LPVOs in 2023 and beyond

[Nephrology]

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.

My interest in the 2-10ish power scopes is for something that splits the difference, eg the USN Mk11 rifles with the NF NXS 2.5-10x32 power scopes. Basically an update to that concept with a similarly lightweight 2-10 power scope, but more modern features (mostly, FFP).

I keep going back and forth between the PA and Trijicon offerings and don't really love either quite enough to pull the trigger. From the prices I'm seeing, its about a $250 difference shipped to my door. I want to like the Trijicon product as Japanese glass always seems preferable to me vs. Filipino glass, but the Trijicon warranty and my general impression of the company is a little... disappointing.

[Up1911Fan]

What mount height does everyone like for LPVO's? I ordered a 1.93 ADM Recon for my incoming Viper PST 1-6. I'm wondering if that might be too high? I do want to be able to shoot the gun in more of a heads up stance. This isn't an SPR type rifle, but wondering if I should've went lower.

[joshs]

What mount height does everyone like for LPVO's? I ordered a 1.93 ADM Recon for my incoming Viper PST 1-6. I'm wondering if that might be too high? I do want to be able to shoot the gun in more of a heads up stance. This isn't an SPR type rifle, but wondering if I should've went lower.

For an optic that will primarily be shot on 1x in more upright positions, I prefer 1.93-2.04. The taller mounts allow the stock to stay in your shoulder without requiring you to tilt your head a lot to get behind the optic.

[M2CattleCo]

What mount height does everyone like for LPVO's? I ordered a 1.93 ADM Recon for my incoming Viper PST 1-6. I'm wondering if that might be too high? I do want to be able to shoot the gun in more of a heads up stance. This isn't an SPR type rifle, but wondering if I should've went lower.

1.93” all the things.

I think the weird sloping cheekweld stocks aren’t good for tall mounts because then that battery tube hits you in the jaw.

[Nephrology]

Well, saw a good deal on a Trijicon Credo 2-10 and pulled the trigger. Will be listing my PST II 1-6 for sale once it arrives, as I think I like my Meopta LPVOs a little bit more. Happy to be putting a more appropriate optic on this gun that won't weigh any more than my 1-6 does already.

[KEW8338]

IÂ’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 .

If you go and shoot a "sniper school" with a red dot. You will find it sucks.

The learning curve for a LVPO vs red dot at close ranges are two different things. Red dots are way easier to learn, faster.

The trend is way too much "an LVPO is a red dot with magnification". Which can be the case. But you are only using a percentage of what that optic is capable of.

If you are willing to climb that learning curve, you will not find well built LVPOs as being crap to use at close ranges. The competitive and combative world see their high level use daily at close ranges.

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.

One of the originals, that is still seeing use is the CQBSS with the H27D reticle. They were built that way for a reason. Nightforce did not build the ATACR or NX8 with that mrad based reticle in a vacuum. Nor did vortex build the reticle for the 1-10 in a vacuum.

1.93” all the things.

I think the weird sloping cheekweld stocks arenÂ’t good for tall mounts because then that battery tube hits you in the jaw.

For an optic that will primarily be shot on 1x in more upright positions, I prefer 1.93-2.04. The taller mounts allow the stock to stay in your shoulder without requiring you to tilt your head a lot to get behind the optic.

I have found that taller mounts induce more issues with the average end user than they help solve.

Benefits include:
-If using a top mounted lazer, it gets it out of your field of view
-If using with some types of inline clipons, it can help to keep everything centered
-If shooting with NBC gear on where you cant move your head. It gives you the clearance to make that happen

When people go to higher mounts, their reference points for the index of the rifle change, and depending on gun set up and body type, there is no tactile index. The amount of times you see guys with high mounts present the rifle, then bring their head upright is pretty telling.

The notion of keeping your head up is also somewhat foreign to me. Nothing in human nature tells us to stick our head up when you are about to get punched in the face.

In practical applications using an LVPO is again pushing to own mid range engagements. These are not "up right" affairs. The utilization of cover and concealment are paramount. Cover and concealment also doubles as kneeling and standing supported positions which are dictated to you. Your upright stance of 5'9" doesnt work when using a 4'3" wall. When you start going to supported positions, the higher the mount usually leads to inconsistent cheek welds, extreme neck positions and a lot of undiagnosed scope shadow. Because your head is usually floating off the back of the gun. This is true combatively, competitively and in hunting. No guy has ever won a 3 gun match by standing and shooting at 6" plates at 300m when there is a plywood barricade next to him.

[joshs]

I have found that taller mounts induce more issues with the average end user than they help solve.

Benefits include:
-If using a top mounted lazer, it gets it out of your field of view
-If using with some types of inline clipons, it can help to keep everything centered
-If shooting with NBC gear on where you cant move your head. It gives you the clearance to make that happen

When people go to higher mounts, their reference points for the index of the rifle change, and depending on gun set up and body type, there is no tactile index. The amount of times you see guys with high mounts present the rifle, then bring their head upright is pretty telling.

I've been running 1.93 mounts with LPVOs since shortly after Larue released the first one (I think it's been a little over a decade at this point), and none of those reasons apply to me. I get a very tactile index with tall mounts because I can actually keep my jaw clenched and the "pocket" created by my flexed jaw muscle (masseter) and jawbone provides perfect eye relief without running any type of riser. With a lower mount, I either have to relax my jaw some or tilt my head outboard, which I don't want to do.

The notion of keeping your head up is also somewhat foreign to me. Nothing in human nature tells us to stick our head up when you are about to get punched in the face.

I don't disagree, but I think it's a matter of degree rather than a categorical difference. I have about the same amount of head tilt shooting a tall mount as I do when I shoot a pistol. I have many thousands more repetitions with a pistol than a carbine, so the same position works well for me. It also keeps me from "looking through my eyebrows," which I find damages visual acuity to the point where sight tracking becomes more difficult.

In practical applications using an LVPO is again pushing to own mid range engagements. These are not "up right" affairs. The utilization of cover and concealment are paramount. Cover and concealment also doubles as kneeling and standing supported positions which are dictated to you. Your upright stance of 5'9" doesnt work when using a 4'3" wall. When you start going to supported positions, the higher the mount usually leads to inconsistent cheek welds, extreme neck positions and a lot of undiagnosed scope shadow. Because your head is usually floating off the back of the gun. This is true combatively, competitively and in hunting. No guy has ever won a 3 gun match by standing and shooting at 6" plates at 300m when there is a plywood barricade next to him.

I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at here. At 5'9" a 4'3" wall is probably about where a normal "standing" stance would place the shooter. The carbine doesn't come straight out of your forehead.

Tall mounts work much better for me (and many others) for barricade shooting. That is the exact reason taller mounts are gaining popularity in PRS/NRL, since both sports have moved towards requiring a lot fewer shots from prone.

1.93ish mounts have also been popular in multigun since I started shooting it in 2008. I think Horner had quite a bit to due with that popularity (and yes I know he runs a riser), but there are a lot of shooters who get benefits from tall mounts that have nothing to do with night vision or NBC gear.

By "upright" I'm basically referring to any shooting position where the stock sits in relatively the same place as when standing. For me, this is everything except a very stretched out crossed ankle sitting position or a very low prone (lower than a 30 round mag allows). I don't have to wear a helmet or plates, and I can see how that might cause issues between the rear of the helmet and the rear plate.

All that said, I've recently been playing with what would be considered "extra low" (1.26") rings on a more precision oriented AR, so I'm totally open to the fact that everything I know could be wrong. But, I do have a 1.93" offset red dot on that gun too . . .

[M2CattleCo]

If you go and shoot a "sniper school" with a red dot. You will find it sucks.

The learning curve for a LVPO vs red dot at close ranges are two different things. Red dots are way easier to learn, faster.

The trend is way too much "an LVPO is a red dot with magnification". Which can be the case. But you are only using a percentage of what that optic is capable of.

If you are willing to climb that learning curve, you will not find well built LVPOs as being crap to use at close ranges. The competitive and combative world see their high level use daily at close ranges.







I have found that taller mounts induce more issues with the average end user than they help solve.

They can be used effectively at close ranges but not are nearly as forgiving as a red dot. I’ve seen way too many training classes are that are tailored to the gear rather than reality.

Way too much attention is given to the average end user. They’re average because they’re not motivated and they’ll never be anything more than average until enough hardware is tailored for the average shooter until the above average are sufficiently handicapped to not outperform the average.

[KEW8338]

I've been running 1.93 mounts with LPVOs since shortly after Larue released the first one (I think it's been a little over a decade at this point), and none of those reasons apply to me. I get a very tactile index with tall mounts because I can actually keep my jaw clenched and the "pocket" created by my flexed jaw muscle (masseter) and jawbone provides perfect eye relief without running any type of riser. With a lower mount, I either have to relax my jaw some or tilt my head outboard, which I don't want to do.



I don't disagree, but I think it's a matter of degree rather than a categorical difference. I have about the same amount of head tilt shooting a tall mount as I do when I shoot a pistol. I have many thousands more repetitions with a pistol than a carbine, so the same position works well for me. It also keeps me from "looking through my eyebrows," which I find damages visual acuity to the point where sight tracking becomes more difficult.



I guess I don't really understand what you're getting at here. At 5'9" a 4'3" wall is probably about where a normal "standing" stance would place the shooter. The carbine doesn't come straight out of your forehead.

Bad approximation of heights on my part. The point I was trying to make was the shooter must usually conform to the barricade/cover/support etc. One of the most bastardized heights and seemingly ohh so common, Is the awkward height between kneeling and standing. It is when shooters are forced to be not-up-right, that problems seemingly emerge.

Tall mounts work much better for me (and many others) for barricade shooting. That is the exact reason taller mounts are gaining popularity in PRS/NRL, since both sports have moved towards requiring a lot fewer shots from prone.

1.93ish mounts have also been popular in multigun since I started shooting it in 2008. I think Horner had quite a bit to due with that popularity (and yes I know he runs a riser), but there are a lot of shooters who get benefits from tall mounts that have nothing to do with night vision or NBC gear.

I have not shot as many matches as I used too. Having shot with Horner. I do remember his highmount. But also his cheekweld riser. IIRC this was because he could not get a tactile index. This was a while ago, so I very well may be wrong. I also do not remember this being a trend on bolt or gas guns.

They can be used effectively at close ranges but not are nearly as forgiving as a red dot. I’ve seen way too many training classes are that are tailored to the gear rather than reality.
.

I am not disagreeing with that at all. Red dots are somewhat of the point and click solution.

My point is. If you want to red dot things. Then red dot. But when you get into LVPO's its a new ball game.

[M2CattleCo]

It is a new ballgame, but is it relevant?

The trade-offs are only worth it if the increased capability offsets it.

I don’t think there is really any justifiable civilian use of an AR against two-legged game where an LPVO is anything but a detriment.