I just got off the phone with Leupold. The tech said that the old “Custom Ballistically Matched Reticle“ service which provided a truly custom reticle tailored for your load and gun may or may not come back.
I just got off the phone with Leupold. The tech said that the old “Custom Ballistically Matched Reticle“ service which provided a truly custom reticle tailored for your load and gun may or may not come back.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
I've tried this one.Originally Posted by stomridertx
PRO
- It's definitely light.
- It tracks like it should so zeroing is just as explained in textbooks. Clicks are also crisp and easy to use.
- The small objective bell diameter means that it fits in extra low rings which is nice for making fast offhand hits with a bolt gun.
- The BDC is simple and easy to use quickly. The infantryman in me appreciates that. The dot in the middle was problematic on some types of targets so I started using a different type of targets.
- Exit pupil is 12.8mm on 2.5x and 3.2mm on the high end. FWIW, the formula for that is objective lens diameter in mm divided by power.
- Eye relief is short on paper but usable in the real world.
- Eye box is tight but usable.
CON
- Optical quality is not what it could be and gets worse as you increase power. It's usable to about 6x but I stopped at 8x when testing for groups, and that was on plain targets in bright sunlight.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
Agree, the SWFA is very tempting. At one point they did, or were going to, offer a Mil Quad reticle in it. That would push it into ultimate "GP" status for me, so I wouldn't have to fudge their BC holdovers into other applications.
ETA: the SWFA with a quality mount and offset MRDS would weigh less than most of the common 1-6,8,10 LPVOs on the market.
The standard exit pupil formula doesn't always apply anymore with modern optics. It can vary quite a bit between scopes that on paper have the same magnification range and objective size.
I have found this to be true. This thread drew my attention because I put this very scope on a 6.5 Grendel AR I built a few years ago as a compact, lightweight woods hunting rifle. Worked just fine for target shooting, and I found myself having the same thoughts as NH Shooter, wondering why this scope might not be a better choice than a red dot for a lot of things people use red dots for. Once I took it into the woods and started using it as I had intended, though, I had to be honest with myself and admit that I really needed some more magnification for my purposes. I used a fixed 6x scope for a long time, and found it to be plenty of magnification for the longest shots I would ever consider taking while not being too much for the shots I actually did take, which were anywhere from 10 to 100 yards. I found that at 50 to 100 yards, in poor light, in thick woods, the lower magnification of the 2.5x scope was slowing me down because it was too hard to ID my target. I wasn't confident I would be able to quickly discern antlers against a backdrop of tangled branches, or pick out a deer's shoulder in a small opening between bushes. Didn't take any shots with it but "counted coup" enough times to make that determination. I found a compact 6x33 Leupold that was apparently a limited run and put that on the Grendel and it's working much better for me. I still think that 2.5x20 would be a fine optic on a defensive carbine, however.
I always liked the original AUG 1.5x Doughnut of death. It and the 2.5x are improvements over irons but there are better options for a now general purpose 5.56 carbine. I do kinda want a 2.5x for my 10/22 though.
Based on my own experience, it absolutely is. If my carbine was to be used exclusively for that purpose, the 2.5x20 is IMO 100% up to that task.
For recreational shooting, which for me involves ringing steel out to about 500 yards, the fixed low magnification does take a bit of the joy out of that activity. Since I'm probably 99.9% more likely to have fun with the rifle vs. using it for an actual defensive event, I'm open to trying a variable. The challenge is to find something that (1) maintains the same low-magnification qualities that I admire about the 2.5x20; (2) something that will give me enough magnification along with exposed turret and/or ranging reticle to more effectively engage targets beyond 300 yards; (3) to do so without adding a ton of weight and (4) diminishing the current defensive-use qualities of the rifle.
For certain every optic selection requires compromise, and it truly does come down to intended use.
A buddy of mine has the Leupold 1-4 compact or Rimfire version, I’m not sure which but he had them put a German #1 post in it and I really like that one. But until they open the custom shop back up, there’s nothing I know of that’s as light.
But you might look around at a 1.5-5 Leupold, seems like they had a Boone and Crockett reticle available at one time.
I wonder if the new Trijicon Ascent 1-4 (https://www.trijicon.com/products/de...t424-c-2800001) is an improvement on the Leupold 1.x-4 sans illumination...Anyone had time with this one?
I'm thinking more in terms of a mid-range variable (2-3x to 8-10x) used in conjunction with either offset BUIS or MRDS for the very close stuff.
Reply With Quote