault OP. I didn't realize how much I missed magnification. It's a decent chunk of weight gain, but the rifle was built with a lot of light weight components so it's not bad. I'm going to swap out the BUIS with a lower profile option which will take off a couple of ounces.

61989

[NH Shooter]

I use a QD mount for the WML so all that weight doesn't have to permanently reside on the rifle. It goes into the safe with the WML mounted but if I don't need it (like during range sessions), it comes off.

[GyroF-16]

I use a QD mount for the WML so all that weight doesn't have to permanently reside on the rifle. It goes into the safe with the WML mounted but if I don't need it (like during range sessions), it comes off.

What kind of QD mount?

My Olight Odin came with one, but I’ve not seen others. I really like the idea.

[NH Shooter]

I use this Vltor mount which attaches to a short section of rail and will hold any light with a 1-inch body (I have plenty of those);

https://i.ibb.co/XVDskgr/G2-1.jpg


https://i.ibb.co/7JXHJSX/bfwml-1.jpg


https://i.ibb.co/7nDR3t6/bfwml-2.jpg

[SecondsCount]

......
If you don't want to end up with a boat anchor like the one above, watch those ounces!

If I had to sling the gun and carry it all day, every day, then I might be concerned about ounces. I like magnification as well as comfort when I am shooting. You can ditch the bipod and use a bag as a rest but the rest of that setup looks pretty similar to what I run, and I don't find it to be all that heavy.

[HeavyDuty]

This is definitely thread creep, but these just showed up in a sale email from a local store for $200:

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/vx-freedom-1-5-4x20

[NH Shooter]

This is definitely thread creep, but these just showed up in a sale email from a local store for $200:

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/vx-freedom-1-5-4x20

If the reticle works for you, I'd say a great buy!

[JRV]

Has anyone continued their use/evaluation of the FX-II 2.5X? I put one on my hog rifle and have been very pleased with it thus far (good light transmission in low light and with green light, clean reticle), but am considering a piggybacked or offset MRDO for tracking runners in low light.

[OlongJohnson]

I picked one up for my CVA Scout takedown single shot in .300 BLK. Seemed like a good fit for small, light and minimalist, and the magnification is a good pairing for the cartridge. Haven't mounted it yet, though.

[MandoWookie]

Has anyone continued their use/evaluation of the FX-II 2.5X? I put one on my hog rifle and have been very pleased with it thus far (good light transmission in low light and with green light, clean reticle), but am considering a piggybacked or offset MRDO for tracking runners in low light.

I still like mine, but then again I haven't really used it yet. Compared to the Aimpoint it replaced, accuracy at 85yds( furthest distance I have access to), accuracy was much better for my crappy eyes.
Only managed to zero it, and one range session after, then ammo disappeared. I'm only just now getting back to working with my ARs, but I have seen no reason to change now.

[fatdog]

Has anyone continued their use/evaluation of the FX-II 2.5X?

I bought one back in January to try on my ultra light AR. Zero'ed up fine and no problems shooting from the bench, but as soon as I went off hand and added movement and started shooting some range drills it all went to hell for me in both terms of speed and accuracy. Inside 25 yards it caused me a lot of visual confusion and the lack of contrast against a dark target made it hard to even get good hits in broad daylight for me.

Hunting might be a better use case.

I moved it to one of my bolt action rimfires and I think that is its perfect home, at least in my use.