LPVOs in 2023 and beyond

[oregon45]

Had to ask my brother, he reloads for his 6 ARC

https://brassgoat.com

Thanks!

[Clusterfrack]

Had to ask my brother, he reloads for his 6 ARC

https://brassgoat.com

I tried it, and it works ok. It also causes malfunctions.

[mmc45414]

That’s where a LPVO shines. PID with enough speed to work and a precise aiming point.

That's pretty much what I'm thinking.
All of my LPVO experience has been doing local three gun matches, not ever used one hunting, but some of the match directors set up some pretty pesky target arrays, and I think I am going to put one on a hunting gun at some point. The ability to have a RDO mimic seems like it would be handy, and I find myself using 2x-3x more than I thought I would.

And IMO another advantage of having a 6x option instead of a RDO, that would be applicable on a hunting gun, is to get a more precise 50yd or 100yd zero.

[okie john]

And IMO another advantage of having a 6x option instead of a RDO, that would be applicable on a hunting gun, is to get a more precise 50yd or 100yd zero.

Tell me more about this.

I start by looking at a ballistic calculator like https://www.federalpremium.com/ballistics-calculator to see where I need to zero for my maximum ordinate to be around 2.5". I zero at whatever range that happens to be, usually 200-225 yards, then worry about POI at shorter and longer distances.


Okie John

[mmc45414]

I start by looking at a ballistic calculator like https://www.federalpremium.com/ballistics-calculator to see where I need to zero for my maximum ordinate to be around 2.5". I zero at whatever range that happens to be, usually 200-225 yards, then worry about POI at shorter and longer distances.

My inference was a comparison to RDO alternatives, not specifically the zero range. IMO this is another advantage of a LPVO, for me and my eyes I can get a pretty darn precise 50yd zero with a 6x scope, but with a RDO I need a larger aiming point that is not nearly as precise. I have not done all this work, but it seems like with a 1-6x scope a fella could dial in the elevation where it should be at 50yds, and then maybe confirm things at the actual desired zero range.

I sure love me some RDO, but the more I shoot a LPVO at three gun the more I am starting to like it more than I thought I did. I actually went to one a bit under protest, with some question about stage design at the local club matches I am shooting. But I looked around at what the organizers were using, and figured I better Monkey-See/Monkey-Do, and at first was kinda pissed about it, since I had a nice gun with a nice RDO. But the more I use the LPVO the more I wonder if for anything outdoors it might be my first choice, and being able to establish a 50yd (or 100yd) zero that I am highly confident in is one of the reasons.

I am also finding low range magnification to be more helpful that I would have expected, like 40yds offhand at a bowling pin turns out 2x-3x is appreciated, and seems like something that would correlate to a hunting application (though I have more experience shooting than hunting). But at the same time being able to dial back to 1x and lay on your side shooting through a 3"-4" slot on the bottom of a VTAC-ish barricade when you can still look through the scope way beyond what would be typical eye relief.

[TWR]

I don’t try to get a more precise zero at 50, I use 50 to get me close and zero at 200. That’s with irons, red dots or scopes. You’ll find that you can be a few inches low at 200 with a 50 yard zero but get it zeroed at 200 and you won’t hardly see any difference in your 50 yard zero.

I tried the 100 yard zero but for me a 200 yard zero works best.

[okie john]

I have not done all this work, but it seems like with a 1-6x scope a fella could dial in the elevation where it should be at 50yds, and then maybe confirm things at the actual desired zero range.

Reverse that. Confirm POI at the far distance, then check it up close. There's a lot of slop in the actual BC, actual muzzle velocity, actual height of the optic over the bore, etc., for that to work as well as it should.


Okie John

[Caballoflaco]

No matter what LPVO you’re running, videos like this one from an American fighting in Ukraine makes a strong argument for the addition of an offset red dot in addition to an LPVO.

(Music with profanities and killing Russians might be NSFW)
1696289815149285535

[HCM]

No matter what LPVO you’re running, videos like this one from an American fighting in Ukraine makes a strong argument for the addition of an offset red dot in addition to an LPVO.

(Music with profanities and killing Russians might be NSFW)
1696289815149285535

Possibly but that’s not an LPVO. Look at the front objective. That is at least a medium power (2 or 3x bottom end) scope on a DMR type set up.

109038

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/Ru8sswscYxQ?si=I0evW9gHcMiQaA3o

The PA is still on sale for $255 if anyone is in the market for one.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-1-6x24mm-sfp-rifle-scope-gen-4-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

What is the current wisdom on Leupold? Their MARK 3HD 1.5-4X20 has a lot of appeal to me, especially with the firedot.

[SecondsCount]

What is the current wisdom on Leupold? Their MARK 3HD 1.5-4X20 has a lot of appeal to me, especially with the firedot.

What makes it appealing? Weight?

Except for the Mark 5HD, I rarely see Leupold on any tactical carbines around here.

[HeavyDuty]

What makes it appealing? Weight?

Except for the Mark 5HD, I rarely see Leupold on any tactical carbines around here.

Weight, reticle, range (I’m still a fan of 1-3x / 1-4x scopes,) at least assembled in the USA, no tritium to have to recharge in ten years.

[HeavyDuty]

Trying to learn from my betters here.

If I were to go with one of these Leupold 1.5-4x scopes, I would have three illuminated reticle options. This will be on a 12” SBR. What are the arguments for and against each of these?
109844
109845
109846

[Wake27]

YMMV but I won’t touch an LPVO that isn’t regarded as about as close to 1x as possible. I don’t think there’s a single Leupy regarded as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Sensei]

Agree with Wake27. I assume that a 12” SBR is optimized for targets under 100 meters. Something with a true 1X capability makes the most sense, even if that means an Aimpoint T2.

[Nephrology]

I have a Razor 1-6 on a 11.5" SBR and I am happy with it.

[SecondsCount]

The Steiner P4xi is a good option if you want a true 1X scope, and has a daylight bright reticle. They can be found for $500 on the used market.

Which reticle for the Leupold or Steiner?

My P4xi has the P3TR BDC reticle but I prefer a millradian reticle. BDC reticles work for a rough aiming point, but are difficult for accurate adjustments, especially if you are using a ballistics app, have someone spotting your misses, etc. The V2 G1 reticle option is in mils. I think Leupold calls their mil reticle the TMR.

[HeavyDuty]

Agree with Wake27. I assume that a 12” SBR is optimized for targets under 100 meters. Something with a true 1X capability makes the most sense, even if that means an Aimpoint T2.

I have 1x RDS on a few 10.5” - 12.5” SBRs, I’m trying something different with this. An illuminated true 1-4 or even 1-3 would be ideal for me, but they don’t seem to be made.

Wait - I have a new P4Xi I picked up on sale a few months ago. Maybe that’s my solution.

[Sensei]

I like that P4Xi idea. Nephrology’s Razor idea is also very reasonable.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

I have a Razor 1-6 on a 11.5" SBR and I am happy with it.

Not just Neph as I had same on my 11.5” for sev. yrs before selling the Razer & now using a T2 that may get a magnifier.

[SecondsCount]

I have a Razor 1-6 on a 11.5" SBR and I am happy with it.

HD said that weight is a concern. I like the Razor, when they are on sale, but weigh almost double the Leupold.

[HeavyDuty]

Just for grins - is there a downside to that SPR reticle in the Leupold?

[SecondsCount]

Just for grins - is there a downside to that SPR reticle in the Leupold?

It looks to me like the distance between subtension lines is 2.5 mils. Kind of an oddity when the first line puts you at almost 400 yards. Why bother.

[Sensei]

HD said that weight is a concern. I like the Razor, when they are on sale, but weigh almost double the Leupold.

I missed the part about weight being a concern and agree that the Vortex becomes less practical at roughly 21oz without a mount. Since weight is important, the Steiner seems to be a great compromise at 17oz which is roughly 3 more oz than the FireDot 1.5-4X Leupy. I’d eat that 3oz to have the Steiner’s 1X clarity and slightly more robust construction (maybe).

FWIW, I have one of the 1.5-4X FireDots on this AUG:
109876

It is a good scope that is reasonably fast at 1.5X, and would be a fine patrol rifle that isn’t spending a lot of time being tossed around by a crayon eater.

[HeavyDuty]

It looks to me like the distance between subtension lines is 2.5 mils. Kind of an oddity when the first line puts you at almost 400 yards. Why bother.

Makes sense. This is where my inexperience with magnified optics shows. Thanks!

[HeavyDuty]

I trotted out the P4Xi G1, I think this is the one. (Plus it’s the budget friendly option given that I already own it.) It’s definitely daylight bright, is a little porky at 17 oz but I think it will do.

I just ordered an Aero mount.

[Clusterfrack]

YMMV but I won’t touch an LPVO that isn’t regarded as about as close to 1x as possible. I don’t think there’s a single Leupy regarded as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mk. 6.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is there such a burning desire for a "daylight bright" dot coupled with an etched reticle? If it's high noon, one should be able to see the reticle just fine, so why the need to see the illuminated dot, too? I know that I don't know what I don't know, hence the question.

[Wake27]

Mk. 6.

I assumed if there was one, it’d be that based on its reputation.


Pardon my ignorance, but why is there such a burning desire for a "daylight bright" dot coupled with an etched reticle? If it's high noon, one should be able to see the reticle just fine, so why the need to see the illuminated dot, too? I know that I don't know what I don't know, hence the question.

For me, it’s speed. Yes I can use a bold etched reticle without illum but it’s never as fast. I like very bright dots, like killing T2s in less than a year bright, to really be at my fastest.

Plus, unlike the reticle, you can adjust brightness. A reticle that works without illum has to be very thick IMO, and you just can’t make it less thick so it can be very cluttered feeling and lead to obscuring your picture. With something like the Razor 1-6 JM-1 reticle however, there’s very minimal clutter in the design itself so I can see everything through the scope quite well. The dot gets stupid bright when I need it to though, so I’m not lacking on speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HeavyDuty]

If anyone cares, EuroOptic still has the Steiner G1 for $469.

[Clusterfrack]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is there such a burning desire for a "daylight bright" dot coupled with an etched reticle? If it's high noon, one should be able to see the reticle just fine, so why the need to see the illuminated dot, too? I know that I don't know what I don't know, hence the question.

Yeah, like Wake27 said. A daylight bright dot is especially important if the etched reticle is complicated, like the one on my Mk.6.

109892

[Sensei]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is there such a burning desire for a "daylight bright" dot coupled with an etched reticle? If it's high noon, one should be able to see the reticle just fine, so why the need to see the illuminated dot, too? I know that I don't know what I don't know, hence the question.

Agree again with Wake27. A daylight visible red dot is much faster to acquire than an etched reticle that lacks illumination. This is especially true when it comes to low light conditions and dark targets. This is why there are no popular non-illuminated etched reticles, and even ACOGs have fiberoptic and tritium illumination.

Bright dots on 1X allow thin reticle lines in a FFP scope make for a more functional sight picture at higher magnification since the reticle enlarges with the sight picture as magnification increases.

I have firsthand experience with the following scopes that are absolutely daylight bright even in bright sunlight: S&B 1-8X, NF 1-8X NX8, NF 1-8X ATACR, Leupold 1.5-4X FD, Vortex Razor Gen II and III, Swarovski Z6i, Elcan Specter DR

The following are mostly daylight bright but may not seem fully illuminated under very bright conditions or with slight changes in head position: Trijicon VCOG 1-6X and 1-8X, Leupold MK6 1-6X (early iterations seemed to flicker with head mvmt), Trijicon Credo.

The following are not daylight visible under bright conditions: NF 1-4x NXS, Trijicon Accupoint and Accupower 1-4X.

There may be other options such as the Steiner, Sig, Eotech, etc. However, what I’ve listed are scopes that I’ve either owned or been issued over the years.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I appreciate the responses, gentlemen. Learning has occurred.

[Sensei]

Yeah, like Wake27 said. A daylight bright dot is especially important if the etched reticle is complicated, like the one on my Mk.6.

109892
I have the same MK6 on a LMT MWS that I put together way back in 2013 and while heavy, that bitch can shoot.

While I think that NF has been my favorite scope maker for some time, I commend Leupold at getting out in front of the magnification race beyond 4X over a decade ago with their MK6 and MK8 scopes. While not perfect, they are incredibly well built and rather cutting edge when introduced since the only other option was the SB 1-8X (que Dr. Evil "For 1 Billion Dollars") and Swarovski. Companies like NF, US Optics, Trijicon, etc. were stuck in 1-4X mode and most of those were not daylight bright or not true 1X.

[SecondsCount]

I stumbled across this video today and didn't know if it had been posted


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FIXfCas5WPM&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snipershid e.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

[KneeShot]

I stumbled across this video today and didn't know if it had been posted


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FIXfCas5WPM&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snipershid e.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

Thanks for sharing that video!
Solid in depth review, I watched the whole Battle Royale Comparison. He ranked them as follows;
1. S&B
2. Kahles
3. March
4. NF
5. Vortex
6. Leupold

I might have 5 and 6 mixed up. The S&B is expensive!!!

[HeavyDuty]

I’m trying the Steiner P4Xi in Reptilia mount on that new LaRue 12” upper, and while I think it will work I really wish I could find a more compact and lightweight 1-3x or 1-4x instead. I’m really beginning to think that Leupold Mark 3HD 1.5-4 might be worth investigating for this specific use case.

I need to find a goat to sacrifice so I can manifest a super compact, daylight bright 1-3x. It may actually take sacrificing a unicorn.

[Noah]

I need to find a goat to sacrifice so I can manifest a super compact, daylight bright 1-3x. It may actually take sacrificing a unicorn.

Sounds an awful lot like a micro red dot with a magnifier....

[SecondsCount]

I’m trying the Steiner P4Xi in Reptilia mount on that new LaRue 12” upper, and while I think it will work I really wish I could find a more compact and lightweight 1-3x or 1-4x instead. I’m really beginning to think that Leupold Mark 3HD 1.5-4 might be worth investigating for this specific use case.

I need to find a goat to sacrifice so I can manifest a super compact, daylight bright 1-3x. It may actually take sacrificing a unicorn.

Try the Steiner. It isn't all that bulky or heavy.

[HeavyDuty]

Sounds an awful lot like a micro red dot with a magnifier....

Possibly. I have messed a little with the concept before, and should again. But I’m more interested with keeping things 1x until magnification is needed, and that’s not a RDS + magnifier’s strength.


Try the Steiner. It isn't all that bulky or heavy.

That’s what I’m doing right now. The jury is still out, it may end up where I originally intended - on my LaRue 16” carbine replacing a PA 3x prism. That prism would be good on the 12” except for something I really hate - no good lens cover solution. Everything I’ve tried has been a kludge.

[Noah]

Possibly. I have messed a little with the concept before, and should again. But I’m more interested with keeping things 1x until magnification is needed, and that’s not a RDS + magnifier’s strength.


To be sure I understand you, you're wanting to prioritize the 1x, and then have magnification available if you need it?

I'm more of an LPVO guy myself, but I think what you're describing IS the exact strength of an RDS and magnifier. It prioritizes 1x far more heavily than an LPVO, and offers less in magnification and optical performance.

You can even have the magnifier as a QD, and just take it off at times. When I have run guns with a dot and mag, I leave the magnifier off when the rifle is just staged in a lockbox in the house, and the magnifier collects dust with my rainy day kit.

[HeavyDuty]

To be sure I understand you, you're wanting to prioritize the 1x, and then have magnification available if you need it?

I'm more of an LPVO guy myself, but I think what you're describing IS the exact strength of an RDS and magnifier. It prioritizes 1x far more heavily than an LPVO, and offers less in magnification and optical performance.

You can even have the magnifier as a QD, and just take it off at times. When I have run guns with a dot and mag, I leave the magnifier off when the rifle is just staged in a lockbox in the house, and the magnifier collects dust with my rainy day kit.

I tend to run the magnifier flipped over to the side most of the time, and that makes for a bulky configuration.

[breakingtime91]

So I have spent the last 12 years of my shooting life thinking red dots never look perfect. While I bought a magnifier and found out that magnified red dots look like a bunch of grapes to me. Can't even tell which of the eight dots is the 2 moa dot. I figure this makes sense, I prefer 6 moa pistol red dots because it actually looks like a dot to me. That has me wondering about the arrangement I want on my 13.9.. I do not want to run only a rds, the area that I live in is wide open and heavily foilaged so you need some type of magnification usually to figure out what you are looking at.


So, I have come to the conclusion that I either need to set this rifle up with an acog and rds (like my 16 inch), set it up with a lpvo and rds, or try the 6 moa h2 and a magnifier.. hmm

[Noah]

So I have spent the last 12 years of my shooting life thinking red dots never look perfect. While I bought a magnifier and found out that magnified red dots look like a bunch of grapes to me. Can't even tell which of the eight dots is the 2 moa dot. I figure this makes sense, I prefer 6 moa pistol red dots because it actually looks like a dot to me. That has me wondering about the arrangement I want on my 13.9.. I do not want to run only a rds, the area that I live in is wide open and heavily foilaged so you need some type of magnification usually to figure out what you are looking at.


So, I have come to the conclusion that I either need to set this rifle up with an acog and rds (like my 16 inch), set it up with a lpvo and rds, or try the 6 moa h2 and a magnifier.. hmm

Im a no one who's had one AR for the last 7 or so years. But I've probably switched optics setups on it every 6 months- year and change. Dot and mag, LPVO, ACOG and dot, other prism and dot, different LPVO.... the grass is always greener. With my level of rifle practice (low vs pistol) I found that angled and piggybacked dots are better on paper than in practice for me. I've "settled" for now on the PA Nova for a fairly lightweight, truly daylight bright LPVO because it gives me a centerline 1x solution (like a dot) but also works as a range toy on the occasion i get to shoot medium range at 300-600 once or twice a year.

Between dot and mag, dot and prism, just a prism, LPVO, LPVO and dot, or MPVO and dot.... it's totally personal and situational. I find whatever I dont currently have often seems best :confused:

[breakingtime91]

Im a no one who's had one AR for the last 7 or so years. But I've probably switched optics setups on it every 6 months- year and change. Dot and mag, LPVO, ACOG and dot, other prism and dot, different LPVO.... the grass is always greener. With my level of rifle practice (low vs pistol) I found that angled and piggybacked dots are better on paper than in practice for me. I've "settled" for now on the PA Nova for a fairly lightweight, truly daylight bright LPVO because it gives me a centerline 1x solution (like a dot) but also works as a range toy on the occasion i get to shoot medium range at 300-600 once or twice a year.

Between dot and mag, dot and prism, just a prism, LPVO, LPVO and dot, or MPVO and dot.... it's totally personal and situational. I find whatever I dont currently have often seems best :confused:

I'm the same way... I'm grabbing one of these to try with my acog instead of the offset arisaka I currently have.

https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/pma-parallel-mount-acog.html


I really wish a red dot and 3x magnifier worked for me. The range bays at my outdoor range are about 60 yards so I don't get to shoot distance often. So having the option to flip over for 3x would be great to have on those occasions I need to PID or shoot at greater distance (300-500)

[davisj]

In terms of dot quality, I’ve been most impressed with the Sig Romeo 4XT Pro. Most dots look like a cluster of grapes to me, not this one though. I now have two. One is paired with a PA 3X Micro magnifier, the other will be soon. Paired with the ranging Pegasus magnifier version it has worked well in the short time I’ve used it.

As a bonus, the “all in” price of the combo isn’t much more than a T2. Of course, YMMV.

110472

110474

[theJanitor]

I tend to run the magnifier flipped over to the side most of the time, and that makes for a bulky configuration.


I'm running the unity mounts with the magnifier that flips to center. there's nothing hanging off the side, but it's tall

[HCM]

I tend to run the magnifier flipped over to the side most of the time, and that makes for a bulky configuration.

It sounds like you either need one of the unity magnifier mounts or you just need a quick detach Magnifier mounts with witness marking so you can throw the magnifier on when you need it.

Because Noah is spot on about your state use being the strong suite of RDS/magnifier combos.

No LPVO is going to give 1x performance comparable to an RDS. You can get very close if you put in enough dry practice but there’s no free lunch.

[SecondsCount]

It sounds like you either need one of the unity magnifier mounts or you just need a quick detach Magnifier mounts with witness marking so you can throw the magnifier on when you need it.

Because Noah is spot on about your state use being the strong suite of RDS/magnifier combos.

No LPVO is going to give 1x performance comparable to an RDS. You can get very close if you put in enough dry practice but there’s no free lunch.
No it isn't, and I don't understand why it keeps coming up in the LPVO conversation because it can get really close. The LPVO does so many great things including improving accuracy, target acquisition, having a good reticle for different distances, and less exposed mechanicals to deal with.

[HCM]

No it isn't, and I don't understand why it keeps coming up in the LPVO conversation because it can get really close. The LPVO does so many great things including improving accuracy, target acquisition, having a good reticle for different distances, and less exposed mechanicals to deal with.

I caveat that because many don't put in the work, are disappointed and blame the LPVO for the work they didn't do.

[Caballoflaco]

Not an LPVO, but 9 hole reviews did a video about using some of the new micro prisms scopes similar to how you can use a magnifier to extend range with a red dot.


https://youtu.be/fdFcHdPeErM?si=WM0SRTtiqLpZD8Pp

[03RN]

So I have spent the last 12 years of my shooting life thinking red dots never look perfect. While I bought a magnifier and found out that magnified red dots look like a bunch of grapes to me. Can't even tell which of the eight dots is the 2 moa dot. I figure this makes sense, I prefer 6 moa pistol red dots because it actually looks like a dot to me. That has me wondering about the arrangement I want on my 13.9.. I do not want to run only a rds, the area that I live in is wide open and heavily foilaged so you need some type of magnification usually to figure out what you are looking at.


So, I have come to the conclusion that I either need to set this rifle up with an acog and rds (like my 16 inch), set it up with a lpvo and rds, or try the 6 moa h2 and a magnifier.. hmm

The more I shoot with my 3x PA micro prism the more I'm thinking about switching over all my optics to them. Including my 2.5-10 on my spr and rds on my carbines.

[breakingtime91]

The more I shoot with my 3x PA micro prism the more I'm thinking about switching over all my optics to them. Including my 2.5-10 on my spr and rds on my carbines.

Do you like it more than say a 4x acog?

[shane45]

On the LPVO performance compared to a RDS. My shooting partner and I deep dived into this extensively about 10 years ago. We personally owned a great deal of optics. We ran them all on the clock. The results were perplexing. They just didnt make sense! I was designing and making optics mounts at the time and through my manufacturing partner I had access to some serious engineers/scientists at places like S&B. When i posed the results and my questions about them, the answer I received made it all make sense. And this may be whats missing from these kinds of discussions. What didnt compute was that we are pretty equivalent shooters. But our timed results with different optics types were wildely different in some cases. The answer for this given by some people with Phd's in their title was that it had nothing at all to do with the optics or setup. It was rooted in what the individuals brain could accept or not accept as the provided sight picture. In some setups my brain was way more accepting to the input than his was and vice versa and that showed clearly in the times. So my testing and research indicates what may work great for one individual may work horribly for another. My times with a LPVO vs his were drastically different. His brain rejected the sight picture. Our times with RDS were comparable. Our times with things like ACOGS were comparable at some distances bit not others. His Acog performance would drop off much earlier than mine would as distance decreased.

Just my experiences, research and beliefs. Maybe someone will find this info useful.

One other side note. We also found that LPVO held a huge advantage over non mag RDS for target acquisition in some specific lighting conditions where the sun was ahead of you casting shadow on the target area.

[GyroF-16]

I’ve noticed that different RDS’s have different appearances to my eye. I have a Holosun HS503G 16” AR, paired with a Holosun magnifier. The 503G has a ACSS reticle with a chevron at the top (like an ACOG). The reticle is quite small, but easy to use with magnification. I can adjust the magnifier diopter so that both the target and the reticle are in sharp focus.
In contrast, when I put that (QD) magnifier on another rifle with an MRO, it was essentially unusable. Depending on diopter setting, the dot was either a “cluster of grapes” with the target out of focus, or an 8-10 MOA diagonal line with the target in focus.
I guess what I’m getting is that the right RDS paired with the right magnifier may well give you the outcome you desire.


So I have spent the last 12 years of my shooting life thinking red dots never look perfect. While I bought a magnifier and found out that magnified red dots look like a bunch of grapes to me. Can't even tell which of the eight dots is the 2 moa dot. I figure this makes sense, I prefer 6 moa pistol red dots because it actually looks like a dot to me. That has me wondering about the arrangement I want on my 13.9.. I do not want to run only a rds, the area that I live in is wide open and heavily foilaged so you need some type of magnification usually to figure out what you are looking at.


So, I have come to the conclusion that I either need to set this rifle up with an acog and rds (like my 16 inch), set it up with a lpvo and rds, or try the 6 moa h2 and a magnifier.. hmm

[Wake27]

On the LPVO performance compared to a RDS. My shooting partner and I deep dived into this extensively about 10 years ago. We personally owned a great deal of optics. We ran them all on the clock. The results were perplexing. They just didnt make sense! I was designing and making optics mounts at the time and through my manufacturing partner I had access to some serious engineers/scientists at places like S&B. When i posed the results and my questions about them, the answer I received made it all make sense. And this may be whats missing from these kinds of discussions. What didnt compute was that we are pretty equivalent shooters. But our timed results with different optics types were wildely different in some cases. The answer for this given by some people with Phd's in their title was that it had nothing at all to do with the optics or setup. It was rooted in what the individuals brain could accept or not accept as the provided sight picture. In some setups my brain was way more accepting to the input than his was and vice versa and that showed clearly in the times. So my testing and research indicates what may work great for one individual may work horribly for another. My times with a LPVO vs his were drastically different. His brain rejected the sight picture. Our times with RDS were comparable. Our times with things like ACOGS were comparable at some distances bit not others. His Acog performance would drop off much earlier than mine would as distance decreased.

Just my experiences, research and beliefs. Maybe someone will find this info useful.

One other side note. We also found that LPVO held a huge advantage over non mag RDS for target acquisition in some specific lighting conditions where the sun was ahead of you casting shadow on the target area.

This sounds reasonable based on my experience. The more I've messed with them and talked to others, the more they seem much more specific to each person than an RDS.

[03RN]

Do you like it more than say a 4x acog?

It's been a long time since I've used an acog so it's hard to say.

I'd probably say yes inside 50 yards. I like the PA Chevron/horseshoe reticle for fast acquisition. Past that it's probably a wash.

The ACOG will probably win the ruggedness category but I do like not having to send the optic in to get relamped. Just change the battery. And with the shake awake feature I'm leaving it on to see how long 1 battery lasts.

Plus it's a third the cost and almost half the weight. As long as it holds up I think it's the best GP optic out there.

In all my praise for it I will continue to hold it's long term ruggedness is the biggest unknown for an inexpensive Chinese made optic.

[TWR]

As well as the LPVO works, it will not be quite as quick as a red dot under 50 yards. Beyond that the LPVO takes over and doesn’t look back.

I have no experience with a prism and very little with a magnifier. My house gun has a red dot, Aimpoint H2, my grab and go guns have LPVO’s, Trijicon Credo 1-4’s and a 1-6.

[maximus83]

The more I shoot with my 3x PA micro prism the more I'm thinking about switching over all my optics to them. Including my 2.5-10 on my spr and rds on my carbines.

I'm not quite convinced to get rid of my LPVO's yet, but agree that the 3x PA microprism is a great little optic: tough, lightweight, clear. I'm currently experimenting with one mounted on a Tippmann M4-22, where the 3X is mounted on top, and I have an offset RDS on an Arisaka mount. I like this setup so much, I'm considering moving it to one of my AR's, though for me this still wouldn't do away with the need for an LPVO on other rifles for better observation/precision at distance. I'd see the PA as being a great option at typical ranges within 200y. In fact the PA is so good, it'd be tempting to dispense with the offset RDS and just run the PA by itself, to keep things more streamlined.

[HeavyDuty]

The more I shoot with my 3x PA micro prism the more I'm thinking about switching over all my optics to them. Including my 2.5-10 on my spr and rds on my carbines.

I have several, and like them except for their crap capacity for accepting flip ups which I consider essential. You can mount a front one if you use the PA killflash, but the commonly available Butler Creek ones are a poor fit.

[SecondsCount]

Possibly. I have messed a little with the concept before, and should again. But I’m more interested with keeping things 1x until magnification is needed, and that’s not a RDS + magnifier’s strength.



That’s what I’m doing right now. The jury is still out, it may end up where I originally intended - on my LaRue 16” carbine replacing a PA 3x prism. That prism would be good on the 12” except for something I really hate - no good lens cover solution. Everything I’ve tried has been a kludge.

HeavyDuty

Do they make a Scopecoat for them? Would an Aimpoint version work?

[HeavyDuty]

HeavyDuty

Do they make a Scopecoat for them? Would an Aimpoint version work?

I’m not a fan of Scopecoats for anything other than protection in the safe.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I have several, and like them except for their crap capacity for accepting flip ups which I consider essential. You can mount a front one if you use the PA killflash, but the commonly available Butler Creek ones are a poor fit.

I assume what you have is one of these:
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-3x-microprism-with-red-illuminated-acss-raptor-556-308-reticle-yard

I saw that they offer this:
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-3x32mm-gen-iii-prism-scope-with-acss-556-cqb-m2-reticle

....but that is way heavier than the other, and it has a funkier reticle.

[HeavyDuty]

I assume what you have is one of these:
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-3x-microprism-with-red-illuminated-acss-raptor-556-308-reticle-yard

I saw that they offer this:
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-3x32mm-gen-iii-prism-scope-with-acss-556-cqb-m2-reticle

....but that is way heavier than the other, and it has a funkier reticle.

Yes, I actually have two of the first ones and like them very much. To be honest, if I could find a good front flip-up I’d be satisfied. I need to sit down with one and some magnification to see if there is a rear thread I can utilize, the front is already threaded.

When I contacted PA a few months back to suggest they provide a flip cap solution, they couldn’t have cared less. I probably should reach out directly to Marshall.

[Tannhauser]

I just ordered one of the PA 3X Micro Prism optics with the 7.62x39/300Blk reticle. I’m going to try it on a 7.62x39 AR.

[SecondsCount]

Midway is having a sale on Bushnell 4500 scopes (https://www.midwayusa.com/product/102489474)

I'm not a big fan of duplex reticles but that is a great price for HD glass.

[Tannhauser]

I just ordered one of the PA 3X Micro Prism optics with the 7.62x39/300Blk reticle. I’m going to try it on a 7.62x39 AR.

I mounted PA 3X this morning and took it to the range this afternoon to zero. No problems, I like the optic and it seems like a good option for the 7.62x39 cartridge, since at a distance where I’d really want more than 3X, I’d be reaching for a different cartridge.

[Tokarev]

Delta Stryker 1-10


https://youtu.be/4QADtEPQ-IM?si=878WRTFrmMu21jiO

[JCN]

$600??? vs $50 for a switch view lever? No thanks. I don't find myself spending that much time changing magnification during a stage. My LPVOs live on 1x, and get bumped up only for shots beyond 75ish yards. I see LOTS of inadvertent magnification changes happing with rapid movement.

It’s basically a mounting system with a price point like a Scalarworks. I’m keen enough to experiment with it.

110894

[RhinoJM]

I have a 1-6 Razor and offset RDS (on Scalarworks mount).

The transition between magnified LPVO and RDS is quicker than caressing your handguard to adjust zoom.

[JCN]

I have a 1-6 Razor and offset RDS (on Scalarworks mount).

The transition between magnified LPVO and RDS is quicker than caressing your handguard to adjust zoom.

Yes. I currently have a T332 with 12 o’clock RDS that’s faster to shift than an offset and also doesn’t have weak shoulder and barricade limitations like an offset does.

That’s not the point.

I’m experimenting with utilization of wanting to use the primary as a primary close up, but during the time of a transition with movement where the time is buried anyway, can I adjust without regripping.

Basically, I want to use the primary as a primary but have the option to switch it far without coming off the gun.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

Yes. I currently have a T332 with 12 o’clock RDS that’s faster to shift than an offset and also doesn’t have weak shoulder and barricade limitations like an offset does.

That’s not the point.

I’m experimenting with utilization of wanting to use the primary as a primary close up, but during the time of a transition with movement where the time is buried anyway, can I adjust without regripping.

Basically, I want to use the primary as a primary but have the option to switch it far without coming off the gun.

What RDS are ya running on top & any other relevant info?

[JCN]

What RDS are ya running on top & any other relevant info?

110946

I haven’t settled on anything yet and am still testing out ergos.

Right now using a 507c for the reticle to use for holdover. I might change to a 507 comp but I don’t get the sense it’s necessary in this capacity.

Hoping I can make a one optic solution work with the scope switch.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

110946

I haven’t settled on anything yet and am still testing out ergos.

Right now using a 507c for the reticle to use for holdover. I might change to a 507 comp but I don’t get the sense it’s necessary in this capacity.

Hoping I can make a one optic solution work with the scope switch.

Understood all, asking as I still need to optify (I know) a backup 556 but could lateral a T2 there (magnify later?) and if so don’t want another Razer-E which had an AP offset but in your pic. are those 2 running LAW adapters on the stocks or …….

[JCN]

Understood all, asking as I still need to optify (I know) a backup 556 but could lateral a T2 there (magnify later?) and if so don’t want another Razer-E which had an AP offset but in your pic. are those 2 running LAW adapters on the stocks or …….

They’re Sig MCXs which is why the folding 1913 rail attachments.

[RhinoJM]

Yes. I currently have a T332 with 12 o’clock RDS that’s faster to shift than an offset and also doesn’t have weak shoulder and barricade limitations like an offset does.

That’s not the point.

I’m experimenting with utilization of wanting to use the primary as a primary close up, but during the time of a transition with movement where the time is buried anyway, can I adjust without regripping.

Basically, I want to use the primary as a primary but have the option to switch it far without coming off the gun.

In no world is a piggyback RDS quicker than offset.
With piggyback, you have to break cheek weld, find red dot, and then engage target.
With offset (provided it's at the same height-over-bore height), you simply have to rotate your gun 30 degrees while maintaining cheek weld. It's instantaneous.

The benefit to piggyback RDS isn't the speed--rather, it's the ease of use w/ NVG.
There's a reason why all competition shooters use offsets, NOT piggyback.

Lastly, by stroking the handguard to adjust zoom, you are still "coming off the gun" in that your support hand would otherwise be used to, oh I don't know... support the rifle against a barrier?
You're not reaping any additional benefits over the simpler, lighter, and more reliable LPVO throw lever.

[JCN]

In no world is a piggyback RDS quicker than offset.
With piggyback, you have to break cheek weld, find red dot, and then engage target.
With offset (provided it's at the same height-over-bore height), you simply have to rotate your gun 30 degrees while maintaining cheek weld. It's instantaneous.

The benefit to piggyback RDS isn't the speed--rather, it's the ease of use w/ NVG.
There's a reason why all competition shooters use offsets, NOT piggyback.

Lastly, by stroking the handguard to adjust zoom, you are still "coming off the gun" in that your support hand would otherwise be used to, oh I don't know... support the rifle against a barrier?
You're not reaping any additional benefits over the simpler, lighter, and more reliable LPVO throw lever.

See, people often state opinion as fact.

So let's dive into this a little bit if you'll indulge me.

I love ergonomics and efficiency, it's kind of one of my strengths.

Your hypothesis #1:
Piggyback is slower than offset.

The extra considerations I have as a competition shooter are: what is the GUN doing in that time. I want the most stable gun and the simplest gun movement possible. That is a factor almost more important than anything else.

Here is a video with my setup.


https://youtu.be/3ZKMcuRkjgo

With a piggyback, I'm just tilting my chin... gun doesn't move. Is it slower than an offset? I think I can tuck my chin faster than flare my elbow. Plus it doesn't move the gun.

What say you? Is piggyback slower?




Your hypothesis #2:
No benefit over LPVO throw lever.


Check this out:


https://youtu.be/1M8mb8X2iX0?si=uCFQSEB-Tc9GI9MR


I'm still not sold whether the T332 plus piggyback is a better option than an LPVO with slider... still testing and there are very specific situations where I would want this and you'd have to test under very specific conditions to exploit the benefits.

Half slide is... half the magnification so partial slide is 3x with the scope switch but I get the benefit of using my LPVO as a primary optic without offset or height over bore ergo issues. If I can basically have 3x on demand buried in the speed of a transition, that's huge for me.

[JCN]

One thing I’ll add about the scope switch is that you can still manually activate it on the bezel too.

So you don’t have to use the switch if you’re on a barricade or something.

Basically you get ANOTHER method of zooming. You can still keep the throw lever and use it manually.

[Mike C]

In no world is a piggyback RDS quicker than offset.
With piggyback, you have to break cheek weld, find red dot, and then engage target.
With offset (provided it's at the same height-over-bore height), you simply have to rotate your gun 30 degrees while maintaining cheek weld. It's instantaneous.

The benefit to piggyback RDS isn't the speed--rather, it's the ease of use w/ NVG.
There's a reason why all competition shooters use offsets, NOT piggyback.

Lastly, by stroking the handguard to adjust zoom, you are still "coming off the gun" in that your support hand would otherwise be used to, oh I don't know... support the rifle against a barrier?
You're not reaping any additional benefits over the simpler, lighter, and more reliable LPVO throw lever.

Offset is not always same the HOB, and it's not instantaneous; BS. You're still moving the gun to get on the optic and that takes time. Fractions of seconds but still. For the rest, as someone who has put dicks in the dirt using a 12 o'clock mounted red dot on an ACOG I'll call bullshit. Prime example? I myself have several deployments as an Infantry guy, plenty of combat from room distance to just under or around 200 yards. My account not good enough? No problem, how about service wide? 20 years of GWOT with a 12 o'clock mount on ACOG, suffice? No, prior to that? Okay... CCO's or their predecessors mounted to carrying handles which also got plenty of work done. Yep you guessed it, chin weld. How do you explain all the 1.93" mounts being used just fine? Spare the snark dude. The truth is that everyone is different from their body composition and construction right down to flexibility, vision and personal preference. Maybe the 45 offset is faster for some, maybe not but there are also other considerations and none of this trash matters when put into contextual usage but I digress. In competition we're talking milliseconds and it's not that freaking hard to find a 12 o'clock mount on a chin weld, give me a break.

I'd also be willing to bet a PF dollar that there are plenty of dudes who do it because some other dude on the internet did so or said it was better without putting it to a timer for themselves. Marketing and the psyops involved are also a thing but whatever. Without snark, everything needs to be put on a timer because they don't lie and don't have agendas or biases, yeah I know broken record. You shouldn't be making the claim that it's better for everyone. Context matters so let me color within the lines for you some more. In addition to the above facts here are some additional reasons to not go for an offset. 1. The first one you touched on but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. Yes, night vision. 2. Secondarily they are a snag hazard, especially if you're wrong handed and have gear or use a 3 point which I have personally seen, (stupid yes but still a thing). 3. Offsets also don't play well with switching to the other strong side, (yes I like my crap to be totally ambi). 4. If you're shooting suppressed. Guess what. If you're right handed you've just smoked out and obscured your vision. 5. Lastly offset does not provide the best recoil control, everything is a trade off. Personally, no thanks.

I'll go ahead and keep my 12 o'clock on my shitty ACOG and give 0 FK's what some random dude says on the web because I've used it and it works. I'll also encourage others to do the same and stick with the 12. As for the switch it's interesting but I am unsure about them. I definitely wouldn't try to use one in anything other than a competitive environment but they are interesting none the less but again. They need to be put on a timer vs. everything else.

[RhinoJM]

See, people often state opinion as fact.

So let's dive into this a little bit if you'll indulge me.

I love ergonomics and efficiency, it's kind of one of my strengths.

Your hypothesis #1:
Piggyback is slower than offset.

The extra considerations I have as a competition shooter are: what is the GUN doing in that time. I want the most stable gun and the simplest gun movement possible. That is a factor almost more important than anything else.

Here is a video with my setup.


https://youtu.be/3ZKMcuRkjgo

With a piggyback, I'm just tilting my chin... gun doesn't move. Is it slower than an offset? I think I can tuck my chin faster than flare my elbow. Plus it doesn't move the gun.

What say you? Is piggyback slower?




Your hypothesis #2:
No benefit over LPVO throw lever.


Check this out:


https://youtu.be/1M8mb8X2iX0?si=uCFQSEB-Tc9GI9MR


I'm still not sold whether the T332 plus piggyback is a better option than an LPVO with slider... still testing and there are very specific situations where I would want this and you'd have to test under very specific conditions to exploit the benefits.

Half slide is... half the magnification so partial slide is 3x with the scope switch but I get the benefit of using my LPVO as a primary optic without offset or height over bore ergo issues. If I can basically have 3x on demand buried in the speed of a transition, that's huge for me.


We're clearly talking past each other.

Yes, a tilt of your chin (to transition to piggyback) is just as quick as a tilt of your gun (to transition to offset).

What is NOT just as quick is the target acquisition.
That is because with an offset, your cheek weld remains consistent.
Whereas with a piggyback, you must break cheekweld--losing a point of contact--reestablish, reacquire, and then reengage.

In your video, you flip your gun on its side to demonstrate the absurdity of offset.
In reality, the most absurd aspect was the needless, dramatic exaggerations.

Pls refer to the pic below to see how much the rifle needs to be tilted.

111149

If piggyback were truly quicker, then that's what competition shooters would be running.
They're not. They're running offsets.
I rest my case.

........

In terms of "hypothesis #2" re: Throw Lever vs. Scopeswitch...

My point was that in any scenario where you need the zoom of your LPVO, you're going to be braced against a barrier.
So, your hand adjusting zoom--regardless of method--is burnt time until your hand can return back to supporting the rifle against barrier.
With the inclusion of an offset RDS, I can switch between magnification and RDS seamlessly while maintaining all support/points of contact.
Lastly, if you're not adjusting your zoom while on the move (BEFORE bracing to shoot), then you're never gonna make it.

[RhinoJM]

Offset is not always same the HOB, and it's not instantaneous; BS. You're still moving the gun to get on the optic and that takes time. Fractions of seconds but still. For the rest, as someone who has put dicks in the dirt using a 12 o'clock mounted red dot on an ACOG I'll call bullshit. Prime example? I myself have several deployments as an Infantry guy, plenty of combat from room distance to just under or around 200 yards. My account not good enough? No problem, how about service wide? 20 years of GWOT with a 12 o'clock mount on ACOG, suffice? No, prior to that? Okay... CCO's or their predecessors mounted to carrying handles which also got plenty of work done. Yep you guessed it, chin weld. How do you explain all the 1.93" mounts being used just fine? Spare the snark dude. The truth is that everyone is different from their body composition and construction right down to flexibility, vision and personal preference. Maybe the 45 offset is faster for some, maybe not but there are also other considerations and none of this trash matters when put into contextual usage but I digress. In competition we're talking milliseconds and it's not that freaking hard to find a 12 o'clock mount on a chin weld, give me a break.

I'd also be willing to bet a PF dollar that there are plenty of dudes who do it because some other dude on the internet did so or said it was better without putting it to a timer for themselves. Marketing and the psyops involved are also a thing but whatever. Without snark, everything needs to be put on a timer because they don't lie and don't have agendas or biases, yeah I know broken record. You shouldn't be making the claim that it's better for everyone. Context matters so let me color within the lines for you some more. In addition to the above facts here are some additional reasons to not go for an offset. 1. The first one you touched on but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. Yes, night vision. 2. Secondarily they are a snag hazard, especially if you're wrong handed and have gear or use a 3 point which I have personally seen, (stupid yes but still a thing). 3. Offsets also don't play well with switching to the other strong side, (yes I like my crap to be totally ambi). 4. If you're shooting suppressed. Guess what. If you're right handed you've just smoked out and obscured your vision. 5. Lastly offset does not provide the best recoil control, everything is a trade off. Personally, no thanks.

I'll go ahead and keep my 12 o'clock on my shitty ACOG and give 0 FK's what some random dude says on the web because I've used it and it works. I'll also encourage others to do the same and stick with the 12. As for the switch it's interesting but I am unsure about them. I definitely wouldn't try to use one in anything other than a competitive environment but they are interesting none the less but again. They need to be put on a timer vs. everything else.

My goodness. Who pissed in your cheerios?

Pls refer to my previous comment, a succinct response to the gentleman, JCN.
I believe that addresses the majority of your claims as well.

Let me address your addressing of my points.
#1 We agree. This is why the military prefers piggyback over offset. Guess what? Neither of us are military. And I don't plan on getting NVG any time soon.
#2 Look at the pic I posted in response to JCN. That is not a snag hazard. Never has been for me. Certainly not even close to the snag hazard presented by literally any other attachment on your rifle.
#3 You're right. But there is NO SITUATION where you or I would be shooting on support side and need the offset. So, you're actually wrong.
#4 Look at my attached pic in previous comment. In no way does that offset subject you to any more gas exposure. Also, welcome to 2023. Get a flow-through can. The future is now, old man.
#5 Cheek weld is absolutely crucial for recoil control. Offset preserves cheek weld with no degradations in any of the other points of contact. Whereas piggyback can make you repeatedly lose sight picture due to compromised (or nonexistent) cheek weld.

Cheers!

[Mike C]

RhinoJM, cool. You win.

[JCN]

If piggyback were truly quicker, then that's what competition shooters would be running.
They're not. They're running offsets.
I rest my case.

"Because that's the way we've always done it...."

That's not really "rest my case" material.

I'm a competition shooter, so I'm testing ergos. Did you know that in some sports and some stages, Max Leograndis DOESN'T RUN AN OFFSET....

So hear me out and try and suspend your preconceived notions.

When you're talking about your perspective, you have a certain sport in mind.

IS IT POSSIBLE that there are different shooting sports than the one you're thinking about in your mind's eye... and that the requirements for magnification, movement and engagement might be very different than what you're visualizing....


Here's some examples.

Say I take your 2 gun rifle and have you run an IDPA stage with it. All targets are <20 yards out. What's your distribution of optic use?

Now I take your 2 gun rifle and have you run a USPSA stage with it. All targets are <30 yards out and nothing really requiring slower than 0.30 splits.

Now I take a local PCSL 2 gun match. Farthest engagement distances on an upper torso target is 75 yards.

There are no barricades and everything is taken unsupported or on the move. Nothing requires more than 3x but it surely helps for those 75 yard targets.

Does that change your opinion on usage?

It does for me. It's going to depend VERY MUCH ON THE SPORT AND COURSE DESIGN.



What is NOT just as quick is the target acquisition.
That is because with an offset, your cheek weld remains consistent.
Whereas with a piggyback, you must break cheekweld--losing a point of contact--reestablish, reacquire, and then reengage.

I'm not sure how good of a long gun shooter you are, I don't mean that as an insult. I just don't know how good you are.

I'm a PCC GM in USPSA and it requires a lot of breaking cheekweld and getting back on target quickly. Same thing with entries and movement. It's like second nature and I'm very, very comfortable with it.


https://youtu.be/q6RsPd9qzvs?si=YxOx4tisSafLJpna

Also note that you often break cheekweld with movement into position anyway. So I'm not married to the cheek weld because a lot of transitions to a farther target require a broken cheek weld anyway without a dismount.

Also take my word for it, there are situations where I'm transitioning quickly and I want my normal neutral hand positions constant. I don't want to transition offset because it changes my transition performance and accuracy.

I may be talking about a different sport than you have anchored in your mind.

Without a context of how good you actually are, I can't really take your opinion with much weight. Because what you're saying about cheek weld in a transition doesn't seem to hold water to me.

Can you do a dry video to show me?





In terms of "hypothesis #2" re: Throw Lever vs. Scopeswitch...

My point was that in any scenario where you need the zoom of your LPVO, you're going to be braced against a barrier.
So, your hand adjusting zoom--regardless of method--is burnt time until your hand can return back to supporting the rifle against barrier.
With the inclusion of an offset RDS, I can switch between magnification and RDS seamlessly while maintaining all support/points of contact.
Lastly, if you're not adjusting your zoom while on the move (BEFORE bracing to shoot), then you're never gonna make it.

So again, you're thinking of a narrow application (that is different from my application).

With the scope switch, you can use the throw lever manually just like you would normally.

It just gives you extra options.

I personally would like a 2x zoom at 75 yards and would use it if available. I can get better hits that way and if I can bury the slider movement in the transition, I'm going to do that.

(Later this week I’m going to test some stuff and set up some targets at my range, I’ll do video but probably post in my journal to spare clutter).

[JCN]

RhinoJM

Maybe so I address things more specifically, can you spell out the following for me and I can use those targets and splits to see how the piggyback works?

Give me three target dimensions and distances and the splits / transition times you’d expect one to make and I can run them with piggyback and see if it works.

[stomridertx]

One thing I've learned is that this forum has some of the best shooters in the world present, and dictating absolutes to this audience doesn't end very well for preconceived notions or ego. Things I used to think were absolutely true change often as I progress in this world of shooting. I used to think an offset dot with an LPVO was dumb, now I run probably the most expensive mount out there to accomplish having an offset dot. I can foresee applications and builds where I'd rather have it at 12 o'clock, like JCN's example or an SPR build where I'd use the dot to get on a long range target quickly. Part of the fun in being a serious shooter is constantly trying new things, evolving, and figuring out what works best for what we want to do. The offset dot has a lot of advantages and some cons, the same goes for 12 o'clock. Where I'm personally at right now is preferring an offset for an LPVO with both having an identical height over bore. If I was running an MPVO or a prism, I think I'd prefer the 12 o'clock but I haven't ventured into that area just yet.

[BK14]

“Competition shooters don’t use piggy backs” while talking to a competition shooter using a piggy back.

“There’s never a reason to shoot offset, offhanded” I’ve done it…. Heck, I’ve competed and won a mid-sized closed enrollment match with a piggy back too.

There’s a metric ton of knowledge from SMEs on this board, but instead we’re running around speaking in absolutes showing our ignorance? Cool.

I’ve used just about every configuration of LPVO, mount heights, offset, piggy back, etc while in a work capacity, regularly training, and shooting a few matches. I’ve got my preferences, but ultimately with training most options will function.

I don’t like high mounted LPVOs. I don’t like my left eye’s vision being obstructed running an offset. I don’t like the reduced cheek weld of a top mounted dot. But with enough time any of those obstacles can be overcome. Train, find what works for your context. Avoid absolute statements.

[JCN]

stomridertx
BK14
Mike C

I love you gents.

Very well said and stage design and sport heavily influence equipment, I think.

There are no absolutes and context (and skill level) matters too.

In case anyone was wondering about the way the scope switch works and the way it would work on a support position, I made a video.


https://youtu.be/isdbyOA4Yuo?si=II7Hq3zOR5J_QSBA

I kind of think it would work well, but I don't have enough longer range 2 gun experience to say.

[JCN]

I like testing….

Got my 9mm analog set up tonight.

111181

They’re within 3 ounces of each other.

Plus this way I can bang away without annoying neighbors, destroying my steel targets or fragging myself up close.

I might still run 9mm frangible as it’s lighter anyway.

Looking forward to a nice range session tomorrow where I can test the scope switch a little more.

To not clutter the thread I’ll probably post in my journal.

[TWR]

Please forgive a stupid question but what about the red dot in your scope?

I just remember “you have to have daylight bright reticle, be able to shoot occluded, use it as a red dot etc. etc.”
I have a cousin that runs 6.5-20 scopes on his AR’s and two years ago we had a good snow and while pig hunting, he found them bedded under cedar trees but getting that close he was handicapped with the 6.5-20. I rigged him up an offset red dot and it worked great for him.

I’m a coyote hunter and have never shot competitions with my AR just some pistol matches. I’m trying to see what all the fuss is over offset or piggyback vs just leaving the scope on 6X (I have a 1-6) and using the daylight bright dot in my scope. I know that shooting occluded will result in your shots being off the further you get but I’m just curious.

[Default.mp3]

Please forgive a stupid question but what about the red dot in your scope?

I just remember “you have to have daylight bright reticle, be able to shoot occluded, use it as a red dot etc. etc.”
I have a cousin that runs 6.5-20 scopes on his AR’s and two years ago we had a good snow and while pig hunting, he found them bedded under cedar trees but getting that close he was handicapped with the 6.5-20. I rigged him up an offset red dot and it worked great for him.

I’m a coyote hunter and have never shot competitions with my AR just some pistol matches. I’m trying to see what all the fuss is over offset or piggyback vs just leaving the scope on 6X (I have a 1-6) and using the daylight bright dot in my scope. I know that shooting occluded will result in your shots being off the further you get but I’m just curious.Post @Molon (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=8228) made about his experiences with using his ACOG as an OEG:

The Effects of Phoria When Using the ACOG as an Occluded-Eye Gunsight




Phoria: the visual effect that occurs when one eye is blocked from seeing the same view of a target as the other eye; the blocked eye does not get the same sensory input as the other eye and can begin to wonder off, usually to one side or the other.


In an attempt to make my Trijicon TA-11 ACOG more versatile at engaging close range targets, I installed a Progressive Machine and Tool flip-down front lens cover. With the lens cover in the up position (blocking the view through the scope) the ACOG can function as a nonmagnified occluded-eye gunsight. When the ACOG is functioning as an occluded-eye gunsight, the view of the target for the eye looking into the scope is blocked and the effect of phoria comes into play.




http://www.box.net/shared/static/l4r8gj7j1q.jpg






http://www.box.net/shared/static/vrsnd0hkns.jpg






http://www.box.net/shared/static/k0girfh017.jpg




In order to determine just what the effects of phoria would be when using the ACOG TA-11 as an occluded-eye gunsight, I conducted a test comparing the accuracy and points of impact when shooting with the lens cover down (normal sighting) and the lens cover up (occluded-eye sighting.) Testing was conducted at a distance of 25 yards, the farthest distance that I would anticipate using the occluded eye-method of sighting.


Shooting off a sand bag, I zeroed the TA-11 for point of aim equals point of impact at 25 yards using the normal sighting method. I then fired a quick 10-shot group with the normal sighting method that formed a tidy group with an extreme spread of 0.56”.


http://www.box.net/shared/static/r0fbs1x6n5.jpg




Next, I placed the lens cover in the up position, transforming the ACOG into an occluded-eye gunsight. The left eye views the target, while the right eye views the reticle in the scope. The right eye is blocked (occluded) from seeing the target due to the lens cover. The impact of the initial shots using this method had such a large horizontal deviation to the left that they were off the targets that I originally was using. I had to change to a 24” wide target and aim at the far right side of the target to capture the impact of the rounds. The aiming point for this portion of the test was the numeral “7” on the target.


Using the occluded-eye method of sighting, I fired a 10-shot group. This group had an extreme spread of over 7” and the center of the group was 14” to the left of the aiming point!


http://www.box.net/shared/static/pin3zb13ha.jpg
Source: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?34549-The-Effects-of-Phoria-When-Using-the-ACOG-as-an-Occluded-Eye-Gunsight


Sadly, the pictures are gone, but there was a huge difference in the group sizes. For some folks, BAC/OEG works fine; for others, it's non-viable. IIRC, Failure2Stop has spoken about how in some of the classes he's taught, over half of the students were not able to get BAC to work in any meaningful way.

[stomridertx]

Please forgive a stupid question but what about the red dot in your scope?

I just remember “you have to have daylight bright reticle, be able to shoot occluded, use it as a red dot etc. etc.”
I have a cousin that runs 6.5-20 scopes on his AR’s and two years ago we had a good snow and while pig hunting, he found them bedded under cedar trees but getting that close he was handicapped with the 6.5-20. I rigged him up an offset red dot and it worked great for him.

I’m a coyote hunter and have never shot competitions with my AR just some pistol matches. I’m trying to see what all the fuss is over offset or piggyback vs just leaving the scope on 6X (I have a 1-6) and using the daylight bright dot in my scope. I know that shooting occluded will result in your shots being off the further you get but I’m just curious.
What I've determined is that if you have a true 1x with a daylight bright reticle, the offset dot is optional and not mandatory. However, you gain a lot with the optional. The 1x experience on the Razor Gen II 1-6 is top notch and gets used a lot. The offset gives an instant 1x if you are dialed up, but there are some less obvious benefits as well. Things like shooting on the move to the opposite side of your dominant hand, shooting past barricades on your off side, getting low on the hood of a vehicle, dead battery in your LPVO because they don't run as long, etc. Run some courses of fire with the offset or 12 o'clock dot and it endears itself to you over time.
The scopeswitch potentially can replace the "instant 1x" aspect and make the offset less desireable, but there are questions than need to be answered. Things like how resting the handguard for stability takes that capability away, how moving your support hand back and forth affects your shooting, how durable the system is over time. The cost is a factor as well at this point, that's a lot of scratch when you are already thousands into this deal. I don't think a lot of the budget LPVO crowd is going to get into the scopeswitch.

[Noah]

What I've determined is that if you have a true 1x with a daylight bright reticle, the offset dot is optional and not mandatory. However, you gain a lot with the optional. The 1x experience on the Razor Gen II 1-6 is top notch and gets used a lot. The offset gives an instant 1x if you are dialed up, but there are some less obvious benefits as well. Things like shooting on the move to the opposite side of your dominant hand, shooting past barricades on your off side, getting low on the hood of a vehicle, dead battery in your LPVO because they don't run as long, etc. Run some courses of fire with the offset or 12 o'clock dot and it endears itself to you over time.
The scopeswitch potentially can replace the "instant 1x" aspect and make the offset less desireable, but there are questions than need to be answered. Things like how resting the handguard for stability takes that capability away, how moving your support hand back and forth affects your shooting, how durable the system is over time. The cost is a factor as well at this point, that's a lot of scratch when you are already thousands into this deal. I don't think a lot of the budget LPVO crowd is going to get into the scopeswitch.

In 10 or 20 or 30 years, all LPVOs will have an integral powered zoom control, or we'll all be using digitalized optics with Zoom controlled by our thoughts via Tesla Neural link. Half joking, but the ScopeSwitch is just the first crude iteration of the future.

[TWR]

I know everyone is different, different eyes and different uses. I ran an ACOG until my eyes would no longer focus the reticle. The BAC worked very well for me but it was the TA33 I think. 3x and I shot it on 7” plates to 600 yards as well as shooting coyotes running in to eat me. It just didn’t bother me. I switched to 1-4 scopes and did not have a daylight bright reticle but even on 4x, close shots were not a problem. I finally got a daylight bright reticle in a 1-6 and it would seem by the conversation here that the red dot just replaced the daylight bright reticle in a LPVO.

I’ve ran my 1-6 against my 1-4 on a timer at 15 yard targets to prove to myself that the daylight bright dot is faster than a plain reticle. Now I have to run a similar drill on 1x vs 6X and see if it causes issues. I can see an offset or piggybacked red dot being beneficial with an 8x or 10x scope as the eye box gets finicky but I just can’t see it worth the arguments with a 1-4 or even a 1-6.

At what distances are you using the red dot and at what power scope?

[JCN]

In 10 or 20 or 30 years, all LPVOs will have an integral powered zoom control, or we'll all be using digitalized optics with Zoom controlled by our thoughts via Tesla Neural link. Half joking, but the ScopeSwitch is just the first crude iteration of the future.

Supposedly an electronic version is in the works.

I went to my range for a little and I think the scope switch has some real promise as a concept.

[mmc45414]

I can see an offset or piggybacked red dot being beneficial with an 8x or 10x scope as the eye box gets finicky but I just can’t see it worth the arguments with a 1-4 or even a 1-6.

After shooting three gun with a 1-6 for the past few years I am in the process of consolidating to just having one 5.56 gun with a 1-6, and I think I am going to add a set of 45deg offset peep sights. One thing that I think will (temporarily) take a scope or a red dot out of action is being occluded with rainwater. We shot a stage once where I had the unlucky timing of being hit by a deluge right before I had to shoot at some pretty distant small plates, and I couldn't see a damn thing through the optic. Not sure I woulda been able to hit the plates with iron sights, but I couldn't see anything except the dot through the sight.

Since I already have it in a LaRue mount and I already have a red dot in a LaRue mount, I might experiment with keeping them both zeroed, but I am pretty sure the dot will make its way onto something else.

[RhinoJM]

RhinoJM

Maybe so I address things more specifically, can you spell out the following for me and I can use those targets and splits to see how the piggyback works?

Give me three target dimensions and distances and the splits / transition times you’d expect one to make and I can run them with piggyback and see if it works.


For an LPVO (say, 1-6) w/ 30degree RDS offset,

It's to your advantage to use the LPVO for all targets if no zoom is required.

If zoom is required, then that's where the offset comes in.

You'll find that it's simpler and quicker to use the offset for the target acquisition, then transitioning to pre-zoomed LPVO, and then blasting away.
This is especially true when you're transitioning between distant targets (where they're not both in your sight picture).
Same goes for transitioning from RDS to LPVO for close-distance to far-distance... and vice versa.

Idk what kind of range you have access to, but if you can shoot doubles at steel targets between 50yds and 150yds, you're gonna notice the strengths of the offset.
I'd say try this at 3x on LPVO, then again at whatever max magnification you have.

I guess you can describe me as more of a "practical shooter" in the sense that I have nothing geared for competition. My carry/duty guns are my competition guns.
So, perhaps competition-specific modifications (such as muzzle breaks) may provide more forgiveness w/o cheekweld than you otherwise may get.
Of course, I'm not going to discount your extensive training with this method, either.

[RhinoJM]

I know everyone is different, different eyes and different uses. I ran an ACOG until my eyes would no longer focus the reticle. The BAC worked very well for me but it was the TA33 I think. 3x and I shot it on 7” plates to 600 yards as well as shooting coyotes running in to eat me. It just didn’t bother me. I switched to 1-4 scopes and did not have a daylight bright reticle but even on 4x, close shots were not a problem. I finally got a daylight bright reticle in a 1-6 and it would seem by the conversation here that the red dot just replaced the daylight bright reticle in a LPVO.

I’ve ran my 1-6 against my 1-4 on a timer at 15 yard targets to prove to myself that the daylight bright dot is faster than a plain reticle. Now I have to run a similar drill on 1x vs 6X and see if it causes issues. I can see an offset or piggybacked red dot being beneficial with an 8x or 10x scope as the eye box gets finicky but I just can’t see it worth the arguments with a 1-4 or even a 1-6.

At what distances are you using the red dot and at what power scope?

I agree, use the 1x on your LPVO. Especially if it's something like the Razor 1-6 (what I use) or PA PLxC 1-8.

The offset RDS replaces whatever offset irons you'd have as backup optic.
Additionally, the offset RDS provides two crucial benefits:
1) Instantaneous 1x if you need a quick up-close shot and your LPVO magnification is maxxed out.
2) Very quick target acquisition and transition at distance via switching between offset RDS and pre-magnified LPVO.

In all of these situations, no points of contact are compromised whatsoever. Your head remains perfectly still relative to the gun.

Once you start using MPVOs (e.g. 2.5-10), then piggybacks become more feasible (vs. offset) due to the big side turrets on these scopes.

[littlejerry]

At what distances are you using the red dot and at what power scope?

The benefit of a red dot for me is position/barricade dependent:
Horizontal ports
Low ports
Shooting from within confined spaces like a vehicle, culvert, etc
Louvered windows
Sloped rooftops
Weak side barricades

Basically any situation that puts you in a less optimal position the red dot wins out for me.

This has been true for 1-6, 1-8, and 2.5-10 optics with a 12:00 piggyback

[Unobtanium]

SIG Tango 6 compared to Trijicon VCOG 1-8


https://youtu.be/mSPdv8qeclM

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Years ago, when I was deciding between MK6 and VCOG 1-6, I spoke with a gent whose unit had 20 of each to T&E. 0 MK6's were deadlined. Issues were setting up the mounts, and losing the little allen wrench for the turrets. Some batteries died. VCOG was down by 4, I believe, when it was said and done. Moisture intrusion, and other "this shouldn't occur" type events. I am not exactly surprised the VCOG died in this T&E, as well.

[WobblyPossum]

I’ve noticed almost every LPVO I see online is mounted with the rear lens about even with the charging handle. I only picked up my first LPVO, a Gen II-E Razor 1-6, earlier this year so I have very little experience and have been playing around with it. I’ve tried the rear lens even with charging handle and it seems to work okay at 1x but as I increase the magnification I get scope shadow and have to back away from the scope, especially if I change positions from standing to kneeling and prone. I’ve more recently pushed the optic forward one rail slot so the rear lens is maybe a centimeter closer to the muzzle. It still seems to work standing at 1x but I’m finding it slightly better when magnified in kneeling and prone but still not perfect. I don’t run my stock fully extended. I generally run it where if I make a 90 degree bend in my elbow, the butt is about two finger widths short of my bicep. It seems to work great standing but as I get lower in my position, my face seems to get closer to the optic and I get scope shadow. When I go prone, I find I need to actually extend the stock pretty much all the way out in order to not have scope shadow, even with the optic pushed forward a slot. How does everyone deal with this?

[stomridertx]

I’ve noticed almost every LPVO I see online is mounted with the rear lens about even with the charging handle. I only picked up my first LPVO, a Gen II-E Razor 1-6, earlier this year so I have very little experience and have been playing around with it. I’ve tried the rear lens even with charging handle and it seems to work okay at 1x but as I increase the magnification I get scope shadow and have to back away from the scope, especially if I change positions from standing to kneeling and prone. I’ve more recently pushed the optic forward one rail slot so the rear lens is maybe a centimeter closer to the muzzle. It still seems to work standing at 1x but I’m finding it slightly better when magnified in kneeling and prone but still not perfect. I don’t run my stock fully extended. I generally run it where if I make a 90 degree bend in my elbow, the butt is about two finger widths short of my bicep. It seems to work great standing but as I get lower in my position, my face seems to get closer to the optic and I get scope shadow. When I go prone, I find I need to actually extend the stock pretty much all the way out in order to not have scope shadow, even with the optic pushed forward a slot. How does everyone deal with this?
The Razor has more eye relief than most LPVOs and needs to be farther forward than that. . My badger C1 mount is mounted as far forward on the rail as it will go without bridging to the handguard. I tend to run my stock 2 clicks in from all the way out and this works out well. There should be pictures of my setup earlier in the thread. Changing the stock length of pull depending on your position is a non-starter, that will have a negative effect on your accuracy downrange.

[WobblyPossum]

The Razor has more eye relief than most LPVOs and needs to be farther forward than that. . My badger C1 mount is mounted as far forward on the rail as it will go without bridging to the handguard. I tend to run my stock 2 clicks in from all the way out and this works out well. There should be pictures of my setup earlier in the thread. Changing the stock length of pull depending on your position is a non-starter, that will have a negative effect on your accuracy downrange.

Mine is mounted exactly where yours is. Have you had any issues when switching from standing to kneeling or prone?

[stomridertx]

I haven't had any problems, I set my scope up for prone at max magnification and that will work for any position I'm in.

[stomridertx]

I just realized asking someone to search a massive thread for a picture is unreasonable. The rifle has a different offset optic now than in the picture but it's in the same spot.

111532

[littlejerry]

My LPVOs have been positioned similarly (forward of charging handle).

The Vortex lens cap adds some length hear which makes it look like it's lined up111554

[Clusterfrack]

Here's how I have mine set up:
LPVO
111556

MPVO
111555

[WobblyPossum]

What’s the next best app to figure out holdovers now that Strelok is no longer available on the App Store since the creator was sanctioned early this year?

[Clusterfrack]

What’s the next best app to figure out holdovers now that Strelok is no longer available on the App Store since the creator was sanctioned early this year?

Strelok is/was good for assigning range values to a BDC reticle. But there are far better ballistic apps. I use Ballistic AE. Hornady is good as well.

[WobblyPossum]

Strelok is/was good for assigning range values to a BDC reticle. But there are far better ballistic apps. I use Ballistic AE. Hornady is good as well.

Thanks. Just downloaded the Hornady one.

[stomridertx]

Here are more current and better pics that show my LPVO mounting location. I changed my offset red dot to a Holosun 508T and changed the Badger J-Arm to the 35 degree 1.7 height, which is a perfect match with the Razor's low profile turrets and allows it to clear the light. This optics package migrated from a 16" BCM that is about to become a MPVO/offset dot SPR build to this 14.5" pin/weld Faxon Gunner profile barrel. It handles like a lightweight rifle now and I have no reservations about the weight of the scope package. Bottom rifle is a 15-22 trainer that is getting an offset dot soon. The bottom scope is an Athlon Talos BTR Gen2 1-4x24 with a mil reticle that works out perfect for .22lr drops with a 75y zero. Athlon scopes have to be the king of punching above their weight class.
https://i.imgur.com/42D5tQIh.jpg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thought I would add. Living in NYS and waiting for Bruen to set us free. Two options:

111675

Oh, the real setup:

111676

[JCN]

RhinoJM


https://youtu.be/noCZX-TDyUU?si=l6NmPzdiBnWq1qPN

[Super77]

What’s the next best app to figure out holdovers now that Strelok is no longer available on the App Store since the creator was sanctioned early this year?

I’ve had really good results with the Hornady ap

[mmc45414]

If I was running an MPVO or a prism, I think I'd prefer the 12 o'clock but I haven't ventured into that area just yet.

Not really relevant to this thread but to stretch the topic, I am working on a piggyback setup for this rifle, primarily for shooting at prairie dogs. My routine is to glass around with binoculars to find some of the little buggers popped up out of their hole, then get back behind the gun prone, and reacquiring that particular brown mound, in a vast field of hundreds, perhaps a thousand brown mounds, is a bit of the trick. Not sure I ever expect to use the RDO to fire a shot (the thing is really not an offhand kinda rig...), but I expect it to help a great deal for getting on target. In this case lifting my head will be more desirable than tilting the rifle on the bipod.

111831

[SecondsCount]

Eurooptic has a big sale going on the 1-10 Vudu $1,299

https://www.eurooptic.com/EOTech-Vudu-1-10x28mm-FFP-SR5-Reticle-MRAD-Riflescope-VDU1-10FFSR5.aspx

[LOBO]

I have yet to have a chance to look through a Vortex Razor 1-6. The only Vortex I have tried was a 4-14x50 (I think) PST hunting scope. It was sub-par, and was sent back for repair. Then sold at a discount with full dis-closure.

Is the Razor 1-6 line that much better/higher quality? What reticles are preferred? What is the difference between the JM reticle & the BDC reticle?

Thanks

- Chris

[TWR]

The Razor line is built in Japan at LOW to a pretty good standard. They have other lines built in China to who knows what. One shop I deal with quit carrying Vortex products because most of his customers wouldn’t spring for the Razor line and the warranty rate on the cheaper scopes took up way too much of his time.

[SecondsCount]

I have yet to have a chance to look through a Vortex Razor 1-6. The only Vortex I have tried was a 4-14x50 (I think) PST hunting scope. It was sub-par, and was sent back for repair. Then sold at a discount with full dis-closure.

Is the Razor 1-6 line that much better/higher quality? What reticles are preferred? What is the difference between the JM reticle & the BDC reticle?

Thanks

- Chris

The JM-1 is a BDC reticle

The Vortex Razor series is the top of the line for Vortex. It is a better product than the PST line, which is the next step down. That said, the PST II is a much improved product over the original PST.

The biggest complaint that I have heard about the 1-6x Razor is the weight at 25 oz. In comparison, I am running a 1-8.5x Bushnell SMRS with 2.5x more power and 2 oz less weight, and the newer Primary Arms 1-8x Plx Compact is 17 oz.

[WobblyPossum]

The JM-1 is a BDC reticle

The Vortex Razor series is the top of the line for Vortex. It is a better product than the PST line, which is the next step down. That said, the PST II is a much improved product over the original PST.

The biggest complaint that I have heard about the 1-6x Razor is the weight at 25 oz. In comparison, I am running a 1-8.5x Bushnell SMRS with 2.5x more power and 2 oz less weight, and the newer Primary Arms 1-8x Plx Compact is 17 oz.

The original Razor Gen II 1-6 weighed 25oz. The Gen II-E weighs 21.5oz. Still a bit of a pig compared to something like a NX8 or a PLx compact but almost a quarter pound lighter than the original.

[CS Tactical]

The Razor line is built in Japan at LOW to a pretty good standard. They have other lines built in China to who knows what. One shop I deal with quit carrying Vortex products because most of his customers wouldn’t spring for the Razor line and the warranty rate on the cheaper scopes took up way too much of his time.


PST Gen 2's come from the Philippines
Razor line from LOW factory in Japan
AMG's from the United States

Most of the sub $600 or so lineup is from China

[Tokarev]

Vortex has announced a new 1-6x24. This one in the Venom family.

Price is pretty darned cheap. I assume it will compare well with the similarly priced SIG MSR 1-6x24.

I kind of like the reticle just going off pics. I'd like to see something like it used in the Viper and Razor.

https://www.sportoptics.com/venom-1-6x24-sfp-ar-bdc3-ven-1601.html

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4E1rK9t7Q

[Tokarev]

A Sport Optics video on the new 3-15 and 1-6:


https://youtu.be/E_CH8s-IaeA?si=oHba6yhCGczvfgZ5

While I'm glad to see Vortex introducing more budget options I'd also like to see some updates to existing scopes. I'm sure the market as a whole would welcome a new reticle in the 1-6 Razor. I think there's also a market for a 1-8 Viper. Something that’s similar in features to the Razor 1-10 but that isn't close to $2000 in price.

A 1-8 Viper might kill off sales of the 1-6 Viper. But would that be a bad thing?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

And one more.


https://youtu.be/n2etrKGMHYM?si=jYv2iI6fquy71hTL

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

Trijicon has two 1-10 options now in the Credo line.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2024/01/04/three-new-scopes-trijicon-2024-credo/

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[ragnar_d]

I like the Venom line for a budget scope. Looks like they're wanting some of that Primary Arms marketshare, though the only appreciable difference between them and the Strike Eagle (on the 1-6 at least) appears to be 1/2 MOA adjustments on the Venom and 1/4 MOA adjustment on the SE. Overall, I think they'd make decent casual use scopes. About my only gripe is that I wish these more entry level scopes would go to a standard MOA/MIL reticle instead of the BDC ones they all seem to have.

[Noah]

I like the Venom line for a budget scope. Looks like they're wanting some of that Primary Arms marketshare, though the only appreciable difference between them and the Strike Eagle (on the 1-6 at least) appears to be 1/2 MOA adjustments on the Venom and 1/4 MOA adjustment on the SE. Overall, I think they'd make decent casual use scopes. About my only gripe is that I wish these more entry level scopes would go to a standard MOA/MIL reticle instead of the BDC ones they all seem to have.

Question for me is how the glass compares to the Strike Eagle and PA's. Same reticle as the gen 2 SE

[stomridertx]

I get a strong sense that the Strike Eagle 1-6 is getting discontinued and the 1-8 will be the sole LPVO in the Strike Eagle family.

[Tokarev]

Trijicon has two 1-10 options now in the Credo line.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2024/01/04/three-new-scopes-trijicon-2024-credo/

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalkhttps://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/first-look-trijicon-credo-and-credo-hx-riflescopes/

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Sadmin]

Arken 1-8 arrived yesterday. I understand the fud and paid shilling that has apparently taken place with this company but damnit; this glass and killbox reticle is not shabby at all, am pleased.

The only other LPVO I have currently is the GLx 1-10 from PA so I understand my "scope" of quality is limited...I wont let myself move up to the 1k+ tier until I am limited by the scope itself.

That all being said, I have realized in 2023 I am much more of an LPVO guy than a RDS + magnifier guy.

[Tokarev]

Here's the new Leupold MK4HD. It is available with a couple of different (although still rather basic) reticle options.

https://www.leupold.com/shop/riflescopes/series/mark-4hd-rifle-scopes

Interestingly enough the MK3 appears to still be in production. I guess Leupold has probably sold enough of the higher magnification options to keep this product line alive. I don't have any way of knowing but my gut tells me they've sold zero 1.5-4 scopes.

I have no problem with a 1-4 especially if the 1x is free of fisheye and provides a good flat image and the reticle is bright and/or bold enough to use quickly at 1x. It just seems the industry as a whole has moved on with 1-8 and now 1-10 becoming more and more the norm. Most of these higher power scopes are about useless at 1x but you'd still think Leupold would be vying for some of this market.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

Here's the new Leupold MK4HD. It is available with a couple of different (although still rather basic) reticle options.

https://www.leupold.com/shop/riflescopes/series/mark-4hd-rifle-scopes

Interestingly enough the MK3 appears to still be in production. I guess Leupold has probably sold enough of the higher magnification options to keep this product line alive. I don't have any way of knowing but my gut tells me they've sold zero 1.5-4 scopes.

I have no problem with a 1-4 especially if the 1x is free of fisheye and provides a good flat image and the reticle is bright and/or bold enough to use quickly at 1x. It just seems the industry as a whole has moved on with 1-8 and now 1-10 becoming more and more the norm. Most of these higher power scopes are about useless at 1x but you'd still think Leupold would be vying for some of this market.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Leupold sure makes some really odd decisions. 1-4.5x would definitely be sufficient for some applications, but I'm also surprised they don't have an offering for the higher magnification 1x segment. For a 1-4, I'd want to see something very light weight to go along with that and this weighs more than a NX8 1-8. The reticle choices are meh, and it looks like some of the 1-4.5 reticle options come with a locking elevation turret. I'm not sure who is dialing with a 1-4.5 scope.

I haven't looked through all of the popular 1-8 or 1-10 scopes, but I have quite a bit of time on an NX8 1-8 and Razor 1-10, and while the 1x isn't perfect on either of them, I think they are both far from useless. Other than a little more tube effect and less field of view, the 1x on my NX8 is just as good as my Razor 1-6.

[Tokarev]

Leupold sure makes some really odd decisions. 1-4.5x would definitely be sufficient for some applications, but I'm also surprised they don't have an offering for the higher magnification 1x segment. For a 1-4, I'd want to see something very light weight to go along with that and this weighs more than a NX8 1-8. The reticle choices are meh, and it looks like some of the 1-4.5 reticle options come with a locking elevation turret. I'm not sure who is dialing with a 1-4.5 scope.

I haven't looked through all of the popular 1-8 or 1-10 scopes, but I have quite a bit of time on an NX8 1-8 and Razor 1-10, and while the 1x isn't perfect on either of them, I think they are both far from useless. Other than a little more tube effect and less field of view, the 1x on my NX8 is just as good as my Razor 1-6.Leupold does offer a 1-6 in the Patrol line. These have either a fairly plain cross hair reticle or the old CMR2 reticle. The CMR2 is actually pretty decent in my experience but it doesn't need the holdover to 1000m or whatever that bottom line is supposed to be. This is a SFP scope and the CMR works well here.

Leupold did have the MK6 1-6 for a number of years. It was FFP and generally well liked but it, like many FFP options, had the common flaws of tiny reticle at 1x and fat reticle at 6x with dim illumination that only worked in poor lighting. Why Leupold isn't updating the MK6 series is anyone's guess. Even a MK5 offering would probably be a good seller if it was lightweight and durable with a more information based reticle.

The NX8 is a good little scope but not perfect. The later Gen with the ATACR reticle works well enough at low power but the older version without the heavy center circle could be hard to see depending on the background. The Razor 1-10 is an outlier in the market being that it is FFP but gets very bright at 1x and has a translucent reticle at 10x. It is something more scope companies should look through for inspiration in my opinion. With all that said, it isn't perfect. Its image gets pretty soft at 9 or 10 power. Still useful but at what cost? It would seem as if the 9 or 10 setting is more a marketing strategy. Razor 1-8 but with a 10x just to say they did it?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

It would seem as if the 9 or 10 setting is more a marketing strategy. Razor 1-8 but with a 10x just to say they did it?



I completely agree and actually prefer the 1-6 Razor.

The NX8 is my current favorite LPVO though. The NX8 isn't what I'd pick for something like an SPR where my main focus would be long range precision shots, but I think I'd lean towards something in the 2-10x range for that use instead of an LPVO all together. The glass is more than good enough for my use and the size, weight, durability, red dot brightness, and reticle make it an excellent complete package. I've had both reticle options and while I do prefer the newer option, the old reticle was fine on 1x. I've found the image to be better on the ones with the new reticle also, even though there hasn't been any mention of a change.

[stomridertx]

Arken 1-8 arrived yesterday. I understand the fud and paid shilling that has apparently taken place with this company but damnit; this glass and killbox reticle is not shabby at all, am pleased.

The only other LPVO I have currently is the GLx 1-10 from PA so I understand my "scope" of quality is limited...I wont let myself move up to the 1k+ tier until I am limited by the scope itself.

That all being said, I have realized in 2023 I am much more of an LPVO guy than a RDS + magnifier guy.

With that realization that you like LPVOs the best, that is more than enough justification to move to the next tier. It's hard to do, but if shooting is your primary hobby it pays dividends to invest in yourself. Life is too short, look through good glass while you can.

[Caballoflaco]

Leupold sure makes some really odd decisions. 1-4.5x would definitely be sufficient for some applications, but I'm also surprised they don't have an offering for the higher magnification 1x segment. For a 1-4, I'd want to see something very light weight to go along with that and this weighs more than a NX8 1-8. The reticle choices are meh, and it looks like some of the 1-4.5 reticle options come with a locking elevation turret. I'm not sure who is dialing with a 1-4.5 scope.

I haven't looked through all of the popular 1-8 or 1-10 scopes, but I have quite a bit of time on an NX8 1-8 and Razor 1-10, and while the 1x isn't perfect on either of them, I think they are both far from useless. Other than a little more tube effect and less field of view, the 1x on my NX8 is just as good as my Razor 1-6.

Below is Leopold since 2008 when it comes to product development in red dots and LPVO’s. Not informed enough about their mid and high magnification optics to comment on those.

113831

[CS Tactical]

So a few Vortex AMG 1-10's have hit the commercial market for a handful of lucky people, unfortunately it will be at least a year before they are available to non- gov contracts. :( Or so I been told...


https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/vortex-amg-1-10-lpvo.7148782/

113837

[dontshakepandas]

unfortunately it will be at least a year before they are available to non- gov contracts. :( Or so I been told...


Or fortunately for my bank account.

[CS Tactical]

Or fortunately for my bank account.


https://media1.tenor.com/images/5e4afc792dca2b82d4e5bb9145692dc5/tenor.gif?itemid=10878845

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/cVevpnndDFs?si=Cy1mNDhvqaKuwuvc

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[WobblyPossum]

So a few Vortex AMG 1-10's have hit the commercial market for a handful of lucky people, unfortunately it will be at least a year before they are available to non- gov contracts. :( Or so I been told...


https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/vortex-amg-1-10-lpvo.7148782/

113837

EuroOptic was recently selling some Daniel Defense rifles with these scopes on them. There were 50 available. My understanding is that DD entered the UK rifle trials that KAC ended up winning and needed to be able to provide 50 first article samples should they have won. They’re now trying to recoup the costs by selling the package for around $5600. There are still some available (https://www.eurooptic.com/Daniel-Defense-M4A1-RIII-556mm-NATO-145-P-W-Bbl-Rifle-with-Vortex-AMG-1-10x24-FF.aspx).

[Tokarev]

Below is Leopold since 2008 when it comes to product development in red dots and LPVO’s. Not informed enough about their mid and high magnification optics to comment on those.

113831Leupold did many good and interesting things. Leupold more or less started the LVPO market with the 1-3 CQT and then later refined it with the 1.1-8 CQBSS.

Other interesting stuff done by Leupold include the DEVO and the LCO. These were probably the company's last attempts at being innovative. Now it seems they'd rather make hunting scopes.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[CS Tactical]

EuroOptic was recently selling some Daniel Defense rifles with these scopes on them. There were 50 available. My understanding is that DD entered the UK rifle trials that KAC ended up winning and needed to be able to provide 50 first article samples should they have won. They’re now trying to recoup the costs by selling the package for around $5600. There are still some available (https://www.eurooptic.com/Daniel-Defense-M4A1-RIII-556mm-NATO-145-P-W-Bbl-Rifle-with-Vortex-AMG-1-10x24-FF.aspx).


Correct! I didn't include that information as I thought they were sold out and didn't bother to verify. As of the scope itself my statement above stands according to Vortex Rep.

[GyroF-16]

So a few Vortex AMG 1-10's have hit the commercial market for a handful of lucky people, unfortunately it will be at least a year before they are available to non- gov contracts. :( Or so I been told...


https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/vortex-amg-1-10-lpvo.7148782/

113837

Well, be sure to post up here when they ARE available. I’m interested, and patient.

[El Cid]

Well, be sure to post up here when they ARE available. I’m interested, and patient.

Amen! If I could get one of these scopes and an HK M110A1 SDMR to put it on…. It would be glorious! I’m probably more likely to win the lottery but a guy can dream right?

[CS Tactical]

Well, be sure to post up here when they ARE available. I’m interested, and patient.


Absolutely!!!

[Robert Mitchum]

SLx® 1-10x28 With ACSS NOVA® Reticle
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products?trk_msg=IQC3TQNO18RK57V39KNR0BKTE4&trk_contact=5GBP7CA9EJ99TASG98BAF109OK&trk_sid=GNSDPV5A6I49N8GICD5DECNITC&trk_link=LS1EC6QIRJ44155T5C1FA6FJ4O&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.primaryarms.com%2fprima ry-arms-new-products&utm_campaign=24_01_AD19_Discovery_2024-Launch

[Noah]

SLx® 1-10x28 With ACSS NOVA® Reticle
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products?trk_msg=IQC3TQNO18RK57V39KNR0BKTE4&trk_contact=5GBP7CA9EJ99TASG98BAF109OK&trk_sid=GNSDPV5A6I49N8GICD5DECNITC&trk_link=LS1EC6QIRJ44155T5C1FA6FJ4O&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.primaryarms.com%2fprima ry-arms-new-products&utm_campaign=24_01_AD19_Discovery_2024-Launch

They also launched the PLXc with Nova reticle

[littlejerry]

I'm a current PLX-C owner. I have mixed feelings on the new Nova reticle.

It'll probably be a baller Razor-like 1x scope. But it's weakness is how tight and dark it gets above 7x. I'm not sure I'd want a SFP reticle with that scope since I don't particularly like to use it at max power.

I really wish they put a simpler and cleaner reticle in the FFP version

[Wake27]

I'm a current PLX-C owner. I have mixed feelings on the new Nova reticle.

It'll probably be a baller Razor-like 1x scope. But it's weakness is how tight and dark it gets above 7x. I'm not sure I'd want a SFP reticle with that scope since I don't particularly like to use it at max power.

I really wish they put a simpler and cleaner reticle in the FFP version

I'd agree, or keep it 1-6. 1-8 SFP always seemed a bit odd to me.

[joshs]

Leupold has a 1-4.5 in their new MK4HD line: https://www.leupold.com/mark-4hd-1-4-5x24-sfp-illum-firedot-bdc

[Tokarev]

I'm a current PLX-C owner. I have mixed feelings on the new Nova reticle.

It'll probably be a baller Razor-like 1x scope. But it's weakness is how tight and dark it gets above 7x. I'm not sure I'd want a SFP reticle with that scope since I don't particularly like to use it at max power.

I really wish they put a simpler and cleaner reticle in the FFP versionI thought people generally liked the Nova reticle?

At just over 16 ounces and then 10 inches long this should be a good option for those wanting a daylight bright 1x and also something with more horsepower. Granted a 1-6 with the P series glass and similar size/weight specs would have been fine.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

Leupold has a 1-4.5 in their new MK4HD line: https://www.leupold.com/mark-4hd-1-4-5x24-sfp-illum-firedot-bdcAt post #1132 we start talking a bit about this new scope.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[littlejerry]

I thought people generally liked the Nova reticle?

At just over 16 ounces and then 10 inches long this should be a good option for those wanting a daylight bright 1x and also something with more horsepower. Granted a 1-6 with the P series glass and similar size/weight specs would have been fine.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

The Nova reticle itself is fine, I just don't think the PLX-C is a good candidate for SFP. I'd much rather see it as a 1-6x

[Tokarev]

The Nova reticle itself is fine, I just don't think the PLX-C is a good candidate for SFP. I'd much rather see it as a 1-6xInitial SHOT reviews are, not surprisingly, quite good. The 1x imagine is supposed to be very flat and true. The illumination is bright.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

I'd agree, or keep it 1-6. 1-8 SFP always seemed a bit odd to me.


Initial SHOT reviews are, not surprisingly, quite good. The 1x imagine is supposed to be very flat and true. The illumination is bright.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I thought about this a little more and am curious what the price point will be, if different from the current offering. Having a 1-8 SFP feels weird to me but I think running 8x out of a 10x scope makes sense so obviously the same could be done with 6x on a 8x top end optic. The only reason I ditched the PLX 1-8 was because of the dimness and a little bit of the reticle being a bit overwhelming. The more I think about it, there’s a good chance I’ll get one of the 1-8 SFP Novas.

[littlejerry]

I thought about this a little more and am curious what the price point will be, if different from the current offering. Having a 1-8 SFP feels weird to me but I think running 8x out of a 10x scope makes sense so obviously the same could be done with 6x on a 8x top end optic. The only reason I ditched the PLX 1-8 was because of the dimness and a little bit of the reticle being a bit overwhelming. The more I think about it, there’s a good chance I’ll get one of the 1-8 SFP Novas.

I believe they said same price as current.

It'll be a great 1x optic. It'll be harder to use at distance with the tight eye box and reduced image quality at 8x. I generally only turn mine up to 6x unless I have a rock solid position and it's a bright sunny day.

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/mT6RF6R1bNY?si=xBo1sNndakm5194E

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/W7xrWks3VPE?si=s0KC4BZaHcihLp_q

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[stomridertx]

I believe they said same price as current.

It'll be a great 1x optic. It'll be harder to use at distance with the tight eye box and reduced image quality at 8x. I generally only turn mine up to 6x unless I have a rock solid position and it's a bright sunny day.

This is the inherent problem with the higher power LPVOs, and I think depending on your use case there are varying degrees of tolerance towards the tight eyebox at the upper end. 1x requires a small objective, and a small objective limits the exit pupil at higher powers. I don't think that can be out-engineered with traditional lens grinding. If the 1-20x optic ever comes about it will be digital imaging. There are enough people praising the Vortex Gen III 1-10 that I think a lot of shooters don't mind a 2.4mm exit pupil at 10x, and with it being FFP you can still run in the middle. This paradox is why I don't think a 1-8 or 1-10 SFP scope makes any sense. I like 10x a lot when shooting past 100 yards so I opted for a Burris XTR3i 3.3-18x50 on my SPR build and gladly put up with a 30oz scope to get a great experience at 10-12x magnification. I still hold the opinion that 1-6 and 1-4 SFP is where LPVOs shine but the market has told me to pound sand.

[Biggy]

I will be getting one of these new Primary Arms PLX 1-8x SFP compact scopes as soon as they become available this spring. Maybe it is not quite perfect in some areas but overall it's more than good enough for *me* and my usage and applications. It will be going in either a Badger Ordnance , Zero Gravity , or Reptilia Corp 1.700" height scope mount . I also prefer to run my secondary optic (an Aimpoint ACRO) at a 35 degree offset rather than at the 12 o'clock position.

https://youtu.be/SnnDlyvbCKA?si=vsKfnpE-SbrAOs-3

[Clusterfrack]

I really wish the new PA scope was dual focal plane. FFP for the etched reticle, and SFP for the fiber dot.

[SecondsCount]

I really wish the new PA scope was dual focal plane. FFP for the etched reticle, and SFP for the fiber dot.

I would like to see what the reticle looks like above 3x as SFP would be a no go for me.

[Tokarev]

Delta Stryker 1-10 review:


https://youtu.be/W4GX-Nr8RYw?si=7nSwWkOvE7Rvs9gb

[Paul D]

https://youtu.be/cX4N4YHY2JU?si=Dlr98-M_OJ-cJJ0P

[mmc45414]

Thanks for posting that. I sorta knew all that stuff, but I appreciated the explanation from that viewpoint.



https://youtu.be/cX4N4YHY2JU?si=Dlr98-M_OJ-cJJ0P

[Tokarev]

$1300. Just over a pound in weight. Daylight bright reticle. Second focal plane.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-compact-plxc-1-8x24-sfp-rifle-scope-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle

[GyroF-16]

$1300. Just over a pound in weight. Daylight bright reticle. Second focal plane.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-compact-plxc-1-8x24-sfp-rifle-scope-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle

I was just looking at that… it’s also an inch shorter than their 1-6 scope. The only trade-off seems to be somewhat reduced eye relief, even at 1x.

[El Cid]

I don't like the big circle. It's unnecessary, and would be distracting higher mag when the illumination is bright.

https://cipher.dakiscdn.com/i/https://1410dd2bdd37e05ebf19-a2305060cc55ab8db83b1ef4b8835a6b.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.c om/bKd9CiKrKqDrcYt1Ai301w?w=592&h=592&p=1&a=1&q=display

I don't feel like the big circle would bother me as I don't use anything other than 1x or max magnification (where it's not visible) on my current LPVO's.

I am resurrecting this post though with a question for the people. I'm thinking about building a 300BLK rifle with a 13.9" bbl and wondered about the KC-1 reticle. I may be chasing waterfalls here, but I was hoping to use the bottom of the donut for subs on the rare occasion I use them, with the scope zeroed for 110 TTSX at 100 yards. The info on Steiner's site shows the center to the bottom of the donut to be "35" but doesn't say if that's mils or MOA or what. The ballistic charts I have scoured the internet for when it comes to drop between supers and subs is a dizzying array of noise. Some are zeroed at 25, some use 147 ball for the supers, and they use a variety of bbl lengths.

Is this fantasy nonsense or is there some merit in the idea? You won't hurt my feelings as it's mostly a thought experiment and 300BLK is a caliber with which I have very little experience. Thanks!

https://www.steiner-optics.com/riflescopes/t6xi-1-6x24

[DMCutter]

I don't feel like the big circle would bother me as I don't use anything other than 1x or max magnification (where it's not visible) on my current LPVO's.

I am resurrecting this post though with a question for the people. I'm thinking about building a 300BLK rifle with a 13.9" bbl and wondered about the KC-1 reticle. I may be chasing waterfalls here, but I was hoping to use the bottom of the donut for subs on the rare occasion I use them, with the scope zeroed for 110 TTSX at 100 yards. The info on Steiner's site shows the center to the bottom of the donut to be "35" but doesn't say if that's mils or MOA or what. The ballistic charts I have scoured the internet for when it comes to drop between supers and subs is a dizzying array of noise. Some are zeroed at 25, some use 147 ball for the supers, and they use a variety of bbl lengths.

Is this fantasy nonsense or is there some merit in the idea? You won't hurt my feelings as it's mostly a thought experiment and 300BLK is a caliber with which I have very little experience. Thanks!

https://www.steiner-optics.com/riflescopes/t6xi-1-6x24

I can't speak to the Steiner because I run Romeo 4Ts on everything, but the principle is sound. My 16" X95 300blk is zeroed at 100 with Fusion 150 and the bottom of the circle is dead nuts for 200 grain subs at 25 and 100. It was good enough for a high angle twilight shot at a beaver across my pond, maybe 30 yards, so plenty good for two legged critters, I'd imagine. Obviously it will vary some with different ammo combos. Since 300blk is optimized for shorter barrels, I don't know that a few inches of barrel length will make a huge difference.

[littlejerry]

I don't feel like the big circle would bother me as I don't use anything other than 1x or max magnification (where it's not visible) on my current LPVO's.

I am resurrecting this post though with a question for the people. I'm thinking about building a 300BLK rifle with a 13.9" bbl and wondered about the KC-1 reticle. I may be chasing waterfalls here, but I was hoping to use the bottom of the donut for subs on the rare occasion I use them, with the scope zeroed for 110 TTSX at 100 yards. The info on Steiner's site shows the center to the bottom of the donut to be "35" but doesn't say if that's mils or MOA or what. The ballistic charts I have scoured the internet for when it comes to drop between supers and subs is a dizzying array of noise. Some are zeroed at 25, some use 147 ball for the supers, and they use a variety of bbl lengths.

Is this fantasy nonsense or is there some merit in the idea? You won't hurt my feelings as it's mostly a thought experiment and 300BLK is a caliber with which I have very little experience. Thanks!

https://www.steiner-optics.com/riflescopes/t6xi-1-6x24

Given that it's a mil reticle I'd assume 30 mils.

30 mils is yuge. For reference the entire elevation adjustment range is 30 mils (as in +/-15 from center). It's also 108 inches at 100 yards.

The criticism of the KC1 reticle is the diameter is 60 mils, which is essentially useless. It's marginally more precise than point shooting. It's a 54 inch circle at 25 yards, or three IDPA silhouettes wide.

[littlejerry]

I can't speak to the Steiner because I run Romeo 4Ts on everything, but the principle is sound. My 16" X95 300blk is zeroed at 100 with Fusion 150 and the bottom of the circle is dead nuts for 200 grain subs at 25 and 100. It was good enough for a high angle twilight shot at a beaver across my pond, maybe 30 yards, so plenty good for two legged critters, I'd imagine. Obviously it will vary some with different ammo combos. Since 300blk is optimized for shorter barrels, I don't know that a few inches of barrel length will make a huge difference.

The Romeo 4T circle is 1/3 the size of the KC1 circle.

[DMCutter]

The Romeo 4T circle is 1/3 the size of the KC1 circle.

Oh well, don't guess that would work, then. Given the limited range of the 300blk, that Steiner might be overkill. PA makes a bunch of stuff with BDCs for 300blk and a R4T with a magnifier would cost a lot less.

[John Hearne]

I didn't worry about LPVO's as they weren't an option at work. Since I retired, I've been reconsidering stuff. Years ago, I had picked up a Meopta 1-4 R1. I'm thinking that for practical purposes, this or something similar is the answer. First, the reticle is daylight bright and is very distinct. Second, there are no hash marks or other landmarks save the gap between the center dot and the lower bar.

Outside of the .MIL world or 3-Gun world, the 5.56 is going to shoot point blank from 0-~200 yards depending on barrel length. For private citizens and LEO, the LPVO is there to help you see better and hopefully not cost you much at the engagement distances that matter - 0-50 yards. 4X is enough magnification to easily shoot out to the point blank range of the cartridge.

My only gripe is that in a LaRue mount, the setup weighs 27 ounces.

Link with an image of the reticle:
https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/meopta-r1-1-4x22-rd.html

[El Cid]

Given that it's a mil reticle I'd assume 30 mils.

30 mils is yuge. For reference the entire elevation adjustment range is 30 mils (as in +/-15 from center). It's also 108 inches at 100 yards.

The criticism of the KC1 reticle is the diameter is 60 mils, which is essentially useless. It's marginally more precise than point shooting. It's a 54 inch circle at 25 yards, or three IDPA silhouettes wide.

Thank you. I try to avoid doing math in public. lol! So it’s a 70 mil ring and that’s larger than an EOTech 65 MOA donut? I guess I didn’t realize Mils and MOA are that drastically different. Would it still be useable for close up work with the bottom of the ring?

I agree with this reviewer that some wind holds would make the reticle better on max power.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7mUFsaKSbM

[littlejerry]

Thank you. I try to avoid doing math in public. lol! So it’s a 70 mil ring and that’s larger than an EOTech 65 MOA donut? I guess I didn’t realize Mils and MOA are that drastically different. Would it still be useable for close up work with the bottom of the ring?

I agree with this reviewer that some wind holds would make the reticle better on max power.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7mUFsaKSbM

65 MOA is 18.9 mils

60 mils is 206 MOA, so roughly 3x the size of a normal Eotech donut.

I don't know what Steiner was smoking when they made that reticle.

[El Cid]

65 MOA is 18.9 mils

60 mils is 206 MOA, so roughly 3x the size of a normal Eotech donut.

I don't know what Steiner was smoking when they made that reticle.

Yikes!! lol. Thank you.

[msstate56]

I didn't worry about LPVO's as they weren't an option at work. Since I retired, I've been reconsidering stuff. Years ago, I had picked up a Meopta 1-4 R1. I'm thinking that for practical purposes, this or something similar is the answer. First, the reticle is daylight bright and is very distinct. Second, there are no hash marks or other landmarks save the gap between the center dot and the lower bar.

Outside of the .MIL world or 3-Gun world, the 5.56 is going to shoot point blank from 0-~200 yards depending on barrel length. For private citizens and LEO, the LPVO is there to help you see better and hopefully not cost you much at the engagement distances that matter - 0-50 yards. 4X is enough magnification to easily shoot out to the point blank range of the cartridge.

My only gripe is that in a LaRue mount, the setup weighs 27 ounces.

Link with an image of the reticle:
https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/meopta-r1-1-4x22-rd.html

This is why I settled on the Razor 1-6x. I give up nothing to a red dot at CQB range, and can easily engage targets at 400 yards.

[Biggy]

FYI, the new Primary Arms PLXc 1-8 NOVA SFP with FiberWire reticle scope is now shipping. My preorder went out today.

https://youtu.be/SnnDlyvbCKA?si=vsKfnpE-SbrAOs-3

[crosseyedshooter]

FYI, the new Primary Arms PLXc 1-8 NOVA SFP with FiberWire reticle scope is now shipping. My preorder went out today.

https://youtu.be/SnnDlyvbCKA?si=vsKfnpE-SbrAOs-3

Out of curiosity, with the trend of mounting a red dot to the scope, do the benefits of SFP outweigh the loss of the FFP reticle? Guess I’m just going through a mental exercise since I have a couple of Griffin Mil PLXc’s.

[Biggy]

Well FEDEX *finally* just delivered my new Primary Arms 1-8X LPV scope today. It's like Christmas in July, LOL !! It replaces my Kahles K16i that I had for many years. It will ride in a Reptilia Corp 1.70" high mount with a Sig Romeo X Pro (enclosed emitter) RDS using a Reptillia Corp 12:00 Delta Point Pro ring cap mount. I believe for *me* and *my* usage, mainly 0-400 yds and my 20/40 corrected right eye sight (I can't use small, thin and busy FFP reticles) it will perform just great. This will be going on a 13.9" inch Criterion Core CL CHF barreled SOLGW's Broadsword 89 upper and 13" inch handguard.

https://i.imgur.com/7sscBhZh.jpg

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

I didn't worry about LPVO's as they weren't an option at work. Since I retired, I've been reconsidering stuff. Years ago, I had picked up a Meopta 1-4 R1. I'm thinking that for practical purposes, this or something similar is the answer. First, the reticle is daylight bright and is very distinct. Second, there are no hash marks or other landmarks save the gap between the center dot and the lower bar.

Outside of the .MIL world or 3-Gun world, the 5.56 is going to shoot point blank from 0-~200 yards depending on barrel length. For private citizens and LEO, the LPVO is there to help you see better and hopefully not cost you much at the engagement distances that matter - 0-50 yards. 4X is enough magnification to easily shoot out to the point blank range of the cartridge.

My only gripe is that in a LaRue mount, the setup weighs 27 ounces.

Link with an image of the reticle:
https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/meopta-r1-1-4x22-rd.html

Had a 1-6 Razor E on my SBR in 3G days but that’s done so waiting on the Unity FAST FTC 4X to drop so will have if needed behind my AP T2 on the SBR.

[Wake27]

Shot a 2 gun match for the first time in two years today, first time shooting anything since 1 or 2 FEB and I've done zero dryfire since. I was starting to wonder if running the Razor 1-10 would be a perishable skill for me at this point, but I didn't notice any issues getting behind it. I was super happy to have a 12:00 mount RDS when forced to shoot weak hand around a barricade though.

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/C4ffw5wRP7A?si=DDKC1SmhN1L97-sZ

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/GXB_WIjmymM?si=ngvhdk2s6l4XJXqE

[KneeShot]

https://youtu.be/GXB_WIjmymM?si=ngvhdk2s6l4XJXqE

That dude put a lot of work, time and money into that comparison project. Well done and worth the watch. I wonder how the Kahles K16i would have faired.

I have probably 1,000 focused rds behind an ATACR with the same reticle in the video. I got to shoot a little behind a K16i the other day, and I really liked the SM1 reticle ALOT more then the ATACR reticle. Even on a low setting I found the brightness of the ATACR reticle to be too much w/ the lit broken up circle surrounding the main dot.

Most of my time is behind Aimpoint H1’s, T2’s and older comp models.

[titsonritz]

That dude put a lot of work, time and money into that comparison project. Well done and worth the watch. I wonder how the Kahles K16i would have faired.

I have probably 1,000 focused rds behind an ATACR with the same reticle in the video. I got to shoot a little behind a K16i the other day, and I really liked the SM1 reticle ALOT more then the ATACR reticle. Even on a low setting I found the brightness of the ATACR reticle to be too much w/ the lit broken up circle surrounding the main dot.

Most of my time is behind Aimpoint H1’s, T2’s and older comp models.
I love my K16i w/ SM1…huge FOV, super forgiving eyebox with superior European glass make it the ultimate RDS-like LPVO. IMO it is the 1-6x out there, perfect for an AR.

[Clusterfrack]

A 2nd focal plane above 4x is a hard pass for me.

[KneeShot]

A 2nd focal plane above 4x is a hard pass for me.

Clusterfrack, please educate me on your opinion. I do not have enough experience w/ LPVO’s to know what I don’t know, or don’t know what I don’t know

I understand the basic’s of FFP / SFP

I “think” I’d prefer a 2nd focal plane..

Why is SFP above 4x a hard pass?

[Clusterfrack]

Clusterfrack, please educate me on your opinion. I do not have enough experience w/ LPVO’s to know what I don’t know, or don’t know what I don’t know

I understand the basic’s of FFP / SFP

I “think” I’d prefer a 2nd focal plane..

Why is SFP above 4x a hard pass?

Good question. With FFP the reticle remains scaled properly at all magnifications. So, BDC holds, wind holds, and mover leads work at less than max power.

[Tokarev]

Good question. With FFP the reticle remains scaled properly at all magnifications. So, BDC holds, wind holds, and mover leads work at less than max power.The trade off being, with few exceptions, that the FFP reticle is often too small and lacks enough illumination to work well at lower magnification.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

The trade off being, with few exceptions, that the FFP reticle is often too small and lacks enough illumination to work well at lower magnification.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Do you mean the center is often not daylight bright? Some good FFP LPVOS have a bright center.

[Tokarev]

Do you mean the center is often not daylight bright? Some good FFP LPVOS have a bright center.Yes. Also the reticle itself can often be tiny when the scope is set at 1x or thereabouts.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

Yes. Also the reticle itself can often be tiny when the scope is set at 1x or thereabouts.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

True, some of them do it well though. At least the 1-10 Razor does. I have no issues up to 6x on SFP, after that I really start feeling like FFP makes sense.

[Biggy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ffw5wRP7A&t=2s&pp=2AECkAIB


When I heard that Primary Arms was coming out with their new
1-8 PLXc with the Nova Fibre dot in SFP, after much deliberation I decided to sell my beloved Kahles K16i G4B reticle scope. I will just say I have absolutely no regrets about doing it. IMHO, the build quality of my new PA scope is very good , from the positive turret clicks and smooth magnification ring operation, it really just feels solidly built. The glass quality is very good and pretty close to my Kahles K16i . The eyebox on 1x is pretty good and again close to my Kahles K16i’s. The eyebox on 8x is tight as expected but is definitely plenty usable and noticeably better than on the NX8. I got this scope knowing probably 90 % of its use would be from 0-300 yds and 10% from 3-400yds. IMHO, from 400 yds and out a FFP reticle is then really a better option overall, as would probably also be using a MPVO scope if most of your shooting is 500 yds or father. IMHO, for anyone or for someone like me with less than 20/20 corrected vision the 8x magnification definitely helps seeing and hitting smaller targets at longer distances vs 6X scopes. I am very satisfied with this scopes performance and my time using it mirrors the youtube review in the link above, so I will just say, good job Primary Arms.

[Clusterfrack]

Yes. Also the reticle itself can often be tiny when the scope is set at 1x or thereabouts.



True, some of them do it well though. At least the 1-10 Razor does. I have no issues up to 6x on SFP, after that I really start feeling like FFP makes sense.

I don't use the reticle below 3x. I have found the elevation and windage holds on my Mk6 1-6 CMRw from 3-6x to be very usable--and especially useful for moving targets. The center illumination is acceptable under all the conditions I've been in, without having the horseshoe being too distracting at higher mags.

If a target is far enough to dial up from 3x, it will require an elevation adjustment. That means you either have to dial manually or you have a switch power optic that's 1-3x or max mag. Why settle for that unless cost is a limitation?

[Tokarev]

I don't use the reticle below 3x. I have found the elevation and windage holds on my Mk6 1-6 CMRw from 3-6x to be very usable--and especially useful for moving targets. The center illumination is acceptable under all the conditions I've been in, without having the horseshoe being too distracting at higher mags.

If a target is far enough to dial up from 3x, it will require an elevation adjustment. That means you either have to dial manually or you have a switch power optic that's 1-3x or max mag. Why settle for that unless cost is a limitation?If 3x is your default, then why use an LVPO at all? Wouldn't something like the MK5 2-10 or MK4 2.5-10 meet your needs yet also have additional magnification if the need arose? The trade off would be a little heavier and longer optic but you'd also gain side focus adjustment on most of these, which is usually not found on the 1x to whatever LVPOs.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

If 3x is your default, then why use an LVPO at all? Wouldn't something like the MK5 2-10 or MK4 2.5-10 meet your needs yet also have additional magnification if the need arose? The trade off would be a little heavier and longer optic but you'd also gain side focus adjustment on most of these, which is usually not found on the 1x to whatever LVPOs.


3x is not my default. A true, wide FoV 1x is an absolute must on any LPVO for me.

EDIT, with more explanation... Example engagement: targets at 1-600 yds, with wind, and some of them are moving (with or against the wind). If I have to dial to 6x (or even worse 8x) to use my reticle, I can't see more than one target in my FoV. With a FFP scope, I'll hose the closer targets at 1x then jack the cattail until I get enough mag to see targets and reticle holds. Rinse and repeat. Of course, there are plenty of times to just go max magnification, and that's not even enough. Someday I'll try a 1-8x ATACR or 1-10x Razor, but don't have the $ burning a hole in my pocket.

[Tokarev]

3x is not my default. A true, wide FoV 1x is an absolute must on any LPVO for me.Didn't you post above that you only use the reticle on 3x or higher?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

Didn't you post above that you only use the reticle on 3x or higher?


I can see how my earlier post was confusing. Hopefully I was clearer above. By 'reticle' I mean the hashes not just the bright red thing.

[titsonritz]

I can see how my earlier post was confusing. Hopefully I was clearer above. By 'reticle' I mean the hashes not just the bright red thing.

I could be wrong here, but I think you’re referring to reticle subtensions.

[titsonritz]

True, some of them do it well though. At least the 1-10 Razor does. I have no issues up to 6x on SFP, after that I really start feeling like FFP makes sense.

^^^Pretty much this. The bigger issue is some reticles suck at being FFP, they either are too small at 1x or obscure the target horribly at higher magnification like 8x/10x. I rather have a solid SFP than pos FFP that sucks at one end or the other.

[Clusterfrack]

I could be wrong here, but I think you’re referring to reticle subtensions.

Well if you're going to get all technical and shit. ;)

[Coal Train]

As someone who is picking up a carbine after a ~decade or so "off" what is a bit confusing to me is the current LPVO trend of co-mounted LPVO and red dots. Why you would have a 1-X if you have a red dot? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a ~3-X if you are going to also have the red dot?

I'm not being snarky, I am trying to understand the use case as I consider my optics selection options.

[Noah]

As someone who is picking up a carbine after a ~decade or so "off" what is a bit confusing to me is the current LPVO trend of co-mounted LPVO and red dots. Why you would have a 1-X if you have a red dot? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a ~3-X if you are going to also have the red dot?

I'm not being snarky, I am trying to understand the use case as I consider my optics selection options.

Depends on who you ask.

Some say it’s for backup and odd positions only, some say it’s for emergency use if you are on a high setting and have a sudden close shot. For those, the 1x of the scope is still the default primary optic, while some say the red dot is the primary 1x solution and use the LPVO more as an MPVO (2-10, 3-9, 4-14, 3-18 etc etc).

I personally don’t love LPVO 1x overall, and I prefer an immediate transition to 1x (dot on top or angled, I prefer top) vs dialing down magnification or if LPVO is your only optic.

I also hate weight and complexity, so I’m in the prism and dot or dot and mag camp.

If you’re gonna have over a 20 ounce optic and the dot is your primary close range solution, I think an MPVO makes more sense than an LPVO.
125353

[Tokarev]

The Steiner P4Xi is NTOA recommended

https://www.thetacticalwire.com/releases/dd9ab127-cb80-4deb-92ca-12cd326e4e6d

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

The Internet recommends a scope


https://youtu.be/IIUFIXxjLqM?si=6ydcjgVO7Td4j_Xf

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

Some say it’s for backup and odd positions only, some say it’s for emergency use if you are on a high setting and have a sudden close shot. For those, the 1x of the scope is still the default primary optic...

This is my reasoning. I don't mind the weight and there are several good mounts that integrate really well, so the only complexity to me is almost having too many options.

Years ago, I was running through a stage with my Razor 1-6 (super tight throw) and didn't realize I was at 6x for a very short range stage. Point shooting was acceptable but if it had been low percentage targets, I would've needed to throw it back down to 1x which would take a sec. I decided to experiment with dots after that.

After having used them for years now, the 35-45* offset dot was very fast and natural but limited non-standard positional use and is relatively worthless in front of nods. I think that style makes the most sense when running the LPVO/MPVO at a higher mag level. Since I prefer to use mine with my weak hand as I don't train that so getting behind my 1-10 with my non-dominant eye is slow, a top-mounted dot works great in that application and is far better for passive aiming behind NODs.

[Tokarev]

https://youtu.be/9cSfnlY_dUA?si=pLyY8YmKFP3pO72l

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[mmc45414]

Years ago, I was running through a stage with my Razor 1-6 (super tight throw) and didn't realize I was at 6x for a very short range stage. Point shooting was acceptable but if it had been low percentage targets, I would've needed to throw it back down to 1x which would take a sec. I decided to experiment with dots after that.

Just last weekend I did this, and it was even on a stage where there was ample time (especially at my pace best described as a trot...) to have dialed it back but I forgot. I swear the clubs I am shooting at all have timers with a Neuralyzer feature built into them! :cool:

125492

[KneeShot]

The Internet recommends a scope


https://youtu.be/IIUFIXxjLqM?si=6ydcjgVO7Td4j_Xf

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Thank you for that! F’ing HILARIOUS! Worth the laughs!

[stomridertx]

As someone who is picking up a carbine after a ~decade or so "off" what is a bit confusing to me is the current LPVO trend of co-mounted LPVO and red dots. Why you would have a 1-X if you have a red dot? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a ~3-X if you are going to also have the red dot?

I'm not being snarky, I am trying to understand the use case as I consider my optics selection options.

I'll add that current mini red dots and their offset mounts weigh the same or less than backup iron sights and are immediately available. I'll argue that they are more durable as well as I've broken more iron sights than red dots.
The reason people still use LPVOs with them is a weight consideration. LPVOs need a small objective for the 1x and that makes them lighter than full featured MPVOs. The 2-10 MPVO market isn't taking off because everyone demands precision turrets, parallax adjustment, and a FFP christmas tree reticle with illumination packed into it. When you get to 10x and above on the top end you need a larger objective to keep the exit pupil forgiving. Adding all that together with HD glass is going to result in a 26-32 oz optic, and at that weight you might as well skip to the 3-18 or 4-16 class. LPVOs work well on lightweight carbines and the offset or top mounted dot is just upside for a lot of scenarios. I'm all in on this configuration and the only downside to me is it can get difficult to put them next to each other in the safe.
If you get bored and have a large cup of coffee, we've discussed this very topic in great detail at various points in this thread.

[SecondsCount]

As someone who is picking up a carbine after a ~decade or so "off" what is a bit confusing to me is the current LPVO trend of co-mounted LPVO and red dots. Why you would have a 1-X if you have a red dot? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a ~3-X if you are going to also have the red dot?

I'm not being snarky, I am trying to understand the use case as I consider my optics selection options.

Lots of different thoughts on the matter. One of the main reasons that I don't run a side mounted dot, is that it is just more stuff on my gun. A close second is that I have astigmatism, and while the dot is still usable, the scope clears that up for me on 1X.

The night vision crowd probably has a good reason to run one as well.

Give it a try and do what you think works best for you.

[Unobtanium]

As someone who is picking up a carbine after a ~decade or so "off" what is a bit confusing to me is the current LPVO trend of co-mounted LPVO and red dots. Why you would have a 1-X if you have a red dot? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a ~3-X if you are going to also have the red dot?

I'm not being snarky, I am trying to understand the use case as I consider my optics selection options.

I primarily will use my LPVO during the day time, but under NVG I will use the 12 mounted RDS or MFAL.
125655

[stomridertx]

I primarily will use my LPVO during the day time, but under NVG I will use the 12 mounted RDS or MFAL.

I don't have NVG and I run my dot 35 degree offset from a Razor 1-6, but I'm finding I have a similar experience of preferring the 1x of the scope outdoors. Messing around with maneuvering the rifle indoors, I think I would probably run it canted to the dot 100% of the time and not mess with the illumination knob on the scope. Having the dot just 10 degrees less offset makes it comfortable to present and I don't have to cant my trigger hand elbow out very far. I feel it is the same capability as having a primary red dot optic, so I only run dots as secondaries now. Keep in mind I do not practice shoulder switching, and if I had to for some reason the 1x of the Razor is no slouch.
Outdoors, the 1x of the Razor is just outstanding when looking at targets 25 yards or so away and the reticle works well in daylight without illumination. It's like giant crystal clear heads up display. That said, I will turn the bright reticle dot on in the scope during the daytime as it really helps shooting fast even when the magnification is up. I just keep a lot of CR2032 batteries in my range bag and buy them at Costco. In outdoors scenario, the offset dot would only get used if I had a close shot while magnified, shooting on the move to my left side, shooting around the left side of a barricade, or needing to get lower for an awkward positional shot.
I have a 16" accurate AR with a 3-18 optic and the same 35 degree offset dot, and I'm seriously thinking about moving the dot to a top mount on that one. I'm never going to run and gun intentionally with this configuration and having the dot on top would be useful in finding targets at distance, while still giving good ability for a close shot if needed.

[Unobtanium]

I don't have NVG and I run my dot 35 degree offset from a Razor 1-6, but I'm finding I have a similar experience of preferring the 1x of the scope outdoors. Messing around with maneuvering the rifle indoors, I think I would probably run it canted to the dot 100% of the time and not mess with the illumination knob on the scope. Having the dot just 10 degrees less offset makes it comfortable to present and I don't have to cant my trigger hand elbow out very far. I feel it is the same capability as having a primary red dot optic, so I only run dots as secondaries now. Keep in mind I do not practice shoulder switching, and if I had to for some reason the 1x of the Razor is no slouch.
Outdoors, the 1x of the Razor is just outstanding when looking at targets 25 yards or so away and the reticle works well in daylight without illumination. It's like giant crystal clear heads up display. That said, I will turn the bright reticle dot on in the scope during the daytime as it really helps shooting fast even when the magnification is up. I just keep a lot of CR2032 batteries in my range bag and buy them at Costco. In outdoors scenario, the offset dot would only get used if I had a close shot while magnified, shooting on the move to my left side, shooting around the left side of a barricade, or needing to get lower for an awkward positional shot.
I have a 16" accurate AR with a 3-18 optic and the same 35 degree offset dot, and I'm seriously thinking about moving the dot to a top mount on that one. I'm never going to run and gun intentionally with this configuration and having the dot on top would be useful in finding targets at distance, while still giving good ability for a close shot if needed.

You can also set the gun up where transitional lighting doesn't require you to come off the weapon. For example, dimmer RDS for indoors, brighter scope illum for outdoors, etc. Or vis verse. However you want to run it, that keeps your hands on gun 100% of the time. For example, I may run my primary optic illumination level for use with my WML, while my top dot is set for use with NVG's.

[stomridertx]

You can also set the gun up where transitional lighting doesn't require you to come off the weapon. For example, dimmer RDS for indoors, brighter scope illum for outdoors, etc. Or vis verse. However you want to run it, that keeps your hands on gun 100% of the time. For example, I may run my primary optic illumination level for use with my WML, while my top dot is set for use with NVG's.
I'm slapping myself for not thinking of that.

[maximus83]

Thank you for that! F’ing HILARIOUS! Worth the laughs!

+1, haven't laughed so hard in a week. They worked in just about every optic cliche in the book.

"Vortex, LOL, enjoy your blurry glass, you peasant." :D

[jh9]

Thank you for that! F’ing HILARIOUS! Worth the laughs!

omg

"Bro, just watch my two hour scope comparison review. I review 37 different scopes. None of them are in your price range. Like. Comment. Subscribe."

[stomridertx]

I'll put this out in the universe. Here is the missing MPVO scope for the AR-15: 2.5-10x42, low profile capped turrets to minimize how high a top mounted red dot needs to be (the Razor 1-6 turrets are a great example), FFP tree reticle. Hell, recessed coin slot turrets would be even better. Tube size can even be 1" (Gasp!) because you are only using the turrets for zero. Get rid of the illumination and sniper turrets and use the reticle exclusively. That will bring the weight down and let the red dot take over 1x. Basically, a traditional hunting scope converted to FFP and mils with a reticle designed for rapid holdovers on small targets instead of gigantic game animals. There isn't a single scope out there like this, they either have traditional hunting reticles with SFP and MOA or they have a tactical mil reticle with FFP and every bell and whistle you can think of stacking up the weight.

[Nephrology]

I'll put this out in the universe. Here is the missing MPVO scope for the AR-15: 2.5-10x42, low profile capped turrets to minimize how high a top mounted red dot needs to be (the Razor 1-6 turrets are a great example), FFP tree reticle. Hell, recessed coin slot turrets would be even better. Tube size can even be 1" (Gasp!) because you are only using the turrets for zero. Get rid of the illumination and sniper turrets and use the reticle exclusively. That will bring the weight down and let the red dot take over 1x. Basically, a traditional hunting scope converted to FFP and mils with a reticle designed for rapid holdovers on small targets instead of gigantic game animals. There isn't a single scope out there like this, they either have traditional hunting reticles with SFP and MOA or they have a tactical mil reticle with FFP and every bell and whistle you can think of stacking up the weight.

This exists

https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-Credo-2-10x36-FFP-w-Red-MRAD-Precision-Tree-30mm-Matte-Black-Riflescope.aspx

it's 2-10x36. If you want it to be strictly 2.5-10x42, there's always the night force

https://www.eurooptic.com/nxs-25-10x42mm-zerostop-1-mil-radian-mil-r-digillum-ptl-c461.aspx

[stomridertx]

This exists

https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-Credo-2-10x36-FFP-w-Red-MRAD-Precision-Tree-30mm-Matte-Black-Riflescope.aspx

it's 2-10x36. If you want it to be strictly 2.5-10x42, there's always the night force

https://www.eurooptic.com/nxs-25-10x42mm-zerostop-1-mil-radian-mil-r-digillum-ptl-c461.aspx

I'm going to be difficult and I apologize in advance.
The Trijicon is right on the threshold in weight and exit pupil where I'll skip to the 3-18 class, which I did. The 36mm objective is compromise they made to keep illumination and a precision dial turret and getting it down to 23 oz. It's the perfect example of the wrong compromises being made on the MPVO concept and that's why it's not taking off.
The NXS is SFP and still has tall turrets. If I have to put up with that I'll skip to the 3-18 class for the same money and deal with the extra oz.

Get a FFP scope down to LPVO weight with low profile turrets and an objective that doesn't shrink the exit pupil below 4mm at 10x and my attention will be had.

[Tokarev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdALagn8XfI

[dontshakepandas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdALagn8XfI

I'm a fan of their videos.

As much as I liked my NX8 with a top dot, the role that I wanted that rifle to fill shifted more into a general purpose rifle so I replaced it with a Razor Gen II E. I think the Razor is the best general use optic currently available. The glass clarity and eyebox are substantially better than the NX8, but you pay for that with the weight and less precise reticle. To me, the NX8 makes more sense on a lightweight SPR type rifle where you are more focused on longer range but want close range capabilities as well. The Razor shines 0-200, but can still do longer distances as shown in the video.

I replaced the longer range focused scope with an ATACR 4-16 and although it is heavier than the NX8, it is better in every other way. That rifle is already heavy due to the barrel, so the heavier scope actually balances it out pretty well.

[SecondsCount]

The Razor is built like a Minnesota housewife. Good and sturdy. The reticle is getting old and I prefer some of the newer offerings.


I am really starting to like the PA PLxC 1-8.

[Clusterfrack]

I'm liking the Razor Gen3 1-10x so far. Cdub_NW and I will be at PFC for a DMR/Precision Rifle class in a few weeks. He's running a NX8 2.5-20F1 with a dot, so we'll be able to comment/compare in more detail then.

[dontshakepandas]

The Razor is built like a Minnesota housewife. Good and sturdy. The reticle is getting old and I prefer some of the newer offerings.


I am really starting to like the PA PLxC 1-8.

I strongly considered the PLxC before buying the Razor. I'm not a fan of their FFP reticle options as they are a bit too busy for me and I don't like the chevron. The SFP Nova option was tempting, but I ultimately went with the Razor since I believe it to be more durable and trust the Vortex warranty more. I also got a great Black Friday deal on it.

The EBR-7F reticle option on the Razor Gen II-E is also pretty interesting to me. I'd prefer the whole thing be in Mils instead of the BDC, and having MOA turrets with the MRAD subtensions is weird so it wasn't worth the extra price to me. If Vortex would make a SFP reticle in Mils with some type of Christmas tree wind holds it would sell like hot cakes.

127870

[SecondsCount]

I strongly considered the PLxC before buying the Razor. I'm not a fan of their FFP reticle options as they are a bit too busy for me and I don't like the chevron. The SFP Nova option was tempting, but I ultimately went with the Razor since I believe it to be more durable and trust the Vortex warranty more. I also got a great Black Friday deal on it.

The EBR-7F reticle option on the Razor Gen II-E is also pretty interesting to me. I'd prefer the whole thing be in Mils instead of the BDC, and having MOA turrets with the MRAD subtensions is weird so it wasn't worth the extra price to me. If Vortex would make a SFP reticle in Mils with some type of Christmas tree wind holds it would sell like hot cakes.

[. ATTACH=CONFIG]127870[/ATTACH]

I'm an MRAD user as well, but in this case I picked up the PLxC optic second hand at a price low enough that I wanted to give it a try. The Chevron has it's pros and cons, and for this application it is mostly positive. This has the Raptor ACSS, which is very similar to the EBR7F, but with more detail. The gun is a 14.5" BCM, so not really a precision rig. The BDC lines up very well with the ammo that I am using.

So far I have shot with it out to 960 yards. Past 700, my hit rate dropped off, but with the sun at my back I could still see misses in the berm at 960.

[Cdub_NW]

I'm liking the Razor Gen3 1-10x so far. Cdub_NW and I will be at PFC for a DMR/Precision Rifle class in a few weeks. He's running a NX8 2.5-20F1 with a dot, so we'll be able to comment/compare in more detail then.

Running a 2.5-20x NF FFP with a top mounted Acro P2 on one rifle and a 1-10x VUDU FFP on a 14.5" BCM. I found the 10x VUDU to be somewhat limiting at around 600 yards and beyond. Reticle simply too thick and dot covers entire target at 700 on max zoom. The NF NX-8 is far more useful at those ranges comparatively.

[Wake27]

I think the Razor is the best general use optic currently available.

Still hard to argue against this idea even though the Razor 1-6 has been out for some time. I'm curious about the SFP PLX-C with Nova, the FFP wasn't bright enough for me.

[Tokarev]

Still hard to argue against this idea even though the Razor 1-6 has been out for some time. I'm curious about the SFP PLX-C with Nova, the FFP wasn't bright enough for me.I probably linked it up thread but SupersetCA does a pretty thorough review of the SFP Nova on his youtu.be channel.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

I probably linked it up thread but SupersetCA does a pretty thorough review of the SFP Nova on his youtu.be channel.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Yeah I've seen it, just want to get some personal experience on it.

[Tokarev]

, just want to get some personal experience on it.

Me, too.

PA had an "open box demo" for sale recently for something like $1,085 that I thought about buying. It is too late now.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[ECK]

I haven’t read this entire thread but I did go back a few months to see what the latest thinking is regarding LPVOs.

I have a Vortex Razor G2 1-6x w/ JM-1 reticle sitting on top of what used to be my 3-gun AR, which I now keep around a general purpose do-all carbine for out to 300-ish yds. It also has a Vortex Razor red dot sitting in an offset mount (45 deg but it could be 35 deg). It’s a 16” Odin Works bbl w/ extended mid-length gas system, and is paired with a JP SCS buffer system, and a Seekins comp. As I said, this was the AR I used for 3-gun and some 2-gun matches.

My eyesight is crap, so having magnified optic is pretty much a must for me, esp when shooting at steel plates smaller than 1/2 IPSCs at 100 yds and beyond. But being a rifle setup for run and gun 2 or 3-gun matches, 5-25 yd cardboard targets was common and that’s where I mainly used the offset red dot. Unless the stage had all the targets close in, I usually kept the optic on 3x for the wider field of view then cranked it to 6x for the long shots.

Lately I’ve been contemplating replacing the 1-6x Razor with a 2.5-10x MVPO with mil turrets that I can dial or hold, something like the Leupold Mk5 2.5-10x if I can afford it, or the Leupold Mk4 for some savings. I’ve been shooting enough PRS/NRL type matches with a bolt gun that I’m fairly comfortable dialing or holding and I was never very precise with the BDC reticle. I’ll probably keep the red dot on there for close in.

I have another AR with a 18” JP heavy contour barrel that I want to set up for longer distances out to and 600 yds or so for DMR-style matches. That one will either get a 3.5-18x or just go all in with a 5-25x FFP scope just like my bolt guns. Beyond that distance, I don’t question my ability to dial and hit a target, but I do question the ability to spot the hit on a steel plate with the puny 75 or 77 gr .223 pills. The runner ups right now are either the Bushnell Match Pro ED for the cost savings (but the reviews on it are pretty good) or the Leupold Mk4.

[littlejerry]

Primary Arms just announced their new 2025 scopes

The PLX-C FFP will now have a daylight bright reticle ala Razor G3 and NX8/ATACR

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products

[Wake27]

Primary Arms just announced their new 2025 scopes

The PLX-C FFP will now have a daylight bright reticle ala Razor G3 and NX8/ATACR

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products


That's interesting - apparently a new tech that has higher efficiency too. And auto live for Razors, maybe some decent options for longer battery life LPVOs.

[littlejerry]

That's interesting - apparently a new tech that has higher efficiency too. And auto live for Razors, maybe some decent options for longer battery life LPVOs.

Hard to tell from the photos but it looks like they fixed some issues with the current PLX reticle but left others in place.

Typical PA refuses to release a reticle diagram with measurements because they are convinced it'll allow someone to "steal" it. Although sometimes they also claim national security...

[LockedBreech]

Primary Arms just announced their new 2025 scopes

The PLX-C FFP will now have a daylight bright reticle ala Razor G3 and NX8/ATACR

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products

I'm interested in a whole lot on that list. The Microprism with green ACCS reticle was my final frontier for AR optics. Love it a ton.

[WobblyPossum]

Primary Arms just announced their new 2025 scopes

The PLX-C FFP will now have a daylight bright reticle ala Razor G3 and NX8/ATACR

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-new-products

Depending on what the reviews say, I might trade my NX8 in for one. One of the reasons I chose the NX8 over the PLXc was that the PLXc wasn’t daylight bright.

[stomridertx]

Hard to tell from the photos but it looks like they fixed some issues with the current PLX reticle but left others in place.

Typical PA refuses to release a reticle diagram with measurements because they are convinced it'll allow someone to "steal" it. Although sometimes they also claim national security...

This is a frustrating stance PA has started taking. Strelok Pro, even with the sanctions, can still be had and there is a duplicate called Chairgun on Android. You used to get all the PA reticles in there, but PA has ceased communication and stopped providing those measurements to the developer. The frustration for me is I own a PA SLX Nova 1-6 and that reticle isn't there, although you can substitute the Vortex Razor 1-6 mil reticle and still get the drops. I emailed their customer service about it and they just won't. It's kind of dumb because the math isn't hard to figure out, but the developer will only add a reticle based on information from the manufacturer.

[Tannhauser]

This is a frustrating stance PA has started taking. Strelok Pro, even with the sanctions, can still be had and there is a duplicate called Chairgun on Android. You used to get all the PA reticles in there, but PA has ceased communication and stopped providing those measurements to the developer. The frustration for me is I own a PA SLX Nova 1-6 and that reticle isn't there, although you can substitute the Vortex Razor 1-6 mil reticle and still get the drops. I emailed their customer service about it and they just won't. It's kind of dumb because the math isn't hard to figure out, but the developer will only add a reticle based on information from the manufacturer.

These days it seems for every good decision PA makes, they make another bad one.

They're killing it with their prism optics. They finally have gone towards a very bright center dot. Their NOVA 1-6 is a great budget optic, with a simple but useable reticle and not a chevron to be seen. But PA has done away with some good optics with good reticles(Glx 2.5-10 Griffin is a prime example), but have also come out with some turds.

And their continued obsession with chevrons just boggles my mind. I can see a chevron making sense on a 1X, 2X, 3X, even out to 5X or 6X. But if I'm using 10X, 15X or more on the high end, I don't want a chevron, I want a small dot or a point.

Also, how PA treats reticles, which are just lines and some math, as being some sort of deep secret is just stupid. PA thinks that goofy reticles are what makes people buy scopes. I tend to buy scopes based on, within the price point, glass quality, accuracy of adjustment, tracking and illumination.

[littlejerry]

These days it seems for every good decision PA makes, they make another bad one.

They're killing it with their prism optics. They finally have gone towards a very bright center dot. Their NOVA 1-6 is a great budget optic, with a simple but useable reticle and not a chevron to be seen. But PA has done away with some good optics with good reticles(Glx 2.5-10 Griffin is a prime example), but have also come out with some turds.

And their continued obsession with chevrons just boggles my mind. I can see a chevron making sense on a 1X, 2X, 3X, even out to 5X or 6X. But if I'm using 10X, 15X or more on the high end, I don't want a chevron, I want a small dot or a point.

Also, how PA treats reticles, which are just lines and some math, as being some sort of deep secret is just stupid. PA thinks that goofy reticles are what makes people buy scopes. I tend to buy scopes based on, within the price point, glass quality, accuracy of adjustment, tracking and illumination.

Couldn't agree more. The reticles not some state secret. They can easily be measured by someone and recreated if they desired. It's beyond stupid to not post the detailed specs to make it easier for customers.

And I agree on the chevron. It might make sense on a fixed power prism... But it has no place on a 4x+ optic.

Even on their tree reticles they keep putting silly Easter egg features like silhouette ranging (in yards). It's like they intentionally try to overcomplicate anything that isn't a BDC.

[stomridertx]

These days it seems for every good decision PA makes, they make another bad one.

They're killing it with their prism optics. They finally have gone towards a very bright center dot. Their NOVA 1-6 is a great budget optic, with a simple but useable reticle and not a chevron to be seen. But PA has done away with some good optics with good reticles(Glx 2.5-10 Griffin is a prime example), but have also come out with some turds.

And their continued obsession with chevrons just boggles my mind. I can see a chevron making sense on a 1X, 2X, 3X, even out to 5X or 6X. But if I'm using 10X, 15X or more on the high end, I don't want a chevron, I want a small dot or a point.

Also, how PA treats reticles, which are just lines and some math, as being some sort of deep secret is just stupid. PA thinks that goofy reticles are what makes people buy scopes. I tend to buy scopes based on, within the price point, glass quality, accuracy of adjustment, tracking and illumination.

The chevron is what removes PA scopes from consideration for me. It shows in that the only PA scope I own is an ACSS Nova SLx 1-6 (the best move they've ever made). If they replaced the chevrons with floating center dots on their higher-powered optics, I'd be including them in my comparison shopping with Vortex and Athlon.

[Sensei]

The chevron is what removes PA scopes from consideration for me. It shows in that the only PA scope I own is an ACSS Nova SLx 1-6 (the best move they've ever made). If they replaced the chevrons with floating center dots on their higher-powered optics, I'd be including them in my comparison shopping with Vortex and Athlon.

I agree that a chevron on 2-10X and greater makes no sense. However, those of us who spent a lot of time behind ACOGs find the chevron perfectly usable on a LPVO out to 8X. Engaging out to 300M with a 14-16” carbine is stupid is easy with a chevron on 1-4X. Then, crank up the magnification to 6-8X to take targets beyond 400M with the BDC lines or dots.

I’m a Trijicon and NF guy but plan to get this new FFP Compact PLx sometime this year.

[rob_s]

I hadn’t been keeping up with all of this because as my interest waned so did my budget all the while never thought anyone would hit my specs.

Now I see some discussion about these PA Nova scopes and they are within 2oz of my target weight and easily within budget.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-1-6x24-sfp-rifle-scope-geniv-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle-fde

For an old duffer like me, are these things a good option? Something else better in the sub-$500 range? I’d happily pay $100 more than the NOVA to shave a few more oz off if it’s also similar or better overall quality.

This would be to finally give in and replace my old TA33 which is still love but is well past its half life and I’m not wanting to spend trijicon money to get another one. Plus my recollection is that there was a learning curve for me each time I put it down and picked it back up again that is too steep for my current situation.

[HeavyDuty]

I hadn’t been keeping up with all of this because as my interest waned so did my budget all the while never thought anyone would hit my specs.

Now I see some discussion about these PA Nova scopes and they are within 2oz of my target weight and easily within budget.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-1-6x24-sfp-rifle-scope-geniv-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle-fde

For an old duffer like me, are these things a good option? Something else better in the sub-$500 range? I’d happily pay $100 more than the NOVA to shave a few more oz off if it’s also similar or better overall quality.

This would be to finally give in and replace my old TA33 which is still love but is well past its half life and I’m not wanting to spend trijicon money to get another one. Plus my recollection is that there was a learning curve for me each time I put it down and picked it back up again that is too steep for my current situation.
I do offer a TA33 disposal service, just so you know…

[rob_s]

I do offer a TA33 disposal service, just so you know…

anytime I take that rifle out of the safe and look through the optic indoors. I’m reminded of how much I loved it and how well for me.

Then I get to thinking I should just replace it and search it up and find the new one sells for 1000 bucks.

I guess I need to do some research on what one goes for with dead tritium.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250112/43f93a318cc3a0e24182ffdf29c3eb9c.jpg
on topic, and having read the commentary above about variable optics and Chevron reticules, I wonder if the group could give recommendations on something in the sub-$500 and sub-16 ounce criteria for a variable replacement.

[Tannhauser]

I hadn’t been keeping up with all of this because as my interest waned so did my budget all the while never thought anyone would hit my specs.

Now I see some discussion about these PA Nova scopes and they are within 2oz of my target weight and easily within budget.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-1-6x24-sfp-rifle-scope-geniv-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle-fde

For an old duffer like me, are these things a good option? Something else better in the sub-$500 range? I’d happily pay $100 more than the NOVA to shave a few more oz off if it’s also similar or better overall quality.

This would be to finally give in and replace my old TA33 which is still love but is well past its half life and I’m not wanting to spend trijicon money to get another one. Plus my recollection is that there was a learning curve for me each time I put it down and picked it back up again that is too steep for my current situation.

I own one of these scopes. I have it mounted on a Ruger American Rifle in 7.62x39. It's seen what I would describe as moderate use, including being carried hunting or in the field during off season for varmints. It's held zero without issue. Having carried it this season during hunting season, I can say that in the thick Virginia timber I hunt, the glass quality defnitely shows, and not in a positive sense, in the final legal shooting time.

Scope is good for the price point, but that price point won't keep up with glass that costs 3X as much. Which is what I'd expect. If someone is looking to use this as a dedicated hunting scope, I'd say no. For an all purpose scope, I'd say yes.

[stomridertx]

I hadn’t been keeping up with all of this because as my interest waned so did my budget all the while never thought anyone would hit my specs.

Now I see some discussion about these PA Nova scopes and they are within 2oz of my target weight and easily within budget.

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-slx-1-6x24-sfp-rifle-scope-geniv-illuminated-acss-nova-fiber-wire-reticle-fde

For an old duffer like me, are these things a good option? Something else better in the sub-$500 range? I’d happily pay $100 more than the NOVA to shave a few more oz off if it’s also similar or better overall quality.

This would be to finally give in and replace my old TA33 which is still love but is well past its half life and I’m not wanting to spend trijicon money to get another one. Plus my recollection is that there was a learning curve for me each time I put it down and picked it back up again that is too steep for my current situation.

I have one on a .22lr. I'm really surprised how good it is at the price point. I don't have a side-by-side comparison, but a C_Does review said it's really close to Viper PST2 glass and I would agree with that having looked through those. PA's autolive battery cap (sold seperately) negates the lack of an off position between illumination settings. The design of the ocular housing is pretty close to my Razor 1-6 in that you see only a tiny bit of the scope body when looking through it. I like the reticle quite a bit with the ranging features for 18" and wish the vertical stadia was the same in the Razor. The fiber wire illumination is insanely bright. The running leads on the horizontal stadia are gimmicky (typical ACSS) and it would be better if those were mil hashes. I think with the autolive cap, this could be pushed into a duty role just fine. We need to come to terms that some of these new generation mid-range scopes have reached a durability threshold and stop thinking anything that doesn't cost $1000 is trash.
With the reticle, I'd almost be tempted to replace my Razor with the PLx Nova. However, they screwed up (in my opinion) and made the PLx a 1-8 SFP instead of a 1-6. The 1-6x24 SFP with fiber illumination is the magic LPVO formula and I will die on that hill.
I think the only thing better around the $500 range would be a used or on sale Steiner P4Xi 1-4 in the same weight class. The Viper PST2 1-6 is a slightly better scope than the SLx at a huge weight penalty.
Look at the Vector Continental LPVO line as well. I have no first-hand experience, but they are a Chinese OEM flirting with using Schott glass and they have mastered fiber illumination as well.