An idea for a better attempt at LPVO/MPVO setups, the ramblings of an unexciting and not particularly bright man.

[RadioActivity]

Everyone is trying to have BOTH a fantastic and flat 1x while also maintaining image quality and resolution at 8-10x, perhaps the most difficult design achievement. The main reason variable power scopes have low end at all is for better FOV, less finicky eye box for difficult positions, when dealing with movers, scanning for targets, low light conditions, etc.

So if we assume a red dot is the ultimate 1x capability, as it's both eyes open giving maximum FOV, and has very little parallax concern, then:

Why don't mfg take a 4-20 (only a 5x erector) and flip it over in the mount. Make the elevation turret as low profile as humanly possible so it doesn't interfere with the mount itself and add set screws every 20* so the elevation turret can be locked from rotating (think similar function to a capped turret) but allow access from the sides and rotated for zeroing purposes. Once zeroed tighten down the set screws that are available. Take the formerly bottom, now top, perfectly flat area of the erector housing that's milled square and mill into it to accept Glock MOS plates so you can run any RDS you desire and you achieve some futureproofing and customer ability to choose an RDS of their preference.

Now the RDS is not 4" above the bore, but instead only barely above the scope tube itself, without an elevation turret to contend with at all for visual clearance. You don't have to float your chin or have a "beard weld" when using a 12 o'clock mount for passive aiming or 1x capability.

An MK5 3.6-18 is 26oz for reference. A Razor 1-10 is 21.5oz for reference.

 

[rlsmith1]

I like it, a couple thoughts.

The higher 12 oclock position is very nice for passive NV shooting.

Doesn't a 45deg offset accomplish something similar? A locked elevation turret would really limit the use at higher mags (dial for elevation, hold wind when possible)

 

[koshkin]

Everyone is trying to have BOTH a fantastic and flat 1x while also maintaining image quality and resolution at 8-10x, perhaps the most difficult design achievement. The main reason variable power scopes have low end at all is for better FOV, less finicky eye box for difficult positions, when dealing with movers, scanning for targets, low light conditions, etc.

So if we assume a red dot is the ultimate 1x capability, as it's both eyes open giving maximum FOV, and has very little parallax concern, then:

Why don't mfg take a 4-20 (only a 5x erector) and flip it over in the mount. Make the elevation turret as low profile as humanly possible so it doesn't interfere with the mount itself and add set screws every 20* so the elevation turret can be locked from rotating (think similar function to a capped turret) but allow access from the sides and rotated for zeroing purposes. Once zeroed tighten down the set screws that are available. Take the formerly bottom, now top, perfectly flat area of the erector housing that's milled square and mill into it to accept Glock MOS plates so you can run any RDS you desire and you achieve some futureproofing and customer ability to choose an RDS of their preference.

Now the RDS is not 4" above the bore, but instead only barely above the scope tube itself, without an elevation turret to contend with at all for visual clearance. You don't have to float your chin or have a "beard weld" when using a 12 o'clock mount for passive aiming or 1x capability.

An MK5 3.6-18 is 26oz for reference. A Razor 1-10 is 21.5oz for reference.

Interesting idea although probably best applied to a scope that is only used for reticle holds. With the RDS, keep in mind that it has to clear eyepiece and objective that are both larger diameter than the tube.

ILya

 

[R_A_W]

You'd only be shaving off like 4-5mm from a ROF

 

[sboone]

This sounds like something leupold would do after hittin the crack pipe then manage to make one bone headed decision about changing or removing a feature that kills the product in its tracks

 

[NHR]

This sounds like something leupold would do after hittin the crack pipe then manage to make one bone headed decision about changing or removing a feature that kills the product in its tracks

It would have a Firedot MOA wind plex reticle with a CDS turret.

 

[Burdy]

RDS is better at 4" over bore. You don't want to hunch over for the type of work you should be doing with your RDS.

 

[Glassaholic]

First off, I love your title. I feel like most of my posts could use the disclaimer (ramblings of an old man).

I like your out of the box thinking but as others have mentioned I don’t think there is a huge need when most ring accessory plates can mount an RDS pretty low but still offer the operator a, both eyes open, heads up view. That said there is always room for innovation and a “better way”.

 

[Convex]

First off, I love your title. I feel like most of my posts could use the disclaimer (ramblings of an old man).

You're not old until you're chasing your woman around the bed, all of sudden you stop, have to ask yourself...

"Wait just a fucking minute, why was I running.... I was chasing her for what???"


Now when U get that bad, somebody needs to drive U down to CVS for medication.

 

[Glassaholic]

How about chasing her around the bed and all of a sudden you stop cause your back gave out or your knees gave out or your hip gave out... But as long as I can keep chasing her I think I'm pretty good

 

[Convex]

As long as the "one thing" U didn't mention works, you're good to go.

 

[koshkin]

The bigger question is probably why she is running away, but on second thought I do not think I want to know.

 

[Convex]

Because she loves gettin caught.

 

[RadioActivity]

....more Bill Cosby types in here than I would have initially thought.

 

[RadioActivity]

I guess for me, when I look over an LPVO or scope of any kind, where the elevation turret resides, is the place I most want the dot of the RDS, lower if possible. Most RDS have a mounting surface on the bottom where usually the emitter and battery are housed, and that would at least be buried even with the eyepiece housing. Some LPVO's have a very narrow eyepiece relative to the scope body, the NX8 1-8 for instance. I mean we dissect the difference between 1.54, 1.7, and 1.93 mounts. For reference a current 12 o'clock mounted RDS is 1.65 RDS over scope centerline +1.54 scope centerline over rail = 3.19". Add another 1.25 from the rail to the AR bore and you're 4.5" over bore. I don't think anyone feels 3.19" is the ideal height of a sight for an AR - even .25 inches would be significant, and I have a feeling more than that can be achieved if the design and goal is to have the 1x RDS sitting lower and the magnified optic is to be referenced for more precision. If we don't make the LPVO do 1x, the entire package becomes exceptionally more capable at distance.

 

[R_A_W]

I think if you look deep within, this is really what you're looking for

 

[Leftie]

I think if you look deep within, this is really what you're looking for

As much as I used to really despise the "flip on/off" magnifiers because of the "flip to side" designs. The "flip to center" design that Unity makes made them a whole lot more user-friendly, and I begrudgingly accept that for many carbines, this is far more than a "good enough" solution, and may even be optimal for practical use. It's fast, intuitive, and reasonably simple

All this being said, we are really starting to go "back to the future" when it comes to optic solutions - as witnessed by renewed interest in fixed power optics like ACOGs with piggy-backed RDS.

Personally, I think that there is more value than ever from a capable reticle design, and we are spoiled rotten with the number of options to choose from when it comes to optics available that can do all manner of things, especially if we have the ability to choose our optics and setups.

@RadioActivity - you're totally right that obsession with chasing the 1x low end has its drawbacks, and that eshewing the true 1x low end in favor of designs that maximize other favorable features such as FOV, exit pupil and eye relief, while giving us a more capable higher magnification range makes a ton of sense. I think that this trend of 1x RDS coupled with optics with higher magnification on the low end will become a more widely accepted thing, but it's also important to take into account that these systems are also bulkier, more complex, and more expensive currently. All this being said, it is REALLY nice to keep your main optic on a higher mag setting, run a RDS at 1x and not have to fiddle with magnification all the time. Once you bring night vision and thermal into the equation, things get increasingly more complex too.

Realistically though, run what works for you and experiment with it: experience in running a setup trumps theoretical advantages on paper any day.

 

[Burdy]

As much as I used to really despise the "flip on/off" magnifiers because of the "flip to side" designs. The "flip to center" design that Unity makes made them a whole lot more user-friendly, and I begrudgingly accept that for many carbines, this is far more than a "good enough" solution, and may even be optimal for practical use. It's fast, intuitive, and reasonably simple

All this being said, we are really starting to go "back to the future" when it comes to optic solutions - as witnessed by renewed interest in fixed power optics like ACOGs with piggy-backed RDS.

Personally, I think that there is more value than ever from a capable reticle design, and we are spoiled rotten with the number of options to choose from when it comes to optics available that can do all manner of things, especially if we have the ability to choose our optics and setups.

@RadioActivity - you're totally right that obsession with chasing the 1x low end has its drawbacks, and that eshewing the true 1x low end in favor of designs that maximize other favorable features such as FOV, exit pupil and eye relief, while giving us a more capable higher magnification range makes a ton of sense. I think that this trend of 1x RDS coupled with optics with higher magnification on the low end will become a more widely accepted thing, but it's also important to take into account that these systems are also bulkier, more complex, and more expensive currently. All this being said, it is REALLY nice to keep your main optic on a higher mag setting, run a RDS at 1x and not have to fiddle with magnification all the time. Once you bring night vision and thermal into the equation, things get increasingly more complex too.

Realistically though, run what works for you and experiment with it: experience in running a setup trumps theoretical advantages on paper any day.

Right or wrong, I always loved the theory of the DEVO, it was just bad execution.

 

[Glassaholic]

Right or wrong, I always loved the theory of the DEVO, it was just bad execution.

I always liked Devo as well, oh wait, I think you might be talking about a different Devo (sorry, my pathetic sense of humor sometimes gets the best of me...)