Rifle Scopes Is there a market for a good MPVO

[Glassaholic]

Okay, we are just over two weeks into the poll and at 185 total votes; however, with 30 some more votes than last week, we went from 42.2% to 41.6%, so rounding shows we are staying at a steady 42% for the 2-12x42. Hopefully this gives manufacturers something meaningful to chew on and consider. The next higher percentage below is from the "I don't care" crowd who just want something with a better reticle in a FFP scope - something that works well at bottom magnification and at top and the third highest percentage is what I would call a hybrid between a crossover and an MPVO with the 2.5-15x44. Unfortunately, it takes at least a couple years to flush out a design, what we need is a good LOW 2-12x42 design that other manufacturers can OEM and put in their reticles (reticles designed for MPVO/crossover) and their turrets (lower profile).

 

[WyoChance]

But for my money, I’ll take a dual focal plane 3-18 with exposed locking turrets, a Christmas tree reticle, and 1/2 and 1/4 mil hashes because the human brain intuitively does halves and halves of halves better than decimals. And, give it an illuminated donut of death.

You know what, build in provisions for a RDS, like the ACOG does. And, rings are for losers. Build it with an integrated mount so we can have a few less “I don’t know how to level my scope” threads. And, include a good set of flip up scope caps. Those plastic and shock cord things are hot garbage.

As I was reading through this thread I was thinking about exactly what I want, something that Ive been thinking about for a long time and searching for.

This very nearly nails it with one more provision, light, or at least not boat anchor heavy. Under 30 Oz if it includes a mount would be a bare minimum. Optics like the VCOG (32 Oz) and the T6Xi 3-18 (34.4 no mount) all strike me as far to heavy for a small frame gas gun, especially when optics like the Marchs 1-10 and 1.5-15 come in at 20-25 oz and the Mark 5 3.6-18 are 26 oz. I really wanna like the LHT at 22ish oz but that may be a good example of too many compromises for the sake of weight.

The March 1.5-15 dfp comes so close to what I want but the 10x erector ruins it for me. If it were a 3-15 or 2.5-16, wide angle eyepiece, shurkin turrets, DFP, I suspect it would be a slam dunk at 25 oz and change. I think March may be in the best position to provide the optic we all want. They just needa get over the 8x/10x erector as their main marketing/selling point. I only have extensive experience shooting in unconventional positions with 2 high erector optics and I despise both the 1-10 Razor and 1-8 VCOG so I may be unfairly biased.

I'm more then happy to give up extreme magnification range and I little off the bottom and off the top to have better glass and a usable eyebox. Im really not even sold on 6x. For example Id prefer 4-20 or 3-15 with, all things being equal, better eye box and optical performance, over a 3-18. Of course if I can get a 6x thats as good as a a 5x of course Ill take it, but assuming these optics are paired with an offset dot, going up to 4x with good FOV is no issue for me. Im unlikely to fire through my main optic inside 100 yards, and especially 50, and have shot enough with piggyback dot for it to be natural, far more so then changing my magnification.

To be clear, with an MPVOs the low end range isnt all that important the difference in 2x and 4x matters little to me, what does matter is FOV. 35+ ft @100 yards (ACOG Like) is where I start to be happy, regardless of the bottom end.

A lot of this is theory as personally owned longer range rifles are currently equipped with an ACOG/RMR, 2.5-10 PST Gen 1 FFP/RMR (10 years and time for an upgrade) and S&B 5-25.
Perhaps the March 1.5-15 would be forgiving enough with adequate optical performance. From what @Glassaholic has said the March 4.5-24 could be what I need.
Maybe I should get over the weight issue but my current optic stack on my go to rifle is under 25oz and on my GPR its only 16oz. The setup I'm looking at for mount and dot is gonna be 8-12oz, and if I'm not carful I could easily end up with a 3+ pound optic setup...

My priorities in order:
Glass quality
Easy/comfortable to get behind
Good FOV at low mag
Mil based tree with decent ilm (DFB would be cool)
Lightweight (as close to 18oz without compromised reliability)
Low profile turrets
Not 5k+ (S&B)
Nothing weird or goofy... (unlocked/easily bumped turrets, stiff controls, finicky parallax, rotating ocular (night force), tall turrets, push button illumination controls (vortex LHT), non standard batteries (Stiener)

Edit before someone says it, the TT315 is about what I'm describing but does have 6 mil turrets (goofy) and is really starting to push it in the cost department.

 

[Red_SC]

I have scope with nuclear illumination like the NX8 1-8. More important to me is one that will go LOW enough. Many are too bright on the lowest setting, and wash out the target in low light.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

I have scope with nuclear illumination like the NX8 1-8. More important to me is one that will go LOW enough. Many are too bright on the lowest setting, and wash out the target in low light.

This.

 

[hlee]

Yeah, that’s what the “0” position on the illumination is for.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Yeah, that’s what the “0” position on the illumination is for.

? Not even close.

 

[hlee]

? Not even close.

Maybe I should have use a smiley emoji. Regardless, this thread is only good for the lols at this point. The answer is still “Yeah, but likely no. And, if there is, no one will agree on what or where it is.”

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

I can’t even remember what this thread was about. But I have had two scopes that when you needed a small amount of illumination at the very end of shooting light just to see the reticle, the lowest setting would blow out the image and ruin my night vision.

 

[hlee]

I can’t even remember what this thread was about. But I have had two scopes that when you needed a small amount of illumination at the very end of shooting light just to see the reticle, the lowest setting would blow out the image and ruin my night vision.

If I can’t see the reticle or the target, and the light from an illuminated reticle is ruining my night vision, it’s past legal shooting light…

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

Legal shooting time is questionable around here I wish I could see my MSR2 on 3x on my T6Xi when I hunt, especially early or late. It all but disappears against the forest backdrop. But thank goodness the illumination goes very dim which makes it usable. It’s probably the second best thing they did right and something I now look for when choosing a scope. Anyway, just my two cents on illumination.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Legal shooting time is questionable around here I wish I could see my MSR2 on 3x on my T6Xi when I hunt, especially early or late. It all but disappears against the forest backdrop. But thank goodness the illumination goes very dim which makes it usable. It’s probably the second best thing they did right and something I now look for when choosing a scope. Anyway, just my two cents on illumination.

Agreed. I wish it would go brighter on the top setting, though.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

100 percent. It’s really my only complaint.

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

I'm a huge proponent of the MPVO for the types of shooting I do. When getting in to NV I put a dot on everything. After a lot of experimenting to get the ideal offset dot position, the dot came to eclipse the 1x on my LPVO. A red dot is far superior to the best 1X scope for a number of reasons:
-unlimited eye relief and basically unlimited eyebox are a massive benefit for dynamic shooting
-daylight bright battery life measured in years, not in weeks
-ergos for passive aiming become identical to daytime shooting, no new muscle memory to train

That led me to see what it would be like to just forego the LPVO and find an MPVO to replace it. That means the MPVO needed to not add significant weight over the LPVO (at least not enough to change the balance/handling of the weapon significantly), and needed to have a good fast reticle at lowest mag when I need to take offhand shots with more precision than an offset dot gives.
I went through a fair number of options, and by far the most successful has been the (unfortunately recently discontinued) PA GlX 2.5-10. The big ass chevron is the only thing that enables good times for quick offhand shots, every other reticle I've tried has been a let down in this area. The chevron sucks for long range work but to overcome that I simply use the tree and do not dial. If I need a precise aiming point for zeroing or shooting paper I dial 1mil down and use the -1mil line as my aiming point. What really makes this scope work is the light weight (22.5oz) and a reticle design that is truly usable at both 2.5x and 10x.
This scope is not all puppies and rainbows, the turret lock/zero design is dogshit and the 10x top end is still a bit limiting, and I have some minor gripes on the reticle. But overall it is the best I have tried.
One scope I had high hopes for but ended up getting rid of was the much praised Helos 2-12. The Helos just wasn't nearly as fast/precise on 2x as the GlX was on 2.5x. On top of that it weighed 4oz more, and those two things together made its admittedly better high end and turret design not worth the sacrifice compared to the GlX. At 26oz I would rather lug a couple more oz around and get a 3-18. I have the Meopta6 3-18 with Ilya's Mrad reticle, and that optic is at least as fast as the Helos while being massively more capable for real precision work... it has found a home on my .308 Revolution where I feel it is perfect.

All of that is to say that to me the mag range is really not that important. The reticle design and weight are massively more important. And given that a wider mag range tends to add weight, I would prefer to sacrifice that and stay with a 2.5-10 or 3-12, if I can get a durable lightweight scope with a great reticle on the low and high end.
Unfortunately the reticle is where virtually every company shits the bed here. The h6xi could be great... but the reticle is trash for anywhere near 2x. I also want to note that I don't care about the illumination on the reticle very much... my dot stays illuminated and I don't need to worry about battery life, I want a reticle that I can see in complex dark environments with no illumination.
The other area where companies shit the bed is by trying to add too many features and ending up with something that is a crossover or HPVO due to its weight, but totally disqualified as an MPVO. The new PA 2.5-20 is a great example of this. I had huge hopes when I heard the announcement, but when I saw that it is a 34mm tube and weights the same as my Meopta.... all my interest was lost. I would rather pay 1/2 as much and buy another Optika6. I'll have a less optically compromised optic with the 6x vs 8x erector, which will probably perform nearly as good at the top end while having a far better reticle for the low end, for the exact same wieght. My guess is they will find some way to shit up the next gen 2.5-10 as well.

And for those who say 'why not just use a 1-10 lpvo' sorry the performance is not there. The compromises to get a 10x mag range in a compact optic are just too much. Shooting my glx 2.5-10 next to my friends Vudu 1-10 for long range steel banging, the glx shits all over it. The eyebox is massively more forgiving and once parallax is adjusted it is significantly easier to resolve tough targets. And I have a proper elevation turret for dialing. I think its fair to say the Vudu is one of the better LPVO's for long range work on the market.
On top of that shooting drills with my glx at 2.5 vs the Vudu at 1x, I get about the same times and accuracy, since the GlX reticle is faster to pick up and the Vudu is not daylight bright. Both have way worse scores than when I use my offset dot on drills.

 

[Glassaholic]

I'm a huge proponent of the MPVO for the types of shooting I do. When getting in to NV I put a dot on everything. After a lot of experimenting to get the ideal offset dot position, the dot came to eclipse the 1x on my LPVO. A red dot is far superior to the best 1X scope for a number of reasons:
-unlimited eye relief and basically unlimited eyebox are a massive benefit for dynamic shooting
-daylight bright battery life measured in years, not in weeks
-ergos for passive aiming become identical to daytime shooting, no new muscle memory to train

That led me to see what it would be like to just forego the LPVO and find an MPVO to replace it. That means the MPVO needed to not add significant weight over the LPVO (at least not enough to change the balance/handling of the weapon significantly), and needed to have a good fast reticle at lowest mag when I need to take offhand shots with more precision than an offset dot gives.
I went through a fair number of options, and by far the most successful has been the (unfortunately recently discontinued) PA GlX 2.5-10. The big ass chevron is the only thing that enables good times for quick offhand shots, every other reticle I've tried has been a let down in this area. The chevron sucks for long range work but to overcome that I simply use the tree and do not dial. If I need a precise aiming point for zeroing or shooting paper I dial 1mil down and use the -1mil line as my aiming point. What really makes this scope work is the light weight (22.5oz) and a reticle design that is truly usable at both 2.5x and 10x.
This scope is not all puppies and rainbows, the turret lock/zero design is dogshit and the 10x top end is still a bit limiting, and I have some minor gripes on the reticle. But overall it is the best I have tried.
One scope I had high hopes for but ended up getting rid of was the much praised Helos 2-12. The Helos just wasn't nearly as fast/precise on 2x as the GlX was on 2.5x. On top of that it weighed 4oz more, and those two things together made its admittedly better high end and turret design not worth the sacrifice compared to the GlX. At 26oz I would rather lug a couple more oz around and get a 3-18. I have the Meopta6 3-18 with Ilya's Mrad reticle, and that optic is at least as fast as the Helos while being massively more capable for real precision work... it has found a home on my .308 Revolution where I feel it is perfect.

All of that is to say that to me the mag range is really not that important. The reticle design and weight are massively more important. And given that a wider mag range tends to add weight, I would prefer to sacrifice that and stay with a 2.5-10 or 3-12, if I can get a durable lightweight scope with a great reticle on the low and high end.
Unfortunately the reticle is where virtually every company shits the bed here. The h6xi could be great... but the reticle is trash for anywhere near 2x. I also want to note that I don't care about the illumination on the reticle very much... my dot stays illuminated and I don't need to worry about battery life, I want a reticle that I can see in complex dark environments with no illumination.
The other area where companies shit the bed is by trying to add too many features and ending up with something that is a crossover or HPVO due to its weight, but totally disqualified as an MPVO. The new PA 2.5-20 is a great example of this. I had huge hopes when I heard the announcement, but when I saw that it is a 34mm tube and weights the same as my Meopta.... all my interest was lost. I would rather pay 1/2 as much and buy another Optika6. I'll have a less optically compromised optic with the 6x vs 8x erector, which will probably perform nearly as good at the top end while having a far better reticle for the low end, for the exact same wieght. My guess is they will find some way to shit up the next gen 2.5-10 as well.

And for those who say 'why not just use a 1-10 lpvo' sorry the performance is not there. The compromises to get a 10x mag range in a compact optic are just too much. Shooting my glx 2.5-10 next to my friends Vudu 1-10 for long range steel banging, the glx shits all over it. The eyebox is massively more forgiving and once parallax is adjusted it is significantly easier to resolve tough targets. And I have a proper elevation turret for dialing. I think its fair to say the Vudu is one of the better LPVO's for long range work on the market.
On top of that shooting drills with my glx at 2.5 vs the Vudu at 1x, I get about the same times and accuracy, since the GlX reticle is faster to pick up and the Vudu is not daylight bright. Both have way worse scores than when I use my offset dot on drills.

I hear you Timmy! It is frustrating to see some get close but miss the mark in other areas. I think what we’re seeing is manufacturers afraid to take the step with the reticle. Like you mentioned, the best opportunity on the market today for a decently priced MPVO is likely the Steiner H6Xi 2-12x42, but they missed it on the usability at 2x.

What gets me is reticle is one of the easiest things to change in a scope, yes, a manufacturer has to commit to a design and has to order a minimum amount but in the end its a laser etching on some glass.

Chatter has been high on the GLx 2.5-10 you mentioned and the Athlon 2-12, but you’re right with the Athlon being a bit chonky. H6Xi got it right… but like you, I have no desire because the reticle is not usable at 2x.

For those of us who’ve been around long enough, we remember a little company called Premier Reticles who made a very successful business custom designing reticles for Leupold's scopes among others. We need something like this again! Of course no mfr will honor warranty but maybe thats fine.

Someone posted earlier in the thread the Tremor8 reticle and while I generally can’t stand Horus reticles the Tremor8 is a great design for an MPVO, I would be happy to pay the Horus up charge if Steiner would put this in the H6Xi

Like you, I was really hoping PA would come out with a better design to the GLx 2.5-10 and while the PLxc 2.5-20 is interesting it is not a replacement and certainly not an MPVO even though mag range goes down to 2.5x due to the weight, I think the NF NX8 2.5-20 is better suited due to a bit lighter weight.

For some reason most manufacturers think massive erectors sell (and maybe they’re right to a point) and thats the low hanging fruit everyone wants.

 

[smcfarland]

I think the easy takeaway from all of this is that the Athlon 2-12 is the standard, or “best in class” option. If you want my money, prove/justify why your new product is better than it. Less weight, better reticle, better glass, better turrets, etc…. Show me why. If not, or no significant price savings, don’t waste my time. Anyone looking to get into this style of optic would likely benefit from trying it first. Easy proof of concept for the cash outlay, especially if getting on sale or using Expert Voice. Wise man told me decades ago that perfection is the enemy of good enough.

 

[Eyesquared]

I hear you Timmy! It is frustrating to see some get close but miss the mark in other areas. I think what we’re seeing is manufacturers afraid to take the step with the reticle. Like you mentioned, the best opportunity on the market today for a decently priced MPVO is likely the Steiner H6Xi 2-12x42, but they missed it on the usability at 2x.

What gets me is reticle is one of the easiest things to change in a scope, yes, a manufacturer has to commit to a design and has to order a minimum amount but in the end its a laser etching on some glass.

Chatter has been high on the GLx 2.5-10 you mentioned and the Athlon 2-12, but you’re right with the Athlon being a bit chonky. H6Xi got it right… but like you, I have no desire because the reticle is not usable at 2x.

For those of us who’ve been around long enough, we remember a little company called Premier Reticles who made a very successful business custom designing reticles for Leupold's scopes among others. We need something like this again! Of course no mfr will honor warranty but maybe thats fine.

Someone posted earlier in the thread the Tremor8 reticle and while I generally can’t stand Horus reticles the Tremor8 is a great design for an MPVO, I would be happy to pay the Horus up charge if Steiner would put this in the H6Xi

Like you, I was really hoping PA would come out with a better design to the GLx 2.5-10 and while the PLxc 2.5-20 is interesting it is not a replacement and certainly not an MPVO even though mag range goes down to 2.5x due to the weight, I think the NF NX8 2.5-20 is better suited due to a bit lighter weight.

For some reason most manufacturers think massive erectors sell (and maybe they’re right to a point) and thats the low hanging fruit everyone wants.

Not sure if you've seen the Tremor7 or Tremor9 reticles. I think I would really like a Tremor9 in a 3-15, 4-16, 2.5-20 etc. for an AR15 or other gas gun.

 

[01911]

I think the easy takeaway from all of this is that the Athlon 2-12 is the standard,

Is the top turret too tall on the 2-12 Helos to properly see the RMR atop the front ring?
How about with the GLX 2.5-10 or the Mark 4HD 2.5-10 ?
TY

 

[ma smith]

Leupy mk 4 uses same low-profile turret design as on the baby ATACR, so it should be GTG for RDS usage.

 

[01911]

Leupy mk 4 uses same low-profile turret design as on the baby ATACR, so it should be GTG for RDS usage.

I’ve seen videos on the Helos and GLX and on either there seems to be no chance of a tube mounted RMR being seen over those very tall turrets.
That C_Does YT guy is downright giddy over the Mark 4HD and he doesn’t seem to have a compensated relationship with Leupold and I’ve never seen him so head over heels on any optic before so I’m thinking the non illuminated moa version for potential < 300 yards precision work ( not gonna need a side focus on a suppressed 5.56 SBR regardless ). I don’t much like any of the 4HD reticles but I only need Illumination on my RMR and if I have time to aim small then I want thin lines and the PR1-MOA at least offers that.

 

[smcfarland]

Is the top turret too tall on the 2-12 Helos to properly see the RMR atop the front ring?
How about with the GLX 2.5-10 or the Mark 4HD 2.5-10 ?
TY

Reptilia mount with their riser clears the turret.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

I know this thread is a bit old, but in my search for an MPVO for my SPR-ish build I came here looking for options. Saw nothing new, but YouTube shorts may have just helped out. Saw a review for the Vector Optics Continental 2-12x44.

27oz, 34mm tube, tree reticle with clear design intent to be used at both 2 and 12, .15 mil (.52 MOA) floating dot with tree and circle plus 65 Mil (224 MOA) outer ring that disappears as you increase mag (similar to the VCOG). Two slightly different reticles, but both look very much like what most people seem to be looking for in an AR MPVO setup. Also, the price isn't bad to just try out. Wouldn't expect Alpha glass, but looks like the closest win we have right now next to the Athlon Helios. If someone gets to try it, report back. Would love to get one, but have a could other life experiences that came up recently... Damn hail and blown out truck strut.

 

[mattc51]

I would have bought one to try but the damn 34mm tube and no weight savings over my Viper 2-10 gen 2 already. Plus the cost of a new mount since I can't use the old one. Have been watching for a 2-10/12 with good field of view, lower profile locking turrets, and decent weight savings for a while with not much luck. Closest I got was a GPO 1.5-9x44 since it is the only option they have with a simple MIL reticle.

 

[CuddlyCat]

I know this thread is a bit of, but in my search for an MPVO for my SPR-ish build I came here looking for options. Saw nothing new, but YouTube shorts may have just helped out. Saw a review for the Vector Optics Continental 2-12x44.

27oz, 34mm tube, tree reticle with clear design intent to be used at both 2 and 12, .15 mil (.52 MOA) floating dot with tree and circle plus 65 Mil (224 MOA) outer ring that disappears as you increase mag (similar to the VCOG). Two slightly different reticles, but both look very much like what most people seem to be looking for in an AR MPVO setup. Also, the price isn't bad to just try out. Wouldn't expect Alpha glass, but looks like the closest win we have right now next to the Athlon Helios. If someone gets to try it, report back. Would love to get one, but have a could other life experiences that came up recently... Damn hail and blown out truck strut.

I bought one of these for my son since he's still learning how to take care of his things and with a coupon code it was only $400 and some change. I hate to say this because it makes me feel like a hypocrite, but at first blush I really can't find much wrong with this thing. It hasn't been subjected to a big caliber or an aggressive firing schedule, but it has been knocked around by a 10 year old on the back of an ATV for what that's worth. It seems to be mechanically stout, the turrets obviously aren't TT quality but they aren't any worse than some of my leupolds. Tracking seems to be holding true so far but he's learning to shoot with holdovers so it hasn't been dialed a ton, and I don't know if we just got a great example and their QC lets out an equal or greater number of stinkers, but *based on my limited experience so far* if someone slapped a steiner label on this and charged $1500 I wouldn't have been the wiser. I'm genuinely curious to see how it holds up in the long term but initial impressions are wildly better than what I anticipated.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

I bought one of these for my son since he's still learning how to take care of his things and with a coupon code it was only $400 and some change. I hate to say this because it makes me feel like a hypocrite, but at first blush I really can't find much wrong with this thing. It hasn't been subjected to a big caliber or an aggressive firing schedule, but it has been knocked around by a 10 year old on the back of an ATV for what that's worth. It seems to be mechanically stout, the turrets obviously aren't TT quality but they aren't any worse than some of my leupolds. Tracking seems to be holding true so far but he's learning to shoot with holdovers so it hasn't been dialed a ton, and I don't know if we just got a great example and their QC lets out an equal or greater number of stinkers, but *based on my limited experience so far* if someone slapped a steiner label on this and charged $1500 I wouldn't have been the wiser. I'm genuinely curious to see how it holds up in the long term but initial impressions are wildly better than what I anticipated.

That's good to hear, and seems to be reflective of what little I've found from other reviews on it. Hopefully I'll be able to snag one soon and try it out before it starts to get more expensive.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

I know this thread is a bit old, but in my search for an MPVO for my SPR-ish build I came here looking for options. Saw nothing new, but YouTube shorts may have just helped out. Saw a review for the Vector Optics Continental 2-12x44.

27oz, 34mm tube, tree reticle with clear design intent to be used at both 2 and 12, .15 mil (.52 MOA) floating dot with tree and circle plus 65 Mil (224 MOA) outer ring that disappears as you increase mag (similar to the VCOG). Two slightly different reticles, but both look very much like what most people seem to be looking for in an AR MPVO setup. Also, the price isn't bad to just try out. Wouldn't expect Alpha glass, but looks like the closest win we have right now next to the Athlon Helios. If someone gets to try it, report back. Would love to get one, but have a could other life experiences that came up recently... Damn hail and blown out truck strut.

Another option for a MPVO with a useable reticle at minimum power is the Riton Conqueror 7 3-18x50 with the T3 reticle. It has a fairly large center dot and reticle stadia lines that subtend 0.2 mils. The scope has a lot going for it. Crisp turrets with a hard zero stop at 0 (no dialing under 0), very bright (perhaps nuclear bright) illumination, nice IQ, 1/4 mils hash marks on the vertical and horizontal stadia lines, and smooth and solid controls. However it’s got some edge distortion at 3x that disappears around 4.5x, has non-locking turrets, and it’s not lightweight. A locking windage would be ideal for my uses.

I have one in my safe for that I swap out a 5-25 ZP5 with on my crossover rifle to use in the late fall and winter when hunting. It’s about perfect in the 0-400 yards visibility areas I hunt due to the bold reticle.

 

[DeaconBlue]

I know this thread is a bit old, but in my search for an MPVO for my SPR-ish build I came here looking for options. Saw nothing new, but YouTube shorts may have just helped out. Saw a review for the Vector Optics Continental 2-12x44.

27oz, 34mm tube, tree reticle with clear design intent to be used at both 2 and 12, .15 mil (.52 MOA) floating dot with tree and circle plus 65 Mil (224 MOA) outer ring that disappears as you increase mag (similar to the VCOG). Two slightly different reticles, but both look very much like what most people seem to be looking for in an AR MPVO setup. Also, the price isn't bad to just try out. Wouldn't expect Alpha glass, but looks like the closest win we have right now next to the Athlon Helios. If someone gets to try it, report back. Would love to get one, but have a could other life experiences that came up recently... Damn hail and blown out truck strut.

Probably 9-10 months ago I was looking hard at the Athlon 2-12 for a certain rifle but that 1 moa center dot kept turning me off. Waited for SHOT to see if they were gonna release a new reticle…nope. The Vector was intriguing due to length and reticle, but I never saw the thing for less than $600 and couldn’t get over how most of their stuff is Airsoft tier and just had doubts of it holding up.

I ended up going with a Sig Tango DMR 3-18x44 largely because although about twice the cost, with a 34mm tube is only 12” and 25oz. Different style reticle of course having more zooms. Using an offset dot with it so 2 vs 3x didn’t really matter.

 

[Asiparks]

I've 2 scopes on order, both will get piggy backed dots.
One's the Steiner H6xi 2-12 . It checks a lot of boxes, price is reasonable and I like Steiner turret system, I can't imagine ever having it set below 6 or 8X so I'm choosing to not worry about usability at 2X.
The other is the Vector Optics Continental 2-12x44,same as llamas mentioned, because it's very inexpensive and their 5-30X56 and 6-24X56 were startlingly impressive for the cost. ($379 on Dvor, not typical, they're normally $599), and they've held up very well so far.
The 4-24 is the rattle canned tan one between the Vudu and my AC, the 5-30 is between my 5-30 Steiner and my Trijicon 1-8.
I don't have any ZT or TT experience, but out to 300 yards, which is my regular, the glass seems pretty even with my more expensive scopes, the locking turrets feel actually great and the zoom and parallax controls are the smoothest of any of my scopes, period.

The 2-12 is on Amazon, so if it is an utter shit fest, return will be painless. I imagine it's going to be very Athlon like, but I like the locking turrets on the Vector

Edit- just seen it cheaper at Eurooptic....ah welll.



View attachment IMG_7259.JPG

 

[Llamas Waffles]

Well, freed up some funds, ordered the Continental 2-12 with the -69 reticle (large outer ring) but it's on backorder (no ESD). Whenever it comes in I'll see how it is and report back!

 

[mattc51]

Look forward to hearing your results. Thinking this would be a good match for an old Savage 10FP .308 I have in an XLR stock but looking to make it more of a shorter lighter barrel setup.

 

[flogxal]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

 

[beetroot]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

It doesn't need a functional tree, it just needs the main stadia lines to be visible or have a bright centre dot.

If you have a RDS then it doesn't really matter, but an RDS is largely a solution o a problem that shouldn't exist.

 

[NHR]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

Like above, you don't need a tree, you need a usable center/stadia.

The scenario where I've used the low end is in matches with UKD targets at short(<300 yards) range. The offset dot is great up close but can be hard to call a miss at 200-300 yards. A 2.5x bottom end is much easier to use in that scenario.

Even out to ~400 yards if the targets are spread out the lower mag is nice for FOV.

Bottom line is it's better to have options. In the moment it may be easier to get behind your primary or offset optic depending on what position you're in and where the target is. If your primary isn't usable at 2 or 3x, then why even have that range built in? It seems like a 4-12 would be a lot easier to make.

 

[Burdy]

If you have a RDS then it doesn't really matter, but an RDS is largely a solution o a problem that shouldn't exist.

Well, your RDS will always be faster than your LPVO or any other magnified optic.

 

[ma smith]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

simply means the main cross hair (aiming point) is visivie--ie isn't invisible-- in high contrast backgrounds during daylight.

if you "need a tree" to be functional...IMHO it means you need wind-holds, which means you need not only the cross-hair but the sub-tensions on the horizontal readable.

these are really different problems, and "a red-dot" (even an illuminated centre dot in an FFP scope) solves the first but not the second.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

Similar to what others have said, this is my take on it and why I was really excited about the Continental RCR -69 reticle, so take it for the $.02 it's worth:

A RDS is undoubtedly faster at close range for accurate shooting (within 100 yds or so) and can still be effective out to 300+. At 50ish yds+ magnification starts becoming a luxury for accuracy, spotting impacts and PID, but you don't need full stadia, just an easy to see aiming point/reference (i.e. the RCR -69 reticle since it uses illumination to make a clean dot and an outer reference ring at low mag). After 200ish+ yds magnification becomes increasingly important for the same above reasons, as do stadia for wind holds (i.e. Christmas tree reticle).

Really the benefit of the Continental -69 reticle is that it appears to create a really nice balance of tools to blend RDS use cases with mid- and long-range requirements. More than anything, just adds flexibility.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

Just for reference, this is the SCFF-69 reticle in question at different mag ranges (pictures courtesy of Vector Optics Global Facebook page). Ring/stadia designed for speed between 2-6x then the outer ring disappears and the reticle tree becomes more prominent for longer engagements. May be too busy, and may end up not liking the crossover at all, but there have definitely been times where my reticle was optimized for one end of the magnification and basically worthless at the other end which this appears to resolve.

 

[Burdy]

What is the COO of this optic?

 

[Llamas Waffles]

What is the COO of this optic?

I'm pretty got at acronyms, but not sure what you mean by COO.

Edit: I think you mean Country of Origin, which is definitely China. That said, no other manufacturers are even trying to develop a good SPR reticle, so for the time being I'll take it as long as the glass is decent. If someone better steps up then awesome, but this is the type of reticle I've been wanting for the better part of a decade so I'll take what I can get. Besides, if nobody buys them, no other mfgs will try to dip their toes into this market again for another decade (at least).

 

[flogxal]

simply means the main cross hair (aiming point) is visivie--ie isn't invisible-- in high contrast backgrounds during daylight.

if you "need a tree" to be functional...IMHO it means you need wind-holds, which means you need not only the cross-hair but the sub-tensions on the horizontal readable.

these are really different problems, and "a red-dot" (even an illuminated centre dot in an FFP scope) solves the first but not the second.

It's the 2d problem that I can't imagine a situation. Mostly because what wind holds does one need at 3x, what distance when using 3x and what caliber? NHR gave an example that made a bit of sense to me and if I'd done a similar sort of match I wouldn't be so clueless I guess --

The scenario where I've used the low end is in matches with UKD targets at short(<300 yards) range. The offset dot is great up close but can be hard to call a miss at 200-300 yards. A 2.5x bottom end is much easier to use in that scenario.

For that sort of scenario, are people wanting a wind hold set of stadia too? At 200-300 yds? This must be for rimfire, or .223 on a very gusty day.

I'm guessing folks want to bridge the 2d focal plane "reticle always same size" benefit, with the limitation of 1st focal plane scope reticles shrinking. But is it even optically possible, even if people want it?

 

[NHR]

It's the 2d problem that I can't imagine a situation. Mostly because what wind holds does one need at 3x, what distance when using 3x and what caliber? NHR gave an example that made a bit of sense to me and if I'd done a similar sort of match I wouldn't be so clueless I guess --

The scenario where I've used the low end is in matches with UKD targets at short(<300 yards) range. The offset dot is great up close but can be hard to call a miss at 200-300 yards. A 2.5x bottom end is much easier to use in that scenario.

For that sort of scenario, are people wanting a wind hold set of stadia too? At 200-300 yds? This must be for rimfire, or .223 on a very gusty day.

I'm guessing folks want to bridge the 2d focal plane "reticle always same size" benefit, with the limitation of 1st focal plane scope reticles shrinking. But is it even optically possible, even if people want it?

For me, no, I don't need wind holds. I use a SFP scope (NXS 2.5-10 mil dot) for this role. Out to 300 you really don't need wind holds. Hold target edge if there is a lot of wind.

I wish there was a FFP option with bold horizontal stadia down to ~3-5 mils and then a low-complexity tree on the vertical. I really like how the PR2 skips odd numbers on the tree. I'd love to see that on a lower power 10-12x optic, or even some of the 8×/10x lpvos.

 

[flogxal]

Thanks NHR. Your POV makes sense to me.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

It's the 2d problem that I can't imagine a situation. Mostly because what wind holds does one need at 3x, what distance when using 3x and what caliber? NHR gave an example that made a bit of sense to me and if I'd done a similar sort of match I wouldn't be so clueless I guess --

The scenario where I've used the low end is in matches with UKD targets at short(<300 yards) range. The offset dot is great up close but can be hard to call a miss at 200-300 yards. A 2.5x bottom end is much easier to use in that scenario.

For that sort of scenario, are people wanting a wind hold set of stadia too? At 200-300 yds? This must be for rimfire, or .223 on a very gusty day.

I'm guessing folks want to bridge the 2d focal plane "reticle always same size" benefit, with the limitation of 1st focal plane scope reticles shrinking. But is it even optically possible, even if people want it?

I think you're overthinking the whole concept of this optic and why it's so valuable. It blends a LPVO-style reticle for quick engagement at low magnification with a tree for longer range engagements when at a higher mag. It seems you're thinking the tree will be used at the lower mag; it won't, that's the whole reason for the outer ring and the small inner ring forming a dot when at lower mag.

The tree is designed to be used in the upper half of the magnification for holds at intermediate-range (SPR-ish) distances (think 400-800yds and 8-12x mag) while the ring/dot that takes over in the lower half of the magnification is really good for the shorter distances (sub 300yds) for rapid shots on target where holds are more like "left edge" or "target-width right".

 

[BobinNC]

I think the easy takeaway from all of this is that the Athlon 2-12 is the standard, or “best in class” option. If you want my money, prove/justify why your new product is better than it. Less weight, better reticle, better glass, better turrets, etc…. Show me why. If not, or no significant price savings, don’t waste my time. Anyone looking to get into this style of optic would likely benefit from trying it first. Easy proof of concept for the cash outlay, especially if getting on sale or using Expert Voice. Wise man told me decades ago that perfection is the enemy of good enough.

This is the most intelligent post on this entire topic.

If you have a military discount you can get the Athlon Helos BTR GEN2 2-12x42mm for $397.49 from EuroOptic.

I have a Trijicon Credo 2-10x36mm and two of the 2-12x42mm Helos. I like MVPO's for both hunting and possible social work. MVPO's are not target scopes nor are they for smacking steel targets, or even PRC games. More stuff is routinely shot at under 600 yds, than over. And 2x is nice at 50 yds, day or night.

And I'll probably sell the Credo and get another 2-12x42mm Helos. They really are that good a buy, with a great feature set that no other scope maker has matched yet, at any price.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

This is the most intelligent post on this entire topic.

If you have a military discount you can get the Athlon Helos BTR GEN2 2-12x42mm for $397.49 from EuroOptic.

I have a Trijicon Credo 2-10x36mm and two of the 2-12x42mm Helos. I like MVPO's for both hunting and possible social work. MVPO's are not target scopes nor are they for smacking steel targets, or even PRC games. More stuff is routinely shot at under 600 yds, than over. And 2x is nice at 50 yds, day or night.

And I'll probably sell the Credo and get another 2-12x42mm Helos. They really are that good a buy, with a great feature set that no other scope maker has matched yet, at any price.

Meh, I'll happily take the chance on the new competitor considering the initial reviews being relatively positive; worst case it ends up on my .22 or I sell it with enough overhead to get the BTR.

 

[flogxal]

I think you're overthinking the whole concept of this optic and why it's so valuable. It blends a LPVO-style reticle for quick engagement at low magnification with a tree for longer range engagements when at a higher mag. It seems you're thinking the tree will be used at the lower mag; it won't, that's the whole reason for the outer ring and the small inner ring forming a dot when at lower mag.

The tree is designed to be used in the upper half of the magnification for holds at intermediate-range (SPR-ish) distances (think 400-800yds and 8-12x mag) while the ring/dot that takes over in the lower half of the magnification is really good for the shorter distances (sub 300yds) for rapid shots on target where holds are more like "left edge" or "target-width right".

With all due respect, you do not know what I am thinking. And you do not know my levels of experience, and you seem to assume I haven't used any riflescopes or shot any pressured matches.

I don't care about people's Wish List Scopes, I care about what works. Theories seem powerful to those who never worked in science... like just because there's a rough/crude "theory," it will be implemented successfully. That's not how things work in reality, from my life's experience. Online fantasizing hasn't yielded anything greater than SIG USA's "modularity" which is questionable itself.

On this topic I would prefer to hear koshkin's POV on the physics/optical mfre limitations of the fantasy scope desired.

 

[Llamas Waffles]

With all due respect, you do not know what I am thinking. And you do not know my levels of experience, and you seem to assume I haven't used any riflescopes or shot any pressured matches.

I don't care about people's Wish List Scopes, I care about what works. Theories seem powerful to those who never worked in science... like just because there's a rough/crude "theory," it will be implemented successfully. That's not how things work in reality, from my life's experience. Online fantasizing hasn't yielded anything greater than SIG USA's "modularity" which is questionable itself.

On this topic I would prefer to hear koshkin's POV on the physics/optical mfre limitations of the fantasy scope desired.

You asked why it was useful then got a few answers you didn't like from people that find potential value it in it. I didn't say it works or that is perfect, just that it appears that it will fill a gap that people have been asking to be filled for a while. You can find value in it or not, and nobody is forcing you to like it or to see value in it.

The scientific approach is to try new things out to see if they work, which is why I decided to get one to try out. Caring about what works is great, but you can't find out if something works if you don't try it out or even give it enough credibility to be willing to try something new. Imagine if someone told Eugene Stoner that his fantasizing was worthless because it didn't make sense to their needs.

You're right that I don't know your background, nor did I say anything about your experience level... The reverse is also true, that you have no idea of my experience level, for whatever that's worth.

 

[flogxal]

No, I get the reasons why even if I was a little blunt earlier. I'm old and I've been an athlete my whole life, which means I use gear regularly and have seen improvements over time, and have also seen fads come and go, in every sport I do, mostly alpine skiing and Mtn Bike (and longer ago, roadie too). Have watched people say "I need this ideal combo of X Y and Z and someone needs to make it." And then it gets made and from the sales, it looks in rear view as a fad or a pointless "do it all" attempt.

I wonder if people's whims on this question (ideal MPVO with low end that replaces the 1x on your LPVO) has to do with spatial difficulties, not knowing that a reticle thin enough to be detail oriented at higher power, it cannot be a fast aiming device at the bottom end of power. Unless, like me, you don't have problems with a T bracket and empty space in the middle. And, my lack of such problems could be related to not having done DMR matches!

Also -- I have done some days of shooting with my P4Xi 1-4x, where I have targets at 25, 50 and 100 and I run 1x, 2x, 2.5x, 3x and 4x to see how my eyes/brain compromise with each as my flat mag/low end of MPVO mag setting. The result of this is I run offset RDS with MPVOs and I find that faster and easier than trying to work 3x as if it's 1x. My eyes/brain don't like that very much. And I find rolling to the offset way faster/easier than working the magnification adjustment.

I ran through these experiments several years ago and then took a Scoped Carbine course at Ridgeline, where the group did a lot of work with the RDS as primary and using the riflescope only for longer precise shots. Probably that influences my view a lot. Don't know if it adds anything but in that course I ran a SFP scope, Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42, and a Holosun 2 MOA offset.

 

[Night Vision Viking]

I think the new Schmidt & Bender 3-18x42 META (FFP) will be quite interesting. Have one on its way.
If it would qualify as a MVPO?

And I voted wrong on 2-12x, should have been 2-15x.

S&B's new SBX reticle looks quite right anyway.

 

[steve123]

Can someone give me an example of where your 3x, 2.5x, 2x low end needs a functional tree reticle? In what kind of situation? Especially if you have RDS piggyback/offset.

I've tried imagining it but every time I say RDS quicker easier better than expecting something out of the 2, 2.5, 3x low end of a reticle designed for use at 6-8x+. Which means I guess that I haven't been in the situation.

On low magnification(maybe not on 1x if FFP but depends on reticle design) the tip top of the tree could be used as the pointer to the center dot, or the crosshair. Even better if having daylight bright illume.

And at very close range you can use the whole tree like a chevron. Remember that you'll be hitting substantially lower up close, enough that you'd miss a IPSC head's A zone, and like with my AR at 10Y, I have to hold over 5.8 mils, or at 8Y 7.5 mils, that's exactly, or aim high just superimposing the middle of the tree.

I went to a March "DFP" 1-10 years ago which solves some issues because I set the magnification where I want and can see the SFP part of the reticle fine on 1x, or use the FFP part of the reticle for distant holds on higher magnification.

Another, and yes you guys will laugh, is the use of LPVO or MPVO on a pcp airgun, or 22rf, but especially the airgun, because wind blows pellets like crazy. For example just yesterday for windage I was holding off 1 to 1.5 mil at 50Y in light wind with my March 1-10. I was using 8x at the time but there's been occasions where I've used low magnification in my Helos G2 2-12 and was aiming off more than that.

An hour ago I ordered a March DFP 1.5-15 literally because I got tired of waiting for a MPVO like I want, which who knows, might not ever come out. It's always too this, or not enough that, reticle too thin, or is missing main features I want. I already know the IQ at 15x will be compromised but that's the price you pay for super short and 10x mag ratio. But I love the DFP and daylight bright illuminated center dot in my 1-10, as well as the 10Y parallax side focus, so here I go once again with a March.

For the way I predominantly use semi rifles for using a RD wouldn't work for me so I typically don't use RD's except on the pistols. Plus I'd rather not have both a RD, and a scope, on my guns.

Recent pcp semiauto I got with that March DFP 1-10 on top. That is one fun gun!