-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
If the manufacturer was listening, what realistic thing would you change about your favorite optic?
- Thread starter Hoody2shoes
- Start date
Leupold CCH's reticle. Get rid of these triangles or at the MINIMUM the upper vertical one. It blocks my view when observing at lower magnifications.
Hensoldt SSG-P has all of that. They are pretty old, but were pretty cool for the time though
1) Tool-less turrets. No fucking grub/set screws.
2) Off with the 12oclock post of pretty much any reticle.
3) Level integrated into the scopes field of view. Electronic or bubble.
2) Off with the 12oclock post of pretty much any reticle.
3) Level integrated into the scopes field of view. Electronic or bubble.
A budget Trijicon ACOG line made in Japan with a diopter so we can all finally have some peace with both the poors and the old folk enough for them to both shut up finally.
“I would like a flavor that isn’t watermelon” “well they technically make one that tastes like literal shit”
Well if that's what it would take to appease the poors, penny pincher non poors acting like a poor, and the elderly or others with bad eyes from raging all over the internet about ACOG's and rather buy from muh china budget just as good? I'd be totally okay with that then. Let them have the POS things that they want so they can finally shut their sucks about it finally and leaving the rest of in peace to talk about and enjoying the things that they don't like.
I mean, my example case here is a 14.5" barreled 6.5 Grendel or 6mm Arc, the 4x acog has a ton of great advantages, but even if I wanted to use it on a rifle like that I can't *easily* because none of the BDCs even remotely match. A problem that a Milrad 4x would fix very nicely.
Just my opinion here but I think that cartridge deserves an LPVO and one of the finer ones, one of the lightweight ones like an ATACR or the March Super Shorty, even a Cred 1-6 for the ones on a budget constraints. Put it on a recce or a mine recce 12 or 12.5 with a reliable magazine that holds at least 20 rounds, not costlier than a 308 to purchase, and the do all AR15 cartridge would finally be here for the masses to enjoy.
so the reasoning behind the acog is that it is fine for the 700m limit of 6ARC/6.5G terminal ballistics when using a 14.5” barrel (non-nfa p&w). The cartridge can make hits further than that, but will lack the energy to initiate expansion of the bullets commonly used for non-target applications.
I wouldn't say it's my favorite, but the one I'm hung up on right now is the Leupold Mk 5HD 3.6-18. Just needs an illuminated PR2 reticle. I like that it's lighter than most other 3ish-to-18ish scopes I was considering but I just don't like any of the reticle options. Ended up ordering a Burris XTR III 3.3-18.
I really like my Razor Gen III 6-36. I wish the black ones were available when I bought mine, but I don't hate the brown enough to lose money swapping to a black one.
My Kahles K525i DLR is my favorite scope, and I don't know that I would change anything about it. Maybe a tool-less zero stop, but at least the Kahles has the little allen key in the illumination turret so you can easily keep it with you.
I really like my Razor Gen III 6-36. I wish the black ones were available when I bought mine, but I don't hate the brown enough to lose money swapping to a black one.
My Kahles K525i DLR is my favorite scope, and I don't know that I would change anything about it. Maybe a tool-less zero stop, but at least the Kahles has the little allen key in the illumination turret so you can easily keep it with you.
I’d like a Vortex Razor G2 1-6x weighting ~12oz. I’m tired of having a boat anchor sapping all the fun of my small light rifles. My choices are either >18oz + mount LVPOs or a Red + Magnifier combinations weighting >18oz. Both of these have different optical quirks but suck the same way in the weight department.
Last edited:
If NF brought back the OG F1 3.5-15 with mil-xt and/or T3, digilum, and an ocular that doesn’t rotate with magnification I’d buy 3 of them right now.
Trijicon VCOG with marked turrets.
Trijicon TA02 (battery powered AA one) with a mil grid reticle.
NF 2.5-10x32mm with an FFP and updated reticle like the Mil-DX or whatever.
Trijicon TA02 (battery powered AA one) with a mil grid reticle.
NF 2.5-10x32mm with an FFP and updated reticle like the Mil-DX or whatever.
I'll throw another thing into the ring. Optics with a throw lever to switch between two different zeroes, specifically for switching between supersonic and subsonic loads in rifle calibers.
There are currently a couple of options that allow that, but both are mind-numbingly expensive because of other features they have besides that capability. none of them are prism or LPVO types
There are currently a couple of options that allow that, but both are mind-numbingly expensive because of other features they have besides that capability. none of them are prism or LPVO types
It might be best to specify what type of optic is your “favorite” since there are a lot of responses that need segregation into:
Compact AR optics for Fighting Carbine/SPR dual-use
High Magnification Precision Rifle optics primarily used for competition and target-shooting at LR
Specialized optics
Precision Hunting Optics
My whole schtick is a hybrid of sorts. I want compactness with the performance more like a LR optic, but with durability and simplicity of something you can hunt with or throw around and not worry about unintended turret knob adjustments.
I like lightweight and compactness for AR-15s chambered in cartridges that actually reach out farther than .223 Rem, where you can still see your own impacts, with large FoV, clear glass, internals that can take semi-auto beatings, and useful reticles that are intuitive for trajectory.
For that type of optic, I actually prefer really low-profile turret caps, a stadia/tree reticle with a tiny center crosshair for zeroing, with a way for me to have a ballistic/BDC set of elevation bars and a Mil set of hashes off to the side, with wind hold hashes and pluses alternating.
I don’t like how uniform Mil grids are easy to get lost in when using your holds because there isn’t much to delineate each yardage line from the other.
I really like the way the later GRSC reticle is set up. I had some input on it with the Mil dots off to the sides of the tree, so you could reference your ballistic data and then know where your specific drops would be when at different density altitudes. Using the older version of it, I was able to make a 1st-round hit at 900yds on a 12” plate with a 12” barrel 6.5 Grendel shooting that cheap 110gr PPU fodder. I went 3 for 3 on 780yd steel prior to that. That scope is only a 1-6x gents, but it’s LOWA Japanese glass, built like a tank to take semi-auto abuse.
A 2-12x or 3-18x in a really compact form like the March 1-10 Shorty with these features would be pretty sick, but I also don’t want to lose eye relief and exit pupil. That’s a tall order to ask for.
Compact AR optics for Fighting Carbine/SPR dual-use
High Magnification Precision Rifle optics primarily used for competition and target-shooting at LR
Specialized optics
Precision Hunting Optics
My whole schtick is a hybrid of sorts. I want compactness with the performance more like a LR optic, but with durability and simplicity of something you can hunt with or throw around and not worry about unintended turret knob adjustments.
I like lightweight and compactness for AR-15s chambered in cartridges that actually reach out farther than .223 Rem, where you can still see your own impacts, with large FoV, clear glass, internals that can take semi-auto beatings, and useful reticles that are intuitive for trajectory.
For that type of optic, I actually prefer really low-profile turret caps, a stadia/tree reticle with a tiny center crosshair for zeroing, with a way for me to have a ballistic/BDC set of elevation bars and a Mil set of hashes off to the side, with wind hold hashes and pluses alternating.
I don’t like how uniform Mil grids are easy to get lost in when using your holds because there isn’t much to delineate each yardage line from the other.
I really like the way the later GRSC reticle is set up. I had some input on it with the Mil dots off to the sides of the tree, so you could reference your ballistic data and then know where your specific drops would be when at different density altitudes. Using the older version of it, I was able to make a 1st-round hit at 900yds on a 12” plate with a 12” barrel 6.5 Grendel shooting that cheap 110gr PPU fodder. I went 3 for 3 on 780yd steel prior to that. That scope is only a 1-6x gents, but it’s LOWA Japanese glass, built like a tank to take semi-auto abuse.
A 2-12x or 3-18x in a really compact form like the March 1-10 Shorty with these features would be pretty sick, but I also don’t want to lose eye relief and exit pupil. That’s a tall order to ask for.
Old thread but,
The numbers/markings on the elevation turret should be biggest and highest contrast combination possible. Would be a very low cost upgrade.
I also think internal, visable through the scope levels are a great idea and I don't know why they aren't more popular.
The numbers/markings on the elevation turret should be biggest and highest contrast combination possible. Would be a very low cost upgrade.
I also think internal, visable through the scope levels are a great idea and I don't know why they aren't more popular.
That's not a dumb question. Being able to dry fire indoors is a huge selling feature.
I have one on my Razor, love it. Kind of wish it was white writing on black and as mentioned in my earlier I wish it had come from the factory like that.
Also wish the fixed line for aligning the turret hashmarks was thicker than an eyelash and I am too much of a wimp to paint a thicker one on.
Last edited:
I am not sure where the original post is, so I am commenting here. I have the same questions (e.g, the different parallax ranges on the different ATACRs) and concerns (why not lower parallax on more scopes?). I have been wondering if lowering the parallax causes some sort of optical (or mechanical??) compromise, or possible inconvenience; referring to the latter, I mean having more and unnecessary numbers and throw distance on the knob to deal with. If it does none of these, why wouldn't a manufacturer lower the parallax to draw in the rimfire and airgun crowds, both which seem to be growing?
I typically do not buy scopes that do not have a ten- or eleven-yard parallax. This is nearly a non-negotiable.
And yes, I like to be able to shoot indoors and have only about thirty-five feet to work with. And there is a sufficient number of pests on my property that are so very close at times. Yes, I can usually get away with higher parallax adjustment with this last scenario, but this is not ideal.
I do get that those who only do long-range shooting might scoff at a ten-yard parallax concern. I am a short- and medium-range shooter, however. I would love to see, for example, the ZCO 4-20 with a ten-yard parallax. March typically is the best company for consistent ten-yard parallax--not always, but nearly so. F7
The problem with focusing a lens is that as the distances diminish, the depth of field diminishes and the amount of travel to focus increases. For instance, changing the focus from 500 yards to 1000 yards requires very little movement, whereas going from 100yards down to 10 yards requires much greater movement. Of course, gearing can be adjusted for that, but if the pitch is too coarse, it's more difficult to get a good focus at longer distances and if the pitch is too fine, there is a lot of travel in the focus at the shorter distances. You will have complaints whichever way you opt to go.
I do know that there are a lot of high-end air rifle competitors (field target) who use the high magnification March scopes (8-80X, for instance) and take advantage of the fine focus range close up. They install a big wheel on the side focus (I loathe calling it a parallax adjustment), they put a tape around the wheel, and note the setting for various distances. When the target is in perfect focus, they can read off the distance and aim accordingly.
It also allows me to check the scope settings indoors with a laser boresighter; very useful when you travel to matches.
I do know that there are a lot of high-end air rifle competitors (field target) who use the high magnification March scopes (8-80X, for instance) and take advantage of the fine focus range close up. They install a big wheel on the side focus (I loathe calling it a parallax adjustment), they put a tape around the wheel, and note the setting for various distances. When the target is in perfect focus, they can read off the distance and aim accordingly.
It also allows me to check the scope settings indoors with a laser boresighter; very useful when you travel to matches.
Okay, as I read you, I was in the ballpark with my suspicion that knob travel, etc.,. had something to do with it. I figured there had to be a reason.
Thank you for elucidating the matter.
Now, one question remains: Precisely why does the NF ATACR 5-25 have a 45-yard parallax and the 7-35 an 11-yard one? I presume there are different purposes or disciplines intended for each scope?
For the record, I am quite new to scopes and all this stuff. And I do not compete, etc., where experience would assist my learning curve. I have learned a good deal over the last year or so, but my understanding still has gaps. Thanks. F7
Edit: The elevation travel of the 5-25 is greater than that of the 7-35, but the FOV numbers seem commensurate with the respective magnification ranges. I am trying to see what specs I can (possibly) infer from. And I am not trying to give you a part-time job, here.
Being newer to optics if you are interested in some of the optics design trade offs check out this playlist by our own @koshkin
Ah. I am watching a video and only now see the list. Thanks.
I like the hold-under dots. I agree with cutting the ring thickness for sure. Take care.
I do wish my Kahles 525i DLR had a half mil hold on the reticles windage. Other than that I feel like every major scope putting out optics for folks shooting PRS could have an option for a white elevation turret like Burris has. I have the white vinyl turret labels on all my PRS scopes, but it would be nice to see the premium brands offer a stock option.
Non-illuminated I feel might be a trap for the manufacturer though. most of them design the reticle assembly with the illumination built in these days, so taking it out isn't as simple as older scopes. plus it leads to SKU bloat. So a fractional cost savings for the consumer, but a lot of extra overhead in manufacturing.
Standard accessories s a good one though, and I'll even throw another thing in: Standardized threads on Objective and Ocular for a given outer diameter. That way more accessories like sunshades, ARDs, hard lens caps, filters, clip-on mounts, etc would be compatible across a wide range of optics instead of very model-specific.
Here's a strange request in today's world.
Back off on the mag ranges so you don't have to compromise on so many factors.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd rather have a bomb 4x erector than a 6x or 7x erector that makes for compromise on clarity issues, focus issues, worse tunneling, fisheye, etc...
Back off on the mag ranges so you don't have to compromise on so many factors.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd rather have a bomb 4x erector than a 6x or 7x erector that makes for compromise on clarity issues, focus issues, worse tunneling, fisheye, etc...
its funny, the actual manufacturer doing that is Sig. I recently got a Canyon 4 scope because of the free K2800 LRF deal, and I was actually genuinely impressed with it for a lower-priced SFP hunting optic, to the point I might actually use it on one of my hunting rifles instead of a 22mag plinker like I planned.
They've been completely off my radar. There's just been so much inconsistency in their recent QC since all of their Mil contracts.
But at that price, I'll be checking them out.
I tend to agree.
A well executed 4x is really not giving up much to a 5x or 6x, especially if you get awesome optical performance (FOV, forgiving eyebox, DOF, correctly sized reticle, clarity and resolution).
I think 3x might be a bit too much of a step backwards, but I could be convinced otherwise if it were either cheaper or lightweight and amazing optical performance.
