Correction - the distance from the center of the crosshairs to the tip of the posts is about 120 MOA (10 feet @ 100 yards).
Correction - the distance from the center of the crosshairs to the tip of the posts is about 120 MOA (10 feet @ 100 yards).
@Backspin- a few more thoughts;
Obviously a 2.2X scope with a simple duplex reticle is not intended for long-range precision. However if you are equipped with a laser rangefinder and know the size of the target, longer range shots are manageable. For example, if I know the 24" X 30" steel plate I'm aiming to hit is 500 yards away, and I know the drop for the round I'm using is 66 inches, I hold a touch more than 1.5 times the target height high from the top of the plate to hit the center of the plate. Luckily some pretty decent rangefinders can be had for reasonable money these days.
Another point to keep in mind is that this particular Leupold scope is not heavily discounted at retail. List is $269 and I paid $259 from an online source that has decent discounts (plus free expedited delivery). You can order the scope direct from Leupold with all the custom features you want. If you order it with a different reticle and the CDS turrets, it costs $459.
Just like good writing is about conveying as much information as possible with the least number of words, so it has become with equipment selection for me. In this case I'm left with no decisions to be made about what magnification the scope should be set to (and adjusting cheek weld for a change in eye relief), no debate about how bright the reticle should be set (or should it be illuminated at all?), no spinning of turret dials. I think of this simple set up as optical iron sights to compensate for eyesight that can no longer use irons effectively. And just like I learned to use iron sights, my goal is to become as proficient as possible with this set up by building the skills that are most relevant to my intended use.
Last edited by NH Shooter; 11-17-2018 at 08:02 AM.
I like it enough that it’ll be replacing my Aimpoint once I have an opportunity to zero with social ammo. I’ve run it daytime and dusk on the range and full dark in class.
http://instagram.com/p/BV0oPHEjUun/
http://instagram.com/p/BV0WIAoDViO/
*RS Regulate Affiliate*Originally Posted by caleb
@NH Shooter,
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Yep, I agree about the limitations of a 2.2x scope. I was actually wondering if I would be able to use the bottom post as a reference point for up close shooting. I have a 1.5-8x Vortex Razor LH where that’s possible on 1.5x (just put the thick bottom post about 6 o’clock of desired POI).
I went to a local gun shop today to check out a TA44 and also to look at a Leupold 1.5-4x20 Mark AR MOD 1. They did not have a Steiner PX4i to look at.
I looked at the Leupold because it is about half the weight of the Steiner and cheaper than anything else which is nice. I considered this Leupold mainly because I wanted a dot in the center and I can't really get into the idea of just a straight up duplex (Sorry NHShooter)
My observations with the Leupold is that the push button to adjust the brightness is annoying as hell and the reticle is only ok; I would be willing to overlook it but the truth is that despite the numbers on the eye relief on the Leupold vs the ACOG the ACOG works better from not perfect conditions.
By that I mean that despite the ACOG having an officially stated eye relief of 2 inches I could still see it further back and closer forward and moving my head around up/down, left/right simulating not having a perfect cheek weld the ACOG had a wider area where I could still find and use the optic than the Leupold did.
It kind of gives me dobuts about the Steiner being any better for what I'd want to use it for.
That said the 1.5x is definitely a learning curve and going to be slower than either a true 1x like on the Steiner or on a red dot.
I also looked at the Vortex Spitfire prism thing which I liked a lot more than I thought I would. It's clear, 1x, runs off AAA, cheap and it has options for red or green which is nice. It kind of muddied things up a bit because I was leaning heavily towards the TA44 until I tried this. That said the dot inside of a circle inside of a circle is maybe a bit overkill. I'd have prefered the large outside circle and the dot and just cut the middle circle out of it entirely.
That looks damn good. Does anyone know what the point of the line is below the dot in the circle? It's kind of bothering me that it's there because I'd like to think it wasn't Trijicon being lazy and leaving it there from their 4x ACOGs but I can't think of a reason for it and Trijicon doesn't say on their website.
Perhaps to maintain awareness and keep optic vertical.
*RS Regulate Affiliate*
I would strongly look at the Primary Arms Cyclops for the price if you wanna dabble your toes before committing to ACOG money.
*RS Regulate Affiliate*
I emailed Trijicon to ask. Can you check your manual and see if they have a description of the reticle? Trijicon doesn't have their manuals online anywhere that I can see.
I think the Primary Arms Cyclops and the Vortex Spitfire are the same type so I'm certainly not opposed to it but I kind of like the Vortex Spitfire reticle a bit better from what I can tell.
No description in my manual. Sorry.
The PA Cyclops uses Aimpoint Micro compatible mounts and can get lower which may (or may not) be beneficial on the Scorpion.
*RS Regulate Affiliate*
The TA 44 and Spitfire are good optics however before writing off LPV try a decent one.
Comparing the low end performance of the Leupold Mark AR to the Steiner is like comparing a high point to a Glock. In short the Mark AR is shit and not what one should base their opinion of LPV on.
The low end (1x ish) is what sets good LPVs apart from the wannabe’s. The Steiner is the best availible in the $500ish price range and really the best value in a LPV. The eye relief and FOV on the Steiner are FAR better than the Mark AR. even Leupolds VX-R 1.25-4 is head and shoulders above the Mark AR at the low end.
The Trijicon Accupoint 1-4 with the triangle reticle is also a solid 1-4.
Reply With Quote