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

[MGW]

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

[littlejerry]

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

[NH Shooter]

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

If there is enough light to discern the target, I can see the reticle. Having used illuminated reticles in the past, I've found there is a very narrow window of when illumination would be useful with enough light left to see and reasonably identify the target. But I really do want one of these.

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

[NH Shooter]

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

Reticles Matter

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

[NH Shooter]

Something as simple as this would be IMO quite useful;




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

- 8 MOA (430 yards)

- 16 MOA (600 yards)

- 24 MOA (725 yards)

^ 32 MOA - top of post (825 yards)

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

- 3.5 MOA (300 yards)

- 7 MOA (420 yards)

- 10.5 MOA (480 yards)

^ 14 MOA - top of post (550 yards)


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

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

[MGW]

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

[ASH556]

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

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

[NH Shooter]

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

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

I too prefer a fixed power optic.

[NH Shooter]

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

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

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

[littlejerry]

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

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

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