Yes, hunting dark timber FOV is king and I'd rather the 4x on the low end.
Stop being a Neanderthal and piggyback and RMR on top.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, hunting dark timber FOV is king and I'd rather the 4x on the low end.
If you can even see the FFP reticle at low mag. Better get the illuminated or as stated, RDS.Yes, hunting dark timber FOV is king and I'd rather the 4x on the low end.
They need to add parallax to these. As well as any 1-10 scopes to be honest.FFP is practically pointless in a 2.5-10 optic. Combine that with the shitty TMR reticle and no parallax, hard no for me.
The NXS has parallax, the Mil-R reticle is mildly better, has illumination standard, has a similar form factor, and even weighs a hair less.
While my initial thought was 4-16 would be more appealing, its certainly not a bad compromise to sacrifice 0.5 mag on the bottom for 2x extra up top. As pointed out in another thread, the real question is can you justify going to the 6-24? Dimensions and weight are practically identical, and you would expect the 6-24 to perform better in that 15-18 range. Additionally, its likely the PR2 is much more usable at 6x to begin with.Yes, hunting dark timber FOV is king and I'd rather the 4x on the low end.
They need to add parallax to these. As well as any 1-10 scopes to be honest.
While my initial thought was 4-16 would be more appealing, its certainly not a bad compromise to sacrifice 0.5 mag on the bottom for 2x extra up top. As pointed out in another thread, the real question is can you justify going to the 6-24? Dimensions and weight are practically identical, and you would expect the 6-24 to perform better in that 15-18 range. Additionally, its likely the PR2 is much more usable at 6x to begin with.
Piggybacking a RDS for shorter shots, or if not, just to get you on target might be the play with 6-24 being the better choice.
I personally wanted that 4-16x range as well, but given the current options, I am seriously considering the 6-24, a mag range that has never been a thought for me. I might pick up both and just see which one I like better.
That would be a personal preference for you. I am good without it for my application and use.They need to add parallax to these. As well as any 1-10 scopes to be honest.
They might be thinking the market in this price range is already flooded with 4-16s and 5-20s. They might have wanted to be different.Yeah, I guess it seems like they are covering the same space but with the Mk4 in kinda an odd spot for practical use. I get the whole 4x and 5x mag ratio but a 5-20 mk4 or a 4-16 mk4 would make more sense to me.
If I'm shopping for a "cross over" scope, I'm willing to compromise on one end or the other but 4.5-18 seems like both. Just my opinion.
You are assuming Leupold intended this to be a crossover/hunting scope.Yes, hunting dark timber FOV is king and I'd rather the 4x on the low end.
Leupold and modern reticle choices do not exist. I’d be ok with the 2.5-10, honestly, if the TMR at least has some numbering. At this point I’m not even asking for a tree, just a “2, 4, 6, 8, 10” would be nice. Just so I don’t get lost in the counting.You are assuming Leupold intended this to be a crossover/hunting scope.
While it may look like Leupold tried to create a crossover scope I think that was just by chance, and it's just another target/competition scope.
If Leupold really knew what they were doing they'd have created a decent crossover reticle for the 2.5-10, 4.5-18 and the 2-10, 3.6-18 MK5.
Which models have this problem? My VX5HD-6HDs track just fine and hold zeros.Does anyone want to place bets on whether or not Leupold fixed the tracking and zero retention issues this time..
I'd be all over these things if the durability is there
Think he is reminiscing the old MK4 and VX3i line of scopes,and feels the need to crap on Leupold to make himself feel good today.Which models have this problem? My VX5HD-6HDs track just fine and hold zeros.
Which models have this problem? My VX5HD-6HDs track just fine and hold zeros.
Yeah. Leupold is stuck in the 80s when it comes to reticle selection …I'm ok without parallax on a 1-10. 1-10's with 24-28mm objective lenses work best in the 1-6 range anyway and are a better close range option that can do mid-long range. There's some exceptions, but for the most part thats where they work well and no having parallax really isn't a issue and needing to fuck with one to get a crisp image quickly could be a problem if you're operator AF. The parallax error at mid range for most of this type of stuff also isn't enough to really matter and the error is less with a smaller objective than a larger.
On a 2.5-10x42 though, absolutely it should have parallax because that optic isn't a close up quick engagement optic like a LPVO and is much better suited to living in the top end of the mag range for longer engagements. Also parallax error is higher with the larger objective as mentioned. Leupold did at least do them with a 150 yard fixed parallax though which still has less error at distance than a 100 yard while not making a difference at shorter distances for any practical purposes.
I'd still consider one even without parallax if they put a decent reticle in it. Leupold hates good reticles though.
Exactly. Also another good option for hunting in dark timber is to buy a hunting optic thats actually suited for that use and not a long range tactical style optic.
There's no way to get everything in one optic, it's just not possible, even with dual plane optics. There are going to be sacrifices and compromises with anything no matter how great it is or how much it costs. The best way to play multiple roles is two optics and the only way to get that on one gun in a reasonable package is a mid-high power optic with a RMR on it.
You are assuming Leupold intended this to be a crossover/hunting scope.
While it may look like Leupold tried to create a crossover scope I think that was just by chance, and it's just another target/competition scope.
If Leupold really knew what they were doing they'd have created a decent crossover reticle for the 2.5-10, 4.5-18 and the 2-10, 3.6-18 MK5.
Think he is reminiscing the old MK4 and VX3i line of scopes,and feels the need to crap on Leupold to make himself feel good today.
Think he is reminiscing the old MK4 and VX3i line of scopes,and feels the need to crap on Leupold to make himself feel good today.
How does lack of FOV translate into a detriment in a competition or hunting scenario?
-Stan
Now put a tree reticle that everyone wants in their crossover scopes on that and tell me how great an idea that is.
Thank you.
Wide FOV vs Narrow FOV is something to consider ... first and foremost ... the ability to see and PID at a wider image is a huge advantage ...How does lack of FOV translate into a detriment in a competition or hunting scenario?
-Stan
Prob works just like their VX-6 hd line. You enable it via some press & hold deal. Then if you are canted, the illumination flashes.View attachment 8320354
I'm interested in this scope as a whole, but especially this.
Any of you insider guys know how this works/looks?
There is a good image showing the March wide angle eye piece to the standard on and the difference it makes to FOV.Thank you.
I understand the theory, but was looking for a case study.
I am sorry I was not more specific.
If one truly “Finds the target with their eye and kills it with their scope” like @Lowlight says then smaller FOV shouldn’t be a problem.
Has there ever been a government scope contract for people who might die during usage that dictated an FOV requirement?
I ask as I truly don’t know.
I submit that smaller FOV, like tunneling, is a gripe based on preferences rather than actual case studies.
“I would have killed that (insert big game animal or enemy combatant here) had it not been for (insert less FOV or tunneling here)” said nobody ever.
Of course, as always, I am willing to be proven wrong.
-Stan
What do you mean? The tree will just obscure the entire target?Now put a tree reticle that everyone wants in their crossover scopes on that and tell me how great an idea that is.
Thank you!There is a good image showing the March wide angle eye piece to the standard on and the difference it makes to FOV.
The lower FOV is similar to what you'll get in the Mark 5/4 the wider is almost the widest FOV on the market but the Burris XTR3 and many Vortex scopes come close to this.View attachment 8321482
It might seem like a minor detail but a wider FOV allows you to either see more at the same magnification setting, or to see the same area at a high magnifcation, both options come into play in both hunting and and competition settings (maybe not F class or other non dynamic disciplines).
The bigger thing IMO is the "imersion" (I don't have a better word for this, some people say eybox, others scope shadow, other tunnel vision effect).
I've posted these images before as a comparasion and while the arent apples to apples (different magnification) they show the difference well.
While the LVPO image is basically best case scenario there are many higher mag scopes that look similar to this (can't see much of the eyepiece).
I should stress, some people don't have an issue with lower FOV, more "scope body" scopes, the ATACR is the most obvious one and is really common for PRS/NRL/hunting. Personally I can't stand the ATACR for the below reason, it's like having a bad reticle to my eyes, it bugs the crap outta me and no matter how much I use the optic I just can't get used to it.
View attachment 8321476View attachment 8321477
Not the entire target but the better portion of the bottom half. I know when im searching for small critters i can't see through that mess. And some of them are pretty horrible. But hey different strokes for different folks ,not for me,What do you mean? The tree will just obscure the entire target?
Definitely not the case with a properly designed reticle.
Now put a tree reticle that everyone wants in their crossover scopes on that and tell me how great an idea that is.
Thank you.
I understand the theory, but was looking for a case study.
I am sorry I was not more specific.
If one truly “Finds the target with their eye and kills it with their scope” like @Lowlight says then smaller FOV shouldn’t be a problem.
Has there ever been a government scope contract for people who might die during usage that dictated an FOV requirement?
I ask as I truly don’t know.
I submit that smaller FOV, like tunneling, is a gripe based on preferences rather than actual case studies.
“I would have killed that (insert big game animal or enemy combatant here) had it not been for (insert less FOV or tunneling here)” said nobody ever.
Of course, as always, I am willing to be proven wrong.
-Stan
Thank you!"Find it with your eye, kill it with the scope" doesn't pertain to using your rifle optic for scanning. It concerns not getting lost looking for a known target with your rifle optic. If you already know where your target is, then you utilize this mantra. Get the rifle pointed in the right direction where the target is already in your FOV or very close to it. If you don't find it quickly, get off the rifle and find the target again without the optic and start over.
Using your optic for scanning, you aren't looking for a known target to "kill." You're using the rifle optic as a spotting scope. Completely different use.
Also, there is a case to be made, that the wider your FoV, the higher odds you have of the target being in your FoV or very close to it once you move into your scope to "kill" it. Actually not just a case to be made, that's just how it is. Hence why many suggest and/or use lower power when first getting onto the optic to "kill" it and then increasing magnification once you're on target.
So, FoV is literally "free" better odds to get onto the target faster in a "find it with your eye, kill it with the scope" scenario.
What reticle/optic is the first picture, I like that reticle.I personally use more non tree than tree reticles. But with many reticles, the trees aren't that obtrusive.
View attachment 8321540View attachment 8321541
I agree with @Cr1775 here, and this is coming from a lover of tree reticles.Not the entire target but the better portion of the bottom half. I know when im searching for small critters i can't see through that mess. And some of them are pretty horrible.
Exactly the two scopes you just listed..Which models have this problem? My VX5HD-6HDs track just fine and hold zeros.
One example (albeit not with a variable scope) is the ACOG. Its massive field of view made it incredibly effective when setting up with an SKT, being able to get a little more SA. Or when receiving fire from urban areas or dense palm groves, scanning the areas with that extra magnified FOV really helped so I could observe more and miss fewer things.Thank you.
I understand the theory, but was looking for a case study.
I am sorry I was not more specific.
If one truly “Finds the target with their eye and kills it with their scope” like @Lowlight says then smaller FOV shouldn’t be a problem.
Has there ever been a government scope contract for people who might die during usage that dictated an FOV requirement?
I ask as I truly don’t know.
I submit that smaller FOV, like tunneling, is a gripe based on preferences rather than actual case studies.
“I would have killed that (insert big game animal or enemy combatant here) had it not been for (insert less FOV or tunneling here)” said nobody ever.
Of course, as always, I am willing to be proven wrong.
-Stan
YepMy favorite feature of the line, you actually get a reticle that’s usable through the mag range that way and the lower zoom ratio generally has more forgiving image qualities. High zoom ratios that are only useful for part of the range are stupid.
From Rokslide?? I'm from Idaho homeHe's from rokslide and all those retards can do is talk about how Leupolds don't hold zero and act like it's a thing.
Good to know we all can agree on something here.And I can't stand that Form deuce bag or his drop tests.
Ok ssteve, if say it was 34mm tube would it be to heavy for you, ssteve.Another “almost” from Leupold.
30mm tube on the 2-10?
4x
No crossover reticles
Still no 6x options in their lineup for tactical applications?
Cross over scopes are scopes that work for both hunting and target shooting.Ok ssteve, if say it was 34mm tube would it be to heavy for you, ssteve.
Say if it would be 6x , well then i cant see the reticle good enough, .
Just what the fuck is a crossover, why not just try to do 1 fucking thing good enough?
Tactical applications,? Just get a S&B you cheap xxxxxx .
Thank you!One example (albeit not with a variable scope) is the ACOG. Its massive field of view made it incredibly effective when setting up with an SKT, being able to get a little more SA. Or when receiving fire from urban areas or dense palm groves, scanning the areas with that extra magnified FOV really helped so I could observe more and miss fewer things.
I don’t know of any contracts with objectives/thresholds for FOV. In fact, the ATACR 1-8 has a terrible FOV. But that was done to increase the eye box. It was a trade space decision.
Yes, though, FOV is very important when in the field.
where’s @TheGerman when we needed himI wish we had some independently wealthy dude who would cut into scopes to show us just wtf is going on it there, especially from an erector / holding zero perspective.
Sort of like a wealthier, “Project Farm” guy. Wouldn’t mind a tad less “yell-y” guy too, but still concise.