New 2024 MPVO Options

[Glassaholic]

An “LPVO” in a thread about MPVO?


View attachment 8369947

There is no clear set industry definition of LPVO or MPVO. The majority of the shooting community sees LPVO starting at 1x or very close to it. MPVO was coined to meet a particular need that was more than LPVO but not quite mid-range either. ZCO can call their 2-10x30 an LPVO but most will see 2x at the bottom and not categorize this way, it fills the niche of an MPVO moreso than LPVO. I expect the ZCO 2-10x30 to do extremely well optically and we’ll likely see many use cases of 2-10x30 with an offeset RDS which is essentially what many seeking MPVO are looking for. Thankfully ZCO decided to use LPVO style reticles which is what we’ve been asking for in the FFP scopes that fit the MPVO category. A FFP reticle that is useful at the bottom mag of an MPVO may negate the need for offset RDS while still providing good close quarters performance along with excellent distance performance, either way it is the users choice but the idea behind the MPVO is that we don’t have to compromise at the top end of the mag range like so many LPVO’s do.

 

[BCP]

That ZCO "Predator" reticule center thing looks like a vagina symbol.

One of my ARs has a really old leupold mk4 tactical (2006???) that I'd like to replace with the 4hd 2.5-10 but nobody has them in stock. Or maybe that credo 2-10.

 

[Conqueror]

I understand why they’d stick with a 5x erector ratio for optical quality but man in 2024 I wish ZCO had gone more like 2-12 or 2-14. My aging eyes appreciate a little extra top-end mag when I’m shooting for groups or at longer distances.

 

[echamp8]

Anyone use GPO Spectra 6x MPVO?

I did a buy and return with cameraland on the gpo 2-12 in mil. I couldn’t get any info on the subtensions of the reticle. I also inquire on where they are made and was given an answer of “they outsource the assembly to Japan.” When I tried to verify it was actually manufactured in Japan, I got an extremely long winded response to say that it’s hard to pinpoint a country of origin for production due to the global market works.

Seems pretty simple to answer yes or no. Such as, yes it’s assembled in the LOW factory, or it’s assembled in China with globally sourced parts. Too sketch for me so I sent it back. Very disappointed as the glass was very nice, but the reticle was unusable as no subtensions are provided.

 

[Vynz]

So I can go from a Razor 1-10x24mm in a 34mm tube at 21oz to a ZCO 2-10x30 in a 36mm tube for 27oz? ZCO did a good job of making the March 1.5-15x42mm at 24oz seem like the way to go for me. Maybe I expected too much from ZCO based on the MPVO thread. They made a 50mm objective 1.7-12x at 29oz for the EU, but the US drops 20mm of objective glass and 2.3x for 2.5oz of savings.

 

[lastshot12]

I currently run the Vortex Razor HD Gen III 1-10x on my Scar 17s, and I absolutely love it!

 

[FredHammer]

One thing that is annoying whenever this topic is being discussed, is people having dogmatic beliefs of how the ideal MPVO "should" be. Its annoying because MPVO is a broad term and there are different use cases for scopes in this category. These different use cases dictate different balances of features, which are sometimes mutually exclusive.

For me, I like MPVOs because I am running an offset dot, and find a 1x scope to be redundant. Id rather take the $ and engineering needed to make a good 1x and put that towards a better high end. I leave the scope on its lowest setting which enables me switch between 1x and 2.5x in a fraction of a second, enabling precision in scenarios where you would have only a 1x if using an LPVO, without taking my hands off the gun to adjust anything. This also gives a great setup for passive aiming.
For that use case I need a bold center reticle to quickly engage targets at the low end as close as possible. I don't want to have to rely on scope illumination with its short battery life, so the reticle itself being bold is essential.
On the high end I want markedly better performance than I could get from an LPVO. A mil-tree is pretty much a necessity. I feel adjustable parallax helps to a great deal here. Its not so much about removing parallax error as it is about focusing on the target, such as to resolve a camouflaged target from the background.

I like this setup so much that LPVOs no longer interest me. if I want to save weight/bulk, I would rather go all the way down to an RDS and QD magnifier.

Have you found any MPVOs that match the criteria mentioned in your post? I am like minded here.

 

[blue_ridge]

I almost posted how I think the need for a legit MPVO is important because it would fit the role of a SHTF weapon perfectly. I decided it was too long, so I started a new topic. Hopefully the Steiner H6Xi 2-12x mil version proves me wrong, but I don’t think there’s an ideal scope on the market right now other than Chinese made Athlon and Swampfox 2-12x.

What is the ideal SHTF optic?

I’ve posted opinions on the need for a legit MPVO battle optic. Most people would say a red dot or LPVO or both is best. I think a 1-10 LPVO might be ideal, but the optical limitations on a 10x erector limit performa CE and greatly increase prices. I think if the solution to a problem is $3500...

www.snipershide.com

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

Have you found any MPVOs that match the criteria mentioned in your post? I am like minded here.

No I have not, and I've really been looking.

My opinion is still that the GlX 2.5-10 is the best option but has the downsides I explained above.

I think the March 1.5-15 could be the best on the market, but I'm too poor to find out . I think it would be a better option if they made it a 2-16.


The Steiner 2-12 looks great on paper except for the reticle. I'm highly confident it will not give me the speed I want at 2x.

The CHPWS "LPVO" could be interesting, except they seem like a sketchy company and they chose literally the worst possible name. It isn't out yet so no idea on final specs/reticle.

 

[nrspence]

I’m liking the specs and reviews on the maven RS 1.2 2.5-15x44

 

[Jayjay1]

What is wrong with the Leupold VX-6HD 2-12x42?

Doesn´t it fit all the boxes?


I´m asking for a friend ...

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

It would be interesting if the reticle was a mil tree and not a lame duplex.

Its also sfp and MOA.

The specs look good though in terms of size, weight, mag range.

 

[Jayjay1]

Got you.

Yeah, the reticle is a no-go, as is SFP and MOA.

Damn, it didn´t look so bad for me.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

Hopefully some of the other manufacturers will take notice of Maven’s rs1.2 2.5-15. It’s probably the most usable reticle out right now in that crossover mpvo market. That thing is selling like crazy. They come back in stock and literally are out of stock again in minutes. Kinda reminds me of MDT’s Black Friday sale.

 

[beetroot]

What is wrong with the Leupold VX-6HD 2-12x42?

Doesn´t it fit all the boxes?


I´m asking for a friend ...

If Leupold offered the Firedot TMR and Mil turrets it'd be a sweet option.

They used to do Firedot windplex in the nonHD models.

 

[Jayjay1]

Hopefully some of the other manufacturers will take notice of Maven’s rs1.2 2.5-15. It’s probably the most usable reticle out right now in that crossover mpvo market. That thing is selling like crazy. They come back in stock and literally are out of stock again in minutes. Kinda reminds me of MDT’s Black Friday sale.

Which one of those three?

I´ve looked them up and don´t know which one.
Are they not illuminated?

 

[VandelayIndustries]

Which one of those three?

I´ve looked them up and don´t know which one.
Are they not illuminated?

Mil version, yes it is illuminated

https://mavenbuilt.com/products/rs1-2-2-5-15x44-ffp?variant=42954112762027

 

[Earnhardt]

On the Maven Rs.1 2.5-15x, or the Steiner H6Xi, are these scopes truly usable in a hunting appiclation at 2 or 2.5x power?

Not as a beanfield gun in a box blind...but as a carry gun, for spot and stalk hunting.

Can we start posting reticle pics of these scopes at low power?

To post pics of a reticle at low power I always hold the scope between my knees, put a solid white sheet of paper on the floor, and then take an in-focus cell phone pic of the reticle looking through the eye piece.

Thanks

 

[beetroot]

On the Maven Rs.1 2.5-15x, or the Steiner H6Xi, are these scopes truly usable in a hunting appiclation at 2 or 2.5x power?

Not as a beanfield gun in a box blind...but as a carry gun, for spot and stalk hunting.

Can we start posting reticle pics of these scopes at low power?

To post pics of a reticle at low power I always hold the scope between my knees, put a solid white sheet of paper on the floor, and then take an in-focus cell phone pic of the reticle looking through the eye piece.

Thanks

Reportedly the Maven is usable on 2.5x.

The Steiner Mil reticle isn't out yet, there has been a few people who have seen it and sounds like it's definitely on the thin side. Which I take as not being particularly usable.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

No idea on the Steiner just looking at that reticle and spec sheet I say no thanks. but the maven I can confirm is usable and not usable like the Burris xtr3i where you kinda have to really look for it on low power.. no the maven is actually very good on 2.5x. I wish they’d have done a donut like Bushnell LRHS but it’s still very good. Glass is better than Burris xtr3i and better than the old bushnells LRTS/LRHS imo.
I wish Nightforce or vortex would take notice and roll out a better $2k version. The maven is very solid though.

 

[BCP]

No idea on the Steiner just looking at that reticle and spec sheet I say no thanks. but the maven I can confirm is usable and not usable like the Burris xtr3i where you kinda have to really look for it on low power.. no the maven is actually very good on 2.5x. I wish they’d have done a donut like Bushnell LRHS but it’s still very good. Glass is better than Burris xtr3i and better than the old bushnells LRTS/LRHS imo.
I wish Nightforce or vortex would take notice and roll out a better $2k version. The maven is very solid though.

I just wish SWFA would hurry the fuck up with a slightly newer 3-9, or at least make the old ones again.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

I just wish SWFA would hurry the fuck up with a slightly newer 3-9, or at least make the old ones again.

Updated version would be nice. I never liked swfa’s reticles though personally

 

[steve123]

What is the main line thickness, as well as the dot size, in the mil version Maven RS1 1.2 2.5-15?

 

[AMG04]

Can I get an NX8 2.5-20 F1 with a version of the FC-DMx from their 1-8?

That would cover 99% of my shooting/hunting on my bolt and gas guns.

 

[bobke]

But if they did-and it’s a viable idea for sure-how could they possibly sell you anything else?

 

[AMG04]

But if they did-and it’s a viable idea for sure-how could they possibly sell you anything else?

To cover my most used rifles, I'd need 5 or 6. If anyone else is like me, I think their sales numbers would be fine. Might even get one of their Execs a bonus!

 

[Jayjay1]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there is an MPVO (min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more) which has all of the following:
useful reticle at low and high end
decent eyebox
decent FOV
decent glass
MIL/MIL 0.1 or 0.2
good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter
below 28 oz.
illum
adj parallax

Hey,
I´m in contact with a premium scope manufacturer.

I would use blue ridge´s list to send it to them, but want it to be completed.

- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- useful BDC reticle at low and high end magnification (not to overloaded)
- decent eyebox
- decent FOV
- decent glass
- MIL/MIL 0.1 or 0.2
- good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter, readable numbers
- low turrets vor overiew and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz.
- below 12 inches
- illuminated
- adj parallax

Did I miss something?

 

[Gtscotty]

That looks like a decent list to me, although I'd prefer a well done mil reticle (useable at top end, easy to quickly pick up on the low end) to an actual BDC. Honestly I could give up the adjustable parallax and rev counter for a lower weight, the 2-12 Helos at ~26 oz is still heavier than I'd like for a lightweight rifle.

I got my first look at the Mark 4HD 2.5-10 illuminated the other day and thought it seemed like a pretty nice addition to the MPVO market, I might need to pick one up at some point

 

[jbuck88]

Hey,
I´m in contact with a premium scope manufacturer.

I would use blue ridge´s list to send it to them, but want it to be completed.

- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- useful BDC reticle at low and high end magnification (not to overloaded)
- decent eyebox
- decent FOV
- decent glass
- MIL/MIL 0.1 or 0.2
- good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter, readable numbers
- low turrets vor overiew and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz.
- below 12 inches
- illuminated
- adj parallax

Did I miss something?

I would add a capped windage and maybe 5mil of hashmarks on the horizontal. No need for 10mils of hold off.

 

[Jayjay1]

I would add a capped windage and maybe 5mil of hashmarks on the horizontal. No need for 10mils of hold off.

Do you mean 5mil in total or on each side?

And as we are talking, are 10mils vertical enough for a 10x or 12x-ish scope enough?

 

[LRRPF52]

The main thing we need to happen with LPVOs and MPVOs where the reticle will be the only method for adjusting trajectory/wind is for the freaking turrets to almost disappear.

If I’m putting a MRDS on it, I don’t want anything else in the way. I can dial in zero with flat head screw interface that is flush or near-flush with the tube, no other obstructions/snag hazards required.

In the last 2 decades, the number of times I have messed with turrets after zeroing on tree or mil-hold reticle-based scopes is exactly zero. So that big footprint needs to go away. I hate the bulky illumination on the side of scopes as well, especially since I rarely/never use LPVO or MPVO illumination. For those that do, there has got to be a better location.

 

[LRRPF52]

I want something really short like the March 1-10x Shorty at just over 8” long, but 2-16x40/42/44, flush turrets, FFP, large exit pupil in the lower powers.

With MRDS on top, I don’t need or want 1x.

 

[carbonbased]

The main thing we need to happen with LPVOs and MPVOs where the reticle will be the only method for adjusting trajectory/wind is for the freaking turrets to almost disappear.

If I’m putting a MRDS on it, I don’t want anything else in the way. I can dial in zero with flat head screw interface that is flush or near-flush with the tube, no other obstructions/snag hazards required.

In the last 2 decades, the number of times I have messed with turrets after zeroing on tree or mil-hold reticle-based scopes is exactly zero. So that big footprint needs to go away. I hate the bulky illumination on the side of scopes as well, especially since I rarely/never use LPVO or MPVO illumination. For those that do, there has got to be a better location.

Could put illum flat on eyepiece’s top, sorta like Leica Magnus has, only flatter or curved. They could also use the bottom of the turret “bulge” for a control, like a flat-ish dial for something, like the wind turret. Maybe that’d be a mechanical linkage nightmare.

 

[Makinchips208]

The main thing we need to happen with LPVOs and MPVOs where the reticle will be the only method for adjusting trajectory/wind is for the freaking turrets to almost disappear.

If I’m putting a MRDS on it, I don’t want anything else in the way. I can dial in zero with flat head screw interface that is flush or near-flush with the tube, no other obstructions/snag hazards required.

In the last 2 decades, the number of times I have messed with turrets after zeroing on tree or mil-hold reticle-based scopes is exactly zero. So that big footprint needs to go away. I hate the bulky illumination on the side of scopes as well, especially since I rarely/never use LPVO or MPVO illumination. For those that do, there has got to be a better location.

Why not have Siri control the illumination and even turret adjustments?

 

[LRRPF52]

Could put illum flat on eyepiece’s top, sorta like Leica Magnus has, only flatter or curved. They could also use the bottom of the turret “bulge” for a control, like a flat-ish dial for something, like the wind turret. Maybe that’d be a mechanical linkage nightmare.

Ocular bell top needs to be clear for the MRDS, and the MRDS base needs to shrink as well.

Power needs to feed both of them, not be federated.

Federated systems is the debbil when you have 4-6 different powered applications.

Day Optic
MRDS
WPL
LAM

 

[LRRPF52]

Why not have Siri control the illumination and even turret adjustments?

You can auto-gate illumination and have ON/OFF for that feature with default manual control elsewhere.

With a tree reticle, you don’t need turret adjustments after zeroing.

Barrett did a BORS auto-dial system many years ago (2008?). Haven’t seen it in years. You can immediately see why it’s a NO-GO for a slick LPVO or MPVO where snag hazards must not be present. Tree reticles are just faster.

 

[carbonbased]

Ocular bell top needs to be clear for the MRDS, and the MRDS base needs to shrink as well.

Power needs to feed both of them, not be federated.

Federated systems is the debbil when you have 4-6 different powered applications.

Day Optic
MRDS
WPL
LAM

Learned a new slang term today, debbil lol!

I was talking about the eyepiece tho’, not the ocular bell.

Like above, only way flatter or curved to follow the eyepiece’s shape.

Power systems…interesting.

You know man, after looking at your posts throughout the years, you should do some consulting work. If you haven’t already. I’m serious.

 

[LRRPF52]

That whole back end of the scope is the bell and ocular piece. That Leica illumination from their LPVOs (that weren’t imported to the US when I saw them in Europe in the late 2000s-early 2010s) is exactly what I’ve been thinking about for an MRDS base. Those LPVOs had probably the clearest FOV and forgiving exit pupil in the optics industry at the time.

But that illumination location is where the MRDS needs to be for reasons.

I have done consulting work, but it isn’t the path forward.

 

[carbonbased]

That whole back end of the scope is the bell and ocular piece. That Leica illumination from their LPVOs (that weren’t imported to the US when I saw them in Europe in the late 2000s-early 2010s) is exactly what I’ve been thinking about for an MRDS base. Those LPVOs had probably the clearest FOV and forgiving exit pupil in the optics industry at the time.

But that illumination location is where the MRDS needs to be for reasons.

I have done consulting work, but it isn’t the path forward.

Ahhh, I see. I was mixing up the terms ocular and objective, my bad.

 

[jbuck88]

Do you mean 5mil in total or on each side?

And as we are talking, are 10mils vertical enough for a 10x or 12x-ish scope enough?

5mil per side is more then enough. A simple tree or mil-dot would work great for me as long as it's visible in timber (low light) on the bottom end without illumination. 10mils of hold over gets me well past 1000yds. Not needed on a mvpo hunting scope imo.

 

[LRRPF52]

The more we keep the erector tube centered inside the outer tube, the better clarity and optical performance you have because all the lenses are centered-up for optimal convergence.

Synthetic optical glass with polarization is what interests me moving forward with optical materials science. Any steps in engineering the glass to allow light to pass through with as few obstructions as possible should be a good thing.

Also, optical glass is one of the biggest contributors to overall system weight and imbalance up-top of the centerline of the weapon.

 

[steve123]

Hey,
I´m in contact with a premium scope manufacturer.

I would use blue ridge´s list to send it to them, but want it to be completed.

- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- useful BDC reticle at low and high end magnification (not to overloaded)
- decent eyebox
- decent FOV
- decent glass
- MIL/MIL 0.1 or 0.2
- good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter, readable numbers
- low turrets vor overiew and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz.
- below 12 inches
- illuminated
- adj parallax

Did I miss something?

Most of us here on SH would prefer a simple FFP mil tree reticle but some hunters would like a MOA version as well. I'm fine with .5 mil hashes on a MPVO even though I'm usually a .2 mil guy.

When magnification ratios get past 6, as well as when scopes become more compact, optical compromises happen. I'm no DLO so can't explain why but I darn sure have experienced this 3-4 times now, and it's not good, or in other words I don't like what I see through these scopes. This is with March for the most part and why I didn't bother buying a 1.5-15 when they came out. Been there and done that type of thing.

I have the March 1-10 DFP and need 1x for the AR it's on. But that's where I draw the line. It's a good scope in almost every way but the optics are not fantastic. I do like the daylight bright center dot in it.

A while back I suggested something like a FFP 2.2-13.2x38 or some such. I've used both 10x and 12x enough to know that 10x sucks compared to 12x and that the extra 1.2x over 12x would be appreciated.
Probably a simple scope as far as features because of wanting less weight.
Even a 1" tube could be explored to save weight. I won't be using this for ELR so I don't need tons of elevation travel.
Capped low profile windage is fine because I rarely dial for wind but holdoff instead.
I both like to holdover or dial elevation so I'd like a nicely done low profile turret.
Has to have top tier optics or honestly I'll just stay with my Athlon Helos G2 2-12's.
Would I like daylight bright illume, yes, but at what cost. Weight, price, etc??
I still love large center dots surrounded by the circle of death. The HG2 2-12 has a .3 mil center dot but .2 mil would suffice for me. This won't be a target scope, right, I already have those on the long range rifles! And I want to be able to see the hashes on 2.2x so they'll need to be .1 mil or a bit more.

If Vortex can do their 3-15 LHT which IMHO didn't come out all that well while being pretty lightweight then........

 

[hlee]

Whatever it turns out to be, know that it will appeal to approximately 1/10 of the people that said it was perfect during the design phase.

And, dialing for wind and holding for lead is a perfectly valid strat for engaging movers. #Don’t_take_away_my_turrets.

 

[LRRPF52]

Who is dialing for wind with an MPVO? Wind is so variable that you will be chasing it in between the time it takes you to manually dial a turret, get back into the optic, and make the shot.

The main times I’ve seen it or done it is LR or ELR with fairly-consistent winds in a rather-predictable terrain set. Doesn’t seem like something you would ever do with an MPVO.

This is where we run into the different ideas of what people are looking for. I know mine are more focused on being mounted on a compact AR-15 where I want no-frills, no snag hazards, a capable tree reticle for shooting out to 1000yds, where anything close-range will be handled with a MRDS piggy-backed.

Someone else will think we’re talking about a somewhat-compact hunting scope.

 

[steve123]

Whatever it turns out to be, know that it will appeal to approximately 1/10 of the people that said it was perfect during the design phase.

And, dialing for wind and holding for lead is a perfectly valid strat for engaging movers. #Don’t_take_away_my_turrets.

I'm good with a low profile windage turret with a stiffer action if not locking, or locking but that adds some weight and cost, however there is such a thing as a really low profile finger adjustable capped turret.
Would rather not need a coin, etc, to turn windage.

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

Hey,
I´m in contact with a premium scope manufacturer.

I would use blue ridge´s list to send it to them, but want it to be completed.

- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- useful BDC reticle at low and high end magnification (not to overloaded)
- decent eyebox
- decent FOV
- decent glass
- MIL/MIL 0.1 or 0.2
- good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter, readable numbers
- low turrets vor overiew and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz.
- below 12 inches
- illuminated
- adj parallax

Did I miss something?

My list would be different with a lot of overlap:
- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- mil tree reticle, while being BOLD at low end for quick offhand shots (this is the single biggest area most of these scopes fail in)
-good turrets, capped windage and locking elevation. Dont care much about 0 stop, rev counter, etc. easily readable numbers is certainly important.
- Excellent eyebox, particularly at the low end.
-FOV? I dont really care, I shoot both eyes open on the low end (another reason I need a bold reticle) and I sink into the scope from my dot if mounting the rifle when zoomed in.
- decent glass.
- MIL/MIL 0.5, I think this is the best for visibility at mid/lower powers.
- low turrets for overview and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz. Ideally below 22oz or even much less and I would compromise a LOT of other features to get to those lower weights. Next to reticle this is the biggest area where potentially interesting scopes fail in this category.
- illuminated, but i dont care about daylight bright. And I could do without this feature if it saves substantial weight.
- adj parallax

I cannot agree with @LRRPF52 on the elevation turret. I like to have the option to set a speed drop 0, that gives you all the benefits of a bdc while retaining the benefits of a mil reticle. That is really useful on the type of weapon I would be putting an MPVO on, i.e. not a full blown precision rig.
Moreover I want to be able to quickly set the 0 for different loads. In 5.56 for example, 77smk and 55gr fmj is a .3-.4M difference. I want to be able to switch loads in the field without physically rezeroing the turret.

 

[Jayjay1]

That whole back end of the scope is the bell and ocular piece. That Leica illumination from their LPVOs (that weren’t imported to the US when I saw them in Europe in the late 2000s-early 2010s) is exactly what I’ve been thinking about for an MRDS base. Those LPVOs had probably the clearest FOV and forgiving exit pupil in the optics industry at the time.

But that illumination location is where the MRDS needs to be for reasons.

I have done consulting work, but it isn’t the path forward.

I have one on my driven hunt rifle.
After using a 1-6 Meopta for some years it was mindblowing using the Leica.
As if you are sitting in a cinema, watching wildlife films, I couldn´t believe it.

Unfortunately Leica does only one sporting / tactical scope, the PRS 5-30, with BDC reticles, all others are hunting reticles (similiar to the German #4).

https://leica-camera.com/de-DE/leica-prs-0#

 

[Jayjay1]

...

Someone else will think we’re talking about a somewhat-compact hunting scope.

Well, I would say close to, but with a useful BDC reticle, bold and visible at the lowest magnification.

Like the Swarovski 2-12x50, the Leica Fortis 1.8-12x42 etc..

 

[Jayjay1]

Thanks for your brain lard on this gentlemen.
I agree, that we are close in most points.

So I come up with this, which I will send to them:

- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- adjustable parallax
- simple tree reticle (not to overloaded)
- at low and high end magnification useful (bold/visible at lowest)
- hashmarks with 0.5 MIL increments (enough for MPVO)
- on the horizontal about 5 MIL of hashmarks on each side
- vertical hasmarks 10 MIL
- decent eyebox
- decent FOV
- decent glass
- good turrets, intuitive, locking, zero stop, rev counter, readable numbers
- low turrets for overview and piggyback dot
- turrets 0.1 MIL increments
- windage turret capped
- below 26 oz.
- below 12 inches
- illuminated (no need for daylight bright, because of the piggyback Red Dot)

Have a great one!

 

[LRRPF52]

My list would be different with a lot of overlap:
- min 2.5X or less, max 10x or more
- FFP
- mil tree reticle, while being BOLD at low end for quick offhand shots (this is the single biggest area most of these scopes fail in)
-good turrets, capped windage and locking elevation. Dont care much about 0 stop, rev counter, etc. easily readable numbers is certainly important.
- Excellent eyebox, particularly at the low end.
-FOV? I dont really care, I shoot both eyes open on the low end (another reason I need a bold reticle) and I sink into the scope from my dot if mounting the rifle when zoomed in.
- decent glass.
- MIL/MIL 0.5, I think this is the best for visibility at mid/lower powers.
- low turrets for overview and piggyback dot
- below 26 oz. Ideally below 22oz or even much less and I would compromise a LOT of other features to get to those lower weights. Next to reticle this is the biggest area where potentially interesting scopes fail in this category.
- illuminated, but i dont care about daylight bright. And I could do without this feature if it saves substantial weight.
- adj parallax

I cannot agree with @LRRPF52 on the elevation turret. I like to have the option to set a speed drop 0, that gives you all the benefits of a bdc while retaining the benefits of a mil reticle. That is really useful on the type of weapon I would be putting an MPVO on, i.e. not a full blown precision rig.
Moreover I want to be able to quickly set the 0 for different loads. In 5.56 for example, 77smk and 55gr fmj is a .3-.4M difference. I want to be able to switch loads in the field without physically rezeroing the turret.

I’ve gone back and forth on that elevation turret feature and definitely relate to that. Do we agree that we don’t want a large target knob that sticks up and catches on things? A very low profile elevation knob or relocated elevation is something I’ve been drafting out for years now.

I kinda gave up on that in favor of using the reticle, but I can see the benefit of speed drop settings as well.

One of the configurations I drafted put the elevation underneath the turret, with a larger wheel for ease of touch. Clears off the top for your MRDS nicely. If you look at the AUG and Elcan, they do something similar but both have major trade-offs and are dated.

It would be easy to have indexed markings for speed drop settings if you have a mil grid reticle.

Just need optics manufacturers to keep chasing the ".50 BMG performance in .22 LR package" equivalent in scopes.

They’re actually doing a pretty amazing job of getting us closer and closer so far.

For me, I want my cake and to be able to scarf it too.

There are compact scopes we have today that smoke the glass we had 20-30 years ago and beyond. I think about growing up with a 4x Weaver fixed with post and wire, while my youngest boy at age 8 gets to cycle through Razor Gen 3s, useful tree reticles, forgiving exit pupils, and some impressive glass that was unimaginable when I was a kid.

I want the MPVO to be even more compact, but at what compromise? That March at 10.6” is not bad at all for size, but apparently Depth of Field is sacrificed. I don’t see the usefulness of 1.5x though, so I’m in the 2.2x or higher bottom-end camp. I like that idea of the 2.2-13.2x as I know the benefit of 12x over 10x when looking a resolution and some more precision.

For a dual-use reticle on low power and high, a little floating S&B style center mini + with fiber-optic illumination would be great. I’ve drafted reticle designs that have that dating back almost 20 years now after I saw the PMII, but blended with the GRSC CRS and the range stadia extended to 1200. It would probably need to be dual-plane for the center crosshair fiber optic feature.