If only a company as big as prestigious as NF was able to figure that out on their own. Without having a small channel like mine constantly break their balls about it in every video I make that brings up that subject.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi
- Thread starter Burdy
- Start date
Much obliged! Happy you liked it.
Thank you kindly! Im glad you thought so.
Agree, and I was crossing my fingers for the FC-DMX in the NX8 2.5-20
This would be great, as the FFP offerings for the 2.5-20 all fail miserably at low magnification. I could see a slight modification with some additional, finer, stadia near the center for use when on high mag.
That goal post has been in the same place for a couple of years now, manufactures know exactly what it is, they just don't believe it will be profitable.
While I like the glass on the T6i 3-18, I am starting not to like the locking turret system.
Almost every time I go to lock it, I end up moving it a few clicks. Sucks when you are trying to zero at the range and then slipping the turrets at home.
Almost every time I go to lock it, I end up moving it a few clicks. Sucks when you are trying to zero at the range and then slipping the turrets at home.
Post in thread 'Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi'
https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ll-been-asking-for-h6xi.7186604/post-11569124
How hard is it to benchmark a decade old LRHS that everyone here loved and update the feature set to 2024? It's not.
I am telling you, I've had in depth conversations with 3 different manufacturers multiple times over the past few years and they simply don't believe the category will sell. They may very well be correct.
It's like trying to get a camera manufacture to go backwards in pixel count. Those that understand optics will understand the advantages, but we are the minority. Those that don't understand optics want extreme erectors and high magnifications because the assumption of the masses is that more is better.
That's exactly what's going on here and the market research says if you want sales, keep pushing the edges.
What I don't understand is we already have the LPVO's/1-?x?s with thick reticles, already have the 3-4x?s with thin reticles, then the higher magnification FFP which 99% of us already own which aren't great on low mag and pretty heavy. So why come out with FFP 1.5 to 2.5x?'s in which you can't hardy see the reticles on low magnification to begin with?? Now we have to suppliment with a RD, or resolve ourselves to stopping on whatever lower magnification we can still see the reticle on, which is limiting how wide your FOV is, which is "also" a big part of why we bought a IPVO or MPVO.
Until people get over the mentality thinking that somehow you can't hit stuff, or see misses, in a FFP IPVO(in honor of C_does) or MPVO, having a "thicker" reticle, this scope sillyness will likely continue.
See what I mean when you look through a March 1.5-15 and it costs how much?! That's why I didn't buy one because I experienced the same funkyness in my 1-10 DFP shorty, which can sometimes be very annoying. These are well built scopes that could be absolutely fantastic if not so compromised optically by being so short when combined with such high mag ratio.
Until people get over the mentality thinking that somehow you can't hit stuff, or see misses, in a FFP IPVO(in honor of C_does) or MPVO, having a "thicker" reticle, this scope sillyness will likely continue.
See what I mean when you look through a March 1.5-15 and it costs how much?! That's why I didn't buy one because I experienced the same funkyness in my 1-10 DFP shorty, which can sometimes be very annoying. These are well built scopes that could be absolutely fantastic if not so compromised optically by being so short when combined with such high mag ratio.
The innovation that people seem to be looking for in 2-10 / 2-12 optics appears to be happening more and more in the 3-18x range.
How many of you prefer to use a 3-18x (like the H6Xi 3-18x, MK5HD 3.6-18x, or even NF ATACR 4-16x) on 5.56 setups compared to 2-10/12x?
There is an argument that at the expense of 3-4oz and a slightly longer scope, you end up being able to use the middle of the magnification range in 10-15x range on the 3-18s instead of maxing out the scope out constantly at 10-12x on the lower mag models.
How many of you prefer to use a 3-18x (like the H6Xi 3-18x, MK5HD 3.6-18x, or even NF ATACR 4-16x) on 5.56 setups compared to 2-10/12x?
There is an argument that at the expense of 3-4oz and a slightly longer scope, you end up being able to use the middle of the magnification range in 10-15x range on the 3-18s instead of maxing out the scope out constantly at 10-12x on the lower mag models.
Nightforce needs do a Nx5 series, 2.5-12x, and a 4-20. Good eyebox and depth of field. Essentially a 5x nx8 line that doesn't suffer the plagues of high erector ratio/short body syndrome. I have a 2.5-20 and a 4-32, but in actual field non bench situations, they both run 8-12x range 90% the time.
Agreed, Bushnell had something special but struggled to gain as much interest as they hoped, LRHS (Long Range Hunting Scope) and G2H "Hunting" reticle were designed for the crossover market but struggled (I'd posit to say it was likely the 4x erector and length of the scope at a time when everyone was pushing for more magnification and shorter and shorter).
You're not alone...
This is exactly what has been going on unfortunately. Outside of SFP hunting scopes, mfr's don't trust the consumer marketplace. Mil/LE is what drove FFP it would seem, and then dynamic shooting sports began to catch on to the numerous benefits of FFP which further pushed the market, now we have a proliferation of FFP HPVO scopes from 5-25 and now to 6-36 and 7-35's.
I think you're right, we are the minority unfortunately as most sport optics consumers are somewhat ignorant to what really makes a good scope perform... good.
Similar to the myth that you need lots of magnification to effectively shoot at ELR distances.
Yep, push the extreme and make it cheap is what sells a lot. What we're asking for is somewhat niche. Ask the majority over on BARF.com if they'd rather have a 1-8/1-10 LPVO on their SPR/DMR or a 2-10/2-12 MPVO and I'd venture to guess at what the majority response would be.
I'm guessing you are just wanting something the weights as little as the VX5hd but FFP and Mil in the 3-15 mag range?
That seems like the only thing missing from your collection.
I don't really care what the mag range is 2-10/2-12/2.5-10/3-12/3-15/3-18, if the FFP reticle isn't easily usable on minimum magnification then I'm not interested.
And by usable I mean thick enough to see under all lighting conditions without illumination. None of this "oh yeah, it's not too bad, illumination definitely helps though" nonsense.
The Vortex PST 2.5-10x32 is 100% usable at all mag ranges. I've shot a few 22lr matches with mine where I've mostly stayed on 5-8x. Unlike most newer FFP scopes where the reticle only starts being clearly visible at 5x, and realistically usable at 10x.
20oz, FFP, Mil in any of the above mag ranges would be fine.
Have you looked at the maven rs1.2 with mil reticle? It's usable at 2.5X, small enough center dot for moderate precision work. Glass is good enough, good turrets with zero stop, capper windage, decent eyebox.
I had the G2H LRHS, loved it. Really only sold it because it's length prohibited clip-on use on my particular platforms. The only other gripe I had was the non-locking elevation turret. There was a guy at my NRL Hunter match back in March running one on what appeared to be a standard 700 with a cheap composite hunting stock. The dude was nasty with the platform. I want to say he was second behind either Jon Pynch or Matt Alwine n his class. It was clearly an Indian, not the arrow, situation but thought it was awesome he was shooting at the top with that scope which most would say was too thick or laugh at it's lack of 2/10th hashes. Sometimes in the world of optics we don't know what we got until it's gone.
My belief is that if my primary optic is so powerful on the low end that I need to run a piggy back red dot for close-in targets / speed, then I may as well run a 5-25x for my primary optic (assuming I am not using night vision and therefore optic length isn’t a concern).
The 3-18x range, for a semi-auto, seems like the worst option available as it is too powerful at the low end to be useful close and quick, and only tops out to 18x on the high end so spotting impacts with tiny 5.56mm bullets may still be a challenge depending on the backdrop.
So for me, it is a 2-10 which prioritizes speed over spotting impacts or a 5-25 which prioritizes impact spotting over speed and requires a red dot.
-Stan
The ffp isn't a deal breaker as long as it's got a usable reticle at the bottom end.
The vx5hd were nice but both mine didn't tract true. So far the nxs is the best all around for me for a hunting optic. I do wish for just a little more power and better glass. I was sitting watching a few bucks feeding and walking around at 500yds. I could find the buck I wanted in my spotting scope, but really struggled to pick him out from the others through my rifle scope.
The obsession with 2x on the low end isn’t my cup of tea. I use 4X in the woods hunting and have zero issues tracking animals.
At 320 I’ll be on 6 or 7
In between will be 6
Farthest deer kill is 540 yards and my fragile, gonna break if you touch it, IOR 4-14 was on 10x just because the image looked perfect. I didn’t look at the setting, I just turned the ring until it looked about right.
Shooting 8”x8” steel at 550 yards I was on 14X because my spotter said I was close but he couldn’t tell me how close my first 2 shots were and this setting allowed me to see the leaves on the ground move from the 55gr fmj impacting( first time shooting 55gr fmj over 350 yards) I used the reticle. I wasn’t under a time constraint and the G2B did just fine and it’s .05 mil thick. A tree would have been nice but not needed in this scenario. If I was hunting the odds of getting a second shot in my area are extremely slim.
Moral of the story is I “need” a 4-16 with a decent reticle down low meaning a duplex thickness for the close stuff and something without a 100mph reticle. Easy to bracket down low and easy to see in the midrange. Hybrid meaning hunting (not just out west where it’s sunny and clear 90% of the time) and target shooting. I don’t need to see the whole battlefield to pick out the bad guys and observe. Manufacturers are taking the easy way out using competition/mil reticles and telling us it’s close enough. Some are close like Athlon and ,gasp, Leupold even if the TMR is dated.
I ramble. Hate me if you want to
.
At 320 I’ll be on 6 or 7
In between will be 6
Farthest deer kill is 540 yards and my fragile, gonna break if you touch it, IOR 4-14 was on 10x just because the image looked perfect. I didn’t look at the setting, I just turned the ring until it looked about right.
Shooting 8”x8” steel at 550 yards I was on 14X because my spotter said I was close but he couldn’t tell me how close my first 2 shots were and this setting allowed me to see the leaves on the ground move from the 55gr fmj impacting( first time shooting 55gr fmj over 350 yards) I used the reticle. I wasn’t under a time constraint and the G2B did just fine and it’s .05 mil thick. A tree would have been nice but not needed in this scenario. If I was hunting the odds of getting a second shot in my area are extremely slim.
Moral of the story is I “need” a 4-16 with a decent reticle down low meaning a duplex thickness for the close stuff and something without a 100mph reticle. Easy to bracket down low and easy to see in the midrange. Hybrid meaning hunting (not just out west where it’s sunny and clear 90% of the time) and target shooting. I don’t need to see the whole battlefield to pick out the bad guys and observe. Manufacturers are taking the easy way out using competition/mil reticles and telling us it’s close enough. Some are close like Athlon and ,gasp, Leupold even if the TMR is dated.
I ramble. Hate me if you want to
.Back at yuh bro!
By observing your demeanor and honesty in the video I can tell you're a good guy that's not a Co brown noser which is much appreciated.
Also knowing your stuff and telling it like it is - is what we need to make the best purchasing decisions we can. You're likely saving people $100's of thousands of dollars worth of = Arrg THIS ISN'T the scope I thought it would be, so now what.
Thanks for that.
Yep C_DOES is about as good as it gets. I just have salty grapes because I’ve put the 2-12x42 H6Xi on a bit of a pedestal.
Truthfully his feedback did make me re-evaluate the 3-18x50 model and it does appear that Steiner designed their STR-Mil reticle specifically for that mag range. The Christmas tree is perfectly aligned at max mag 18x power.
At 27oz and a more usable 3x min, it might be a good competitor to the MK5HD 3.6-18x
Truthfully his feedback did make me re-evaluate the 3-18x50 model and it does appear that Steiner designed their STR-Mil reticle specifically for that mag range. The Christmas tree is perfectly aligned at max mag 18x power.
At 27oz and a more usable 3x min, it might be a good competitor to the MK5HD 3.6-18x
A lot of guys will piggyback an LPVO simply because the RDS is easier (better) in CQB scenarios. Some think redundant but for others not at all, also easier (better) to get behind with NODs. So if an operator is already willing to piggyback an LPVO then why not piggyback an MPVO and gain the advantages of better IQ, mag range, low light ability (for sans NODs), and eyebox.
I don't think 3x is too much for close and quick if the reticle is right. But yes, most of the existing 3-18ish range options have poorly designed reticles for low end use. I can see splash with 5.56 at 300 yards pretty easy with 10x given normal conditions.
For some maybe, for others it's more of a combination of size and weight, a lot of guys don't want to put a 3-18 on their SPR let alone a 5-25 beast. Also a lot more guys are considering clipons and the shorter length of the MPVO is definitely an advantage as well as the lower magnification, ask most of the night hunters here and they prefer to stay under 3x at the low end when using clipon thermal.
For anyone that has the 2-12 or 3-18 zeroed, how many mils are you able to dial on this? It was surprising to hear C_DOES could only get 7mils. I’m hoping with a 20MOA mount to get to at least 10 mils
I currently have a 2-12 on hand, zeroed at 100 yds in a 20 MOA Badger Unimount gets 11.4 mils of elevation
You humble me, Thank you for that. I aim to please, and with that, steer as many people towards a better buying decision that will best fit their wants/needs. Im very thankful for the love on this superb forum.
My main gripe with it is that it Should be better than what it is. With some minor tweaks it could be Really Good. And thats what I cannot stand. Its laziness like that which prevents something from reaching its maximum potential. The 3-18 definitely makes more sense with that reticle, or a 5-whatever. Id actually really like that reticle in the T6Xi 3-18x56. That would be a nice package.
That math checks out then. I run zero cant mounts and my zero is roughly 50y. So push that back to 100y and add 5.5ish mils and thats as near as makes no difference, exactly what I got. Im glad It wasnt a fluke with my findings.
Thanks for sharing, I have a 20MOA mount so I should get the 10-12 mils I need out of the H6Xi.
Steiner H6Xi 2-12x42mm STR-MIL FFP Riflescope 8782
FREE SHIPPING on Steiner H6Xi 2-12x42mm STR-MIL FFP Riflescope 8782
Adjust the diopter. I noticed it too until I had it dialed in.
I did the same, saw the distortion my first time out with it at the range after I thought I'd dialed it in correctly. After fiddling with it more at the range on a sunny day, I found a better setting that removed the distortion I was seeing. I think it was a combination of parallax and diopter.
