LPVOs in 2023 and beyond

[Nephrology]

Resolve bullet holes? I am not sure I follow.

Basically be able to see my hits clearly on a Shoot n C target so I am not bouncing back and forth to the spotting scope when i am zeroing, testing different loads, shooting groups on paper.

Practically speaking though, I doubt you would ever be dialing that much (end user dependent). 8 mils is going to be 700-800m with a 14.5" shooting 77gr SMK. Given you have 12 mils to play with baked into the reticle. If I have a decent mil based reticle, I will not dial.

If you want to keep weight down on the gun...just ditch the red dot and mount..

Yeah you are right that minimal dialing will probably be done with this scope. re: the reticle, I kind of like the griffin ACSS mil reticle on the PA gun even if it is a little bit busy. The Trijicon's reticle is simpler but seems to suffer in visibility at low power just from watching some videos on youtube.

re: the mrds, part of the interest in upgrading from an LPVO to a medium power 2-10 ish scope would be to maximize high mag performance with the scope and use an MRDS to make the gun RDS fast on closer targets. Otherwise I'd probably just stick with the 1-6 on the gun right now (the default plan at the moment)

[KEW8338]

Basically be able to see my hits clearly on a Shoot n C target so I am not bouncing back and forth to the spotting scope when i am zeroing, testing different loads, shooting groups on paper.

If you are working parallax as a focus, you may want to check your diopter setting. Parallax can/will adjust image clarity, but that's not necessarily the indication that it is set correctly.

Yeah you are right that minimal dialing will probably be done with this scope. re: the reticle, I kind of like the griffin ACSS mil reticle on the PA gun even if it is a little bit busy. The Trijicon's reticle is simpler but seems to suffer in visibility at low power just from watching some videos on youtube.

re: the mrds, part of the interest in upgrading from an LPVO to a medium power 2-10 ish scope would be to maximize high mag performance with the scope and use an MRDS to make the gun RDS fast on closer targets. Otherwise I'd probably just stick with the 1-6 on the gun right now (the default plan at the moment)

I think most 2.5-10 reticles are in that purgatory spot. The reticles are built for higher magnification, making it hard to use at the lower ranger nor do they generally include the benchmarks for making a FFP shootable at 1-2x.

I think there is this arms rooms optics arms race where you throw on an optic then you realize you can get more magnification, but now you need a mrds, but since you are using an mrds, why not throw more optic on. Next you are using a 3-15/18 with an MRDS and have missed the money.

Using 5.56 with 12-16" barrels with a decent OTM/HPBT/SMK round you are looking to effect things out too 800-900, and really tear things up from the 300-600 range. At those ranges, your magnification is likely going to be between 4-6x. So making sure the reticle is useable there is key. Nightforce released their new reticle for the ATACR for that reason. Unclutter the 1-2 mil area. because that correlates to 200-400m holds for engagements.

The trend for mounting offset red dots on guns boggles my mind. From a training perspective I think you will be better suited learning to shoot through your main optic regardless of what magnification its set at than trying to transition to an offset. From a longevity perspective. Offsets usually come off the firing side of the gun. So a right handed shooter, the optic comes off the right side of the gun as you have it mounted. Whenever you front sling to do anything, that offset MRDS is now a huge horn sticking out that will bear the brunt of whatever manual labor you are doing at at point. Ballistically speaking we now have whole new series of holds to worry about.....

Next comes the 12 oclock mount for a piggy back MRDS. This works, but everyone is in a race for higher and higher mounts. Of which I do not know why. So take a guy running a 2.0 mount, throw a MRDS on to piggy back, you are looking at a height over bore of 4-5 inches....Now that is supposedly the optic you use for CQB engagements

If that comes off as a rant toward you, I apologize not intended that way. Just spent the evening browsing instagram and am fired up.

[Nephrology]

I think most 2.5-10 reticles are in that purgatory spot. The reticles are built for higher magnification, making it hard to use at the lower ranger nor do they generally include the benchmarks for making a FFP shootable at 1-2x.

I think there is this arms rooms optics arms race where you throw on an optic then you realize you can get more magnification, but now you need a mrds, but since you are using an mrds, why not throw more optic on. Next you are using a 3-15/18 with an MRDS and have missed the money.

Yeah, I mean that's sort of the issue - there aren't a lot of lightweight medium power scopes with the features I am looking for. The rationale behind an offset or piggybacked MRDS + a lightweight medium power scope would be to do the of an LPVO but better, by sacrificing 1x magnification and using the MRDS for that purpose instead. If the combination ends up being substantially heavier than an LPVO (the 25oz weight of the Razor kind of being my benchmark) then there's no point.

The trend for mounting offset red dots on guns boggles my mind. From a training perspective I think you will be better suited learning to shoot through your main optic regardless of what magnification its set at than trying to transition to an offset. From a longevity perspective. Offsets usually come off the firing side of the gun. So a right handed shooter, the optic comes off the right side of the gun as you have it mounted. Whenever you front sling to do anything, that offset MRDS is now a huge horn sticking out that will bear the brunt of whatever manual labor you are doing at at point. Ballistically speaking we now have whole new series of holds to worry about.....

Next comes the 12 oclock mount for a piggy back MRDS. This works, but everyone is in a race for higher and higher mounts. Of which I do not know why. So take a guy running a 2.0 mount, throw a MRDS on to piggy back, you are looking at a height over bore of 4-5 inches....Now that is supposedly the optic you use for CQB engagements

If that comes off as a rant toward you, I apologize not intended that way. Just spent the evening browsing instagram and am fired up.

I think the MRDS would unique advantages when paired with the goldilocks scope I am describing, but I agree I don't know if I fully understand the benefit when paired with a 1-nx lpvo. Still, many seem to think they add value to them, so I'm willing to tinker around with the concept before I commit to a new scope. I'm definitely at a point where I'd rather wait and spend more money on an optic to get what I really want.

[KEW8338]

Yeah, I mean that's sort of the issue - there aren't a lot of lightweight medium power scopes with the features I am looking for. The rationale behind an offset or piggybacked MRDS + a lightweight medium power scope would be to do the of an LPVO but better, by sacrificing 1x magnification and using the MRDS for that purpose instead. If the combination ends up being substantially heavier than an LPVO (the 25oz weight of the Razor kind of being my benchmark) then there's no point.



I think the MRDS would unique advantages when paired with the goldilocks scope I am describing, but I agree I don't know if I fully understand the benefit when paired with a 1-nx lpvo. Still, many seem to think they add value to them, so I'm willing to tinker around with the concept before I commit to a new scope. I'm definitely at a point where I'd rather wait and spend more money on an optic to get what I really want.

If you go to this video at about the 6 second mark. Watch the guy who goes right through the door and is using a SCAR. He presents the rifle, looks through his main optic, then cants the gun and uses the offset. If you spend anytime at rifle or 3 gun competitions, that happens all the time. Even guys that practice. You are splitting training time between two sighting systems. Then force yourself to make a snap call on which you are going to use.

If you make the determination to plus the glass up. Then why not plus the gun up to match the range the glass can give you?

Again this is the arms room logic train that will lead you to 16-18" guns, with 3-18s. That is a viable option. But that isnt the LVPO.

I think the prevalence of offset red dots is disproportionately represented by "influencers". Im sure there are plenty of main stream instructors that would have you believing as such

As for weight being a defining factor. Heavy things suck. But you can gym your way out of 2ozs. You cant gym your way out of bad reticles....

[Nephrology]

If you make the determination to plus the glass up. Then why not plus the gun up to match the range the glass can give you?

Again this is the arms room logic train that will lead you to 16-18" guns, with 3-18s. That is a viable option. But that isnt the LVPO.

Well, that's part of the equation too. The gun this scope would go on is already 16" with a heavy 416R barrel and wears a bipod full time, which is sort of the whole reason I'm interested in a lightweight 2-10/3-15 with an offset dot. It's a porker no matter what. Currently it has a 1-6 LPVO on it that is fine, but at 23 oz, leaves me wondering why not have a higher mag scope with a MRDS for only a few ounces more.



Wouldn't be interested in this combination on any of my lighter or shorter ARs.

[M2CattleCo]

I’ve been using LPVOs for about a decade *on certain ARs.

I see that the most common justification for an LPVO is to outfit an AR to be a one-gun, do-all solution.

I think an LPVO is a niche optic that’s mostly suited to games, hunting, and LARPing with a 5.56/300BO size AR out the reasonable end of it’s effective range on larger than varmint targets.

In their intended role, they’re all pretty good because you’re using a scope to do scoped rifle things.

[littlejerry]

I’ve been using LPVOs for about a decade *on certain ARs.

I see that the most common justification for an LPVO is to outfit an AR to be a one-gun, do-all solution.

I think an LPVO is a niche optic that’s mostly suited to games, hunting, and LARPing with a 5.56/300BO size AR out the reasonable end of it’s effective range on larger than varmint targets.

In their intended role, they’re all pretty good because you’re using a scope to do scoped rifle things.

I'd generally agree with this. LPVOs are indeed the "do-all" solution, but in reality they used in place of a red dot+magnifier, not in place of a higher power precision optic.

If you prioritize first round hits on small targets at 300-600 yards, an LPVO is not the right tool (even a 1-10x). Silhouettes are not small targets.

[KEW8338]

I'd generally agree with this. LPVOs are indeed the "do-all" solution, but in reality they used in place of a red dot+magnifier, not in place of a higher power precision optic.

If you prioritize first round hits on small targets at 300-600 yards, an LPVO is not the right tool (even a 1-10x). Silhouettes are not small targets.

I would say that is the biggest misnomer out there. Red dot and a magnifier vs LVPO

A magnifier let's me do red dot things, magnified .

A LVPO gives me a myriad of things I can accomplish.

What is a small target to you? 1moa?

The LVPO was absolutely a pair down of higher magnification optics on specific types of rifles. That's why the SR25, Mk11 and similar breed of rifles saw the transformation from using 3-15 down to 1-8s.

Largely because 4-6x is where a majority of "stuff" happens at.

[M2CattleCo]

I’ve taken LPVOs through a lot of shoot houses and cleared a lot of structures with them.

Outside of choreographed stages, they suck for actual CQ .

[LOKNLOD]

I'd generally agree with this. LPVOs are indeed the "do-all" solution, but in reality they used in place of a red dot+magnifier, not in place of a higher power precision optic.

If you prioritize first round hits on small targets at 300-600 yards, an LPVO is not the right tool (even a 1-10x). Silhouettes are not small targets.

That's spot on. The market for LPVOs has evolved into precision optics that you can turn down, instead of red dots that you can turn up. The top end on power continues to increase, the reticles keep getting more complicated, etc. etc. There's a marketing vs. demand self licking ice cream cone with features and its arms race on making the high-end power setup ever more.

All things being equal, having more raw power on the top end isn't a bad thing. But all things are rarely equal (and that equality drives the price into orbit).

I still like my Trijicon TR24 1-4x with the red triangle. It's a really good red dot with built-in magnifier. It's slick at 1x. It's handy at 4x. I can put a hurting on anything 0-300 in a hurry and much faster than just a dot alone once distance starts to outrun my eyesight.

For a more precision setup with longer distances, I have a 3-15x on a gun setup for that.