Hill People Gear Forums
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...Low and medium powered variablesLow and medium powered variables
New Post
3/16/2019 11:28 AM

How about a discussion on LPV and MPV optics for the GPR (General Purpose Rifle). 

What are the current top choices?  NF NX8, 1-8x ATACR, 2.5-10 NXS.  Vortex 1-6x Razor.  Swarovski 1-6/8x, 2-12x. Leupold 1-6/8x. Kahles 1-6x. Others?  Which one has the most forgiving eye box?  Most user friendly?

How much magnification is needed on the top end to PID a human, deer, coyote?  How much magnification is needed to really thread a shot where it needs to go?  Not just shoot in the gneral area... I am not convinced that the "need" for a true 1x is as big a concern as many would argue.  I would also argue that those that tell you 4x is plenty to 400yd can't actaully back up the suggestion with field data that doesn't include a lot of misses and marginal hits. 

FFP vs SFP? Many will argue that you can't see the FFP reticle at low power.  My limited FFP experience disagrees with that but I do see there point.

Reticles?  BCD, Xmas tree, duplex, ticks/dot suptensions?  I have used a bunch of different ones and they all have issues in the right/wrong context. So many of these neat ideas just don't pan out like expected in the feild in less than ideal conditions.

Daytime visible reticle or dot?  This is a gamechanger for me.  If I have a daytime visible dot that will get me to PBR that really speeds things up. 

Any other points of discussion?  Weight?  QD vs non-QD mounts?   

Talk is cheap...lets compare fur checks.
New Post
3/16/2019 12:52 PM
New Post
3/16/2019 7:43 PM

I have recently been faced with this same dilemma. I put a 1-5x scope on a rife and went about business, liked it and used it as I worked up new loads for this rifle. After shooting a different rifle with higher magnification I felt maybe 5X wasn't quite enough. Just put an 2-8x on it and ran some new loads and was pleased that they were grouping better than the ones before. Just for fun I re-shot some of the old loads that had not shot too well before. Surprise! The old loads now grouped way better and were satisfactory where before they were not, approximately 1/2 the size of before. For me seeing is believing and I feel the need for more power. The one caveat I will throw in is that I am 66 and the older I get the worse the eyes are. I doubt I would have as much problem with lower magnification with my youthful eyes. I know for a fact that if I were shooting at man/deer/ pig/coyote at anything more than about 200 yds. I would want/need more power than 6X (which was my previous standard evidenced by having fixed 6x on a couple of hunting rifles). Also I am finding that reticles choice is more important than I thought so maybe pay some attention to that too. There is a glut of different reticles out there now and some may not treat you as well as others. Good luck finding what you need (the perfect one!) and enjoy the search.

New Post
3/16/2019 8:02 PM

The SWFA Super Sniper 1-6x is THE AR scope. $1000 bucks, usually  20% off at tax day.  Almost a true 1x, the red circle (think Eotec) is super fast. Thing is a beast, weighs a pound and a half, so nearly 2# with a good mount.  Mildot reticle is "dial worthy"

No plan to dial elevation, if I was determined to have something lighter, I'd get the Trijicon Accupoint.  I plan to put one of those on a LW What-would-Stoner-do build

New Post
3/18/2019 9:27 AM
I have been using magnified optics almost exclusively since around 2007. Back then I quickly discovered that if I could see something I could generally hit it, but if I couldn't see, or could kind of see it, my chances of hitting it was a lot lower. The only time a RDS gets the nod these days is when I am trying to keep weight and size to a minimum, and or the gun it is being put on is small itself. Back then the idea of putting anything but a RDS on a carbine was pretty much crazy talk, except for the Short Dot. As money was tight in those days I got the optic I could afford, which was closets to it, which was a Leupold Illuminated (pre-cursor to the VXR line). That scope has been on a lot of rifles over the years and is still going strong. Its circle dot reticle makes holding over a bit problematic as their is no reference for vertical or horizontal. Fast forward a year or two and I wanted more magnification on a scout setup than 2.5 could give me, so I put a Burris 2-7 on the rifle. I took a class with that scope and a conventional mounted 1.25-5 switching out. I discovered that I wasn't any slower at 2 than I was at 1.25. In fact I was actually faster at 2. I think in part that was the placement of the optic. I also found that while the difference between 1.25 and 2 was not significant the difference between 5 and 7 was. I have been told that the human eye can't tell the difference between .5x-1x depending on the person. I have also been told by folks who are a lot better with a gun then I will ever be that they are slower at 2.5 than at a 1x. That being said until recently both of those guys used a 2.5-10 for everything general purpose. I think it comes down to an individuals eyes and their shooting capabilities. For me the different between the low end doesn't matter, but the high end does, so I prefer these days to have a higher end and 2 on the low end. The exception, again is due to size, and that is most mpvo have a forward bell whereas you can get lpvo that don't have one. The extra length and difference in weight distribution does matter. To sum up I prefer a 2/2.5 to 10 or 12 or whatever I can get provided other stuff isn't sacrificed.

What I find way more important than magnification is the quality of the glass and the eye box. I ended up pulling the burris 2-7 off my rifle after a hunting trip. Evan had a 2.5 on his rifle, and I discovered in the field under various lighting and backgrounds the better quality of the Leupold 2.5 made it easier to see things. The burris worked, but the Leupold worked better. At this point I optimize for the best quality glass I can afford. That being said I think that the Leupold X3 and VXR line don't get the credit they deserve. They have good glass for the money, and I don't think anything in the same price range competes.

When I shoulder a scope and run through the power range I want to the reticle to be right there in my field of vision. I don't want to have to hunt for it, or hold my head in the exact right position. That all assumes I mounted it correctly. I have found that I had to slide my head a bit further forward at full magnification if the spread is wider to get the best clarity, but that is leaning into the rifle a bit more something I end up doing anyway when prone, kneeling, etc... so having my head slightly more upright standing and lower power seems to work out anyway. I personally don't like either of the new NF 1-8s for that reason. They have a very tight eyebox and I found myself really fighting to keep my head in the correct position. I have that problem actually with a lot of the 1 to 6/8s I have looked at.

SFP/FFP - For me it is easy I have never looked through a FFP that I liked the reticle on, and never had a problem with SFP. Perhaps I am just not shooting far enough out to make a difference, but for me I will take a SFP. Yes I think the reticle gets to small at lower magnification, in the field (only looked through other folks scopes never used one) that makes it hard for my eye to focus on the reticle and not the target. Again maybe just and issue with my eyes.

Daylight Illuminated reticle - Yes I am a huge fan, but prefer just the center of the crosshairs or a center dot to the whole plex being illuminated. That being said if the scope has all the other features I like then I am willing to sacrifice a this feature after years of not having it.

In my experience the simpler a reticle the better as I tend to get lost in data overload with the more complicated reticles. However, again I am not a long range shooter or shooting movers. If I was to go down that road I would probably use one enough to decide if it was going to work for me or not. With the shooting I do, I don't feel I am missing out, but it is truly a case of not knowing what I don't know.

Weight - I think this is an issue to often overlooked. On paper the Razor HD is an awesome optic, looking through it awesome optic, but as soon as it gets on a carbine it overpowers the handling of the rifle. It is simply to heavy and makes the rifle to awkward. For years I stuck with 16oz or less, and preferred less than that when possible. I still do, but when it comes to ARs, I have found I can go to a 19oz scope and a fixed mount and be roughly the same weight as a lighter scope in a QD. There are trade offs, but so far I am happy.

As I said previously, I think that the Leupold VXR line is a best buy. I have multiple of them, and that would probably be all I had without friends and hook ups.

The current goto scope for a lot of guys is the Steiner, as it is lighter than the Razor HD, and performs well. If you have more coin definitely worth a look. I haven't personally messed with them, but they get very high marks.

Razor HD, for years that was the go to within the .Mil world for lpvo, and if you can get over the weight then worth a look. You can usually find a deal on them as folks buy them, don't like the weight and sell them. My only complaint in the time I have messed with them is weight.

As El Mac pointed out the Sig Optic, two if I am not mistake, were recently choosen for different programs. Based on that worth a look, but I have no personal experience. El Mac if you do please post about it instead of just a link.

Now my personal current favorite GP scope, and I only got to try them do to a friend is the NF 2.5-10x24. In reality it is old tech, but I understand why it has the cult following it does in the .Mil and LE circles. They only boxes of mine it doesn't check are weight, which I deal with by going to a fixed mount, and the daylight visible reticle. I am willing to sacrifice that because I just like the optic so dang much. That being said I don't have a problem using a Leupold, I just have the opportunity and money to afford the NF.

Co-Owner Hill People Gear "If anything goes wrong it will be a fight to the end, if your training is good enough, survival is there; if not nature claims its foreit." - Dougal Haston
New Post
3/19/2019 11:58 AM
I have a Swarovski Z6i 2-12x50 that I was sure would be a 90% solution to this very question. It weighs 18oz is is quite a piece of glass. I have taken quite a few animals with it. My biggest concern with the lighter weight non-caveman proof scopes is they just don't hold zero in the field or track with consistency or repeatably.

Maybe someone with more technical optical knowledge can explain why some scopes have much more forgiving eyeboxes and what trade off that comes with.

Talk is cheap...lets compare fur checks.
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...Low and medium powered variablesLow and medium powered variables