I’ve got a SWFA SS 2.5-10 ultralight finally on the way after about 4 months on back order. Hoping to test out this weekend for a similar role you’re describing. Can let you know how it works with an offset RMR. Not expecting glass to be spectacular but hoping it’s good enough for shots with my 11.5 out to 600.
I am curious how this goes!
1. That seekins above with magnifying + red dot + offset irons: dude, leave some pussy for the rest of us...
2. I am a big SWFA fan; however, the 2.5-10 is a "get what you pay for" scenario, if you got it on sale. I got one years ago and it sits in a bin now because any light shining into the optic and it goes complete white-out. In certain situations, it works fine; but for anything in the real world (not on a range), no chance in hell that is going on my gun.
3. If you can get the Razer 1-10 for $2k, from that list, that'd be my choice almost every time - for the stated gun and purposes.
2. Good to know. I'm curious if smcfarland has the same issue or if yours was maybe a bit of a dud?
C_Does also has a pretty negative review on the credo 2-10 fwiw. Also take scope reviews with a grain of salt since optics are so personal. The razor 1-10 is alot better than alot of its haters give it credit for. The 1x and 10x are still very respectable, they just aren't as good as other premium optics out there but there's not many other optics that give 1-10 magnification.
I'd really narrow down what you're doing with the scope. If you don't need a 1x and intend for all your close range work to be done with the piggyback, then go for the 2-10's. I personally strongly prefer a 1x scope over a piggyback red dot but I know others seem to not have issues with the piggyback. And for 600 yards on torso sized targets it's pretty easy even with a 1-6, but if you're trying to shoot or identify smaller targets then obviously more magnification and an adj parallax is going to be very useful. Alot of people are going to have differing opinions on the goldilocks amount of magnification depending on the type of shooting you're doing and where you live.
I've watched both of his reviews on the Credo. He seemed much happier with the second one than the first one that he sent back. I just wish I had somewhere to go that had all of these for me to compare them myself, but I just don't live in an area that is particularly conducive to large ranges of stock on stuff.
I've never used a piggyback, so this is all a bit of an experiment tbh. Just trying to bump my odds to get a setup I like. One definitive advantage that all 2-10s are going to have is the larger objective lens doing a better job at gathering light to allow for use in darker conditions. The importance of parallax is a bit of an unknown for me as I've only ever owned one other scope with the adjustment being available.
As far as longer distance stuff, I really just want to have good enough glass to be able to know what I am shooting at out at 600 yds. I know you can make accurate enough shots at that distance with far lower magnification.
This video was a pretty interesting one:
In it, it looks like the GLX and the GEN3 are actually rather close in glass, but the brighter image on the GLX make it potentially more useful for information gathering at distance.
Throw a bit more cash into that pot and just get the March 1.5-15, it is absolute titties! Isn't as fast as a red dot, but is plenty fast for any application not CQB.
Nightforce 2-10 is a great optic not on your list.
Oh man, I wish that one of those March scopes was only a "little more". I like them a lot, but they just aren't in the cards based on cost.
NF NXS 2-10 is SFP and the NX8s are just too heavy.
I have two PLxC 1-8x24 scopes and two Razor Gen3 1-10x24 scopes. For your use, one of these would be my choice depending on how much money you want to spend.
On C-Does review of the 1-10x: he either neglected to adjust the eyepiece to match the camera or intentionally screwed up the eyepiece to make it look like shit. It is pretty easy to do. It is possible that he got a bad one, but I have two of them and have had a chance to look at a few dozen Gen3 scopes side-by-side. It is fashionable to crap all over Vortex to get views. Gen3 scopes are fairly consistent, but with all LPVOs you do have to set up the eyepiece correctly for your eye or for the camera. That is usually not the same eyepiece setting.
Now, I have seen people whose eyes do not agree with the diffractive reticle. For them PLxC is a better choice.
GLx 2.5-10x44 is a very respectable scope and if you do not need 1x and want to save some money, it is a good option, as is the credo. Credo reticle is not ideal for 2x, but it is serviceable on higher mags.
It is a little heavier, but SwampFox Warhawk 2.5-10x44 with Recce Mil reticle is worth a look as well. It is surprisingly decent and if you are using reticle only, the turrets lock.
ILya
Have you ever done a direct comparison between the PLxC and the GEN3? I checked your YT and didn't see one. I need to watch the individual videos though. Could you summarize your opinion between the two though? I know the PLxC is 20%-ish lighter and has the ACSS reticle which seems nice for use without lume. Idk how long the GEN3 lume lasts, but IIRC, it doesn't have the battery-saving auto on/off like the PLxC does either... LOTS of thoughts.
Sorry, can you please explain the highlighted part? I'll watch your video on reticle illumination at some point, but a TLDR would be greatly appreciated.
Right, the reticle, parallax adjustment, turrets, and price are what set the GLx apart from the Credo for me. I certainly like the idea of Trijicon over a GLx, but, ultimately,
.
I appreciate the recommendation for the Warhawk, but it's pretty heavy, like you said. I would also like to keep out of china-made optics if I can help it. (Holosun is kind of the exception because I just can't stomach Trijicon dots for what they ACTUALLY bring to the table in comparison).
He posted a second video, he sent the lackluster one back and they replaced it.
Yep, and he seemed to like the replacement quite a lot better.
And here is a very positive review of the Credo 2-10X36:
watch
Yep, I watched the B&H reviews for the Credo and the GLx. They were really the only reason I was still considering the Credo at this point. I can certainly appreciate the counterpoint to adjustable parallax being that the Credo is faster to engage, but you can also just leave the GLx in whatever setting is near the average expected range. I know he ran into issues with the locking elevation turret, but I am looking at the SCRS rather than a full-sized dot.
the only thing i have to add is this…
i have a couple leupolds: vx6hd 1-6x on a 16” and a vx5hd 2-10x on an 18”
for a walk around carbine i think i prefer the 1-6 because of the 1x. with a 50yd zero i can shoot to 250 easy on 1x and still get to 400 zoomed in. thats about my max range for these weapons.
on the 2-10 i use xs big dot offset for up close. they work inside of 50 yds well enough.
Any chance you've been able to use a piggyback to compare to the scope's 1X?
In my research it seemed that the majority view was that parallax was not a big issue in the 2-10 magnification range. I own other Trijicon scopes and I have been impressed with their quality considering the price range they are in. Price, build quality, weight were all factors I considered. I thought about the NF NXS 2.5-10, but like you I wanted a FFP scope. The Leupold Mk5HD 2-10 was another consideration but it was twice the price and required a new set of rings (35mm). I am happy with the glass and the scope in general. I am sure there are better scopes out there, but as I said before, for the money it is hard to beat.
Sorry, are you running the Credo? You pretty much hit the nail on the head for the NXS and Mk5 for me, besides the reticle on the Mk5 not being a favorite of mine.
