Rifle Scopes Is there a market for a good MPVO
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
No a 7LRM bighorn action from TS customs in an AI AICS chassis.
I'm right there with you d. I have several LPVO's and a couple FFP MPVO's along with the LHT 4.5-22 but the LHT has been on my "lightweight" Kidd 10/22 rig, but now you have me thinking about one of my AR's, heck I've used and loved my March 4.5-28 on my LMT (DMR) in 308 and 6.5 Creed... For AR's I tend to like more streamlined and I think of the larger objectives as being more of a snag magnet as ma smith puts it
But maybe that's my brain getting in the way (which happens a lot especially as I have a tendency to overthink things, just ask my wife )
Whatever happened to Weaver, they had some pretty decent scopes for the price...
I agree, it doesn't need to be ZCO good (though I'm curious how good the new ZCO 2-10 is) but Japanese good, like ATACR/LOW type quality.
As we've seen with many other designs, this isn't an easy feat for any manufacturer, even with a 2-10 (just look at how heavy the ZCO and Mark 5 2-10x30 scopes are). Steiner probably has the closest with their H6Xi 2-12x42 at 23.2 oz with exposed turret and 42mm objective, if Steiner offered their H6Xi in the Tremor8 you show below... MONEY! As it is their STR-Mil is yet another iteration of "we understand the mag range but have no clue about the reticle" syndrome, and this isn't just Steiner, it's so many manufacturers.
Good God Almighty! I never thought I'd see the day!!! Horus actually designed a usable reticle!?!?! That is brilliant and what Leupold should have done with their CMR-Mil. But you're right ma, how do we convince a manufacturer who already has a decent MPVO design to use a reticle like this...
But here's the thing, we have a plethora of SFP scopes in the MPVO mag range, but far too many are geared toward hunting and they don't understand the MPVO and gas gun aspect of it all. If Zeiss offered the Z6 2-12x50 and Z8 1.8-14x50 with exposed turrets and AHR reticle we would have a more viable option, but for most of us here the limitation of the reticle only being usable at top mag is just too much which is why there's a need for a FFP MPVO optic...
I shot a whole stage at an ELR shoot at 12x out to 1.5 miles (normally I shoot at 16x) but had dialed down for greater FOV to pick up some targets and finished shooting everything before I realized I forgot to dial back up, too many people think you must have high magnification to shoot at distance. But this is probably one of the best arguments against SFP in this category, we sometimes dial down for greater FOV and if you forget to dial back to the top and hold off a hash mark you're likely going to miss...
I don't know, they took one more swing at the Tactical market with the 6-36 which had everything but I wast huge on the reticle. Then ducked out. I think bushnell owns them. They were onenof the first mil/mil ffp options below 1k back in the day.
The trijicon 2-10x36 is the same design as the weaver. I buy the weavers when I see them. Tictactex has beating to me to a few.
even one I sold I was about to buy back. 
I want a shortish fat fixed 10x with a minimalist tree reticle, capped turrets, illumination (for use with a clip on), and amazing glass. Preferably with an ACOG type integrated base and some sort of micro red dot mount on top. Maybe add in adjustable parallax and diopter.
Last edited:
I do the same. That being said, when I run a WMRLF, the speed advantage of holding over is a big part of why I want a tree, haha.
I'm right there with you d. I have several LPVO's and a couple FFP MPVO's along with the LHT 4.5-22 but the LHT has been on my "lightweight" Kidd 10/22 rig, but now you have me thinking about one of my AR's, heck I've used and loved my March 4.5-28 on my LMT (DMR) in 308 and 6.5 Creed... For AR's I tend to like more streamlined and I think of the larger objectives as being more of a snag magnet as ma smith puts it
Yeah, I found myself resisting putting a scope like the LHT on a .223 gas gun but I couldn't think up any real negatives to doing so. Was chatting with a buddy of mine and he said: "you just think it looks dumb" and I couldn't really argue that point. Function over form so the gasser gets the LHT, haha. Funny enough, I really like running a 3-12 LRTSi on a very precise 6.5 Creed gasser but I also think the extra mag is almost more necessary on the .223 to pick up smaller and harder to see splash from the lil bullets, haha.
I just skimmed the first page and can already sense that this thread will expose the difficulty with the MPVO “market,” if such a thing exists. What is the problem, You ask? No one can agree on what it an MPVO is for. The first post says “well, we don’t want to step into the cross-over market (whatever THAT is)” but then just a couple of bullets down it makes concessions for night hunters with clip on devices.
The MPVO, by design, is neither fish nor foul. It is not a close up optic line a 1-4/6 LPVO, nor is it a long range optic like a 5-25. It’s just, in between. The forgotten middle child. I mean, is an instantly visible reticle absolutely necessary for shooting at halitosis range if you have a top mounted RDS? “But, I don’t want a RDS.”
There’s already a whole other thread (Steiner MPVO) that asks the question of what is the ideal MPVO. The resounding answer from that thread is “I don’t know, but it’s not the Steiner. But maybe it is. But I don’t think so. I think.”
Then there is the “help Lowlight design the perfect reticle” thread. What a dumpster fire that is. I mean, Lowlight checked out, threw away the caps to several bottles of bourbon, then checked into rehab because of that thread.
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.
The MPVO, by design, is neither fish nor foul. It is not a close up optic line a 1-4/6 LPVO, nor is it a long range optic like a 5-25. It’s just, in between. The forgotten middle child. I mean, is an instantly visible reticle absolutely necessary for shooting at halitosis range if you have a top mounted RDS? “But, I don’t want a RDS.”
There’s already a whole other thread (Steiner MPVO) that asks the question of what is the ideal MPVO. The resounding answer from that thread is “I don’t know, but it’s not the Steiner. But maybe it is. But I don’t think so. I think.”
Then there is the “help Lowlight design the perfect reticle” thread. What a dumpster fire that is. I mean, Lowlight checked out, threw away the caps to several bottles of bourbon, then checked into rehab because of that thread.
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.
Athlon needs to make a 34mm tube 2-12 in the Cronus line and they’d have the perfect optic.
The helos 2-12 is a killer piece. 34mm tube will make for an even better eye box, and Japanese built means better glass and a lot tougher optic.
The helos 2-12 is a killer piece. 34mm tube will make for an even better eye box, and Japanese built means better glass and a lot tougher optic.
You’re not wrong with many of your points. I think the differentiator for many manufacturers will be that an MPVO should be designed for gas guns, that is what LPVO’s primary purpose is, can they be used on other platforms, sure, just like you can put a SFP 15-60x56 on your 10.3” AR-15 if you want to, there is no rule book that says “hey, don’t do that!”, your friends may laugh and mock you but at the end of the day you do what works for you.
Identifying an MPVO as a gas gun optic should help manufacturers better understand the criteria especially with low mag reticle use which is why I’ve advocated for mfr’s to throw their LPVO reticles in some of these other scopes, yes I think there can be some improvements but we need to start somewhere that doesn’t include the LR reticle from their 3-18 or 6-36 scope.
What differentiates a crossover scope is that it is not necessarily designed for gas guns but designed for hunters who like to compete or shoot steel at distance with their beloved hunting rigs so it needs FFP and exposed turrets but I would also argue should have a reticle that works at bottom mag as well. I really wanted to love the Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 and was willing to sacrifice a bit on weight for the benefits of the 56mm objective in a 3-18 midrange scope but I just did not like the reticle for 3x use.
I would love to see something more ACOGish in this field and maybe thats what Eotech tried to do with their super ultra short 3-9 scope with ACOG mount but would like to see built in RDS plate as well. Like many mfr’s they are hoping to draw from the hunting crowd first (quicker ROI or at least thats what they convince upper management with) but hopefully we can see a transformation into a FFP offering that will be more MPVO like.
Steiner has the right scope with their H6Xi 2-12x42 at the right weight, they just blew it with the reticle, if they would offer the Tremor8 or similar it would make a world of difference, until then I will stick with my cheap but effective Athlon Helos 2-12 that has a reticle more usable for MPVO, but not perfect.
Since the Vortex LHT 4.5-22 has been mentioned a couple of times, I had one, I could live with everything except those 6 MIL turrets. I mean did the PM decide to throw that in on the way out the door as F.U. to his old employer? Mushy too. Just...yuck. Fine if you are sitting on a bench, horrible under stress/duress.
6 mil turrets don't really bother me a ton, I'm not a huge fan but don't really find them limiting. I'll grant I don't understand why they went with 6 mil turrets but it's not a deal breaker for me. The turrets aren't great, especially the windage but I don't touch the windage except for zeroing and the elevation, although mushy, has never screwed me up under time stress in a match (granted NRL H not carbine/dmr matches). I also don't understand why it has such poor feeling turrets as that seems like an easy fix but such is life...
Thought... Vortex was pretty quick to respond to owners who sent their RG3 6-36 scopes back in for "upgrade", I wonder if they will do the same for LHT 4.5-22... has anyone even tried?
Last edited:
That LHT 4.5-22 should never have had the Razor designation.
It's got Strike Eagle glass.
Not a great reticle design.
The elevation turret and locking mechanism of a $400 scope and 6 mils per rev is silly.
The windage turret of a $200 scope.
But somehow they got it the lightest weight that I know of for the mag range.
And daylight bright illume.
Edit - I was checking this feature out today after I put a new battery in. At 22x it's daylight bright and the lower down in magnification you go the more the illume part of the reticle is harder to see until it's only good for poor lighting by 4.5x.
Also when I operate the push button illume it squeaks, lol, and hangs up a little bit??!!
I'd be pissed if I hadn't gotten a good deal on it. If I ignore the turrets, which is hard to do, it's okay for saving some weight to be able to use 22x.
It's got Strike Eagle glass.
Not a great reticle design.
The elevation turret and locking mechanism of a $400 scope and 6 mils per rev is silly.
The windage turret of a $200 scope.
But somehow they got it the lightest weight that I know of for the mag range.
And daylight bright illume.
Edit - I was checking this feature out today after I put a new battery in. At 22x it's daylight bright and the lower down in magnification you go the more the illume part of the reticle is harder to see until it's only good for poor lighting by 4.5x.
Also when I operate the push button illume it squeaks, lol, and hangs up a little bit??!!
I'd be pissed if I hadn't gotten a good deal on it. If I ignore the turrets, which is hard to do, it's okay for saving some weight to be able to use 22x.
Last edited:
Commenting to show support for this segment. I own a MK5 2-10 and it's great but the TMR is the only downside I've found so far. Might try the new reticle if reviews come back very positive.
A 2-12 or 2.5-15 design in a NX6 flavor would be a great competitor if it had locking turrets, good reticle, and weight a couple ounces less than the MK5
A 2-12 or 2.5-15 design in a NX6 flavor would be a great competitor if it had locking turrets, good reticle, and weight a couple ounces less than the MK5
Put another weekend in with the HELOS 2-12 on an sig MCX virtus 11.5 SBR and really liking it. RMR piggyback at 12 o’clock. Primary use is critters and steel out to 600m. This is my “if I could only have one rifle” setup. Have tried what feels like everything from Eotech with 3 and 6x magnifier, RDS with magnifier, LPVOs, lightweight scope, and now this. Very happy with current setup. Thought the 1MOA dot would be too big but isn’t for my use. Thickness is great for finding fast and works at 2x, but have been primarily running 8-10, 12 is nice when zeroing. For the price and performance I think I’m good. Only issue is I’ll need to move the NGAL to side or get a longer (heavier) handguard if I ever want to run a clip on thermal with it. Bought as a proof on concept and think it’s “good enough” that won’t need to upgrade.
Is it a big deal to produce a scope with a new reticle? Everything else is already there. Steiner has to be watching fora like this and trying to get ideas to expand market share.
I have gone back and forth about getting one of these and I might end up getting one since everyone likes it so much. That 1moa dot and the mil worth of openness around it has been my biggest issues but other than that I really like the concept of that reticle and I’m sure I’ll manage just fine with it.
Problem is at SHOT 2024 they were getting feedback from ILya and others about the yet to be released reticle, I have a hard time believing the STR-MIL reticle is the result of listening to this feedback because this is not the reticle anyone has been asking for in an MPVO... maybe we'll get another reticle but I do not expect it anytime soon. Too many manufacturers just don't get reticles and FFP scopes.
I don't consider the LHT 4.5-22 to be an MPVO??? As a crossover scope it meets the design criteria, could it be better, yes, but saying strike eagle glass I would disagree with, it has glass worthy of its price point and if your LHT has no better optics than your strike eagles I would send that baby back to Vortex and have them assess it.
Yeah I know I'm just venting, though mine does seem substandard. Certainly nothing special in the glass department. I should send it back.
Yes, 6 mils/turn has let me down under stress before. I won’t buy it because of that. Everything else I own is 10/turn.
I shot my first NRL hunter match with one and the second I had a stage that had me dialing both below and beyond 6 mils, I knew I had the wrong optic.
My mistake, I thought you and others had provided feedback that they were going to take into consideration
IIRC correctly it was announced just prior, and you could find a fuzzy image on the internet, but they didn't bring that reticle to SHOT for the display.
They had it at SHOT, but under the counter. That was the first time I saw it in the scope.
As is usually the case, there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you use a precision reticle in an MPVO, the assumption is that the illumination is good enough to use it easily on low power.
ILya
That was my hope with the T6Xi but I was not impressed with the brightness unfortunately.
Okay, after almost 1 week we have 154 entries into the poll.
For political polls they are often using a sample polling size of about 2000 to 3000 people to represent the 150,000,000 people who vote in our country. Let's take the high number of 3000, that is just 0.00002 of the people represented which if I have my numbers right means the 154 respondents above represent 7,700,000 shooters (that's right, almost 8 million shooters, that is if I did my math correctly which was never my strong suit).
So according to the above numbers, manufacturers take notice, that means that 42% would like to see a 2-12x42 scope that fits the MPVO criteria laid out in the OP above, or put another way, 3,249,400 (three million two hundred and fifty thousand) shooters are interested in an MPVO done right.
Let's be clear once again and I'll start by stating what an MPVO is not, an MPVO IS NOT a crossover scope (though it could be used for crossover applications on a hunting rifle that is also used for long range steel shooting). An MPVO IS the next evolutionary step from an LPVO and is intended first and foremost for the gas gun crowd; therefore, it cannot have a higher bottom magnification than 2.5x (any higher puts it into the crossover category). An MPVO serves as an alternative to the limitations of the LPVO for PID and longer distance engagements while still maintaining a lighter weight, this is a short/compact FFP scope with parallax adjustment, lower profile exposed elevation turret (locking ideal), bright illumination and most importantly a reticle that works for quick engagements at the bottom magnification with a mrad hash option that works at higher magnifications for longer distance engagements.
For political polls they are often using a sample polling size of about 2000 to 3000 people to represent the 150,000,000 people who vote in our country. Let's take the high number of 3000, that is just 0.00002 of the people represented which if I have my numbers right means the 154 respondents above represent 7,700,000 shooters (that's right, almost 8 million shooters
, that is if I did my math correctly which was never my strong suit). So according to the above numbers, manufacturers take notice, that means that 42% would like to see a 2-12x42 scope that fits the MPVO criteria laid out in the OP above, or put another way, 3,249,400 (three million two hundred and fifty thousand) shooters are interested in an MPVO done right.
Let's be clear once again and I'll start by stating what an MPVO is not, an MPVO IS NOT a crossover scope (though it could be used for crossover applications on a hunting rifle that is also used for long range steel shooting). An MPVO IS the next evolutionary step from an LPVO and is intended first and foremost for the gas gun crowd; therefore, it cannot have a higher bottom magnification than 2.5x (any higher puts it into the crossover category). An MPVO serves as an alternative to the limitations of the LPVO for PID and longer distance engagements while still maintaining a lighter weight, this is a short/compact FFP scope with parallax adjustment, lower profile exposed elevation turret (locking ideal), bright illumination and most importantly a reticle that works for quick engagements at the bottom magnification with a mrad hash option that works at higher magnifications for longer distance engagements.
I thought it would to, part of reason took me so long to try it. Ultimately I’m a function over form guy, though. It just plain works so far. Actually balances better in current setup than most other previous iterations.
I really dont get the hate for the non-illuminated TMR. I'm a huge fan of my 2-10 Mk5 for this category.
My only area of improvement would be a TMR/PR3 hybrid. Basically take a TMR and the inner 5 mils on the X and Y stadia be the PR3, but maintain the TMR open middle.
Big fan.
My only area of improvement would be a TMR/PR3 hybrid. Basically take a TMR and the inner 5 mils on the X and Y stadia be the PR3, but maintain the TMR open middle.
Big fan.
Reticles are very much based on personal preference. TMR is not much more than a glorified mildot, for some it is too simple and they'd prefer a bit more information. With illumination the "hate" comes more from the fact that every other manufacturer out there today offers illumination as standard within their scopes and Leupold charges upwards of $500 (and more in some models) for this feature.
What's more is the illuminated TMR in the mk5 has the floating dot...where (at least for some time...) the non-illuminated does not.
Liking a floating dot instead of an open crosshair, that's annoying as hell.
I like the TMR with a floating dot but the one I have is the firedot and it’s a solid crosshair and annoying as hell if you wanna get a good aiming point.
And locking or capped windage. Also nuclear bright illumination which helps solve reticle issues of FFP at low mag.Okay, after almost 1 week we have 154 entries into the poll.
View attachment 8622652
For political polls they are often using a sample polling size of about 2000 to 3000 people to represent the 150,000,000 people who vote in our country. Let's take the high number of 3000, that is just 0.00002 of the people represented which if I have my numbers right means the 154 respondents above represent 7,700,000 shooters (that's right, almost 8 million shooters
So according to the above numbers, manufacturers take notice, that means that 42% would like to see a 2-12x42 scope that fits the MPVO criteria laid out in the OP above, or put another way, 3,249,400 (three million two hundred and fifty thousand) shooters are interested in an MPVO done right.
Let's be clear once again and I'll start by stating what an MPVO is not, an MPVO IS NOT a crossover scope (though it could be used for crossover applications on a hunting rifle that is also used for long range steel shooting). An MPVO IS the next evolutionary step from an LPVO and is intended first and foremost for the gas gun crowd; therefore, it cannot have a higher bottom magnification than 2.5x (any higher puts it into the crossover category). An MPVO serves as an alternative to the limitations of the LPVO for PID and longer distance engagements while still maintaining a lighter weight, this is a short/compact FFP scope with parallax adjustment, lower profile exposed elevation turret (locking ideal), bright illumination and most importantly a reticle that works for quick engagements at the bottom magnification with a mrad hash option that works at higher magnifications for longer distance engagements.
Similar threads
