I agree with you on the horizontal stadia needs to be brought into the donut. I would also want the reticle fully illuminated. This reticle is kindof what I’m talking about when I say I think they make the compromises in all the wrong places.
Rifle Scopes Is there a market for a good MPVO
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
Something seems seriously wrong with that, Leupold lists their travel range at 24.7 mrad and travel limit at 28.7 mrad (a little confused what the difference is) but given the lower value of 24.7 mrad, after boresighting should have had closer to 12 mrad of travel... either Leupold is not being honest about their travel or something is wrong with your friends setup???
Ignore those numbers, they are meant for... well, see my previous post... These are the numbers you need to be looking at
I guess you missed the part where I said if you are going to piggyback anyway, why limit yourself to an MPVO?
(And yeah yeah, weight and night vision, got it.)
-Stan
I complete did, yes. So what you're saying is if you're going to piggyback an RDS then why not go with a crossover design or bigger and yes, then I would say because of weight and size. Again, thinking of the primary use for this optic being a gas gun and not many guys want big beefy scopes on their small frame AR's or even their large frame AR's.
I just voted for 2-10 and 2-12, but the 6x erectors are very well sorted at this point, rock solid, and proven. Correct me if I'm wrong with the following assumption, but I believe a 6x doesn't give up anything in real world measurable effects, so might as well go with the 6x rather than the 5x. Obviously there are diminishing returns, especially as we get up to 10x erectors where maximum zoom is almost always a very heavy tunnel experience, regardless of the manufacturer or cost of scope.
I haven't had time to write out my full thoughts, but suffice it to say I generally agree with @Burdy since we shoot so many of the same matches and are often in contention together for the top slots. I'll come back later with a more in-depth response.
I haven't had time to write out my full thoughts, but suffice it to say I generally agree with @Burdy since we shoot so many of the same matches and are often in contention together for the top slots. I'll come back later with a more in-depth response.
I didn’t see the gas gun part in your poll description.
The bulkiness thing I get.
The weight is always laughable to me with the MK5 3-18 being 26oz and the MK4 2.5-10 being 21oz as an example. How light is actually needed? And, why not save weight in other ways instead of compromising optical capability. And doesn’t piggybacking an RDS add weight?
If weight is the driving force, I would start there and work backwards into capability.
-Stan
Last edited:
It all depends on the design, while modern 6x designs tend to be pretty forgiving, put them in too short a body and you'll get more compromises. It's more about balance at this stage...
Fair enough, I might not have made it very clear, but yes, the MPVO is a design that is mostly/mainly for gas guns... Yes, RDS does add weight which is many many would prefer "lighter" but I think more import than lighter is proper balance, especially on something more like a Mk18 vs. a Mk12 for example.
Good point on the balance.
For me, I rock a 1-4x Meopta with #4 reticle on my AKs and a MK5 5-25 with a DeltaPoint Pro on my AR-10. Compared to my AI AT, both are very light packages.
-Stan
Ha! That's incredibly generous of you considering guys like me have to use every bit of planning, brain power and equipment just to hang with guys like you. You also shoot considerably more matches so I would say you are highly qualified to speak on this category of optic. I have simply shot enough to know what works for me and what doesn't and am blessed enough to be able to test a large variety of optics without it costing me a fortune. The cold truth is guys like you, and Sean, don't need to nitpick your setups because you could win with a Tasco!
Illness and injury kept me out of every 24' match except for Quantified Performance at the Sawmill and NRL Hunter in AL. I went running for the first time last Sunday...since August. I am targeting a Legion 9/11 return to RnG competition but we will see. My plans and Lord's plan are not always the same and that's OK.
For me the trajectory and energy on target in correlation with the recoil is what is impressive. The gun is an absolute sweetheart on my end and a hammer on the other. The same performance in a short action would have been detrimental to quite a few other calibers.
Fair opinion. But I think 2x is perfectly fine for close range work. 1x is better, of course for close range marksmanship, but 2x works. Tons of close range work was successfully done with 4x ACOGs. You just need a reticle capable of quick 2x sight picture.
And 10-12x is phenomenal out to 800. I like it at 1k too if the target isn’t too concealed.
A 3-18 is better out at mid-range+, but they’re bulkier and also their reticles generally aren’t as good at 3x. 2x MPVOs aren’t much better, but generally do have a few better options.
I do think Leupold finally did a great job with their new reticle for the 2-10x30. Only issue is it’s overpriced I think.
I’m enjoying the Helos G2 BTR 2-12. I have other mag variants of the Helos and have been impressed by this line, especially at the price point but overall in general.
Man that’s rough, glad you’re on the mend! Is that NRL Hunter match at the range north of Birmingham, Carbon Hill I think?
I've been holding out for "the perfect" MPVO for an AR that just shoots lights out, and to be honest...I don't think there will ever be a situation where 2 or 2.5 is something I'll use. FOR ME, I think I would rather have 18-20x on the top if it means I need to be at 4 on the bottom.
Obviously 2.5-20 handles both of those, but if that new PrimaryArms offering is going to be $2000...I'll be fine going to a less expensive 3-18 or a 4-20 as long as the form factor is relatively small. For me, that's more valuble than 2x on the bottom.
Obviously 2.5-20 handles both of those, but if that new PrimaryArms offering is going to be $2000...I'll be fine going to a less expensive 3-18 or a 4-20 as long as the form factor is relatively small. For me, that's more valuble than 2x on the bottom.
I think part of the problem with MPVOs is that everyone has a slightly different take on what their intended use is. Most people will agree that the point of an LPVO is to be able to be fast at close range whilst being able to push out max range (especially with a 8x or 10x top end) but that the optical compromises are heaviest at the top mag. To me an MPVO is basically that flipped on its head where it is usable at close range/low mag but optimized for use on full mag at longer ranges (or for more precise shots). I think of them as the appropriate optic for a contemporary "SPR" (not a clone rifle), ie a precise .223 , that can be carried practically (ie not heavy game gun) who's intended use is to make hits on smaller or obscured targets (ie not full-size IPSCs) out to 600, maybe 800 yds and that can be pressed into use at close ranges (generally with an offset red dot).
What I'd like to see is a low end of 2ish and a high end of 10, 12 or 14x. Locking turrets (or capped windage to lower weight/cost), total length around 12" and weight below 25oz. I'd like it to be ffp with an illuminated Xmas tree reticle but with only the horizontal and vertical axes illuminated (not the whole tree). Out of these preferences, the least important are length (as it will be on a rifle with a ong handguard hence plenty of place for a clip-on) and bottom end mag (the offset rds is the primary for short range so even a low end of 4x isn't a deal breaker).
On paper, the Mk5 2-10 with the new reticle seems like the best fit for my criteria, but I've yet to get behind one to see. Also, I've recently come to want more than 10x as a top end for this kind of optic. I came to this realization recently when trying different optics on a new build (.223 gas gun with 20" SPR contour barrel, 75s around 2750). I had a Razor G3 1-10, PST G2 2-10 and LHT ffp 4.5-22 on hand to try. I started with the 2-10 as I already knew it outperformed the 1-10 at 10x based on previous testing I'd done (despite the weak points of the 2-10: 26oz weight, sub-par reticle and exposed turrets) and didn't find myself at a disadvantage at close range as I was running an offset Acro (which I'd run with the 1-10 anyways for night use). The only downside relative to the 1-10 was the extra 4oz and 2.5" of length. What I was kind of surprised to find was that past 500, in less than ideal light, with partially obscured targets, targets in the shadows or with snowy backdrops, 10x just wasn't quite enough. Maybe better glass would make all the difference (the PST G2 glass is ok but not Razor level or anywhere near "alpha")? This made me look hard at running the LHT ffp 4.5-22. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense: it is only 3/4" longer than the PST G2 (13.3 vs 12.6"), is 4oz lighter, has better glass, better reticle, locking elevation and capped windage. Another optic I'd happily run (but no longer have) is the NF NX8 2.5-20 which hits all my points but weight. All this to say that I think the lines are super blurred between the ideal MPVO and really good crossover/compact scopes, based on your individual criteria and where you're willing to compromise which is probably a big reason that no one has yet released the ideal model...
What I'd like to see is a low end of 2ish and a high end of 10, 12 or 14x. Locking turrets (or capped windage to lower weight/cost), total length around 12" and weight below 25oz. I'd like it to be ffp with an illuminated Xmas tree reticle but with only the horizontal and vertical axes illuminated (not the whole tree). Out of these preferences, the least important are length (as it will be on a rifle with a ong handguard hence plenty of place for a clip-on) and bottom end mag (the offset rds is the primary for short range so even a low end of 4x isn't a deal breaker).
On paper, the Mk5 2-10 with the new reticle seems like the best fit for my criteria, but I've yet to get behind one to see. Also, I've recently come to want more than 10x as a top end for this kind of optic. I came to this realization recently when trying different optics on a new build (.223 gas gun with 20" SPR contour barrel, 75s around 2750). I had a Razor G3 1-10, PST G2 2-10 and LHT ffp 4.5-22 on hand to try. I started with the 2-10 as I already knew it outperformed the 1-10 at 10x based on previous testing I'd done (despite the weak points of the 2-10: 26oz weight, sub-par reticle and exposed turrets) and didn't find myself at a disadvantage at close range as I was running an offset Acro (which I'd run with the 1-10 anyways for night use). The only downside relative to the 1-10 was the extra 4oz and 2.5" of length. What I was kind of surprised to find was that past 500, in less than ideal light, with partially obscured targets, targets in the shadows or with snowy backdrops, 10x just wasn't quite enough. Maybe better glass would make all the difference (the PST G2 glass is ok but not Razor level or anywhere near "alpha")? This made me look hard at running the LHT ffp 4.5-22. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense: it is only 3/4" longer than the PST G2 (13.3 vs 12.6"), is 4oz lighter, has better glass, better reticle, locking elevation and capped windage. Another optic I'd happily run (but no longer have) is the NF NX8 2.5-20 which hits all my points but weight. All this to say that I think the lines are super blurred between the ideal MPVO and really good crossover/compact scopes, based on your individual criteria and where you're willing to compromise which is probably a big reason that no one has yet released the ideal model...
I don’t see why people purposely limit themselves to such low top ends like 10x. I mean I’m not arguing that it can’t be done, I shot 10x for a while on a precision rifle but I sure don’t prefer it. I realize size and weight play some factor but still. I often think that people do it just because that’s how others do it without much more reason. I mean really if it’s a weight thing I don’t get it when a decently powered scope is often floating around the same or less weight than an LPVO and people throw those on AR’s all the time.
A question I have is why not have the tree illuminated as well? Why purposefully limit yourself here? Why not have the ability to be able to use the tree in less than ideal conditions as well?
I agree that size and weight are much more important to me than an arbitrary limit on the top end. 2 scopes otherwise being identical, I'd much rather have a top end of 12 or 14 than 10, no question. That's kinda why I've been coming around to lightweight, compact/short optics with higher mag being better suited to my needs than a similar size/weight MPVO topping out at 10x or so.
I prefer the tree not be illuminated so that on min mag you just have an illuminated crosshair instead of an illuminated kinda blob that's a lot thicker below the horizontal axis. It's not a hard requirement for me though as I can see the benefit of the fully illuminated reticle as well.
The reason I ask is that I hear people ask for it allot and I see reticles being made that way. For me that illuminated tree on the top end is definitely what I want. I want that for shooting in dark shaded targets, heavily contrasting backgrounds, fighting glare shooting towards the sun, fading light, etc. On the low end of the mag range that is my least used power setting anyway. And even then all that does is basically makes a red arrow pointing up towards the center of the reticle. I rarely ever use illumination to the level that it’s nuclear bright anyway, just enough to be able to make the reticle out is all that’s needed so maybe it’s just a training thing?
If we are assuming an RDS will be used for close range then I don't see the point in less than 2x on the low end.
I think I'd even take a wide FOV 3-12 scope over a 1.5-12.
Get the basics right with glass, mechanics, reticle and weight and I'll happily work with anything in the 2-15 mag range.
I think a 4-16 is too much magnification for an MPVO, but a 2.5-10, 2-10, 2-12, 3-15 would all be fine in my book.
However I am beginning to think the ultimate MPVO will never happen. If manufacturers are trying to build a scope with thr widest possible market appeal to make it worth there while an MPVO is never going to be it.
Just push the easy button and pump out a new 1-8, 1-10, 3-15 scope.
If Bushnell can't see the point in bringing back the LRHS 3-12 and PA discontinued the GLX 2.5-10, then I think that says a lot about where the market really is.
I think I'd even take a wide FOV 3-12 scope over a 1.5-12.
Get the basics right with glass, mechanics, reticle and weight and I'll happily work with anything in the 2-15 mag range.
I think a 4-16 is too much magnification for an MPVO, but a 2.5-10, 2-10, 2-12, 3-15 would all be fine in my book.
However I am beginning to think the ultimate MPVO will never happen. If manufacturers are trying to build a scope with thr widest possible market appeal to make it worth there while an MPVO is never going to be it.
Just push the easy button and pump out a new 1-8, 1-10, 3-15 scope.
If Bushnell can't see the point in bringing back the LRHS 3-12 and PA discontinued the GLX 2.5-10, then I think that says a lot about where the market really is.
Around 15oz woukd be nice for a hunting scope that gets carried all day.
Have an LRTSi 3-12 I won’t let go of-shame Bushnell never could realize how good the LRHS/LRTS lines actually were. And if not mistaken, believe Marsh may have indicated GLX 2.5–10 was due to release later this year with some upgrades. What form those upgrades take are, as yet, unknown.
I get the use of a red dot on top. It has its merits but if the reticle was designed right you really wouldn’t need a rmr on top unless you are looking for speed and not to touch the magnification much. In a hunting type context we could have the option of eliminating the rmr. I agree with the above about it being a shame bushnell dropped the LRHS/LRTS.
The SAI with the rapid aiming feature in a 2-12 or 2.5-15 package would dominate the mpvo market even if it is niche.
The SAI with the rapid aiming feature in a 2-12 or 2.5-15 package would dominate the mpvo market even if it is niche.
At 27oz my only complaint about the lrhs/lrts is its porkyness.
I am also gonna say I use wind holds and shoot under 10x quite a bit. At this point I would be quite happy if someone would put just plain old mildot in a 15oz 2-10 sfp or ffp hunting scope.
I see the biggest problem with the 2-10 is that in chasing the features of the 3-15s and 3-18s it ends up weighing what those scopes do. So whats the point?
I am also gonna say I use wind holds and shoot under 10x quite a bit. At this point I would be quite happy if someone would put just plain old mildot in a 15oz 2-10 sfp or ffp hunting scope.
I see the biggest problem with the 2-10 is that in chasing the features of the 3-15s and 3-18s it ends up weighing what those scopes do. So whats the point?
Weight wise the Leupold VX3HD series seems to be there at 13.1oz, though the reticle options are likely lacking for the desires of the average Sniper’s Hide user.
VX-3HD 3.5-10x40 CDS-ZL Duplex
The VX®-3HD 3.5-10x40mm delivers legendary performance and extreme clarity in an incredibly tough, lightweight package. Its versatile magnification can get the job done in almost any scenario.
www.leupold.com
I wonder how much zoom ratio contributes to overall weight?
-Stan
I have the Mk3hd and if the vx3 is anything similar then it’s not that great. My buddy has the vx3 but I have not been able to use it as he’s in another state. I believe you only get one revolution out of the elevation turret with it.Weight wise the Leupold VX3HD series seems to be there at 13.1oz, though the reticle options are likely lacking for the desires of the average Sniper’s Hide user.
VX-3HD 3.5-10x40 CDS-ZL Duplex
The VX®-3HD 3.5-10x40mm delivers legendary performance and extreme clarity in an incredibly tough, lightweight package. Its versatile magnification can get the job done in almost any scenario.
I wonder how much zoom ratio contributes to overall weight?
-Stan
I can tell you the mk3 hd has the worst windage turret I have used in a very long time. The elevation turret is limited to 5.7 mils or so due to the zero stop, and the illumination knob is extremely sloppy. The glass is nice, but that’s about it.
Thank you.
That reinforces my earlier point, if weight is a driving factor, I would save weight elsewhere and stick with a quality optic setup.
-Stan
2x or 3x on the bottom end doesn't really matter, and 10x-15x also isn't super important.
Personally I want light weight (~20 oz) and a reticle usable throughout the mag range.
I really like my NXS 2.5-10x32 for this purpose. SFP isn't ideal, but it solves some of the reticle issues.
I wish there was a good FFP option out there. Leupold is almost there but the TMR needs some small revisions.
Personally I want light weight (~20 oz) and a reticle usable throughout the mag range.
I really like my NXS 2.5-10x32 for this purpose. SFP isn't ideal, but it solves some of the reticle issues.
I wish there was a good FFP option out there. Leupold is almost there but the TMR needs some small revisions.
I used to be a diehard Leupold fan. I used them in the Army and on hunting rifles and I was very hopeful in the Mk3hd and kinda went into it blindly because of the name and was utterly disappointed in what I got.
Pretty interesting thread. I think part of the issue is building a reticle that suits the use case. LPVO's have the significant advantage of primarily being designed around small frame cartridges in speed focused rifles. As long as the IQ and weight are decent the reticle drives the rest.
'Mpvo' are a bit harder to define. Are we looking at a .22 with a fine reticle for disposing small critters? Are we looking to extend the range on a small frame, more like an spr? Are we looking to need precision on an intermediate cartridge at closer-ish distances where a 4-16 is overkill?
In my mind
lpvo = general purpose small frame for closer range than can do longer range
Mpvo = general purpose small frame for longer range that can do close range
Nx8 1-8 fc-dmx (fighting gun)
Atacr 2-12 fc-dmx (spr)
Think 12.5" vs 18" barrel chambered in 556. Both optics should have reticles that are closer to the speed spectrum than precision.
'Mpvo' are a bit harder to define. Are we looking at a .22 with a fine reticle for disposing small critters? Are we looking to extend the range on a small frame, more like an spr? Are we looking to need precision on an intermediate cartridge at closer-ish distances where a 4-16 is overkill?
In my mind
lpvo = general purpose small frame for closer range than can do longer range
Mpvo = general purpose small frame for longer range that can do close range
Nx8 1-8 fc-dmx (fighting gun)
Atacr 2-12 fc-dmx (spr)
Think 12.5" vs 18" barrel chambered in 556. Both optics should have reticles that are closer to the speed spectrum than precision.
I haven't heard much good about the vx3. Vortex got really close with the lh 2-10 but only offered with an moa reticle. I keep almost buying one of the vortex lht. What I want in a 2-10 has been tried and failed.
The x42 ATACR at 12x has exactly what these guys need (viz "struggles with longer range engagements and PID") but with a new 10-12x, the optical formula has to be high quality. Not alpha glass, but high quality. The japanese stuff in the ATACR is very good.
I also agree with the above posters, that he whole point of a "new class" of optics is to relieve the burdens of 1-2x on the optical designers and put that stress back on them at 10-12x. The key thing in the field is <22 oz in weigh and don't be a snag-magnet.
As for the reticles, It seems to me we are so close already. The wide-open of this tremor 8 concept with interior details of the current FC-DMX seems like a "95% there" solution. Maybe it could be better, but not sure how much before you see feature creep.
The seeminly imposible part is getting it in the right form-factor...
Yeah, training and application thing. I get the benefits of the fully illuminated tree but I generally prefer to dial if shooting into dark shaded spot, high contrast, etc. Prefer to just hold wind and not elevation when it's like that. Like I said, I think it's just a preference thing and isn't a "hard" criteria for me.
I had a bunch of LRTSi 3-12 and stupidly sold a few but I won't get rid of my last one. I think it's a great optic for a SPR-ish rifle, despite it's relative heft.
I’m not sure if the SFP aspect would hold people back or not. I like that reticle though and love the 1.8-14 range.
I get that and I suppose for me it’s not so much scopes that just have the crosshairs illuminated but ones that have just the donut or just the very center illuminated that I really don’t like.
I knew a guy who shot the whole Hide Cup on 12x with his USO25. lol I feel some use large magnification as a crutch rather than just shooting the damn thing. He placed pretty well too.
All in all I prefer to dial elevation whenever I can and hold for wind. Where I’m at the wind is usually so switchy that it makes dialing and bracketing nearly useless. Having said that though I still prefer to have the tree illuminated as well.
I do not get any points to this debate. If you want 2-10 "MPVO" just do not dial your 1-10 LPVO down to one. There was a specific reason for the 1X. There are a thousand existing options for what you want to build.
Was 12x his maximum magnification available?
Or was it like 12 out of 18 or 25 like most of us do?
-Stan
I asked as I had never heard of a “USO 25” while I had heard of a USO B-25 and USO FDN-25 (I own an FDN) and since USO predates my experience here I wondered if the model you spoke of was one I had never heard of before.
So while he accomplished everything on 12x (Cool!), it was 12x out of 25x, which I submit (as a USO FDN25 owner who also runs on 12x) is out of the context of this thread.
His experience was using 50% or less of the magnification available (likely a pleasant experience) while this thread discusses mostly optics that at 12x would be at their maximum available magnification (likely a less pleasant experience).
-Stan
Similar threads
