• Get 30% off the first 3 months with code HIDE30

    Offer valid until 9/23! If you have an annual subscription on Sniper's Hide, subscribe below and you'll be refunded the difference.

    Subscribe
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes LPVO 1-6 vs. 1-8 - What´s the difference?

Which LPVO is better / is my choice, the 1-6 vs. the 1-8 or higher?


  • Total voters
    20

Jayjay1

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 30, 2018
920
467
Hello guys,
I´m on the hunt for a LPVO for my AR15 for distances of 600yds. or in.

I´m only interested in technical/use/optical answers, unregarded of the prize.
Just trying to understand the pros and cons to make a decision which way I should go.

So I understand, that a 1-8 or even a 1-10 has the benefit of a higher magnification over a 1-6.
But then I read a lot of the "downsides" of such highly-magnified LPVOs with the higher zoom rates.

There seem to be lacks in the optical performance?
If so, are those downsides worth the higher magnification?

Please school me about that.
 
Do you really need 1x? My personal, and likely unpopular opinion is, you probably don't.

Depending upon what weight your system can take, you'd likely be just as well served by a 2-10, 2-12, 3-18, etc.

Can you shoot to 600 yards with 6x? Yeah, probably. Can you do it a lot better at 12x? Absolutely.

Does 2-3x on the bottom end really hinder your ability to do cqb stuff? Didn't seem to bother the dudes kicking doors in the GWOT using 4-6x ACOGs.

Your $ spent to performance ratio will go up by not chasing a 10x erector.

If someone put me in charge of spec'ing out an optic for a general purpose carbine, I'd say 2-16x44, illuminated (daylight bright, so probably incorporating a fiberwire in the reticle), sfp, tactical turrets, simple duplex or German #4 reticle (yeah, I know you guys here are going to hate that), 30mm tube, under 22 oz, and manufactured by LOW.
 
Do you really need 1x? My personal, and likely unpopular opinion is, you probably don't.

Depending upon what weight your system can take, you'd likely be just as well served by a 2-10, 2-12, 3-18, etc.

Can you shoot to 600 yards with 6x? Yeah, probably. Can you do it a lot better at 12x? Absolutely.

Does 2-3x on the bottom end really hinder your ability to do cqb stuff? Didn't seem to bother the dudes kicking doors in the GWOT using 4-6x ACOGs.

Your $ spent to performance ratio will go up by not chasing a 10x erector.

If someone put me in charge of spec'ing out an optic for a general purpose carbine, I'd say 2-16x44, illuminated (daylight bright, so probably incorporating a fiberwire in the reticle), sfp, tactical turrets, simple duplex or German #4 reticle (yeah, I know you guys here are going to hate that), 30mm tube, under 22 oz, and manufactured by LOW.
Yeah I hate you! But only because I'd do a FFP and mil reticle.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JS8588
A friend and I went round and round for his optic purchase for his AR recently and he settled on the Leupold Mark 4 in the 2.5-10x42mm with illuminated TMR in Second Focal Plane.

His thoughts were that the TMR in SFP works at 2.5x and, if he ever needs to hold for wind that requires measuring, he will likely be at 10x.

We took it to the range and I was pleasantly surprised as I am mostly an FFP guy.

-Stan
 
Do you really need 1x? My personal, and likely unpopular opinion is, you probably don't.

Depending upon what weight your system can take, you'd likely be just as well served by a 2-10, 2-12, 3-18, etc.

Can you shoot to 600 yards with 6x? Yeah, probably. Can you do it a lot better at 12x? Absolutely.

Does 2-3x on the bottom end really hinder your ability to do cqb stuff? Didn't seem to bother the dudes kicking doors in the GWOT using 4-6x ACOGs.

Your $ spent to performance ratio will go up by not chasing a 10x erector.

If someone put me in charge of spec'ing out an optic for a general purpose carbine, I'd say 2-16x44, illuminated (daylight bright, so probably incorporating a fiberwire in the reticle), sfp, tactical turrets, simple duplex or German #4 reticle (yeah, I know you guys here are going to hate that), 30mm tube, under 22 oz, and manufactured by LOW.

Agreed, if one really needs something below the 2X then mount a RDS for CQB but I think that is probably overkill for most folks really or a nice to have if you keep your scope dialed up higher than 2X most of the time and just want to be able to quickly pick up a target with the RDS
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS8588
Yeah I hate you! But only because I'd do a FFP and mil reticle.
Most people will never properly learn to use either of those features. You also just bumped the retail for the hypothetical optic from $1200-$1600 to $1800-$2200.

I know your proposal would get a better reception from the Hide. Those here do have the skills to utilize FFP and Mil/Christmas tree reticles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diverdon
Hello guys,
I´m on the hunt for a LPVO for my AR15 for distances of 600yds. or in.

I´m only interested in technical/use/optical answers, unregarded of the prize.
Just trying to understand the pros and cons to make a decision which way I should go.

So I understand, that a 1-8 or even a 1-10 has the benefit of a higher magnification over a 1-6.
But then I read a lot of the "downsides" of such highly-magnified LPVOs with the higher zoom rates.

There seem to be lacks in the optical performance?
If so, are those downsides worth the higher magnification?

Please school me about that.

Back to topic please.
 
Personally, I think that 1x-8(+)x makes more sense for a first focal plane scope. If 8x is too much or doesn't give a good enough eye box for the conditions (body position, lighting, etc.), you can back it off a little and still be able to use holdovers.

1x-6x is probably enough for most applications (maybe even preferable) and has a lot of benefits in a second focal plane scope, primarily an easily picked-up reticle at 1x and a forgiving eyebox at 6x. Plus you can see the reticle illumination even if you aren't in the eyebox, which you can't with a FFP. Below 6x, you're probably not using holdovers anyway.

I see no use for a FFP 1-6, but maybe somebody can change my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jayjay1
Not detailed comparison, but quick thoughts of comparisons.
I have a leupold mark ar 1.5-4 that is amazing. Super clear optic.

I now have an atacr 1-8 that I use more. Comparing them, the atacr 1-8 is slightly better optically at 4x (the leupold is that good!), but it has a very good 8x. I don’t see much optical degradation as I go up to 8x. Super amazing scope. For me it is perfect for 600 and in.

If you compare an inexpensive 1-8 then you might be less than impressed with the inexpensive 8x. With the cheaper ones you can sometimes SEE the image go to pot as you turn it up.

If you compare an Atacr 5-25 at 8x, you would see a noticeable improvement over the atacr 1-8.

Edit to say the following is MY preference.
1-6 or less, sfp is the way.
1-8 or more, ffp is the way.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the first statement, second statement is usually true but I'd say the K18i-2 is an exception.

Thank you so far.
Makes a lot sense to me.

Do you run a K18i-2?
Is it that good?

My life experience on optics is, that I always start with a budget which is then constantly going up by getting more infos.
:cool:

I was interested in the K18i(-1) used or new, but then learned about the 3GR-reticle with the two illuminated dots and gave up on it.
The IPSC-reticle with those 3 dots were a no-no right from the start for me.

Then there came the K18i-2, where they fixed the reticle.
More vow, (better eye-box?), but then, from what I understand, it is heavier, bulkier (34mm vs 30mm), the illumination is less bright (is that true?), and it´s more expensive.

I´m somehow not sure if the -2 is really "better" than the -1?
Where is it better, what I don´t understand?

I would love to hear your infos about that.
 
Personally, there is still no 1-8 or 1-10 that has 1x as good as the top end 1-6s. Even the Razor 1-10, nightforce and Khales 1-8’s have some fisheye. The Razor and Kahles 1-6 have VERY nice flat 1x performance.
I don't notice any fisheye in my ATACR 1-8. There is some in my NX8 1-8, but I don't find it distracting or problematic and I still love it. I only really notice if I'm looking for it. Maybe I'm just not as discerning as you are to this sort of thing, which is totally possible. As a recovering just-as-gooder, I might just be easily impressed.
1723642166941.png
 
Mere magnification range is but one spec that (despite the internet's reluctance to accept this) is only one factor to consider.

- Not every "8x" lpvo is the same. Depth of field, FOV, edge-to-edge clarity and image quality play a major factor when you have say a S&B 1-8x that kicks the shit out of a mid/upper-mid tier 10x. Then consider a shit-tier chinesium 1-8x that gets smoked by mid-tier 1-6x's and maybe aren't even as good as last gen 1-4x's

- Just like general "rules" of '1x per 100', there are exceptions to every rule. While 8x seems to be the tipping point, the SFP/FFP thing is more situation, range, use dependent as much if not more than magnification range. And reticle design and how it relates to the focal plane is also critical in how the user intends to employ the optic (not to mention how their intent may not reflect optimal use...which is another thread entirely). The absolutes of always/never (insert: focal plane) should be deleted/ignored.


Finally, "LPVO" has been over-used and it is an extremely wide and nuanced range of glass that covers WAY too many feature sets. The ignorant want the perfect optic to kick doors and shoot 1000y (on anything but a full IPSC)...that unicorn doesn't exist (especially for what most of you are willing to pay). Everybody else just suggests what they bought (which is usually the most expensive they can afford).

Every "Which LPVO?" feels like this:
 
Last edited:
Mere magnification range is but one spec that (despite the internet's reluctance to accept this) is only one factor to consider.

- Not every "8x" lpvo is the same. Depth of field, FOV, edge-to-edge clarity and image quality play a major factor when you have say a S&B 1-8x that kicks the shit out of a mid/upper-mid tier 10x compared to a shit-tier chinesium 1-8x that gets smoked by mid-tier 1-6x's and maybe aren't even as good as last gen 1-4x's

- Just like general "rules" of '1x per 100', there are exceptions to every rule. While 8x seems to be the tipping point, the SFP/FFP thing is more situation, range, use dependent as much if not more than magnification range. The absolutes of always/never (certain focal plane) should be deleted/ignored.


Finally, "LPVO" has been over-used and it is an extremely wide and nuanced range of glass that covers WAY too many feature sets. The ignorant want the perfect optic to kick doors and shoot 1000y (on anything but a full IPSC)...that unicorn doesn't exist (especially for what most of you are willing to pay). Everybody else just suggests what they bought (which is usually the most expensive they can afford).

Every "Which LPVO?" feels like this:

Nailed it!!
 
Mere magnification range is but one spec that (despite the internet's reluctance to accept this) is only one factor to consider.

- Not every "8x" lpvo is the same. Depth of field, FOV, edge-to-edge clarity and image quality play a major factor when you have say a S&B 1-8x that kicks the shit out of a mid/upper-mid tier 10x compared to a shit-tier chinesium 1-8x that gets smoked by mid-tier 1-6x's and maybe aren't even as good as last gen 1-4x's

- Just like general "rules" of '1x per 100', there are exceptions to every rule. While 8x seems to be the tipping point, the SFP/FFP thing is more situation, range, use dependent as much if not more than magnification range. The absolutes of always/never (certain focal plane) should be deleted/ignored.


Finally, "LPVO" has been over-used and it is an extremely wide and nuanced range of glass that covers WAY too many feature sets. The ignorant want the perfect optic to kick doors and shoot 1000y (on anything but a full IPSC)...that unicorn doesn't exist (especially for what most of you are willing to pay). Everybody else just suggests what they bought (which is usually the most expensive they can afford).

Every "Which LPVO?" feels like this:

I think you have a good point... and I love the reference to Joe vs the Volcano. 😁
 
If you have a budget, get a 1-6. The quality trade off when you jump up to 8x or 10x happens very quickly.




I agree with the first statement, second statement is usually true but I'd say the K18i-2 is an exception.
I agree. A decent 1-6 is probably the most bang per buck.

And I should say that the focal plane is totally user dependent. My preference might be totally backwards to the next guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dms416
Almost 18 years since I ordered my first Short Dot and have never stopped. More time and $ than I care to admit figuring things out.

I'm the Ossie Davis of LPVO's.... :ROFLMAO:
I´ve googled "Short Dot" and do get a wide variety of optics.

What do you especially mean by that?
 
Mere magnification range is but one spec that (despite the internet's reluctance to accept this) is only one factor to consider.

- Not every "8x" lpvo is the same. Depth of field, FOV, edge-to-edge clarity and image quality play a major factor when you have say a S&B 1-8x that kicks the shit out of a mid/upper-mid tier 10x. Then consider a shit-tier chinesium 1-8x that gets smoked by mid-tier 1-6x's and maybe aren't even as good as last gen 1-4x's

- Just like general "rules" of '1x per 100', there are exceptions to every rule. While 8x seems to be the tipping point, the SFP/FFP thing is more situation, range, use dependent as much if not more than magnification range. And reticle design and how it relates to the focal plane is also critical in how the user intends to employ the optic (not to mention how their intent may not reflect optimal use...which is another thread entirely). The absolutes of always/never (insert: focal plane) should be deleted/ignored.


Finally, "LPVO" has been over-used and it is an extremely wide and nuanced range of glass that covers WAY too many feature sets. The ignorant want the perfect optic to kick doors and shoot 1000y (on anything but a full IPSC)...that unicorn doesn't exist (especially for what most of you are willing to pay). Everybody else just suggests what they bought (which is usually the most expensive they can afford).

Every "Which LPVO?" feels like this:

How do I determine a scope’s depth of field prior to a purchase?

-Stan
 
How do I determine a scope’s depth of field prior to a purchase?

-Stan

That'd be a question for one of the optic tech nerds like Koshkin, Glassaholic, maybe BigJimFish. I did it the sucker way, remember....buyin' and tryin'. 🔥💰🔥

What I can offer is that some companies often take what they have learned and apply the same techniques in other optics they make (If they have a lot of tiers/OEM's...you have to compare apples to apples). Similarly, if a company struggles with a certain aspect, it will probably be present in their LPVO as well.

For example, I've had about a dozen NF scopes. Be they NX8, NXS, ATACR, SHV, there are certain, specific optical/image qualities they exhibit to me that hold throughout their optics. S&B's are the same way to me. When the ZCO 2-10 gets here, I would be shocked if it's not of a similar pedigree. Probably the best example, would be the SAI 1-6. While not a Tanget Theta, it is optically what I would expect from ATI optic.


Of course, this is only one slice of the pie...albeit an important one, but if something isn't checking a majority of the boxes...that's a problem. Example: S&B 1-8x24 High Power. Very good image/optics, but a very poor LPVO hamstrung by its reticle and illumination choices.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so far.
Makes a lot sense to me.

Do you run a K18i-2?
Is it that good?

My life experience on optics is, that I always start with a budget which is then constantly going up by getting more infos.
:cool:

I was interested in the K18i(-1) used or new, but then learned about the 3GR-reticle with the two illuminated dots and gave up on it.
The IPSC-reticle with those 3 dots were a no-no right from the start for me.

Then there came the K18i-2, where they fixed the reticle.
More vow, (better eye-box?), but then, from what I understand, it is heavier, bulkier (34mm vs 30mm), the illumination is less bright (is that true?), and it´s more expensive.

I´m somehow not sure if the -2 is really "better" than the -1?
Where is it better, what I don´t understand?

I would love to hear your infos about that.


So, I started with a Trijicon TR24 1-4x24, moved on to a K16i with the SI1 reticle, then onto a K16i with the SM1 reticle (I now have 2 of these), added a K18i and recently got a K18i-2.


On the reticles, the K16i SM1 and SI1 are brighter than the K16i 3GR. I've looked through a K16i with the 3GR but have never owned one.

The K18i 3GR is daylight bright. The difference between the K18i and the K16i is that when you turn on the K16i it's MUCH brighter initially. The lower half of the K18i and K18i-2s illumination dial are NV compatible, so they appear dimmer as you go through the settings. When they're on their max setting they're very bright. They're not as bright as a Razor, which is ridiculously bright.

I've never looked through the IPSC reticle, but I expect that an IPSC reticle is useless for anyone not doing IPSC. The 2nd Dot on the K18i 3GR reticle never bothered me. My eye always went to the center dot since it's bigger. The lower dot broke up the tree, but the same effect is achieved with just having an unilluminated dot in the 18i-2. The 3GR on the 18i-2 has a couple of extra mil stadia, so if you were putting it on an AR10 that would be something to make note of.

The rifles that I have the K16is on are an 11.5" in 5.56 and a 14.5" in 5.56. (My wife's) I wanted these to be good to ~400 yds. The bottom of the "halo"/"donut" on the SM1 reticle is 2.5 mils. The wide line above it is 2, the wide below it is 3. The first wide line below the dot is 1, so there's a fairly quick 3 mil tree in that scope.

The K18i was on my 16" AR, and in using it, the big things that I found were that sometimes I'd want to be back on ~6x. 1x between the K16i and K18i are identical, and fantastic, so there was never an issue there, but I used the ballistic turret on the K18i and never felt like I wanted one on the K16i. If I was taking a shot that needed an accurate correction in the reticle, I was always on max power anyway with the K16i. Between ~300 and 400 yds, when taking shots on small targets that were very widely separated, being on 8x felt constrictive. Spending more time training with it, I'd probably work getting more consistent about pulling mag back and zooming back in smoothly, but that's a consideration that a FFP scope doesn't have. I was able to address the issue mostly just using the BT for close distances and holding from there zoomed in on long ones. Also worth noting, is that the K18i and K18i-2 can have their throw levers index anywhere on the band that you wish. I set mine up so that the throw lever is straight up and down when the scope is on 4 power. It makes the 1 mil reticle holds be 2 mil reticle holds and is fairly easy to recognize / index.

The K18i was moved to a Mk14 EBR clone when I bought the K18i-2 because it eliminates the feeling at 8x of "I have too much mag", and the EBR just doesn't see the kind of shooting the ARs do.

The field of view on these scopes at max power is what drives your desire to be at max power, or not. If max mag doesn't give you enough field of view, you'll want to pull the power back so that you can get on target and take your shot. In a SFP scope, this limits you, because you're either fighting your field of view or spending time zooming in and out. You can get around this with a dialing turret (many low/mid power hunting scopes do this), but it doesn't change the underlying problem. FFP scopes solve this by keeping their hold values consistent no matter what power you're on, so you can bring the power back if needed to up your FOV.

You can see why this is necessary looking at the field of view of the "high end" LPVOs when they're at top mag. (all values at 100 yds):


Scope..................................................Linear FOV............................. FOV Area
K16i 1-6x24......................................20.1 ft.......................................317.31 sq ft
Razor Gen II 1-6x24......................20.5 ft.......................................330.06 sq ft
Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24..........13.1 ft.......................................134.78 sq ft
Nightforce NX8 1-8x24...............13.2 ft.......................................136.85 sq ft
S&B ShortDot 1-8x24..................14.7 ft.......................................169.72 sq ft
Kahles K18i 1-8x24.......................15.9 ft.......................................198.56 sq ft
Kahles K18i-2 1-8x24...................18.6 ft.......................................271.72 sq ft
Razor Gen III 1-10x24..................11.7 ft.......................................107.51 sq ft

The standouts are the K16i and Razor GII, which always feel "right" at 6x. There's enough field of view to smoothly transition your targets, so it's easy to use until you start getting shots long enough that you start wanting more mag.

You can see why the Razor Gen III is frequently cited as only the 1-8 being useful. 10x is a lot of mag for a 24mm objective, and the field of view of the scope is just really limited zoomed in that much.

The NX8 and ATACR at 8x have a similar situation as far as magnification and field of view are concerned. 8x is great for precise shots with them, but 6x feels better for a lot of the shots the rifles these scopes are on need to take.

The ShortDot's mag/FOV relationship mirrors the Nightforce scopes, but with a wider FOV I expect you spend less time dialing the mag back.

The K18i (Gen 1) has a fairly wide field of view, and is much more forgiving in terms of how much you can see through it at once than the other 8x scopes, but there are times when it still feels "tight" as noted above. This brings us to the K18i-2.

The K18i-2 has a linear FOV and area FOV up around the K16i / Razor G2, and it shows. The scope is just much, much faster at 8x, sufficiently that it points and shoots like a 6x. It breaks the traditional "over 6x needs to be FFP" paradigm because the FOV is so wide.

On the K18i, the turret feels almost like a crutch for overcoming the scope being SFP. It's still a great scope, but it feels like if it had been FFP it would be a clear favorite. On the 18i-2, the turret is basically dialing fine corrections on very small targets, and isn't about shooting fast.


Hopefully that helps to understand the "high mag" end of the spectrum. Low mag is a completely different animal. Basically, the a wide FOV at 1x paired with a bright dot in the middle shoots like a red dot, which is good. The wider the field of view, the more red dot-like it becomes. There's no feeling like you wish you had more or less mag, just how much is the scope "in the way".

Scope..................................................Linear FOV
K16i 1-6x24......................................126.9 ft
Razor Gen II 1-6x24......................115.2 ft
Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24..........96.1 ft
Nightforce NX8 1-8x24...............106.0 ft
S&B ShortDot 1-8x24..................105.9 ft
Kahles K18i 1-8x24.......................127.5 ft
Kahles K18i-2 1-8x24...................150 ft
Razor Gen III 1-10x24..................116 ft

One of the things that you hear about the NX8 is that it has a tight eyebox, and this is relieved quite a bit with the ATACR. I have never heard an eyebox complaint on any of the other scopes at 1x.

For every scope on this list, you can think of them like a red dot with a housing around it that obscures more or less of the view in front of you when you're on the rifle. You can think of the ATACR like a red dot with a small aperture and a big housing, with the housing getting smaller and the aperture getting bigger until you get to the K18i (gen 1) which feels really wide and open.

The K18i-2 is different from every other scope on this list at 1x, because the field of view is so wide at 1x that you see around the housing of the scope.

You can see through these (lighting is not great and you can see a little scope shadow in the 18i, these aren't pro pictures, was just getting the FOV) how much wider the 18i-2 is, and the bottles in the globe bar give you an idea of how close that wall is. (The 16i and 18i have the same view at 1x)

K18i
Ylh2Ynw.jpg



K18i-2
YHbtcIo.jpg



As far as the functionality of the image, the 18i-2 is wildly superior.

As far as length, the 16i (10.9"), 18i (11.8"), and 18i-2 (11.8") are pretty similar overall. The ocular on the 16i and 18i is basically the same at 46mm, the 18i is a bigger ocular at 52mm. The 18i-2 is a 34 mm tube while the others are 30mm tubes, and the weights are 16.9, 19.6, and 22.5 oz.

The weight on the 18i-2 is in the bigger ocular bell, so I haven't noticed it.

If I was taking my current knowledge into the market freshly, I would pick the 18i-2 over the 18i 100 times out of 100. The 16i is a great scope for applications where being a little lighter is appreciated and 6x zoom is adequate. Hopefully that helps!
 
When I heard that Primary Arms was coming out with their new
1-8 PLXc with the Nova Fibre dot in SFP, after much deliberation I decided to sell my beloved Kahles K16i G4B reticle scope. I have had the new PA scope now for around 4 weeks and I will just say I have no regrets about getting it. It is mounted in a Reptilia Corp 1.7” height mount with a Sig Romeo X Pro closed emitter 3 MOA dot RDS on a Reptilia Corp Delta Point Pro ROF 12:00 mount using a custom made spacer/ adapter to get the perfect height . I am using a SOLGW Broad sword upper and their M89 rail / handguard with a thermal fit 13.9” Criterion Core cold hammer forged chrome lined barrel. IMHO, the build quality of my new PA scope is very good , from the positive turret clicks and smooth magnification ring operation, and it really just feels solidly built. While the glass quality is very good, it’s not quite as good overall as the Kahles K16i , but it’s close enough to really not matter to me. The eyebox on 1x is pretty good and very close to my Kahles K16i’s. The eyebox on 8x is tight as expected but is definitely plenty usable. I got this scope knowing probably 90 % of its use would be from 0-300 yds and 10% from 3-400yds. IMHO, from 400 yds and out a FFP reticle is then really a better option overall, as would be using a MPV scope. IMHO, for anyone or for someone like me with less than 20/20 corrected vision the 8x magnification definitely helps seeing and hitting smaller targets at longer distances vs 6X scopes. So far anyways and the way I use this scope, I have to say, good job Primary Arms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
So, I started with a Trijicon TR24 1-4x24, moved on to a K16i with the SI1 reticle, then onto a K16i with the SM1 reticle (I now have 2 of these), added a K18i and recently got a K18i-2.

....

You made my day, sir.

What a heck of a reply, fantastic, thank you so very much.
A lot of work and effort, that you have put in there, and the fact, that you have und have used all of them hits the ball out of the park.

No questions left for me between those Kahles. (y)
Too bad, that Vortex doesn´t come up with a reworked version, but for now, they can´t hold up to Kahles like it seems.

Had you ever the chance to take a look through the PA PLx-C 1-8x24 Nova, the Swarovski Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24 or the S&B 1-8×24 PM II ShortDot CC?

Where I live, the PA with the Nova reticle comes around 2.2k, the Swaro comes around 2.5k, the S&B just under 3k.
 
@Ikeman83 response is very spot on about the Kahles lpov. I’ve used the K16i with the SM1 reticle for 2 gun matches for many years and that’s the scope I set a standard to for lpov’s I also deployed with the Kahles and the robustness never disappointed.
 
You made my day, sir.

What a heck of a reply, fantastic, thank you so very much.
A lot of work and effort, that you have put in there, and the fact, that you have und have used all of them hits the ball out of the park.

No questions left for me between those Kahles. (y)
Too bad, that Vortex doesn´t come up with a reworked version, but for now, they can´t hold up to Kahles like it seems.

Had you ever the chance to take a look through the PA PLx-C 1-8x24 Nova, the Swarovski Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24 or the S&B 1-8×24 PM II ShortDot CC?

Where I live, the PA with the Nova reticle comes around 2.2k, the Swaro comes around 2.5k, the S&B just under 3k.


So, the Swaro and Kahles lines are basically the same except for the physical reticles in the scopes:

Z6i 1-6x24 = K16i
Z8i 1-8x24 = K18i
Z8i+ 1-8x24 = K18i-2

The Z6i was formerly available with a tree reticle with center dot; BRT-I. If you see a review of this scope singing its praises, it was probably the BRT-I reticle.

The Z8i and Z8i+ are both out there with a center dot reticle that has a halo around it that's intented as a dangerous game reticle. They also have the same BRT-I reticle, it's just subtended at 8x instead of 6x.

The turret on the Z8i is much bigger than the Kahles turret. If you think you might want to pair with a piggy-backed red dot, you'd likely have an issue.

All of the Z scopes use a toggle switch for controlling the illumination rather than a dial. I own a Z6i 1-6x24 that I bought after the K16is. I've looked through but don't own the Z8i. One thing on the Z8i is that the BRT-I reticle only does 5 mils I believe. If you're picturing yourself shooting 77 gr bullets at longer distances, you might find the reticle inadequate

I haven't looked through the ShortDot or the Primary Arms offering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jayjay1