-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes "Best" LPVO
- Thread starter rowjimmy
- Start date
In my long-running LPVO thread on Lightfighter, I said years ago:
"It's best to approach it from one end or the other...
- Either it's going to do most work on 4,6,8x and get turned way down once in a while ( to which I'd recommend the Kahles or S&B Dual CC)
- or it's going to be on 1x most of the time and dialed up every once in a while (to which I'd recommend Vortex Razor HD2 or the S&B 2nd FP 1-8CC)"
That's the starting point that checks a lot of the feature set requirements. Distance (for hold/adjustment requirements), price, and the value of the "in between" magnifications (1.5-4x) to the user, and target size should narrow things down pretty well to a set choice.
Agreed. The old-school PMII full-size that they put on the 1.5-8x26 was my favorite, no-BS turret they did for the Short Dot line.
Too bad the CQB and P3 reticle options sucked for that optic.
Thats the issue with March, on paper they look great. They have the absolute worst eyeboxes of any optics I've seen. That makes them pretty much irrelevant.
Totally agree with "there's no perfect LPVO" . You gotta weigh the pro's and con's . As for the Vortex G3 1-10 : It's my current DMR choice. If you consider this optic , I highly recommend a mount no higher than 1.50" to ensure proper cheek weld / eye position at higher mag levels. With 77 TMK it's a beast past 300y. Quick ranging feature works well out to 600 in my experience. Throw an RMR on top and there's no downside other than cost. I do prefer the NF DM-X layout though . If ultimate speed is needed , I keep a Eotech or a T2 in my pack. No optic does it all.
Attachments
I would agree with this. I have a 1.7 and 1.54. I can still use the 1.7 pretty comfortably but 1.54 I have a much better cheek weld. I might just run a cheek riser and 1.7. I do like being more upright but the cheek weld does suffer a bit for higher mag.
Also if prone the 1.7 becomes even more of a cheek weld disadvantage. A riser will fix this but 1.5 is easier.
Found a pretty easy fix for the 1.70 and cheek weld...provided one is not a nose-2-ch weirdo
Point. I like my Sig Tango6 - but no way in the world I'd claim it to be "best" by any means!
Ok, I understand now, you're completely ignorant of competitive shooting and the nature of typical LPVO/carbine classes. That explains the over compensation and condescending attitude without any substance to merit it.
I guess all forums have guys like you, just my luck you'd need to feel relevant by shitting in my thread.
Why can't you be more like the normal people here? I can do a psychoanalysis but I charge for that.
Either this is a Felipe account (same location) or the slowest fucking comeback ever.
Last edited:
These three posts (not whole threads, just posts) should put you on the right path ...
Rifle Scopes - Is the ATACR 1-8 really worth two Razor 1-6's?
As the title implies, is the ATACR really that great of a value that it justifies the price? I know we're comparing a FFP to a SFP here, but if I'm looking for a general purpose optic to Run N Gun with and engage targets from 25m-600m, should I save twice as much for the ATACR over a Razor...
www.snipershide.com
Rifle Scopes - SHTF LPVO?
Gotta agree with Crabs about the FFP game changer aspects of the new gen of LPVO optics. The question is (in my mind anyway) how are these new FFP optics surviving under real combat use? Relatively speaking, they are kind new in terms of military use. Any insights?
www.snipershide.com
Rifle Scopes - SHTF LPVO?
Gotta agree with Crabs about the FFP game changer aspects of the new gen of LPVO optics. The question is (in my mind anyway) how are these new FFP optics surviving under real combat use? Relatively speaking, they are kind new in terms of military use. Any insights?
www.snipershide.com
surprised no one mention swarovski Z8i 1-8. I've owned K16, Razor genii and Z8i and ended up keeping the Z8i. Other than the light weight and sharp glass, Z8i has the brightest illumination among the three scopes. There's a switch for both night and daytime illumination, and intensity can be adjusted individually. BRT-1 reticle is very fine and is great for long range shooting. You can use Swaro's ballistic calculator for holdover: https://ballisticprograms.swarovskioptik.com/Ballistic-Program/Konfiguration
Z8i has the best turret click feel and a toolless re-zero feature. I also like the tilt sensor it comes with, the scope can sense if rifle is in position to shoot, if not, the the illumination can automatically shut off to save the battery.
Z8i has the best turret click feel and a toolless re-zero feature. I also like the tilt sensor it comes with, the scope can sense if rifle is in position to shoot, if not, the the illumination can automatically shut off to save the battery.
I have a Steiner M8Xi and the red dot is very anemic to put it nicely. The glass is awesome, bright, clear but the illuminated reticle is not good.In my quest for the "best LPVO", I've owned about every high-end LPVO except NF. Here are my observations. YMMV.
SB Dual CC: Best glass and turrets hands down. Two things I didn't like are (1) the diffractive red dot loses a lot of brightness unless you're directly behind it and (2) if your battery dies, there is only a small black dot at 1x that is hard to see.
Kahles 1-6 and 1-8: Great glass, reticles, and forgiving eye box. Only real downside is SFP. Not as good for longer distances. Almost kept the 1-8, as I liked the 3GR reticle at 1x, but wanted to be able to shoot past 300 as well as at 1x. If it was a FFP and had a reticle more useable for longer distances, I would have kept it.
Minox 1-10: Glass almost as good as SB. Very nice crosshair reticle that can be used without illumination and as good for distances as the SB. Downsides are that it's heavier and the illumination is not red dot bright and hard to see on bright days.
March 1-10: Like the compact size and weight and adjustable parallax. DOF very shallow, however, requiring precise parallax adjustments for clearest view. Illumination not red dot bright.
Steiner P4xi 1-4: Brightest red dot of all and simple, uncluttered reticle. Most forgiving eye box. Nice glass and price. Fastest for short distance run-and-gun (1x), but lacks the magnification and reticle for any distance shooting. Kept this one as a backup.
Vortex 1-10: The one I eventually settled on for my primary LPVO as having the best combination of glass, red dot bright illumination, reticle, weight, and price for me. Many think the eye box is not as forgiving. I've noticed some of that, but it hasn't bothered me once I got used to it. Diffractive red dot like SB, but brightness does not fall off near as much when not directly behind it. Good at both 1x and 8-10x.
I might have to pick up a P4Xi next.
I have looked through the ATACR and the illuminated reticle is nice.
I really like my NX8 FcDMx. I mounted it in a 1.54 Reptilia with an Acro on top for passive capability. The whole ensemble is something like 27oz, and offers day and low light, 0-WhateverYouUse8xTo range capability with wind holds, drop, nuclear bright 1x performance, etc. The only downside is eyebox and glass quality at 7-8x, neither of which are "bad", just not its strongest points. Overall, a fine compromise in the world of "does it all".
Is this the most difficult and anxiety producing topic in optics or is it just me? I have to get an optic for a new AR and am getting paralysis by analysis.
I agree with you. Having a bunch of good options is generally considered a plus. But that doesn't seem to apply here.
Not if you know what features you care about, and in what order you prioritize them. Get that figured out and the choices will be more apparent.
AMEN! But getting things "figured out" can be quite a bit of a chore for some...especially if they think it involves the internet and not getting behind a rifle in the context of use.
For sure. One of the things people get needlessly hung up on is focal plane location. There are legitimate use cases for FFP and SFP. I think I ton of people think they need FFP in an LPVO, but only because internet lore says FFP is best, not because they understand the pros and cons of it in the context of LPVO's.
Know your use case first. Then start eliminating features that do not fit with your use case and the way in which you engage with your rifle. You need to back in to your optics purchases by deductive reasoning.
I posted in this thread last year on my quest to find the LPVO that works best for me. After trying almost all the leading candidates, I settled on the Vortex 1-10 Gen 3 with an offset 1x RMR on my AR-15.
I don't mean to add to your anxiety, but recently I've been rethinking the need for an LPVO if you're shooting competitively or just wanting a good setup for the "just-beyond-the-1x-red-dot" range. I've switched to a 1x red-dot in the primary position and a 3x prism in the offset position. For me, this setup works really well when shooting <250-300 yards—much faster and lighter than an LPVO (even with an offset 1x red dot) or a 1x red dot with a 3x magnifier. You will need to set the prism as far back on the rail as you can, as the eye relief is much shorter than the 1x red dot.
For self- or home-defense or competition rifles, the 1x RD/3x prism combo may be the better option. OTOH, if your rifle's primary use is SPR-ish, shooting/hunting from 300-600 yards or beyond, the LPVO with a 1x offset will work better. There are 5x prisms (haven't tried them), but I would expect the LPVO (or even a 3-20) to be the better choice at the longer ranges.
Yeah. I have ordered a PA 1x and 3x prism for this setup. I was inspired to try it by this video from Modern Tactical Shooting:
Yeah, didn't want to name-drop, but Jeff G is the one who encouraged me to go with this set up. He and I shoot together regularly. He's a great guy and definitely knows what he's talking about. Highly recommend his MTS youtube channel.
This guy?
Says the atacr 1-8 is “heavy, one of the heaviest” yet its lighter than the number 1 scope, and only 1.4oz lighter than the number 2 scope.
Lift some fuckin weights yo!
Complains about field of view on some of them at 1x. Open the other eyeball or are you fuckin walleyed?
And red dots on top of the number 1 and number 2 scopes? The fuck?????
Otherwise, great reviews!
Keep ‘em coming!
I noticed that too and am always pointing out the "fov" nonsense for 1x.
I find it odd when people post reviews geared towards "performance" but never show split times to see if their gripes are actually affected. I watched a review recently of two dudes comparing lpvo 1x to rds 1x-they began by saying they are both tons faster with rds... but the split times told a different story. They even admitted to not having much practice time behind the lpvo and after the first couple drills had indistinguishable split times between the systems.
Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on the effects of scope shadow and 1x cqb range shooting showing again, people's gripes about eyebox and positioning didn't matter as long as they could resolve the reticle and place it in an appropriate area the shot will land good.
Well technically, I don't see an issue:
- If it is heavier than most of the rest of the scopes in the test it would be "one of the heaviest", whether or not the top ranked scoped is heavier is irrelevant.
- FOV is always measured as field of view inside the optic. It is what you can see within the scope. Both eyes open is irrelevant. And for the I-run-both-eyes-open-so-FOV-is-meaningless camp, I would challenge you to try to run an optic with a 7 degree FOV as fast as one with a 40 degree FOV and then report back.
- Red dots are on top of those scopes because either #1, he runs NV goggles from time to time or #2 he realizes, as he should, that no LPVO is faster than a red dot. We can argue all day whether that difference is significant or even exploitable, but its still a fact.
This is an interesting concept. I think it perhaps makes sense with a range limitation. I.E. if you are always engaging from 10 to 300-400 yards. I believe from 500-800y the setup would not be ideal but I haven't tried it.
I do wish he had included the VCOG 1-8. In a comment he called is "disgusting" or "grotesque" or similar, so I'm guessing he isn't a fan, but it seems to be more of a piece with the other scopes he tested than the Kahles.
1x is 1x... if fov mattered in that context not a single person would be running a micro red dot over a full sized or eotech.
All the FOV in the world is irrelevant if the reticle is not yet in view because your window is tiny.
Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on scope shadow, eyebox, reticle choice, and the effect it has on 1x shooting at close range. He used a 1-10 razor for reference-
As it turns out, you can have the majority, if not all of lens covered in scope shadow and still be able to observe the reticle and then still place shots in an acceptable hit zone (ie minimal parallax shift). I understand what your getting at but it's an overly simplistic way of approaching eyebox in relation to 1x shooting. The reality is there's a lot more variables that lend themselves to that than fov.
Edit***some people can't get over the image their brain sees with some of these variables and it's a valid point. But that's a topic for a different discussion
I don't doubt it. Also depending upon how close/far your RDS is, greatly determines how quickly you get too see the reticle...then you have to decide what you think is an acceptable level of parallax. There are a lot of things to take into account. If I am always in a nice clean shooting position, I don't the the LPVO has many drawbacks, but I find it slower for me when my position is unable to be perfect or I have to take funky off axis shots that are either set up on purpose in a comp, or by my hastiness in a situation where I just need to get a shot off. Having a LPVO/RDS combo is something I can't see replacing by just a LPVO only at this point.
That's a fair assessment of your individual capabilities and nobody would argue against that.
Going to back the original topic though, another example is the nx8 vs the atacr. The nx8 has a wider FOV but is well documented to have a tighter eye box. Again, fov does not necessarily translate to speed at 1x
No, but I think we have to be careful to respect some level of scientific method. There is an argument to be made that a highly skilled individual can shoot a heavy recoiling rifle just as well as he can shoot a rimfire. On the surface, that's mostly correct, but technically we know that report/recoil has an absolute affect on the shooters capabilities.
In your NX8 example...I bought two at launch and HATED that optic for the exact reason you mentioned, sold it almost immediately.
My S&B has more tunneling than my Vudu 1-10, but still the S&B is easier to get behind.
We can define that ease of use in a number of ways and it may not always show up in FOV, so you are absolutely correct there.
The human eye is pretty complex, and data sets essentially tell us only what a robot's eye can see.
It reminds me a lot of the problem I see with NV buyers...you must look through the optic. I have had 2300 FOM units that to the human eye blow away 3000 FOM units when the spec sheet for the 3k FOM unit is better in every single data point.
I have had or had experience with all the LPVOs in the test except for the March. Depending on your use case, I could see any one of them being the best choice. Having owned the K16i and now the K18i, in my mind, the the K16i is still the 1x king if that is where the majority of your work is done. If Kahles could keep that view in a FFP optic...
I'm very happy with my DFP March shorty 1-10. It was an easy choice for me because I wanted the adjustable parallax and don't want to supplement with a RD.
I live in a small house so the gun stays on 1x 99% of the time.
Might put it on a air rifle or rimfire at some point so I wanted that side focus.
The other .05% of the time it's on 6x for mid range medium sized steel out to 250Y or so and the other .05% on 10x past mid range to 1122Y.
I didn't like 8x for long range and 10x is barely cutting it for me.
DFP is a nice feature! The advantages of FFP and SFP.
The illume is bright enough during the day on the highest setting.
It's a great versatile little scope that covers a lot of bases well enough for me to keep it.
This...
The thread about adjustable parallax on an LPVO
And the copious amounts people leaning on the vids/reviews/opinions of others
...tell me just how many people here know fucking nothing about running LPVO's in the space where LPVO's are meant to be.
I shoot with both eyes open and also appreciate a wide FOV. At 1x, it allows me to have an uninterrupted view of more things around my target. That’s valuable to me for SA. This benefit is heightened with a nicely designed ocular body of the scope for that nearly edge less view. As for comparison to red dots, people value FOV on red dots too. Usually people value weight and durability for red dots more than FOV, but it is a consideration that some prefer, e.g. people who prefer EOTECH over T2s.
But another thing with FOV is that it’s not limited to 1x. It is angular, and benefits are had at higher magnifications too. One of the reasons the 4x ACOG was such a successful combat optic was because of its wide field of view. It really helped me with observation, not just engagements. You can see what that sketchy looking dude is doing down by the market without having tunnel vision, or similarly have a wider view of things going on while surveilling with an SKT or similar.
The Accupoints really have aged well. Still great glass for the $.
I experimented with this today using an EXPS3-0 EOTECH and a Steiner P4Xi (Because it has a great 1x). Yes, you observe the reticle inside the shadow and with both eyes open still take the shot....but, HOLY MOLY, parallax shoots through the roof as soon as it hits the scope shadow. There is almost no observed parallax prior to the shadow, and then once in the shadow it compounds significantly all the way to the edge. Additionally, you really must have illumination on in most lighting conditions in order to attempt using the reticle inside the shadow.
From my observations, possible, but not recommended.
I think certain optics may be more susceptible than others-it's also important to know what an acceptable error is as that may vary from use to use. My atacr was about 2"@25y but for combative shooting that's no issue. Coming from competition that may be unacceptable.
The use case certainly would determine whether it's acceptable or not. I'm experiencing about 2" at 7y at the outer limits. It's a significant difference from something like the holographic sight obviously.
Holy cow that's a ton. Aaron's video had a 1-10 razor perform similar to how my atacr performed. I was able to get about 90% scope shadow before I lost the reticle so I was definitely cranking it hard. Thanks for the data!
hoody, i remember you from arf and recall your story of the embassy evac. i think you use lpvo’s alot and in the real world of combat, how often do you find yourself taking shots when you arent squarely behind the glass?
some of these paralax horror stories make be question their usefulness. my tr24 doesnt seem to be bad all but i guess i should revisit that.
Similar threads
