https://soldiersystems.net/2021/09/2...e-power-optic/
Interested to see the specs of this thing. The Vudu line in general seems to be good on concepts, but somewhat lacking in execution, from my friends' experiences.
https://soldiersystems.net/2021/09/2...e-power-optic/
Interested to see the specs of this thing. The Vudu line in general seems to be good on concepts, but somewhat lacking in execution, from my friends' experiences.
Dang. Just came here to post a link. Too late!Originally Posted by Default.mp3
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Tried the LVPO gamut (1x6, 1x8 & 1x10). All lacked in the 1x role; FOV too limited & tube blocks off-axis views.
Running an EXPS and G45 now; better 1x & FOV up close, with good 5x performance for longish work.
HWS/RDS & magnifier is prolly all the AR platform needs. Even a magnifier is optional (really just a cool toy).
LVPO was a cool "hotness" experiment.
M2C
LPVOs and RDS/HWS with magnifier are distinctly separate roles. While there is substantial overlap, they have very different strengths.
The LPVO will never be able to compete with an RDS/HWS when it comes to unmagnified use; you can pretty easily get just as fast when doing flat range stuff when using a quality LPVO, but factor in unorthodox shooting positions, i.e., barricade use, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to practice enough to be just as fast with an LPVO. The LPVO also cannot be used for passive aiming under NODs.
On the flip side, LPVOs can provide much better reticles for use, and will also provide much better light transmission. This makes LPVOs much more versatile when used at range, and are also much more effective in low-light situations when not using NODs. Using my ATACR 1-8x, I was able to push my SR-25 all the way out to >1100 yards.
I would strongly argue that magnification and a useful reticle much extends the utility of an AR-15. These rifles are generally capable of <2 MOA accuracy when paired with appropriate ammo, why wouldn't we want to take advantage of that? Beyond that, as Chuck Pressburg has noted, the goal of having magnification on an AR isn't to try and take a headshot at 400 yards, it's to be able to hit that 2" of the target that's exposed while the rest is behind cover at 50 yards. I have both magnifiers and LPVOs on my rifles, and I see them as being used for very different roles. As the old saying goes, mission drives the gear train.
I probably shoulda added that I run the Eotech & G45 on an 11.5" suppressed SBR. For that platform, I think the payoff is higher with an HWS/RDS, but that's just me.
If I ran a 16"-18" AR platform, I think I'd try something like the Vudu or Vortex PST II. Something in the 3-15x50 or 5-25x56ish range. I'd really like to give the Vudu a whirl.
My guess is that most rec-shooters don't spent much time in 1x. Just a guess. The really nice part of 3x or higher (mag or LVPO) is the PID capability.
BTW: does anyone have a take on the Trijicon Credo yet (1x8, I think)?
Regarding the Vortex Razors - the newest 1 to 10 is the same weight, size, eye relief as the 1 to 6 previous gen.
Since we're talking about front focal plane, the size of the reticle will change as magnification changes. So I'm wondering, ignoring the cost difference in money terms, pretend you're getting it for free and the older gen 1 to 6 is cheaper. Might you prefer the 1 to 6 on a 5.56 gun that you dont intend to shoot more than 300 yards? And likely shoot between 50 and 100 yards most of the time?
Because if running at 10x you will have less field of view than 6x so at closer ranges, you probably dont want the high mag. You might even just want it at 3x.
But if running a FFP 10x optic, then the reticle will only be 1/3 as big when adjusted to 3x. But when running a 6x FFP optic, at 3x, the reticle is half as big, so you get more reticle, it's easier to see and use.
Does that make any sense or or is the new 1 to 10 always better, even for guns you dont intend to shoot from very far away assuming cost isn't an issue and weight/size is identical?
Uh... the Razor 1-6x24 are all SFP, so I'm not seeing the point of your question, if I understand it correctly.
I haven't heard of anyone saying that they would rather take the Gen II-E over a Gen III, outside of folks that prefer SFP for their application. I know a couple of folks have said that for them, the Gen III was basically just a Gen II-E with some extra mag on top; while there are arguably better options than the Gen III (NF ATACR 1-8 especially with the new reticle, S&B Short Dots, Kahles 1-8, etc.), between the Gen II-E and Gen III, nothing I've heard would indicate that that the Gen II-E has any advantage outside of cost and possibly reticles/focal plane (with the latter being purely a personal choice).
Last edited by Default.mp3; 09-24-2021 at 12:47 AM.
Sorry I thought all three gens of razors were FFP
I know Primary Arms makes 1 - 6, and 1 - 8 in both SPF and FFP. Not sure about 1 - 10. Is Sanches logic accurate?
I only looked through the Gen III when it came out at SHOT, but I didn’t think the image on 1x was as good as the Gen II. SupersetCA noted the same thing in the review of the Gen III.
Reply With Quote