Rifle Scopes First LPVO advice

[KentuckyShooter]

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening

First post here. I’ve been sucking up all the info for a long time with out registering an account. I figured it was about time to dive in and start interacting.
Come tax return time I’ll be purchasing my first LPVO. I’ve been using red dots/eotechs until now and had a good amount of time behind the RCO/SDO while serving.
The platform will be a recce style rifle. 16 in S/S barrel. Geissele SSA-E. Not sure how specific I should get. I imagine most of you have a good idea from mentioning the word recce. I will most likely be using a 1.93 Geissele Mount for the sole fact that I prefer having my head more upright these days while shooting.
The primary use of this rifle will be pretty much training and banging steel from 25-450(ish?) yards. Id say I will spend the most time on 1X magnification (using it like a red dot) so a daylight bright reticle is preferred.
So far the scopes that have caught my interest are the Vortex Razor HD Genii E JM-1, Nightforce NX8, EOtech Vudu, Trijicon Accupower 1-8, and US Optics 1-6. Those are pretty much in my price range...however there are two scopes in a higher price bracket that I would be willing to save for if you guys really convince me they are worth it. The Khales, and Nightforce ATACR.

Not quite sure if I prefer a FFP or SFP because of inexperience in the magnified optics world.

Feed me any info you guys think I will benefit from. I am here to learn and utilize all the experience from the members here.

Thank you all ahead of time.

 

[308pirate]

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening

First post here. I’ve been sucking up all the info for a long time with out registering an account. I figured it was about time to dive in and start interacting.
Come tax return time I’ll be purchasing my first LPVO. I’ve been using red dots/eotechs until now and had a good amount of time behind the RCO/SDO while serving.
The platform will be a recce style rifle. 16 in S/S barrel. Geissele SSA-E. Not sure how specific I should get. I imagine most of you have a good idea from mentioning the word recce. I will most likely be using a 1.93 Geissele Mount for the sole fact that I prefer having my head more upright these days while shooting.
The primary use of this rifle will be pretty much training and banging steel from 25-450(ish?) yards. Id say I will spend the most time on 1X magnification (using it like a red dot) so a daylight bright reticle is preferred.
So far the scopes that have caught my interest are the Vortex Razor HD Genii E JM-1, Nightforce NX8, EOtech Vudu, Trijicon Accupower 1-8, and US Optics 1-6. Those are pretty much in my price range...however there are two scopes in a higher price bracket that I would be willing to save for if you guys really convince me they are worth it. The Khales, and Nightforce ATACR.

Not quite sure if I prefer a FFP or SFP because of inexperience in the magnified optics world.

Feed me any info you guys think I will benefit from. I am here to learn and utilize all the experience from the members here.

Thank you all ahead of time.

The key statement you've made is in yellow. All my advice flows from it.

I can tell you this from personal experience after going through this same thing: make damned sure you bias the reticle choice towards simplicity.

What makes reflex optics with a single red dot for reticle so blindingly fast is that there is very little in your field of view to distract your eyes from the target. Any time you start adding crap in the middle of the FOV (stadia lines, holdover marks, big rings, etc) your brain has to spend more time deconflicting all that shit to figure out what matters when you're trying to make a very fast shot at close range. It gets worse if you have to account for height over bore offset when trying to make a very fast, precise shot at close range.

Can you train yourself to be as fast with a LPVS that has a busy reticle as you can be with a reflex or holo sight? Sure, almost anything can be done. The question is.....why?

Think about the ballistics of most 223 bullets launched out of a 16 - 18" barrel. With a 50 yard zero, your max point blank range on a 6" diameter - target is right around 275 - 290 yards. Open up the target diameter to 8" with the same zero and now your MPBR stretches out to 320 - 350 yards. From there, reaching to 450 yards involves some minor hold over. Do you need some crazy reticle with a bunch of holdovers or hashmarks to make a shot that will be the minority of your shooting profile? No, you don't.

Like you, I've always shot ARs with either irons or with reflex sights (Aimpoints in my case). A few months ago I found a good deal on a Trijicon Accupower 1-4X on an ADM Recon mount, and thinking the same as you I pulled the trigger on it. Once I got it, I went to the range and sighted it in, then started running drills with it and my Aimpoint back to back. The times were always faster with the red dot sight. I thought about why and came to the conclusion above about reticles. Now, again, could I dump the aimpoint, put the Trijicon on, and burn a ton of ammo getting fast with it? Sure. But when I can hit an IPSC steel target on command at 250 - 300 yards, why bother? Smaller steel plates? Yeah, I can't see those well enough without magnification at 200 yards and beyond, but that's why I have other rifles.

If you still want to try this, I would limit your scope choices to those that have the least stuff in the reticle. Out of the choices you've listed only the the Vudu 1-6X has a reticle that, based on what I know, would be like shooting a reflex/holo sight.

Other choices with simple reticles are the Steiner M5Xi and the Trijicon Accupoint 1-4X and 1-6X with the triangle/post reticles (red, green, or amber)

SFP or FFP doesn't matter for the application your talking about. I agree with your choice of 1.93" high mounts. The 1.5" high mount that most people sell and use makes the head position too different compared to a reflex sight on lower 1/3 cowitness, which leads to being slower.

 

[mgrs]

My initial recommendation would be to pick up a Razor II are Euro optic clearance or resale prices...It is an excellent, but heavy, optic and a lot of performance at current prices.

Briefly addressing some of your other points without getting into specifics:

1.93" mount height- great for action shooting, possibly more difficult to prone with. I found that 1.93" mounts pair much better with optics that are more forgiving to get behind, like the Razor II. I liked the the lower mounts with a tighter cheek weld for less forgiving scopes like the NX8.

SFP vs FFP- FFP sounds great on paper but perhaps kind of a waste in a 1-6 but might have some application in a 1-8. I mostly use a 1-6 on either 1 or 6 and like the SFP reticles which are often easier to see on 1x without illumination and/or obscure less of the target on 6x. The FFPs use different illumination methods that often require large quadrants or other reticle components that can be distracting on the top end but are required to have enough area to illuminate on the bottom end.

I did use the 1-8x NX8 often on 5-6x because the eye box seemed to get very tight near the top end and the light transmission darkened somewhat.

I'd love to try an ATACR 1-8.... hard to imagine it displacing a K16 as a general purpose optic on 5.56 carbine.

Here are a couple options pictured for size comparison:

 

[KentuckyShooter]

The key statement you've made is in yellow. All my advice flows from it.

I can tell you this from personal experience after going through this same thing: make damned sure you bias the reticle choice towards simplicity.

What makes reflex optics with a single red dot for reticle so blindingly fast is that there is very little in your field of view to distract your eyes from the target. Any time you start adding crap in the middle of the FOV (stadia lines, holdover marks, big rings, etc) your brain has to spend more time deconflicting all that shit to figure out what matters when you're trying to make a very fast shot at close range. It gets worse if you have to account for height over bore offset when trying to make a very fast, precise shot at close range.

Can you train yourself to be as fast with a LPVS that has a busy reticle as you can be with a reflex or holo sight? Sure, almost anything can be done. The question is.....why?

Think about the ballistics of most 223 bullets launched out of a 16 - 18" barrel. With a 50 yard zero, your max point blank range on a 6" diameter - target is right around 275 - 290 yards. Open up the target diameter to 8" with the same zero and now your MPBR stretches out to 320 - 350 yards. From there, reaching to 450 yards involves some minor hold over. Do you need some crazy reticle with a bunch of holdovers or hashmarks to make a shot that will be the minority of your shooting profile? No, you don't.

Like you, I've always shot ARs with either irons or with reflex sights (Aimpoints in my case). A few months ago I found a good deal on a Trijicon Accupower 1-4X on an ADM Recon mount, and thinking the same as you I pulled the trigger on it. Once I got it, I went to the range and sighted it in, then started running drills with it and my Aimpoint back to back. The times were always faster with the red dot sight. I thought about why and came to the conclusion above about reticles. Now, again, could I dump the aimpoint, put the Trijicon on, and burn a ton of ammo getting fast with it? Sure. But when I can hit an IPSC steel target on command at 250 - 300 yards, why bother? Smaller steel plates? Yeah, I can't see those well enough without magnification at 200 yards and beyond, but that's why I have other rifles.

If you still want to try this, I would limit your scope choices to those that have the least stuff in the reticle. Out of the choices you've listed only the the Vudu 1-6X has a reticle that, based on what I know, would be like shooting a reflex/holo sight.

Other choices with simple reticles are the Steiner M5Xi and the Trijicon Accupoint 1-4X and 1-6X with the triangle/post reticles (red, green, or amber)

SFP or FFP doesn't matter for the application your talking about. I agree with your choice of 1.93" high mounts. The 1.5" high mount that most people sell and use makes the head position too different compared to a reflex sight on lower 1/3 cowitness, which leads to being slower.

Your point about MPBR was something I hadn’t considered before. Great info. My only worry with the Vudu was reports of the brightness not being quite daylight bright. Any experience with this?

 

[308pirate]

Your point about MPBR was something I hadn’t considered before. Great info. My only worry with the Vudu was reports of the brightness not being quite daylight bright. Any experience with this?

No idea if the Vudu reticle is daylight bright, but that is a damned good question. Like you, I consider an "Aimpoint bright" reticle mandatory for this application. That weeds out a shitload of scopes right off the bat.

 

[slm9s]

burris xtr2 1-8

 

[KentuckyShooter]

My initial recommendation would be to pick up a Razor II are Euro optic clearance or resale prices...It is an excellent, but heavy, optic and a lot of performance at current prices.

Briefly addressing some of your other points without getting into specifics:

1.93" mount height- great for action shooting, possibly more difficult to prone with. I found that 1.93" mounts pair much better with optics that are more forgiving to get behind, like the Razor II. I liked the the lower mounts with a tighter cheek weld for less forgiving scopes like the NX8.

SFP vs FFP- FFP sounds great on paper but perhaps kind of a waste in a 1-6 but might have some application in a 1-8. I mostly use a 1-6 on either 1 or 6 and like the SFP reticles which are often easier to see on 1x without illumination and/or obscure less of the target on 6x. The FFPs use different illumination methods that often require large quadrants or other reticle components that can be distracting on the top end but are required to have enough area to illuminate on the bottom end.

I did use the 1-8x NX8 often on 5-6x because the eye box seemed to get very tight near the top end and the light transmission darkened somewhat.

I'd love to try an ATACR 1-8.... hard to imagine it displacing a K16 as a general purpose optic on 5.56 carbine.

Here are a couple options pictured for size comparison:

View attachment 6970842

The Razor has been the one I’ve been leaning towards mainly because it seems to be a good option for someone who is only going to buy one LPVO. However it’s for that same reason (only buying one lpvo) I’m trying to be thorough and really research which one will be best for me. I’m probably overthinking it at this point. From your comment and what I’ve heard from others it sounds like focal plane will be a non issue for me. Though sfp being easier to see at 1X May play a factor in my choice. Any experience with the nightforce 1-4 (NXS maybe)? I believe they’re SFP.

 

[KentuckyShooter]

burris xtr2 1-8

I will dig into this one. I appreciate the recommendation!

 

[308pirate]

The Trijicon Accupoint with the triangle reticle isn't the newest or sexiest, but in my mind still the closest an LPVO comes to a reflex sight. Also available in 1-6X


Got to 4:50 to see a head to head run between a reflex sight (Trijicon MRO) and the Accupoint.


That guy has quite a few more videos reviewing LPVOs from a 3 gun point of view, which is pretty close to the application you want. I would spend some time watching and listening to his opinions.

 

[goatboy]

Kahles or NX8, but Kahles has the edge. The "look" is stunning on all settings. Being SFP, the illumination doesn't have to be oversized. The reticle are not all "simple" but the SM1 has two virtues, the wide horizontal stadia orienting the gun and, shooting steel, you get the target in the horseshoe and are more or less gtg. Downside is that illumination is not ultra bright, the horseshoe is a little heavy IMO, and the verticals stadia are not numbered.

The ATACR and the Vortex are just heavy for a dynamic carbine when lighter alternatives are available.

 

[KentuckyShooter]

The Trijicon Accupoint with the triangle reticle isn't the newest or sexiest, but in my mind still the closest an LPVO comes to a reflex sight. Also available in 1-6X


Got to 4:50 to see a head to head run between a reflex sight (Trijicon MRO) and the Accupoint.


That guy has quite a few more videos reviewing LPVOs from a 3 gun point of view, which is pretty close to the application you want. I would spend some time watching and listening to his opinions.

Will definitely check this out.

 

[skatz11]

I like the simplicity and durability of my Razor 1-6 with the JM1 reticle. I see no advantage for a FFP LPVO.

Sure it’s a little heavy, but it flat out works. I’ve beat mine up pretty good over three or four seasons of 3gun shooting. I have had zero interest in chasing a newer lighter scope with a different reticle.

The new generation reduced the weight a little, but for the money I don’t think it’s worth it when Eurooptic clearing out the non-2E for $899

 

[hypno02]

IMO the eotech vudu 1-6 is garbage. I owned for just long enough to not mount it on a rifle. Non-locking exposed turrets should be illegal on LPVO's. The reticle is OK but other than that it's just meh. The razor at $899 is a fantastic deal for an optic that plain works. I'd also skip the USO simply because it's a USO.

If I were you I'd go with the razor, accupoint 1-4/6, or a used leupold Mk6 in the EE.

Or an ATACR if you want the cream of the crop.

 

[KentuckyShooter]

I like the simplicity and durability of my Razor 1-6 with the JM1 reticle. I see no advantage for a FFP LPVO.

Sure it’s a little heavy, but it flat out works. I’ve beat mine up pretty good over three or four seasons of 3gun shooting. I have had zero interest in chasing a newer lighter scope with a different reticle.

The new generation reduced the weight a little, but for the money I don’t think it’s worth it when Eurooptic clearing out the non-2E for $899

My only other rifle is a mk18 which weighs about 9.5 pounds. Every rifle I’ve spent real time carrying or shooting has been about the same if not more. As of now the non E vortex is looking like what I’ll go with as well.

 

[KentuckyShooter]

IMO the eotech vudu 1-6 is garbage. I owned for just long enough to not mount it on a rifle. Non-locking exposed turrets should be illegal on LPVO's. The reticle is OK but other than that it's just meh. The razor at $899 is a fantastic deal for an optic that plain works. I'd also skip the USO simply because it's a USO.

If I were you I'd go with the razor, accupoint 1-4/6, or a used leupold Mk6 in the EE.

Or an ATACR if you want the cream of the crop.

An ATACR would be my number one choice but even with the mil pricing from NF (as good as it is), it’s still a lot of money. I can’t help but to think of the ammo or a class I could spend the difference in price on. The MK6 is pretty much the same story.

 

[308pirate]

Before you decide, look at this. The elegance of a 5.56 MPBR based on a 50/200 meter zero combined with the simplicity of Trijicon's post/triangle reticle is hard to overestimate.

 

[mgrs]

No idea if the Vudu reticle is daylight bright, but that is a damned good question. Like you, I consider an "Aimpoint bright" reticle mandatory for this application. That weeds out a shitload of scopes right off the bat.

There is a lot more to what makes a "fast" LPV than an aimpoint bright reticle. A Kahles SM1 for example is not nearly as bright as an NX8...not even close... but is much easier to use like an RDS up close due to the massive usable eye box, higher FOV, lower edge distortion, closer to "true 1x" image, among other things.

The Razor has been the one I’ve been leaning towards mainly because it seems to be a good option for someone who is only going to buy one LPVO. However it’s for that same reason (only buying one lpvo) I’m trying to be thorough and really research which one will be best for me. I’m probably overthinking it at this point. From your comment and what I’ve heard from others it sounds like focal plane will be a non issue for me. Though sfp being easier to see at 1X May play a factor in my choice. Any experience with the nightforce 1-4 (NXS maybe)? I believe they’re SFP.

I have not owned an NXS 1-4. I was initially an LPV skeptic but quickly switched to LPVs for anything that is not an SBR after getting into competitive shooting. They just bring too much to the table in versatility to get hung up on overstated disadvantages. These are the 1-N units I've owned and used enough to have an opinion about in order of preference:

Kahles K16i
Vortex Razor II 1-6
CMore C-3
Leupold Mark 6 1-6 (TMR-D)
Nightforce NX8
Steiner P4Xi 1-4
Vortex Viper PST 1-4
Burris TAC30
Burris (MTAC i think?)
Millet DMS


P4Xi really deserves attention if you just want to get your feet wet with minimal outlay but still have a decent optic.

If competitive shooting is a consideration, some type of measured elevation hold is really nice to have, MPBR or not.

 

[Primus]

First of all it's 2018, so if it's not FFP, it's wrong.

Here is the breakdown. Under $1500, the eotech Vudu is the clear choice. Jap made quality with the fastest 1x reticle ever made. There is a reason the top faceshootets in the world ran eotech and some still do. At cqb distance, nothing is faster. This is a true FFP optic that is usable for holds at all powers.

Over $1500, the NX8. This would be the king ar15 optic if NF offered it with their DM reticle. If it was, it would outsell the ATACR 100-1 for 556 applications.

$2500 and up, the ATACR 8. This is the current top dog that has everything you could want. It's a little big but the features outweigh the form factor.

The other dark horse for a simple, KISS carbine is the TA33. It's the best GP optic for an ar15 in existence. Can do close dirty work with it and can stretch it out. At typically engagement distances of 50-200 yards, its perfect. These run bout $1k with a quality mount and will be the lightest option.

Good luck in whatever you choose. The razor 2 and kahles are nice, but are obsolete tech. FFP or die.

 

[koshkin]

At current prices, if you want SFP, get the Razor Gen 2. If you want FFP, I am extremely happy with Burris XT II 1-8x24. There are other good options out there, obviously, but these are the two I happen to like. Another good SFP option that really does not get enough coverage is Meopta Meostar R2 1-6x24.

SFP scopes tend to have brighter illumination, but one of the things I really like with the FFP Burris is that on 1x, all I see is a circle-dot arrangement. The BDC portion of the reticle effectively disappears from you. That is one of the advantages of FFP if you have a well designed reticle.

ILya

 

[308pirate]

First of all it's 2018, so if it's not FFP, it's wrong.

Right. Whatever.

 

[308pirate]

There is a lot more to what makes a "fast" LPV than an aimpoint bright reticle.

Nowhere did I say that was the only required attribute.

 

[CSTactical]

@KentuckyShooter we'd love to help you pick the right optic, please give us a call at 916-670-1103. We'll ask some questions and find the best choice for you.

 

[Birddog6424]

The Burris 1-8 XTR II is really a feature rich optic at a hair under 1k.

They are made by LOW in Japan, 34mm tube, FFP or SFP, daylight bright illumination that as Ilya pointed out, is a circle dot on the FFP at 1x. They have the MAD turret system that allows you to cap or uncap your turrets as you choose. They are true 1x with a nice large eyebox. A very effective and easy to use BDC with mil windage markers and mil turrets.

A lot of scope for the money.

For lightweight and compact I really like the Kahles 1-6 and NF NX8. Those are both very nice LPVs. And I agree that >2k the ATACR is an amazing choice. The reticle in that scope is fantastic.

 

[KentuckyShooter]

@KentuckyShooter we'd love to help you pick the right optic, please give us a call at 916-670-1103. We'll ask some questions and find the best choice for you.

Will do. It’ll most likely be around 3pm central tomorrow.

 

[CSTactical]

Will do. It’ll most likely be around 3pm central tomorrow.

We will be here!

 

[KentuckyShooter]

The Burris 1-8 XTR II is really a feature rich optic at a hair under 1k.

They are made by LOW in Japan, 34mm tube, FFP or SFP, daylight bright illumination that as Ilya pointed out, is a circle dot on the FFP at 1x. They have the MAD turret system that allows you to cap or uncap your turrets as you choose. They are true 1x with a nice large eyebox. A very effective and easy to use BDC with mil windage markers and mil turrets.

A lot of scope for the money.

For lightweight and compact I really like the Kahles 1-6 and NF NX8. Those are both very nice LPVs. And I agree that >2k the ATACR is an amazing choice. The reticle in that scope is fantastic.

Any experience with the durability of the Burris?

 

[jhr1986]

First of all it's 2018, so if it's not FFP, it's wrong.

Here is the breakdown. Under $1500, the eotech Vudu is the clear choice. Jap made quality with the fastest 1x reticle ever made. There is a reason the top faceshootets in the world ran eotech and some still do. At cqb distance, nothing is faster. This is a true FFP optic that is usable for holds at all powers.

Over $1500, the NX8. This would be the king ar15 optic if NF offered it with their DM reticle. If it was, it would outsell the ATACR 100-1 for 556 applications.

$2500 and up, the ATACR 8. This is the current top dog that has everything you could want. It's a little big but the features outweigh the form factor.

The other dark horse for a simple, KISS carbine is the TA33. It's the best GP optic for an ar15 in existence. Can do close dirty work with it and can stretch it out. At typically engagement distances of 50-200 yards, its perfect. These run bout $1k with a quality mount and will be the lightest option.

Good luck in whatever you choose. The razor 2 and kahles are nice, but are obsolete tech. FFP or die.

Ignorant post is ignorant. FFP vs SFP does not matter in lpvo. FFP is fine, we all know the benefits.

Here’s why an SFP lpvo is not a hinderance: you use it (in the case of my Razor) at either 1x or 6x. At 1x the subtensions don’t matter cause you’re using it between 0 and 200 yards and using the center hold point. If you’re shooting further than that you dial up to 6x (or 4x if that is your max mag) and guess what? The subtensions are on point. No problem hitting steel at 600 yards.

I’ve shot loads of 2 and 3 gun matches, never once dialed to 3.7x. Never once even wanted to.

 

[Primus]

Ignorant post is ignorant. FFP vs SFP does not matter in lpvo. FFP is fine, we all know the benefits.

Here’s why an SFP lpvo is not a hinderance: you use it (in the case of my Razor) at either 1x or 6x. At 1x the subtensions don’t matter cause you’re using it between 0 and 200 yards and using the center hold point. If you’re shooting further than that you dial up to 6x (or 4x if that is your max mag) and guess what? The subtensions are on point. No problem hitting steel at 600 yards.

I’ve shot loads of 2 and 3 gun matches, never once dialed to 3.7x. Never once even wanted to.

You are soo wrong its not even funny.

The VERY first effective LPV, as speced by CAG, was a 1.1-4x S&B shortdot. It is the gold standard that everything else was built on. The problem has been, companies have been able to make a true, FFP, day light bright LPV that is A. durable enough for hard use, B. has an eyebox that is usable and C. has a reticle that works well. Reticle design followed by Dot tech were the real problems that companies could not figure it out. Nothing really came along to unseat the Shortdot until the CQBSS came out. Notice the price....good tech is expensive. Now we have the VUDU which fills that role that the Razor Gen 2 used to own. The ONLY reason the Razor Gen 2 was preferable over the CQBSS was price. There has not been an optic to meet all the above requirements in that price range until now. The added benefit is it uses the Eotech reticle, which is the ultimate CQB reticle. Great design by them and its probably the fastest LPV on 1x to shoot because of it. If the vast majority of your shots are under 50 meters, its hard to beat. Now we have the NX8 and ATACR which take the CQBSS to the next level. That is until the next kid on the block knocks them off with something better/cheaper.

These conversations show the difference in thinking between someone who carried a rifle for a living and someone who shoots dirt on a square range.

FFP is critical for making shots at range without having to do a ton of additional math in your head. In the real world people don't just stand out in the open like a ISPC target waiting to receive your bullets. They hide behind shit, they shoot from cover and they don't stay in the same place for very long or they end up dead. In any low intensity conflict, all the fucking retards die first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, all the real dolts died early. Those that learned lived to fight another day and become formidable foes learning to use our weaknesses against us.

The reason FFP is so important is just that. Speed and Precision. You may only get a 1 or 2 second window on a dude peaking around a corner, and need a precise hit. You also may need to clear rooms where precision is more forgiving (not to mention guys who do this for a living know their contact offsets and pretty much snap shoot at this distance).

2 and 3 gun is a fucking game. A game where you know what you are shooting ahead of time and can plan around the event to maximize your "score". Its not even remotely realistic. Even then, you are shooting multi-MOA targets at distances generally shorter than 300 yards, making holds almost irrelevant. 0-300Meter ISPC shots can all be made shooting Knees to Center Torso. Stop pretending that you dressing up and playing pretend war is in anyway relevant. AND Even then, I would argue using a FFP quality optic would be even faster, and put better shots on target. Score for groups and see who wins.

 

[Pointman308]

Where does the viper fall into this discussion? Or is it not worthy?

 

[jhr1986]

None of what you’ve said applies, either to what I stated nor to what the OP has asked for (banging steel out to 450 yards).

On 1x - use as red dot. Zero difference in speed/precision compared to FFP option.

On 6x - operates exactly the same as an FFP scope because the subtentions are correct at 6x.

No need to use any intermediate mag where the subtension in the reticle are not true.

 

[JWG]

You are soo wrong its not even funny.

The VERY first effective LPV, as speced by CAG, was a 1.1-4x S&B shortdot. It wasn't spec'ed, it was derived from their hunting line, and they were the only company that cared to try to make something CAG would want, that was durable enough for rough use. It is the gold standard that everything else was built on. No it's not. It was just the first, and IT came from a hunting scope meant for wild bore in dark European forests. That's like saying the Model A Ford is the gold standard for all vehicles. The problem has been, companies have been able to make a true, FFP, day light bright LPV that is A. durable enough for hard use, B. has an eyebox that is usable and C. has a reticle that works well. Reticle design followed by Dot tech were the real problems that companies could not figure it out. Nothing really came along to unseat the Shortdot until the CQBSS came out. Jeff Huber built on the SD with the NXS 1-4. Many people prefer it, many don't, but it was an early direct competitor. Notice the price....good tech is expensive. Now we have the VUDU which fills that role that the Razor Gen 2 used to own. No it doesn't. Who is using the Vudu? It has a well thought out reticle, but the illumination kills it for me (not in a good way), and it seems many others agree, from USASOC to 3 Gun. It's not popular. It's been out for a while. The ONLY reason the Razor Gen 2 was preferable over the CQBSS was price. I don't know. I do know that's how SIG has been winning their contracts, but with the ATACR winning the FFP selection for SOCOM, I am reticent to say the G2 Razor won on price alone. There has not been an optic to meet all the above requirements in that price range until now. The added benefit is it uses the Eotech reticle, which is the ultimate CQB reticle. Great design by them and its probably the fastest LPV on 1x to shoot because of it. If the vast majority of your shots are under 50 meters, its hard to beat. Yet, so few people seem to be winning with it or using it. It's been out for years. Explanation? Now we have the NX8 and ATACR which take the CQBSS to the next level. That is until the next kid on the block knocks them off with something better/cheaper.

These conversations show the difference in thinking between someone who carried a rifle for a living and someone who shoots dirt on a square range. I know people who carried a rifle for a living in Afghanistan (and some who still do), and they have varied preferences for varied reasons.

FFP is critical for making shots at range without having to do a ton of additional math in your head. In the real world people don't just stand out in the open like a ISPC target waiting to receive your bullets. They hide behind shit, they shoot from cover and they don't stay in the same place for very long or they end up dead. In any low intensity conflict, all the fucking retards die first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, all the real dolts died early. Those that learned lived to fight another day and become formidable foes learning to use our weaknesses against us. Shots at range typically occur at 6/8x...no additional math needed. Intermediate range shots should be POA/POI, so again, intermediate power used for intermediate range won't involve use of mil stadia/BDC.

The reason FFP is so important is just that. Speed and Precision. You may only get a 1 or 2 second window on a dude peaking around a corner, and need a precise hit. You also may need to clear rooms where precision is more forgiving (not to mention guys who do this for a living know their contact offsets and pretty much snap shoot at this distance). FFP and SFP both work fine. 3 gun is the ultimate "drag race", and much of it is now being used in combat applications, and SFP dominates unknown distance range competitions last I checked. Hundredths of seconds count. Tens of thousands in prize money. Very well to do people competing, and they get t o choose "whatever"...and they are running SFP. They train a LOT. I remember Frank Proctor talking about how blown away he was just by local competitors and how it drove him to be a better shooter, back before he really started SHOOTING, even when he was SF.

2 and 3 gun is a fucking game. A game where you know what you are shooting ahead of time and can plan around the event to maximize your "score". Not always. Its not even remotely realistic. Ironically, the military is doing everything 3 gun did, just 5 years later....dots on pistols? FF long rails? Tube rails or negative space attachment? LPVO's?... Even then, you are shooting multi-MOA targets at distances generally shorter than 300 yards, making holds almost irrelevant. Generally, not always. 0-300Meter ISPC shots can all be made shooting Knees to Center Torso. Stop pretending that you dressing up and playing pretend war is in anyway relevant. Relevant enough that war has emulated the gear right down the line. AND Even then, I would argue using a FFP quality optic would be even faster, and put better shots on target. Score for groups and see who wins. Been done. Guys and gals are choosing SFP when $10K+ in prize money is at stake, they have nearly unlimited budget, and fractions count.

Based on your paragraph, going to war should be the only way to test something. Makes no sense. Sure going to war will expose some flaws (like the Z6i's durability), etc. but it's not all there is to evaluating an optic by a long shot.

 

[308pirate]

You are soo wrong its not even funny.

The VERY first effective LPV, as speced by CAG, was a 1.1-4x S&B shortdot. It is the gold standard that everything else was built on. The problem has been, companies have been able to make a true, FFP, day light bright LPV that is A. durable enough for hard use, B. has an eyebox that is usable and C. has a reticle that works well. Reticle design followed by Dot tech were the real problems that companies could not figure it out. Nothing really came along to unseat the Shortdot until the CQBSS came out. Notice the price....good tech is expensive. Now we have the VUDU which fills that role that the Razor Gen 2 used to own. The ONLY reason the Razor Gen 2 was preferable over the CQBSS was price. There has not been an optic to meet all the above requirements in that price range until now. The added benefit is it uses the Eotech reticle, which is the ultimate CQB reticle. Great design by them and its probably the fastest LPV on 1x to shoot because of it. If the vast majority of your shots are under 50 meters, its hard to beat. Now we have the NX8 and ATACR which take the CQBSS to the next level. That is until the next kid on the block knocks them off with something better/cheaper.

These conversations show the difference in thinking between someone who carried a rifle for a living and someone who shoots dirt on a square range.

FFP is critical for making shots at range without having to do a ton of additional math in your head. In the real world people don't just stand out in the open like a ISPC target waiting to receive your bullets. They hide behind shit, they shoot from cover and they don't stay in the same place for very long or they end up dead. In any low intensity conflict, all the fucking retards die first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, all the real dolts died early. Those that learned lived to fight another day and become formidable foes learning to use our weaknesses against us.

The reason FFP is so important is just that. Speed and Precision. You may only get a 1 or 2 second window on a dude peaking around a corner, and need a precise hit. You also may need to clear rooms where precision is more forgiving (not to mention guys who do this for a living know their contact offsets and pretty much snap shoot at this distance).

2 and 3 gun is a fucking game. A game where you know what you are shooting ahead of time and can plan around the event to maximize your "score". Its not even remotely realistic. Even then, you are shooting multi-MOA targets at distances generally shorter than 300 yards, making holds almost irrelevant. 0-300Meter ISPC shots can all be made shooting Knees to Center Torso. Stop pretending that you dressing up and playing pretend war is in anyway relevant. AND Even then, I would argue using a FFP quality optic would be even faster, and put better shots on target. Score for groups and see who wins.

Could you be any more tone deaf to the OP's question?

Nobody here gives a shit about anything you said because nobody here is going to war with these scopes. It's getting to the point where I turn off anyone who starts with with "CAG/SOF/SF/Delta/SEAL use it"

 

[goatboy]

$2500 and up, the ATACR 8. This is the current top dog that has everything you could want. It's a little big but the features outweigh the form factor.

How about one of the SB short dots? If your weight and dollar budget is that open, I seem to recall that there is a short dot with a SFP dot at 1x and another reticle type in FFP for the zoom.

Anyone have any experience with these? I've never seen one.

 

[skatz11]

I don’t get the FFP argument. Most of the time you’re using a LVPO on max power so even if it’s a SFP optic the reticle can still be used making ranging estimate.

 

[wigwamitus]

I'm in the market for a LP(V)O as well. I've tried several:

Elcan 1x/4x
Vortex PST 1-4x
Vortex G2 Rzr 1-6x
Burris xtr2 1.5-8x

And I've also tried a bunch of less variables

Vortex Spitfire
EOTECH RDS with 3x flip magnifier
Holosun RDS with 3x flip
RMR 2 moa with 3x flip
ACOG 3.5x with 5.56 chevron
Burris 556

==
I think my main problem was my requirements. I wanted to be able to DO ALL. So inside 100yds and out to as far as my 5.56(18) can get on 12" steel which is about 750yds. And none of these will do all that. So, time to give up. The two I liked the best were the ELCAN and the RZ Gen2. I sold both of those, but maybe I just need to go back and get them again
The Rz Gen2, per my memory had super clear image ... I used it a lot for tree rats at 1x to 3x ... that tiny bright dot in the center was all I needed .. then I used the critter as the reticle, occasionally needing to aim up or down an inch with the .22lr depending on the distance and the elevation. But I really miss it in that role.
The ELCAN had a very clear image as well and two different illuminations and also a great tiny single dot. I like a tiny single red dot for inside 300yds or 400yds ... but unfortunately, my eyes don't work with the RDS, so I need something like the vortex or the elcan where the dot won't split into 2-3 parts.

And again SPF doesn't bother me if there is a great tiny red dot of illum in the center, I won't be using the subtended reticle for short distances, just the dot when I'm dial down to lower power. Or even without a red dot I'll be using the center of the reticle and the center is always FFP even if the rest of the reticle is not.

My problem with like the Vortex 1-4x was the reticle was too small for me even on 4x ... my olde eyes kicking in. And the ACOG reticle was fuzzy, olde man eyes again. For some reason the ELCAN reticle was never fuzzy even though it had no diopter either. At 500yds the ELCAN was crisp all around.

==
But open to other ideas as well !!! I'd like something with 1x on the bottom and at least 3x on the high power ... and about the bulk and weight of the RDS + 3x flip ... with an SPF reticle if it has a subtended reticle, so I can see the reticle. Those are probably my requirements.

EDIT: One will go on 5.56(14.5) and hope to get out to 450yds ... the other will go on 5.56(10.5) and hope to get out to 300yds. These are day carbines. Shooting at steel and critters. And a bright red dot illumination that doesn't split up in the center would be great also.

 

[Primus]

Wrong wrong and wrong. Atleast you are consistent.

The fact that you don't understand

Based on your paragraph, going to war should be the only way to test something. Makes no sense. Sure going to war will expose some flaws (like the Z6i's durability), etc. but it's not all there is to evaluating an optic by a long shot.

Same principles apply. Speed, precision, ease of use, durability,ect. And plenty of people are going to put these on working carbines and rifles as well as home defense guns. There are American " civilians " working hotspots all over the world using this gear. Same for LE,ect.

You lack the critical thinking to look at this one objectively. It's almost like an IPSC target is shaped like a torso....weird coincidence right?

 

[AZgeek]

OP take a look at the Primary Arms Platinum 1-8 with the ACSS reticle:

https://www.primaryarms.com/primary...escope-patented-acss-reticle-pa1-8x24ffp-acss

While I have not tested the range finding capabilities (no human volunteers!), I did find it easy to true the 200 yard and beyond hold-overs with one simple .2mill adjustment for my load. Makes 500 yard shots child's play and the 5mph wind holdovers work extremely well. Wish it had 10 mph windage holds and was a tad lighter, but I can certainly make due!

 

[Primus]

How about one of the SB short dots? If your weight and dollar budget is that open, I seem to recall that there is a short dot with a SFP dot at 1x and another reticle type in FFP for the zoom.

Anyone have any experience with these? I've never seen one.

Yes they are still great optics just a little long in the tooth. Dual focal plan is what you are reffering to. All the non classic 1.1-4 shortdots have been a failure from what I remember. It was funny 5 years back watching the s&b dudes Fawn all over the uso 1-8, trying to figure out how they did it. The biggest limitation with the shortdot today are magnification and reticle (and price). It's hard to Shell out $2500 for one when you can get a ATACR for similar money. It's just a bad value considering the competition.

 

[Primus]

I don’t get the FFP argument. Most of the time you’re using a LVPO on max power so even if it’s a SFP optic the reticle can still be used making ranging estimate.

Expect you aren't. There are plenty of applications where you are in between. Think fov and pid.

 

[AZgeek]

Expect you aren't. There are plenty of applications where you are in between. Think fov and pid.

Yup. FOV is important if your tracking multiple targets. Coyotes in my case! FFP is nice in that the power level most comfortable for the task at hand need not be changed for accurate reticle holdovers. I generally use the full 8x on my rig for long range (past 300 yards) or target shooting.

 

[freedom71]

No love for the Minox ZP8?

 

[VegasHKShooter]

Let me jump in for just a second and talk about reticles and speed. Everyone has different ideas about what they like in reticle, but most all agree that they want one simple and fast. The argument is always between a red dot and a LPVO on the clock. Many folks say they are faster with a dot, and then they recommend a SFP scope. The reason folks have speed issues with a LPVO is a cluttered reticle and finding what they are supposed to shoot. Solution: FFP where at 1X the reticle is JUST A RED DOT. The exact same as an Aimpoint. There’s a reason the NX8 and the ATACR are too dogs and many aren’t seeing a time difference on the clock. A FFP scope like the two NF offerings allows a true daylight bright dot at 1X. It’s Aimpoint fast. Then, dial it to 6-8X and you have a BAD ASS, usable scope. I have carried and used these scopes since inception, I’ve had most of them at some point. FFP is THE RIGHT WAY. Largely due to its usability. Yes, many will use it at 1X or 6X-8X. That’s fine....but at 1X let it be a simple red dot, with nothing to confuse or distract your brain when you through up the optic.

I train LEO on LPVO, and we shoot from contact to 300-500yds. Guys running FFP are fast up close. It’s not that they have to train their eye, it’s that there is nothing else in the way.

 

[buskin]

No love for the Minox ZP8?

Or the Sig Tango6...

 

[Birddog6424]

Any experience with the durability of the Burris?

Yes, plenty...

I spent 2 years shooting 3 Gun with a pair of XTR II 1.5-8s.. I beat the absolute crap out of both of those scopes. I dished one of them off when the 1-8's came out. It was scratched and dinged up like crazy, I let it go dirt cheap to a buddy because it looked like hell.

I'm on 2 years now with a pair of 1-8's. Pretty much the same deal. These ones dont look quite as bad, but I'm not easy on them as again, they are both on 3 Gun rifles that get a lot of play time.

Never broke one. Never had one fail to perform.

I also know 4 or 5 guys running the same scope. Same deal. Nothing but good things to say about it.

I still have this one. It looks even worse in person

 

[steve123]

Another +1 for the Burris 1-8 XTR2 FFP.

I can see both sides of the SFP and FFP opinions but there have been occasions where I thought 1x was not enough(seeing details farther out) and the FOV at 8x was too small. It was nice not having to think about subtension values being off if SFP, so I'm glad I bought the FFP model instead.

I'm also glad I bought a 8x, vs 6x or 4x, because I shoot long range with my 15" AR and that extra 2x helps me see better.

 

[308pirate]

It all depends on the rifle's mission. For mine, a LPVO is no advantage and in some ways a hindrance. Yours may be different.

 

[AZgeek]

Another +1 for the Burris 1-8 XTR2 FFP.

I can see both sides of the SFP and FFP opinions but there have been occasions where I thought 1x was not enough(seeing details farther out) and the FOV at 8x was too small. It was nice not having to think about subtension values being off if SFP, so I'm glad I bought the FFP model instead.

I'm also glad I bought a 8x, vs 6x or 4x, because I shoot long range with my 15" AR and that extra 2x helps me see better.

I agree. That extra 2x makes a huge difference for some reason and justifies the FFP route IMHO.

 

[Amccallister]

I have a hard time understanding why someone who is advocating for a scope for “real world” applications is saying that the EO Tech Vudu is awesome (looking at you, Primus). It seems like a quality scope, but the exposed, non locking turrets are pretty terrible in my opinion. I have inadvertently adjusted my windage in the middle of a (gasp- completely irrelevant to the real world) 3 gun match with terrible results. I was super pissed, and would have likely been super dead if people were shooting back at me.
The Razor is awesome, the Kahles is even better. The ATACR 1-8 looks pretty legit too, but I haven’t been able to look through one yet. On a 1-6 I have no problem with 2nd focal plane, on a 1-8 or higher I would definitely prefer FFP.

 

[Powdermonkey4]

Have been looking at replacing my H2 for a little while now and have been going through the same LPVO dilemma. Finally managed to get my hands on both an ATACR and the Kahles in the last couple of days and to be honest either will do the job you want it to do.
I would have actually gone the ATACR just for 8x and FFP but the 34mm tube is stupidly big for the rifle in question so Kahles it is.

 

[AZgeek]

FYI. Some new reticles from PA on their 1-8 Platinum series:

That Raptor M2 is dam near perfect for my use.