LPVO + Dot question

[ut755ln]

I have almost universally run Eotech holographic sites, sometimes with magnifiers. I am pretty good to go with this unit to 300 yards but the limitations of the system become pretty apparent as you extend in range. I have been looking at and messing with various LPVO optics. The ones that I have hands on experience with are the Vortex Razor 1x6, the Primary Arms PLC 1x8, The Nightforce NXS 1x8, and the Eotech VUDU 1x10.

The purpose of the LPVO is for better ID of the target and to extend my competency range. I shoot pigs and predators and the day optic will be paired with a clip on thermal device (MH25). So here comes the question, would I be better off with something like a 2x10 for better eye box and just attaching a red dot to the top of the scope or canted?

I so far have not really been happy with any of the above scopes in terms of a do it all solution. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

I've got to say that the more I run a scope with a piggy back red dot the more I dig the setup . The caveat being that the scope has to have low enough turrets to see the piggy back red dot without using a riser, in order to be able to get a chin weld on the stock . I was just shooting a few days ago with an atacr 4-16 with piggy back 509t from 300yds to 10yds in, and scope with piggy back set up worked really well for me. I just don't think there
is a really good 2-10 mpvo option out there for the price right now that allows the use of a piggy back sight vs a lpvo with a piggy back . My vote for you based on the current options for your use case with a clip on would be an lpvo with piggyback until a better mpvo option comes out.

 

[Birddog6424]

I run this rig on my wolf/lion hunting rifle. This is an old photo, I've had this set up for 4 or 5 years. Still have the rifle which is a 6.5 Creedmoor gas gun, currently running an illuminated 3-18 XTRIII with this offset red dot.

Works great, zero issues. The scope is perfect for my needs and the dot is there for close proximity heavy timber.

Edited to fix photos

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I run this rig on my wolf/lion hunting rifle. This is an old photo, I've had this set up for 4 or 5 years. Still have the rifle which is a 6.5 Creedmoor gas gun, currently running an illuminated 3-18 XTRIII with this offset red dot.

Works great, zero issues. The scope is perfect for my needs and the dot is there for close proximity heavy timber.

No photo shows up

 

[Birddog6424]

No photo shows up

Fixed it

This dot and mount allows for a simple 45 degree cant. I still have a cheek weld, and the size of the turrets and objective lens are irrelevant. It works on everything.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Step up to a 2 or 2.5 base mag scope. Maybe like a 2.5-10.

 

[FatBoy]

IMO, if you’re not going to use the LPVO at 1x, get an MPVO and red dot piggyback . Even at 4x a scope is fairly easy to shoot both eyes open. Caveat is make sure the reticle fits your need.

 

[ZA206]

NX8 2.5-20X with an offset red dot is a pretty wicked “do all” combo. This one I built has a Proof CF 16” barrel and is a freaking laser. If I could only have one rifle, this one might be it (and I’ve got 3 other AR rifles with NX8 1-8x, Razor G3 1-10x and and Trijicon TR24)… so speaking from experience.

 

[theLBC]

some feedback here if eyebox is the priority.

Rifle Scopes - LVPO with the best eye box?

I’m working on a new AR build, and would like to top it with a quality LVPO, something that’s extremely quick and easy to get behind. LVPO’s are something I’m fairly inexperienced with, and I trust the opinions of the hide more so than most other places. I’ve heard nothing but good things...

www.snipershide.com

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

NX8 2.5-20X with an offset red dot is a pretty wicked “do all” combo. This one I built has a Proof CF 16” barrel and is a freaking laser. If I could only have one rifle, this one might be it (and I’ve got 3 other AR rifles with NX8 1-8x, Razor G3 1-10x and and Trijicon TR24)… so speaking from experience.

View attachment 8387477


View attachment 8387478

How do you like the larue rmr offset mount compared to a standard 45 degree off set mount ? Looks like the larue offset mount you have is more of a 70 degree angle.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

NX8 2.5-20X with an offset red dot is a pretty wicked “do all” combo. This one I built has a Proof CF 16” barrel and is a freaking laser. If I could only have one rifle, this one might be it (and I’ve got 3 other AR rifles with NX8 1-8x, Razor G3 1-10x and and Trijicon TR24)… so speaking from experience.

View attachment 8387477


View attachment 8387478

How does the carbon fiber barrel act when you put a lot of rounds through it, and it gets hot?

 

[ut755ln]

NX8 2.5-20X with an offset red dot is a pretty wicked “do all” combo. This one I built has a Proof CF 16” barrel and is a freaking laser. If I could only have one rifle, this one might be it (and I’ve got 3 other AR rifles with NX8 1-8x, Razor G3 1-10x and and Trijicon TR24)… so speaking from experience.

View attachment 8387477


View attachment 8387478

How do you like the riflespeed adjustable gas block?

 

[Bcamos]

IMO, if you’re not going to use the LPVO at 1x, get an MPVO and red dot piggyback . Even at 4x a scope is fairly easy to shoot both eyes open. Caveat is make sure the reticle fits your need.

As someone with a 1-4 with piggyback dot, I agree. The dot saves me when transitioning from a far target and a close target, but if my LPVO is set to 1x, then the dot doesn't even exist to me.

 

[ZA206]

How do you like the larue rmr offset mount compared to a standard 45 degree off set mount ? Looks like the larue offset mount you have is more of a 70 degree angle.

I like it so far, but I don’t have experience with standard 45 deg mounts. I can keep my chin on the stock with the LaRue and get the dot up fast. The rifles profile didn’t really get any wider with it on there. Very compact setup.

 

[ZA206]

How does the carbon fiber barrel act when you put a lot of rounds through it, and it gets hot?

The carbon fiber sheds heat fast, which can create more mirage faster than a standard barrel, so that can be an issue when shooting a lot through the scope. On the flip side, it does cool much faster, so the mirage goes away faster. I haven’t noticed the barrel losing accuracy due to heat.

 

[ZA206]

How do you like the riflespeed adjustable gas block?

It’s awesome, but you gotta be careful with your choice of rails, it won’t fit under a lot of the skinny rails. I’ve got it on another precision AR, they are excellent. I wish they made one for .875” journals…

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

How do you like the larue rmr offset mount compared to a standard 45 degree off set mount ? Looks like the larue offset mount you have is more of a 70 degree angle.

I like it so far, but I don’t have experience with standard 45 deg mounts. I can keep my chin on the stock with the LaRue and get the dot up fast. The rifles profile didn’t really get any wider with it on there. Very compact setup.

Looks like a neat setup.

I haven't tried it, but it looks like you would not need to move the rifle as much to use it.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have almost universally run Eotech holographic sites, sometimes with magnifiers. I am pretty good to go with this unit to 300 yards but the limitations of the system become pretty apparent as you extend in range. I have been looking at and messing with various LPVO optics. The ones that I have hands on experience with are the Vortex Razor 1x6, the Primary Arms PLC 1x8, The Nightforce NXS 1x8, and the Eotech VUDU 1x10.

The purpose of the LPVO is for better ID of the target and to extend my competency range. I shoot pigs and predators and the day optic will be paired with a clip on thermal device (MH25). So here comes the question, would I be better off with something like a 2x10 for better eye box and just attaching a red dot to the top of the scope or canted?

I so far have not really been happy with any of the above scopes in terms of a do it all solution. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

You are not alone. Lot's of shooters opting for MPVO and mid-range scope with offset/piggyback RDS. Most LPVO's have fixed parallax (usually around 100-150y) which doesn't make for the best experience out past 500. So if you're looking at a DMR style gasser which capabilities out to 1000 or beyond then the MPVO with RDS makes a lot of sense. While the LPVO is optimized for 1x use, the MPVO is optimized for higher magnification as well as distance (those with adjustable side focus), that along with the typically larger objective provides for potentially better eyebox and lowlight experience. The downside of the combo is more weight, but a well balanced MPVO shouldn't throw you off too much.

This year my main DMR rifle has the March 1.5-15x42 with offset Leupold DPP, my SPR is using an Athlon Helos 2-12x42 with piggyback Holosun EPS so I'm curious how I'll like these combos as the year progresses.

The new ZCO 2-10x30 intrigues me, I think this might be a stellar MPVO option with offset RDS for those who are not that happy with the 1-10 LPVO performance at distance. Leupold also has a Mark 5 2-10x30 but the ZCO has considerably wider FOV (published) and I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and say the ZCO will likely perform better optically than the Leupy, but we'll have to wait and see. To be a "compelling" MPVO it has got to have a reticle that performs just as good at the bottom magnification as well as the top and this is where a lot of mfr's (like Leupold) have struggled. To date, the best MPVO's with reticles that work high and low, IMO, are the Athlon with AHMR2, March with DF-TR2B (dual focal plane) and now the new ZCO with HTR. Steiner has their new H6Xi 2-12x42 coming with a mil reticle but I fear this may follow the same path as many other attempts at an MPVO and fail in the reticle department, hopefully not but we'll have to wait and see.

@Burdy has a lot of experience and competes regularly so has some great user experience with multiple configurations.

 

[ut755ln]

You are not alone. Lot's of shooters opting for MPVO and mid-range scope with offset/piggyback RDS. Most LPVO's have fixed parallax (usually around 100-150y) which doesn't make for the best experience out past 500. So if you're looking at a DMR style gasser which capabilities out to 1000 or beyond then the MPVO with RDS makes a lot of sense. While the LPVO is optimized for 1x use, the MPVO is optimized for higher magnification as well as distance (those with adjustable side focus), that along with the typically larger objective provides for potentially better eyebox and lowlight experience. The downside of the combo is more weight, but a well balanced MPVO shouldn't throw you off too much.

This year my main DMR rifle has the March 1.5-15x42 with offset Leupold DPP, my SPR is using an Athlon Helos 2-12x42 with piggyback Holosun EPS so I'm curious how I'll like these combos as the year progresses.

The new ZCO 2-10x30 intrigues me, I think this might be a stellar MPVO option with offset RDS for those who are not that happy with the 1-10 LPVO performance at distance. Leupold also has a Mark 5 2-10x30 but the ZCO has considerably wider FOV (published) and I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and say the ZCO will likely perform better optically than the Leupy, but we'll have to wait and see. To be a "compelling" MPVO it has got to have a reticle that performs just as good at the bottom magnification as well as the top and this is where a lot of mfr's (like Leupold) have struggled. To date, the best MPVO's with reticles that work high and low, IMO, are the Athlon with AHMR2, March with DF-TR2B (dual focal plane) and now the new ZCO with HTR. Steiner has their new H6Xi 2-12x42 coming with a mil reticle but I fear this may follow the same path as many other attempts at an MPVO and fail in the reticle department, hopefully not but we'll have to wait and see.

@Burdy has a lot of experience and competes regularly so has some great user experience with multiple configurations.

Thank you for responding.

I had really high hopes for the Leupold and was completely underwhelmed by the reticle choices. I got to try the Primary Arms GLX and it is okay for the money but the glass and light transmission wasn't that great. I do like the Nightforce 4-16 ATACR but it is a little bit bigger scope then I wanted. After talking to you in DMs and a couple of others, I am on the waiting list for the ZCO 2-10. While I wait for its release, I have a 1-8 ATACR with a top mount red dot that is doing okay but to your point, the lack of a parallax adjustment is what is throwing me. It is great 450 yards and in for me and then I start having different issues. One is focus at longer ranges, the other is the reticle obscuring targets sometimes.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Steiner has their new H6Xi 2-12x42 coming with a mil reticle but I fear this may follow the same path as many other attempts at an MPVO and fail in the reticle department, hopefully not but we'll have to wait and see.

I didn't even know about this scope until your post - I am excited to check it out.

 

[Burdy]

You are not alone. Lot's of shooters opting for MPVO and mid-range scope with offset/piggyback RDS. Most LPVO's have fixed parallax (usually around 100-150y) which doesn't make for the best experience out past 500. So if you're looking at a DMR style gasser which capabilities out to 1000 or beyond then the MPVO with RDS makes a lot of sense. While the LPVO is optimized for 1x use, the MPVO is optimized for higher magnification as well as distance (those with adjustable side focus), that along with the typically larger objective provides for potentially better eyebox and lowlight experience. The downside of the combo is more weight, but a well balanced MPVO shouldn't throw you off too much.

This year my main DMR rifle has the March 1.5-15x42 with offset Leupold DPP, my SPR is using an Athlon Helos 2-12x42 with piggyback Holosun EPS so I'm curious how I'll like these combos as the year progresses.

The new ZCO 2-10x30 intrigues me, I think this might be a stellar MPVO option with offset RDS for those who are not that happy with the 1-10 LPVO performance at distance. Leupold also has a Mark 5 2-10x30 but the ZCO has considerably wider FOV (published) and I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and say the ZCO will likely perform better optically than the Leupy, but we'll have to wait and see. To be a "compelling" MPVO it has got to have a reticle that performs just as good at the bottom magnification as well as the top and this is where a lot of mfr's (like Leupold) have struggled. To date, the best MPVO's with reticles that work high and low, IMO, are the Athlon with AHMR2, March with DF-TR2B (dual focal plane) and now the new ZCO with HTR. Steiner has their new H6Xi 2-12x42 coming with a mil reticle but I fear this may follow the same path as many other attempts at an MPVO and fail in the reticle department, hopefully not but we'll have to wait and see.

@Burdy has a lot of experience and competes regularly so has some great user experience with multiple configurations.

We all know the struggle with finding the right MPVO. At this point, I've given up until someone slaps me in the head with the perfect optic. I'm a bit different than others as I don't want parallax on my "work/battle/shtf" rifle. I don't like to fiddle with it under stress.

I sent my Dual CC short dot in to S&B and had the parallax moved to 300 METERS which leaves me basically with this, which is the beauty of a 24mm objective.

Yards vs Inches of parallax error:
100 0.091
200 0.184
300 0.040
400 0.104
500 0.248
600 0.392
700 0.536
800 0.680
900 0.824
1000 0.968
The worst it can get is double these numbers, regardless of eye/reticle placement.

8x mag is plenty for dynamic work at any of those distances so for me the MPVO w/ PA adjustment would likely be more suited toward a more precision based platform like a short action AR-10 or similar or a bolt gun that performs dual hunt/comp duty.

As always, use case is nearly everything and how you prefer to execute that use case is the rest.

Edit: I should also mention that the Dual CC also solves the problem of target obscurity at high magnification.

 

[Glassaholic]

We all know the struggle with finding the right MPVO. At this point, I've given up until someone slaps me in the head with the perfect optic. I'm a bit different than others as I don't want parallax on my "work/battle/shtf" rifle. I don't like to fiddle with it under stress.

I sent my Dual CC short dot in to S&B and had the parallax moved to 300 METERS which leaves me basically with this, which is the beauty of a 24mm objective.

Yards vs Inches of parallax error:
100 0.091
200 0.184
300 0.040
400 0.104
500 0.248
600 0.392
700 0.536
800 0.680
900 0.824
1000 0.968
The worst it can get is double these numbers, regardless of eye/reticle placement.

8x mag is plenty for dynamic work at any of those distances so for me the MPVO w/ PA adjustment would likely be more suited toward a more precision based platform like a short action AR-10 or similar or a bolt gun that performs dual hunt/comp duty.

As always, use case is nearly everything and how you prefer to execute that use case is the rest.

Edit: I should also mention that the Dual CC also solves the problem of target obscurity at high magnification.

As always a learning opportunity with you. Your comments make me wonder if Vortex would do something similar with their RG3 1-10, if so that could make me rethink that scope.

 

[FatBoy]

We all know the struggle with finding the right MPVO. At this point, I've given up until someone slaps me in the head with the perfect optic. I'm a bit different than others as I don't want parallax on my "work/battle/shtf" rifle. I don't like to fiddle with it under stress.

This is why I moved away from my Leupold 3-10 M3 and to the compact Nightforce scopes. Target and reticle is in focus from like 25 yards to infinity and parallax is easily solved for longer shots if needed with scope shadow. For fast shooting I don’t want to fuck with parallax or a compromised sight picture and these work for me.

Only downside is the SFP and holdovers at 10x only.

 

[Burdy]

As always a learning opportunity with you. Your comments make me wonder if Vortex would do something similar with their RG3 1-10, if so that could make me rethink that scope.

Hmm, not sure. Something tells me no because it might have to go back to Japan? But would be good to know. S&B turned mine around in like 7 days from the day I shipped it out and charged me $118. As for the RG3, this is where it currently stands. Again, your worst case scenario is 2x these numbers.

Range (yards)​	Error (mm)​	Error (mil)​	Error (inches)​	Error (moa)​
100​	4.000​	0.044​	0.157​	0.150​
200​	4.000​	0.022​	0.157​	0.075​
300​	12.000​	0.044​	0.472​	0.150​
400​	20.000​	0.055​	0.787​	0.188​
500​	28.000​	0.061​	1.102​	0.211​
600​	36.000​	0.066​	1.417​	0.226​
700​	44.000​	0.069​	1.732​	0.236​
800​	52.000​	0.071​	2.047​	0.244​
900​	60.000​	0.073​	2.362​	0.251​
1000​	68.000​	0.074​	2.677​	0.256​

The full chart for a 300 yard setting on the RG3 is below:

Range (yards)​	Error (mm)​	Error (mil)​	Error (inches)​	Error (moa)​
100​	8.000​	0.087​	0.315​	0.301​
200​	4.000​	0.022​	0.157​	0.075​
300​	0.000​	0.000​	0.000​	0.000​
400​	4.000​	0.011​	0.157​	0.038​
500​	8.000​	0.017​	0.315​	0.060​
600​	12.000​	0.022​	0.472​	0.075​
700​	16.000​	0.025​	0.630​	0.086​
800​	20.000​	0.027​	0.787​	0.094​
900​	24.000​	0.029​	0.945​	0.100​
1000​	28.000​	0.031​	1.102​	0.105​

 

[Glassaholic]

Hmm, not sure. Something tells me no because it might have to go back to Japan? But would be good to know. S&B turned mine around in like 7 days from the day I shipped it out and charged me $118. As for the RG3, this is where it currently stands. Again, your worst case scenario is 2x these numbers.

​

Range (yards)​	Error (mm)​	Error (mil)​	Error (inches)​	Error (moa)​
100​	4.000​	0.044​	0.157​	0.150​
200​	4.000​	0.022​	0.157​	0.075​
300​	12.000​	0.044​	0.472​	0.150​
400​	20.000​	0.055​	0.787​	0.188​
500​	28.000​	0.061​	1.102​	0.211​
600​	36.000​	0.066​	1.417​	0.226​
700​	44.000​	0.069​	1.732​	0.236​
800​	52.000​	0.071​	2.047​	0.244​
900​	60.000​	0.073​	2.362​	0.251​
1000​	68.000​	0.074​	2.677​	0.256​

The full chart for a 300 yard setting on the RG3 is below:

​

Range (yards)​	Error (mm)​	Error (mil)​	Error (inches)​	Error (moa)​
100​	8.000​	0.087​	0.315​	0.301​
200​	4.000​	0.022​	0.157​	0.075​
300​	0.000​	0.000​	0.000​	0.000​
400​	4.000​	0.011​	0.157​	0.038​
500​	8.000​	0.017​	0.315​	0.060​
600​	12.000​	0.022​	0.472​	0.075​
700​	16.000​	0.025​	0.630​	0.086​
800​	20.000​	0.027​	0.787​	0.094​
900​	24.000​	0.029​	0.945​	0.100​
1000​	28.000​	0.031​	1.102​	0.105​

Thanks for that. I will inquire with Vortex. Good to know about parallax error but I’m also hoping a 300y fixed will help with image focus beyond 500, I just felt the RG3 was lacking in IQ at distance.

 

[NC_Libertarian]

We all know the struggle with finding the right MPVO. At this point, I've given up until someone slaps me in the head with the perfect optic. I'm a bit different than others as I don't want parallax on my "work/battle/shtf" rifle. I don't like to fiddle with it under stress.

I sent my Dual CC short dot in to S&B and had the parallax moved to 300 METERS which leaves me basically with this, which is the beauty of a 24mm objective.

Yards vs Inches of parallax error:
100 0.091
200 0.184
300 0.040
400 0.104
500 0.248
600 0.392
700 0.536
800 0.680
900 0.824
1000 0.968
The worst it can get is double these numbers, regardless of eye/reticle placement.

8x mag is plenty for dynamic work at any of those distances so for me the MPVO w/ PA adjustment would likely be more suited toward a more precision based platform like a short action AR-10 or similar or a bolt gun that performs dual hunt/comp duty.

As always, use case is nearly everything and how you prefer to execute that use case is the rest.

Edit: I should also mention that the Dual CC also solves the problem of target obscurity at high magnification.

Reading this brings up a question that maybe you can clarify for me:

I get not desiring a scope that requires fiddling with parallax under stress. But what is the difference between having an adjustable parallax and set/forget at 300yds to a fixed parallax at 300yds?


BTW: I much prefer adjustable parallax because my eyes almost never like fixed at longer distances, like 300-400 and up. Mayb e if I had parallax settings more like what you suggested here, I wouldn't have as much dislike for them.

 

[Burdy]

Reading this brings up a question that maybe you can clarify for me:

I get not desiring a scope that requires fiddling with parallax under stress. But what is the difference between having an adjustable parallax and set/forget at 300yds to a fixed parallax at 300yds?


BTW: I much prefer adjustable parallax because my eyes almost never like fixed at longer distances, like 300-400 and up. Mayb e if I had parallax settings more like what you suggested here, I wouldn't have as much dislike for them.

The real difference is that the parallax adjustable scope is likely to have a larger objective than 24mm (like my lpvo) and therefore would/could be a bit more sensitive to it's depth of field. So you may set parallax at 300, but your image of the target at 500 or 700 might not be crisp unless you made a parallax adjustment. Also the potential parallax error is larger with increasing objective size.

 

[LRRPF52]

This is probably the best discussion on LPVOs and Red Dots I’ve heard so far:



Cliff Notes: For close range, RDS is superior.

For distance-shooting, no need for a 1x variable power optic

For long guns with larger dedicated variable power optics, the MRDS mounted makes sense.

45 offset dots get caught on everything, vehicles, barricades, helicopters, any snag hazards.

 

[FatBoy]

This is probably the best discussion on LPVOs and Red Dots I’ve heard so far:



Cliff Notes: For close range, RDS is superior.

For distance-shooting, no need for a 1x variable power optic

For long guns with larger dedicated variable power optics, the MRDS mounted makes sense.

45 offset dots get caught on everything, vehicles, barricades, helicopters, any snag hazards.

I watched this the other day, and though I respect the fuck out of these guys, I think it really depends on the game. we shoot (Outlaw 3 gun on natural terrain/bays) little poppers at 100-150 yards, 2-3” swingers out to 100 and steel out to 600. Red dots CAN get it done, but I have yet to see a guy do it faster than an LPVO/piggy back combo. (I am admittedly not shooting at the level or frequency of these guys but we do have sponsored shooters)

They also specifically discussed offset dots. I agree that the blind spot the LPVO tube creates sucks, and it’s one of the reasons I went to a top mount dot you get none of that, albeit with the cost of a 4.25” HOB, which isn’t ideal.


I love these little sofit clips, but they tend to drift a little around topics, mixing in competition and real work shit. You saw this big time on the live last week. Our competition isn’t like real world shit, and the LPVO seems to be an advantage in our situation . No doubt any of yes guys would smoke my ass, but I suspect it would mostly be time they saved with the pistol and superior stage planning .

Edit. I do agree LPVO, MPVO are equal with the piggyback.

 

[Burdy]

I've been preaching piggy-backed dots on this forum for years.

I don't believe the combo can be beat for a fighting rifle in which you do not know the scenario.

 

[Glassaholic]

I've been preaching piggy-backed dots on this forum for years.

I don't believe the combo can be beat for a fighting rifle in which you do not know the scenario.

Yes you have, I think it was some of your early posts which got me to even consider piggyback... Preach it brother!

 

[ut755ln]

This is probably the best discussion on LPVOs and Red Dots I’ve heard so far:



Cliff Notes: For close range, RDS is superior.

For distance-shooting, no need for a 1x variable power optic

For long guns with larger dedicated variable power optics, the MRDS mounted makes sense.

45 offset dots get caught on everything, vehicles, barricades, helicopters, any snag hazards.

Thanks for linking the video. I personally like the holographic more then the dots for close because you don't have to be perfectly lined up behind the optic for them to work.

 

[LRRPF52]

I watched this the other day, and though I respect the fuck out of these guys, I think it really depends on the game. we shoot (Outlaw 3 gun on natural terrain/bays) little poppers at 100-150 yards, 2-3” swingers out to 100 and steel out to 600. Red dots CAN get it done, but I have yet to see a guy do it faster than an LPVO/piggy back combo. (I am admittedly not shooting at the level or frequency of these guys but we do have sponsored shooters)

They also specifically discussed offset dots. I agree that the blind spot the LPVO tube creates sucks, and it’s one of the reasons I went to a top mount dot you get none of that, albeit with the cost of a 4.25” HOB, which isn’t ideal.


I love these little sofit clips, but they tend to drift a little around topics, mixing in competition and real work shit. You saw this big time on the live last week. Our competition isn’t like real world shit, and the LPVO seems to be an advantage in our situation . No doubt any of yes guys would smoke my ass, but I suspect it would mostly be time they saved with the pistol and superior stage planning .

Edit. I do agree LPVO, MPVO are equal with the piggyback.

Pranka specifically was talking about 0-300 for RDS, then magnified really comes into play after that. In another video discussing LE DM concepts and training, he also mentioned that as soon as we start talking about pushing 5.56 past 300yds, the next conversation needs to be about how we’re going to increase the ballistic potential of the 5.56 cartridge, which is pretty limited on bullet weight as it is.

For me and AR-15s, 400yds is just kind of warming up for most of what I do personally, but the form factor of the blaster is smaller than what most guys shooting CQM/CQB are using.

My 12” Grendel with TBAC Ultra 5 is kinda boring to shoot even at 600yds on 2 MOA steel. Just barely starts to get fun at 700-800yds, unless you’re clocking yourself with transitions at distance or smaller targets. It’s a lot more compact than a 16” AR-15, for example. I never really considered putting a Hubble telescope on it, so it has always worn LPVOs mainly for their compactness, FOV, and reticles. I would really like more FOV and optimized performance for 4-12x, as I just never use them on 1x.

Most of my 5.56 blasters either have a RDS or 1-4x LPVO. It feels like a waste of optic to put anything larger in magnification on 5.56 for me, mainly because I don’t shoot much distance with my 5.56 carbines. Something about hearing a little tick and not seeing bullet splash makes that not so fun for me, after being spoiled with 15 years of 100-130gr hitting the steel from AR-15s.

I still see a lot of 5.56 Mk.262 or similar when people bring that to courses, but no matter what scope or barrel length you go with, it just doesn’t cut the mustard on steel at distance.

 

[Burdy]

Pranka specifically was talking about 0-300 for RDS, then magnified really comes into play after that. In another video discussing LE DM concepts and training, he also mentioned that as soon as we start talking about pushing 5.56 past 300yds, the next conversation needs to be about how we’re going to increase the ballistic potential of the 5.56 cartridge, which is pretty limited on bullet weight as it is.

For me and AR-15s, 400yds is just kind of warming up for most of what I do personally, but the form factor of the blaster is smaller than what most guys shooting CQM/CQB are using.

My 12” Grendel with TBAC Ultra 5 is kinda boring to shoot even at 600yds on 2 MOA steel. Just barely starts to get fun at 700-800yds, unless you’re clocking yourself with transitions at distance or smaller targets. It’s a lot more compact than a 16” AR-15, for example. I never really considered putting a Hubble telescope on it, so it has always worn LPVOs mainly for their compactness, FOV, and reticles. I would really like more FOV and optimized performance for 4-12x, as I just never use them on 1x.

Most of my 5.56 blasters either have a RDS or 1-4x LPVO. It feels like a waste of optic to put anything larger in magnification on 5.56 for me, mainly because I don’t shoot much distance with my 5.56 carbines. Something about hearing a little tick and not seeing bullet splash makes that not so fun for me, after being spoiled with 15 years of 100-130gr hitting the steel from AR-15s.

I still see a lot of 5.56 Mk.262 or similar when people bring that to courses, but no matter what scope or barrel length you go with, it just doesn’t cut the mustard on steel at distance.

I've been running a 13.7" 5.56 (1-6s through 1-10s) for years shooting out to 600y for RnG matches with good success. I take it to 700-800 fairly consistently on range days under good conditions. Shot a couple of the QP matches this year with it, thinking I wouldn't be too outgunned, but was wrong. As you say, I had little ability to see trace, watch for splash, hear steel and fight the wind at distances beyond 600 on targets that were smaller than your usual RnG torso.

My first QP match, I actually shot really well, close to the edge of my abilities and thought I might have a chance to podium with my 13.7. I was pretty astonished once the scores were released to see myself mid-pack. Pretty much everyone at the top was running Grendel or ARC.

My issue with both Grendel and ARC, other than loss of mag capacity and increased expense, has been their significantly reduced performance in shorter barrels. I guess the good side of that is elevation is just math. Having consolidated calibers nearly 10 years ago now, I am just not sure if there is room for anything between my 5.56 and 6.5CM at the moment. That space seems to be hotly contested the last few years with no clear winner. I would love nothing more than a small frame AR with bolt gun performance, but I just am not 100% happy with the selections we have yet.

 

[Glassaholic]

I've been running a 13.7" 5.56 (1-6s through 1-10s) for years shooting out to 600y for RnG matches with good success. I take it to 700-800 fairly consistently on range days under good conditions. Shot a couple of the QP matches this year with it, thinking I wouldn't be too outgunned, but was wrong. As you say, I had little ability to see trace, watch for splash, hear steel and fight the wind at distances beyond 600 on targets that were smaller than your usual RnG torso.

My first QP match, I actually shot really well, close to the edge of my abilities and thought I might have a chance to podium with my 13.7. I was pretty astonished once the scores were released to see myself mid-pack. Pretty much everyone at the top was running Grendel or ARC.

My issue with both Grendel and ARC, other than loss of mag capacity and increased expense, has been their significantly reduced performance in shorter barrels. I guess the good side of that is elevation is just math. Having consolidated calibers nearly 10 years ago now, I am just not sure if there is room for anything between my 5.56 and 6.5CM at the moment. That space seems to be hotly contested the last few years with no clear winner. I would love nothing more than a small frame AR with bolt gun performance, but I just am not 100% happy with the selections we have yet.

Some special ops starting to use 16” 6 ARC with good success. It may not be as flat as 5.56 but like you say it’s just math, buddy in TX has a 12” 6 ARC and says its good to 1000? I think if anything can bridge the gap between 5.56 and 6.5 Creed it is the 6 ARC which is why I’ve started to invest in it. Just bought a Proof 18” barrel for my LMT but thinking I might try a P&W 14.5 and see how I like it at sea level.

Are your 13.7 rifles P&W or do you deal with ATF when crossing state lines? To me that is the biggest pain with SBR.

Went shooting with a friend last week we were sighting in LPVO and red dot, me a 5x prism with piggyback RDS on my new 12” 5.56 piston shovelnose. Live this rig, destined to become my new favorite.

 

[Burdy]

Some special ops starting to use 16” 6 ARC with good success. It may not be as flat as 5.56 but like you say it’s just math, buddy in TX has a 12” 6 ARC and says its good to 1000? I think if anything can bridge the gap between 5.56 and 6.5 Creed it is the 6 ARC which is why I’ve started to invest in it. Just bought a Proof 18” barrel for my LMT but thinking I might try a P&W 14.5 and see how I like it at sea level.

Are your 13.7 rifles P&W or do you deal with ATF when crossing state lines? To me that is the biggest pain with SBR.

Went shooting with a friend last week we were sighting in LPVO and red dot, me a 5x prism with piggyback RDS on my new 12” 5.56 piston shovelnose. Live this rig, destined to become my new favorite.

Yes, my 13.7 is P&W.
I was almost sold on 6 ARC, then they start talking about this 6 MAX and I just threw my hands up in the air.
I'm just waiting for something to turn into MLOK and everything else to turn into Keymod, then I am on board.

 

[Glassaholic]

Yes, my 13.7 is P&W.
I was almost sold on 6 ARC, then they start talking about this 6 MAX and I just threw my hands up in the air.
I'm just waiting for something to turn into MLOK and everything else to turn into Keymod, then I am on board.

I like P&W, especially when I forget to lube my suppressor threads and my suppressor seizes up on my brake .

Way off topic for the thread sorry…

Here’s my thoughts on the small frame cartridge race. For years there’s been different wildcats that have tried to “make it” in the small frame game, some with little success and others with better, the 6.5 Grendel and 300 BLK probably being the most successful. Hornady has been striking gold with a lot of their new cartridges for the past 15 years or so. 6.5 Creedmoor, 300 PRC, 6.5 PRC et al. They have excellent marketing and produce excellent match ammo at “affordable” prices, which also helps adoption by the community. I see the 6mm ARC as another product that continues to gain awareness and acceptance. Yes, it takes a different bolt and magazine which is kind of a pain but not the end of the world, especially if the benefits outweigh the negatives which some could argue the 6mm ARC does - small frame, 1000y+ capable, good factory loads with even better reloading potential. Then there’s other cartridge compatibility, we know 6 ARC is basically a necked down Grendel so there’s that but now Hornady introduces the 338 ARC which is the most compelling subsonic cartridge for small frame since the 300 BLK but with even better application for subsonic hunting. I’m not saying this is a guarantee for success but they are good signs. Now the 6 ARC is beginning to show some adoption by specialized military, another good sign.

With the 6mm Max you have a cartridge that is similar to the 6x45 with slightly larger case capacity due to its straight wall design but you still have the issue of COL with longer/heavier bullets and the long’ish’ case, to me that is the biggest deficit as those bigger bullets have to be seated deeper in the case beyond the shoulder which tends to effect accuracy, that reason alone has me suspect about 6 Max, but I could be wrong.

 

[koshkin]

.mil world seems to have really taken a liking to the 6ARC and I expect that to stick for a bit. Even with relatively short barrels there is a real drift and lethality advantage with it. That having been said, some of the interesting 5.5 developments I see with at least two manufacturers will likely forestall the demise of 5.56 for the foreseeable future.

On the parallax error: the numbers a few posts up do not take into account defocus induced error and eye pupil size, but that is still a largely negligible error for a typical SPR-ish application with an LPVO.

My RG3 is set for 300 yard parallax and that works very well for my purposes. That having been said, if I was doing it now, I would probably set it to 250 since that is right around the hyperfocal distance for that scope on 10x.

Lastly, if you are looking for an SPR-ish LPVO, it is kinda hard to overlook Delta Stryker 1-10x24 since it has side focus. It is not as good as RG3 on 1x, but it works very nicely on higher power and a slightly larger objective does not hurt.

ILya

 

[Burdy]

.mil world seems to have really taken a liking to the 6ARC and I expect that to stick for a bit. Even with relatively short barrels there is a real drift and lethality advantage with it. That having been said, some of the interesting 5.5 developments I see with at least two manufacturers will likely forestall the demise of 5.56 for the foreseeable future.

On the parallax error: the numbers a few posts up do not take into account defocus induced error and eye pupil size, but that is still a largely negligible error for a typical SPR-ish application with an LPVO.

My RG3 is set for 300 yard parallax and that works very well for my purposes. That having been said, if I was doing it now, I would probably set it to 250 since that is right around the hyperfocal distance for that scope on 10x.

Lastly, if you are looking for an SPR-ish LPVO, it is kinda hard to overlook Delta Stryker 1-10x24 since it has side focus. It is not as good as RG3 on 1x, but it works very nicely on higher power and a slightly larger objective does not hurt.View attachment 8555890


ILya

Great point that I forgot to mention. Not a fan of parallax on LPVOs but understand why some want it. I sent my S&B short dot back to Schmidt and had them set parallax at 300 meters. The resulting error throughout the effective range is better than I'd be able to shoot with that weapon system. I much prefer this method.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

@koshkin are you still using the March dual focal plane lpvo?

 

[koshkin]

@koshkin are you still using the March dual focal plane lpvo?

I have their 1.5-15x42. The 1-10x went back to March.

ILya

 

[LRRPF52]

I've been running a 13.7" 5.56 (1-6s through 1-10s) for years shooting out to 600y for RnG matches with good success. I take it to 700-800 fairly consistently on range days under good conditions. Shot a couple of the QP matches this year with it, thinking I wouldn't be too outgunned, but was wrong. As you say, I had little ability to see trace, watch for splash, hear steel and fight the wind at distances beyond 600 on targets that were smaller than your usual RnG torso.

My first QP match, I actually shot really well, close to the edge of my abilities and thought I might have a chance to podium with my 13.7. I was pretty astonished once the scores were released to see myself mid-pack. Pretty much everyone at the top was running Grendel or ARC.

My issue with both Grendel and ARC, other than loss of mag capacity and increased expense, has been their significantly reduced performance in shorter barrels. I guess the good side of that is elevation is just math. Having consolidated calibers nearly 10 years ago now, I am just not sure if there is room for anything between my 5.56 and 6.5CM at the moment. That space seems to be hotly contested the last few years with no clear winner. I would love nothing more than a small frame AR with bolt gun performance, but I just am not 100% happy with the selections we have yet.

I read about this for years, just like I read that 6.5 Grendel was basically worthless from a 16” barrel for years until I ended up with one, not by my own design. I got it in 2009 when I really wanted an 18” or 20” Grendel. Couldn’t get it in the cart fast enough, so all that was left was a 16”.

That thing was predictable out to 1200yds at 4400ft, shooting 123gr A-MAX at 2450fps mv from 1/7.5 twist.

I built some 18” guns after that with Lilja barrels, along with a bunch of Bartlein and Satern 20” Grendels. I did some 24” heavy fluted Lilja pipes in Seekins sets too, and a bunch of Lilja and AA 16” lightweight builds. In 2017, I finally built two 12” Grendels, and I wish I would have done that in the beginning.

There really isn’t a significant difference in mv.

24” spits 123gr out at 2580-2650fps
20” does 2520-2570
18” does 2460-2520
16” is 2430-2480
14.5” 2350-2420
12” does 2280-2350

Even with a 1-4x24 LPVO, I would normally just take the 12” out, rack a round into the chamber, and start putting rounds on a steel buffalo at 780yds with a 90% hit rate. It does that easily with 120gr Federal OTM and 123gr ELD-M. You know when you hit the steel with 120gr and higher.

With 100gr ELD-VT, it’s very flat and much faster.

I first-round connected with it at 900yds on 2 MOA steel using that 110gr PPU fodder, which is pretty inconsistent.

90gr TNT Federal box ammo is doing 2700fps from my 12” suppressed with a TBAC 30 cal Ultra 5.

 

[Burdy]

I read about this for years, just like I read that 6.5 Grendel was basically worthless from a 16” barrel for years until I ended up with one, not by my own design. I got it in 2009 when I really wanted an 18” or 20” Grendel. Couldn’t get it in the cart fast enough, so all that was left was a 16”.

That thing was predictable out to 1200yds at 4400ft, shooting 123gr A-MAX at 2450fps mv from 1/7.5 twist.

I built some 18” guns after that with Lilja barrels, along with a bunch of Bartlein and Satern 20” Grendels. I did some 24” heavy fluted Lilja pipes in Seekins sets too, and a bunch of Lilja and AA 16” lightweight builds. In 2017, I finally built two 12” Grendels, and I wish I would have done that in the beginning.

There really isn’t a significant difference in mv.

24” spits 123gr out at 2580-2650fps
20” does 2520-2570
18” does 2460-2520
16” is 2430-2480
14.5” 2350-2420
12” does 2280-2350

Even with a 1-4x24 LPVO, I would normally just take the 12” out, rack a round into the chamber, and start putting rounds on a steel buffalo at 780yds with a 90% hit rate. It does that easily with 120gr Federal OTM and 123gr ELD-M. You know when you hit the steel with 120gr and higher.

With 100gr ELD-VT, it’s very flat and much faster.

I first-round connected with it at 900yds on 2 MOA steel using that 110gr PPU fodder, which is pretty inconsistent.

90gr TNT Federal box ammo is doing 2700fps from my 12” suppressed with a TBAC 30 cal Ultra 5.

I hate you right now. I will find a more appropriate thread to continue this.

 

[CK1.0]

I read about this for years, just like I read that 6.5 Grendel was basically worthless from a 16” barrel for years until I ended up with one, not by my own design. I got it in 2009 when I really wanted an 18” or 20” Grendel. Couldn’t get it in the cart fast enough, so all that was left was a 16”.

That thing was predictable out to 1200yds at 4400ft, shooting 123gr A-MAX at 2450fps mv from 1/7.5 twist.

I built some 18” guns after that with Lilja barrels, along with a bunch of Bartlein and Satern 20” Grendels. I did some 24” heavy fluted Lilja pipes in Seekins sets too, and a bunch of Lilja and AA 16” lightweight builds. In 2017, I finally built two 12” Grendels, and I wish I would have done that in the beginning.

There really isn’t a significant difference in mv.

24” spits 123gr out at 2580-2650fps
20” does 2520-2570
18” does 2460-2520
16” is 2430-2480
14.5” 2350-2420
12” does 2280-2350

Even with a 1-4x24 LPVO, I would normally just take the 12” out, rack a round into the chamber, and start putting rounds on a steel buffalo at 780yds with a 90% hit rate. It does that easily with 120gr Federal OTM and 123gr ELD-M. You know when you hit the steel with 120gr and higher.

With 100gr ELD-VT, it’s very flat and much faster.

I first-round connected with it at 900yds on 2 MOA steel using that 110gr PPU fodder, which is pretty inconsistent.

90gr TNT Federal box ammo is doing 2700fps from my 12” suppressed with a TBAC 30 cal Ultra 5.

It's funny, seems every year around Black Friday (with all the cheap AR parts deals going on) I resume my plan to put an SPR/DMR-type AR together... and every year I just end up buying more components or barrels for my bolt-gun instead once I look at what 77gr HPBT ammo costs versus the relatively weak performance one nets lol.

Then, for the last couple of years, I've flirted with going with a 6ARC. But the same thing happens, the factory ammo is still too pricey and not worth it to me as something to play with (and not load for) while my bolt gun cools off...

Until I read your post I'd never really thought about 6.5 Grendel, I didn't even know there was much factory ammo out there... but after looking up what's out there, 120gr and 120+gr stuff is ~$0.80 a round (cheaper than most of the 77gr .223/5.56 stuff)... dang! The Grendel is starting to look real good... It might be the SPR/DMR answer that I've been looking for the whole time and I had no idea lol. Thanks!

 

[ggmanning]

I run a 45* with a NF 1-8 on my carbine, son uses the same with the Primary Arms 1-8. Have a 45* on my MK12 with a 3-24. We use the offset red dots often on the carbines close shooting. The scopes actually are real nice for anything but real close, especially the PA....it has a good field of view and the scope disappears using it as a red dot on 1x with both eyes open. I prefer the 45* mount after trying a few different set ups. Slight tilt to the gun with minimal real change in cheek weld and the red dot is right there. It also has little deviation from POA POI mounted closer to the bore for me transitioning to it vs ring mounted. The one on the MK12 is rarely used and only there for things I never use the gun to do but I had an extra so..........

 

[LRRPF52]

It's funny, seems every year around Black Friday (with all the cheap AR parts deals going on) I resume my plan to put an SPR/DMR-type AR together... and every year I just end up buying more components or barrels for my bolt-gun instead once I look at what 77gr HPBT ammo costs versus the relatively weak performance one nets lol.

Then, for the last couple of years, I've flirted with going with a 6ARC. But the same thing happens, the factory ammo is still too pricey and not worth it to me as something to play with (and not load for) while my bolt gun cools off...

Until I read your post I'd never really thought about 6.5 Grendel, I didn't even know there was much factory ammo out there... but after looking up what's out there, 120gr and 120+gr stuff is ~$0.80 a round (cheaper than most of the 77gr .223/5.56 stuff)... dang! The Grendel is starting to look real good... It might be the SPR/DMR answer that I've been looking for the whole time and I had no idea lol. Thanks!

131 factory loads last I counted. AAC just introduced 3 or 4 SKUs this year that are very affordable at 70-75cpr.

I’ve loaded for 5.56 for many years, mainly 69gr SMK, 75gr Hornady, and 77gr SMKs. I’ll never waste a Small RIfle Primer on 5.56 again after what Grendel does to steel in comparison.

When I see all the effort people are putting into really high-end 5.56 blasters, it can only be compared with someone who would take one of the older, lighter sports cars, do a full frame and body kit, top-end wheels and tires, custom interior, and put a gutless motor in it. It still drives, but sucks in the performance dept.

 

[Burdy]

131 factory loads last I counted. AAC just introduced 3 or 4 SKUs this year that are very affordable at 70-75cpr.

I’ve loaded for 5.56 for many years, mainly 69gr SMK, 75gr Hornady, and 77gr SMKs. I’ll never waste a Small RIfle Primer on 5.56 again after what Grendel does to steel in comparison.

When I see all the effort people are putting into really high-end 5.56 blasters, it can only be compared with someone who would take one of the older, lighter sports cars, do a full frame and body kit, top-end wheels and tires, custom interior, and put a gutless motor in it. It still drives, but sucks in the performance dept.

Do you still have a strong opinion if you were starting today in the 12.5 inch range that you would chose Grendel over ARC?

 

[LRRPF52]

Do you still have a strong opinion if you were starting today in the 12.5 inch range that you would chose Grendel over ARC?

Pros and cons of both -

6.5 Grendel:
Pros
Initial bugs with weapon integration worked out in the 2000s, with over 20 years of industry infrastructure in-place.
SAAMI and CIP certified/standardized
Tons of factory ammo ranging from affordable to premium options across every major brand except Winchester
Has 110-140gr factory options with 123gr being the most popular.
Heavier grain projectiles show more bullet splash on steel/you know when you hit even at 800-1000yds.
Nosler Accubond LR option for hunting is DRT medicine.
Barrel life isn’t even a discussion due to low chamber pressure and full propellant conversion.
Gas system lengths and port diameters basically mimic 5.56.
Can be run fast without chasing pressure, with 80-1007gr.

Cons
100-107gr BCs are in the .445-.462 region, so wind drift is better than 5.56, but not as good as 6mm.

6mm AR/ARC
Pros
Excellent trajectory and wind deflection with 103-108gr
Uses mostly Grendel parts/mags

Cons
Factory ammo is all pricey, with maybe around 20 SKUs currently.
Projectile weights are limited to 58-110gr, with the main useful ones being 75gr and up.
Gas system and bore volume require considerations for placement, porting, and the back-end to make it run well.
While SAAMI MAP is listed at 52ksi, you really should consider running it at 49ksi in volume.

I’ve only shot 6mm AR through 20” and longer AR-15s dating back, so RLGS with really smooth behavior and no real recoil to speak of. For a 6mm 12.5” barrel, I would want as long of a gas system as possible and it would be run suppressed of course. Port pressure and muzzle exit pressure will be noticeably higher with 6mm due to bore volume.

6.5 Grendel in 2x 12” builds so far has been very well-behaved, as if they were meant for each other (AR-15/6.5 Grendel/12”/Suppressed/CLGS/extra power action spring/standard buffer).

Shooting the 123gr Fort Scott TUI brings very high BC to the comparison, and velocities of the 123gr in Grendel are more like the 108gr in 6mm. Lighter bullets have noticeably-less drop though in the scope. When I shoot 100-110gr in Grendel, you can clearly see the trajectory difference than 123gr ELD-M. I like the sound of how 123gr ELD-M hits better though.

 

[TimK]

I run RMR's at 12:00 on top of a NF NX8 and a Vortex 1-10. Love it, love it, love it. I personally didn't care for the angled mounts. They sit up way high so I have a chance of seeing them through my PVS-14. I did some "up" drills comparing the LPVO's vs the red dots, and the dots were consistently a touch faster even being up that high. Surprised me, but I repeated the test till my arms got tired and the dots were always faster than the scope at 1X.

 

[Glassaholic]

Shooting the 123gr Fort Scott TUI brings very high BC to the comparison, and velocities of the 123gr in Grendel are more like the 108gr in 6mm. Lighter bullets have noticeably-less drop though in the scope. When I shoot 100-110gr in Grendel, you can clearly see the trajectory difference than 123gr ELD-M. I like the sound of how 123gr ELD-M hits better though.

I take it the Fort Scott Munitions ammo is pretty accurate then? I just ordered a bunch on their big Cyber Monday sale, so I hope it is...