Rifle Scopes New Meopta Scope - Optika6
- Thread starter Weatherbee
- Start date
I ordered mine from sport optics a couple of weeks ago and received it straight from Meopta within a week.
This is true for now, but I have sent a long dissertation on why this should not be and they are taking it under consideration. The FFP MRAD2 should be your next choice if they do decide to can the SFP 223.
Last edited:
Glass wise, optical clarity which seems best to you. And most importantly, since I find these scopes more suited toward hunting applications, which performs best in low light? I am putting my LRHS on my dad's model 70 for this hunting season and might consider an optika6 if they perform well and are very clear. He is getting older and has trouble identifying certain bucks or seeing certain details from his 300 dollar Nikon. That is the main reason why I'm passing on the bushy over to him. I would like for his rifle to sport some decent glass...
Do you already have the 1-6x24 with MRAD2?
I just received the 3-18x50 with MRAD1 and I am beginning to look at it.
ILya
That’s the same scope I was waiting for as well, 653611. I can’t understand why they dropped that one.
No, as of now I have the 5-30 MRAD and 3-18 MRAD1 only. I am merely basing my opinion of the MRAD2 off the subtension maps.
Have you already posted your impressions on the two you have?
I've been all over the place, so I may have missed it.
Ilya
I have not. You would be better suited for reviews than me. I have not even mounted them up yet, been way too busy. I will try to give my thoughts on the 3-18 against the LRHS though when I get a chance, as that is the scope it is looking to replace, one I love, and one that I am very familiar with.
As for the 5-30, I don't even know what I would begin to compare it with at this price range, and from a pure pricing standpoint, I have likely not handled many of its competitors. Most of my optics are a tier or two higher. Initial thoughts are its going to be very hard to beat at the price being offered. The glass appears very nice, the feel of the controls are great for the price range and the scope feels very robust. Cons for me on the 5-30, just by handling it, would be no locking windage and weight/length. Haven't tested illumination yet at all, but to be honest, I almost never use illumination on my scopes anyway.
Regardless, I would rather you do the reviewing, so hurry up.
I have not. You would be better suited for reviews than me. I have not even mounted them up yet, been way too busy. I will try to give my thoughts on the 3-18 against the LRHS though when I get a chance, as that is the scope it is looking to replace, one I love, and one that I am very familiar with.
As for the 5-30, I don't even know what I would begin to compare it with at this price range, and from a pure pricing standpoint, I have likely not handled many of its competitors. Most of my optics are a tier or two higher. Initial thoughts are its going to be very hard to beat at the price being offered. The glass appears very nice, the feel of the controls are great for the price range and the scope feels very robust. Cons for me on the 5-30, just by handling it, would be no locking windage and weight/length. Haven't tested illumination yet at all, but to be honest, I almost never use illumination on my scopes anyway.
Regardless, I would rather you do the reviewing, so hurry up.
I am working on that.
I am really curious about user impressions on the reticles. Most of the time when I design a reticle for a company, it is a one shot type of thing: I put together a design and do not get a chance to see it in a scope until it is in production. Whatever I learn from user feedback, goes into the next design.
ILya
My 3-18 SFP with the Z-plex reticle from SportOptics, is supposed to be here tomorrow. You guys are scareing me! I don't care for christmas trees and bubbles and numbers, I have trouble enough with crosshairs! I am expecting German glass quality. Will be disappointed if it isn't head and shoulders better than my Grand Slam!
Bill
Bill
I have not. You would be better suited for reviews than me. I have not even mounted them up yet, been way too busy. I will try to give my thoughts on the 3-18 against the LRHS though when I get a chance, as that is the scope it is looking to replace, one I love, and one that I am very familiar with.
As for the 5-30, I don't even know what I would begin to compare it with at this price range, and from a pure pricing standpoint, I have likely not handled many of its competitors. Most of my optics are a tier or two higher. Initial thoughts are its going to be very hard to beat at the price being offered. The glass appears very nice, the feel of the controls are great for the price range and the scope feels very robust. Cons for me on the 5-30, just by handling it, would be no locking windage and weight/length. Haven't tested illumination yet at all, but to be honest, I almost never use illumination on my scopes anyway.
Regardless, I would rather you do the reviewing, so hurry up.
You dont have to write a full essay, just a few thoughts on the glass, turrets and reticle, and a brief comparison against any other scopes you own.
You may be disappointed if you think the Optika 6 will compare as closely as the Meostar B1’s do to Swaro’s. It is important to keep in mind, Meopta’s top tier glass compares with top tier German glass but the Optika 6 is not Meopta’s top tier glass. It will thus compare to “not top tier” glass from the big 3. The question I think most people want to know is where in the middle it falls. I am sure we will see some real world comparisons over this next year and look forward to them.
Jafo96, I agree with your statement. Comparing a sub $300 bino to one that costs 3.5 times as much is unrealistic and will lead to disappointment. Looking at the Optika bino against other bino's in that range will give you confidence that you made the right choice for quality and value, IMHO. Even though I do some freelance work with Meopta my opinion is not skewed and true to my experience.
Depending on what model of grand slam.........you may be dissappointed. My understanding is that the optika6 line is similar to a Meopro. If that is the case, my 5-20x50mm Grand Slams (new model) are as good or "better" at resolution, depth of field, and overall glass quality than a Meopro. Though, very close to the same glass quality, I'd give the new model Grand Slams the edge over the many 4.5-14x44 Meopro's that I have side/side directly compared them to. I haven't seen an Optika6 yet, so I look forward to your evaluation.
What model of Grand Slam are you referring to?
Glass is so very subjective to each individual!
To me.. my 3-18x50 F1 Optika6 has slightly better optical quality than my 4-14x56 NF SHV, and slightly less than my 50 and 56mm Razor GEN 2’s. Of course I don’t have a ton of time behind it yet, but those were my initial impressions.
To me.. my 3-18x50 F1 Optika6 has slightly better optical quality than my 4-14x56 NF SHV, and slightly less than my 50 and 56mm Razor GEN 2’s. Of course I don’t have a ton of time behind it yet, but those were my initial impressions.
The 'Horseshoe' is too small, it makes holding for wind less than 1 MIL a guessing game. I'm not sure I've seen a good reticle yet for making a FFP scope worth a chit on low power.
Zero stop system is a bit different than what I have seen before. It is an interesting concept with the 3 revolution rotating counter / cog piece. Anyhow, I just finished up the instructive diagram that will go in the review. This should clear things up. The manual that comes with the scope is singularly useless in all regards.
Still haven't mounted mine up, so no comment, just been too busy. But as for FFP reticles on low power, the LRHS G2H has been a proven winner for a long time if you aren't happy with the MRAD2.
Jafo96, I agree with your statement. Comparing a sub $300 bino to one that costs 3.5 times as much is unrealistic and will lead to disappointment. Looking at the Optika bino against other bino's in that range will give you confidence that you made the right choice for quality and value, IMHO. Even though I do some freelance work with Meopta my opinion is not skewed and true to my experience.
That bino right there is ridiculously good for the price. You are correct.
Mounted my new 3-18x50, could not be happier. I am 80 and so have some eye problems, often at higher power I see 2 vertical crosshairs and cannot adjust them out without messing up the focus. Was able to with this scope. The turrets adjust accurately and the clicks are crisp AND I could read the turret markings. Have not looked through it at dusk or shot the rifle much, yet. At this point I am very happy. Thought I wanted the 2.5-15x44, but the availibility and slight difference in size convinced me to get the 3-18.
Have these scopes been limited release? Seems like not many people have them or is it that people are scared of the new name to "Tactical" scopes? I have a couple of Nightforce's and to me the Meopta is more feature packed at a fraction of the price. Glass gives up nothing. The only thing I can't comment on is accuracy and repeatability of turrets (been to busy). This is a helluva scope for the money.
I have the 5-30x56 34mm with MRAD reticle.
Eddie
I have the 5-30x56 34mm with MRAD reticle.
Eddie
I doubt it. Hunting market for riflescopes is many times larger than tactical. Tactical is growing faster though.
I do think they underestimated the demand but the volumes are well within their range once they properly ramp up.
ILya
Agree, this market segment is huge only in people's imagination. While you're right about growth rate, that rate will not be constant over time and will flatten out at an annual volume that will still be much smaller than the hunting market.
Fuck Lapua, there are other American made options out there now just as good.
You may have seen the review in process on Rokslide of the 3-18x50 FFP https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/meopta-optika6-3-18x50mm-ffp-evaluation.145959/
I thought there was an excellent post in relation to the reticles (quoted below). While the review isn't very complimentary of the reticle I do have to give props for you actually listening to input and trying to give the people what they want. The methods described in the quote below sound ideal in a LR hunting scope to me. I'd be very happy with a G3 reticle with heavier windage and top posts to 3 mil of center for lower power. The G2h works just fine but is a little thicker than I like and I'm not a huge fan of the donut.
The reticle generally does what they wanted it to do- be useful at low and high powers. But they did it in a way that is... “eh”. First, I dislike “donuts”. It’s a lazy way to make a reticle visable on low power, it obscures the target and surroundings in the most critical location in the scope where you need to see impacts/splash the most, and generally screws up the intuitiveness of the reticle holds. This one does all of those.
Overall the reticle is broken down in .2 mil increments. That’s great. Tick marks should be in linear and consistent fashion, I.E.- 1 mil, .5, or .2 mils. The problem with this MRAD1 reticle is that because of the donut, the tick marks inside the center go- dot, .2 to the near side of “cross line”, .4 to far side of line, then nothing usable until 1 mil (or .9, not really sure). You actually have to look at it and think about what means what, until you get to 1.4 mils (where the horizontal reticle starts. A lot of winds holds in actual field shooting tend to be in the .5 to 1.5 mil range... right where this reticle sucks. Or I should say is compromised. It’s usable for sure, but I shoot a lot of scopes and reticles, and I had to play with it to figure out what the subtentions are from center to 1.5 mils. Multiple shooters that are extremely capable and experienced had to do the same thing when they picked it up.
Next is the spacing between horizontal bold posts. Or, how much windage can be held. Holy Pete, who in the flip needs and can use over 6 mils of windage in the reticle!?
At sea level with a 308 and crappy BC bullet that is 52 miles per hour at 500 yards. Fifty-two miles per hour of wind. With a 300WM and 215gr Berger at 500 yards it’s EIGHTY-ONE mile per hour wind to drift 6 mils. At 1,000 yards for both it’s- 21mph and 36mph respectively. That’s just silly, and the only reason companies keep doing that is lack of critical thinking and public perception.
Reduce the windage to 2.5 or 3 mils to bold posts, and now you can see and center the reticle on animals on low power even in low light, while still having way more than enough windage available for shooting. Or, keep the windage 3-4 mils out, but bring the bottom 6 o’clock post in to 1.5 mils or so, then it looks like a German #4 on low powers with all the great attributes of that reticle, keeps the center clear for spotting impacts/splash, while still offering quick elevation holds out to 450-500 yards.
Both ways are better and more usable than a donut.
Explanation-
Reticles are a weak point for manufactures. This is brought on by two main things it seems- One, is that consumers are ignorant. I do not mean this maliciously, but people have no idea how stuff works, nor a broad enough base of experience in actual shooting and performance to know what they should want. Two, manufacturers and designers are generally NOT skilled or experienced shooters with a broad base of experience to know what works better and worse, and they are being inundated by the public’s ignorance to build compromised stuff quite frankly. Both don’t know, what they don’t know.
These lead to things like donuts, inconsistent spacing in reticles, huge windage spacing, BDC’s, SFP, extremely high zoom ranges; especially coupled with short length, small tube size, and lightweight. I/we’re constantly shooting with people that are rabid about these things. They will argue endlessly, yet it is all their feelings or beliefs, not actual performance. Take them off the square range, put realistic sized (that’d be much smaller than most use) targets at varying ranges with real wind, or shoot from unconventional positions (sitting off of a pack, kneeling over a downed tree, MPAJ, etc), put time constraints on them, and maybe a bit of heavy breathing, and NO ONE walks away wanting any of that stuff. I’ve shot with several good dudes from this forum alone, some were all about those things and just knew they were going to learn me something.
Then they actually shot as above while being measured, fail miserably, and then watch the chick crush what they just did with a 223 and SWFA.... dudes are swiping cards for new gear within an hour.
I say all this to say- reticles and “features” should not be designed or implemented in a vacuum. We would all like to think, and most do, that manufactures have a full staff of professional level shooters telling the designers and engineers what to build, and the engineers know enough about field use to build it correctly and robustly, then the company gives the product back to the pro shooters to ensure it actually works before it’s sold to you. Except for one company- nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is with most companies that some marketing dude brings an idea he thinks will sell, then they take it to another company that actually makes the optics and they tell those engineers how to build it to a certain price point. I’m not saying Meopta did that here... I’m not saying they didn’t either.
Whew...
That out of the way, the reticle while being compromised, is usable, and does work. It IS better than most in that regard, and I would not let the issues of it hinder a purchase.
So another tool who thinks he knows what everyone else needs and wants in a scope.
Yawn...……….
I'd love to get my hands on one of these to compare to my current hunting scope Vortex Razor HD LH.
I went and looked at that thread and some other posts and it sounds like everything but SWFA and Nightforce and some other unnamed optics are failure prone per the poster. Maybe that's true, maybe not but I need details and documentation before I take anyone's internet claims at more than face value. I would certainly like to see a list of higher end scopes that had high failure rates after moderate use, especially when it's reported that numerous version of a scope are almost certain to fail in some way. I'm always skeptical of reports of "well known" or "highly respected" anything failing without exact details.
Apparently you weren’t on the memo that there is only one way to make a reticle and that people shouldn’t have different needs based upon use. Get with the One Reticle, One Scope program already!
I was especially amused by the comment that SFP and BDC are useless things in a scope. Good thing that I learned something today.
I have read his comments and replied on the other forum.
Generally, he seems to be a fairly well respected guy and he seems to be in the Airforce where he claims to have something to do with testing riflescopes for durability. I have never tried to verify any of those claims. He clearly shoots a lot and while I respect his opinion I do not agree with it.
He does seem to hate Vortex with a burning passion of an 18 year old who did not get a blowjob after his high school prom, but I am not sure what caused it.
The complaint about the reticle in the 3-18x is perfectly valid. I think several people here have pointed out somewhat similar things as well. There is no way to please everyone and, honestly, if I were designing a reticle purely for hunting, I would do it a little differently.
In retrospect, I should have put a couple of additional wind holds inside the horseshoe, but I was concerned about it being even busier than it already is. I have some reticle designs that do that, but then I usually end up bumping up the horseshoe size a little, which can have its own set of issues in a scope like this.
That's why there are so many reticles out there. People have different preferences.
MRAD1 was supposed to be a crossover reticle capable of anything in a pinch. Since I like horsehoes/circles for speed and since I was concerned with visbility on low power without illumination I used on. For people who do not like the horseshoe, there is the MRAD reticle. I hope Meopta uses it in the 3-18x50 as well eventually.
ILya
Generally, he seems to be a fairly well respected guy and he seems to be in the Airforce where he claims to have something to do with testing riflescopes for durability. I have never tried to verify any of those claims. He clearly shoots a lot and while I respect his opinion I do not agree with it.
He does seem to hate Vortex with a burning passion of an 18 year old who did not get a blowjob after his high school prom, but I am not sure what caused it.
The complaint about the reticle in the 3-18x is perfectly valid. I think several people here have pointed out somewhat similar things as well. There is no way to please everyone and, honestly, if I were designing a reticle purely for hunting, I would do it a little differently.
In retrospect, I should have put a couple of additional wind holds inside the horseshoe, but I was concerned about it being even busier than it already is. I have some reticle designs that do that, but then I usually end up bumping up the horseshoe size a little, which can have its own set of issues in a scope like this.
That's why there are so many reticles out there. People have different preferences.
MRAD1 was supposed to be a crossover reticle capable of anything in a pinch. Since I like horsehoes/circles for speed and since I was concerned with visbility on low power without illumination I used on. For people who do not like the horseshoe, there is the MRAD reticle. I hope Meopta uses it in the 3-18x50 as well eventually.
ILya
Didn’t sound like he/she ever shoots at 1000. You too need to get with the One Reticle, One Scope program. It is becoming obvious that a re-education program is needed. Stand by for your instructions.
Oh, forgot to add: 6 mrad of horizontal holds are also there for lead. 3 mrad and 6 mrad are comparatively common lead holds and I wanted to make them useful on 3x.
ILya
ILya
I grew up in the Soviet Union. Would you like me to clarify my take on re-education programs?
ILya
This is the crux of the issue. While well stated and argued, that wordy review seemed extremely myopic in its scope (puns intended). There seemed to be little understanding that perhaps there just might be other uses for a rifle and scope than his intended use. To borrow his words, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” Seems applicable here.
Yeah as soon as I read his comments on BDCs and SFP scopes I wrote him off as an idiot.
No thanks and apologies for any offense if taken. It was intended to be a humorous but sarcastic comment about the author of the review. Probably not a great attempt considering the limitations of the written word on a forum.
No offense was taken at all. I like sarcasm, hence the reply. I also like it when people point out the sheer stupidity of expecting everyone to have the exact same opinion on everything. Given where I grew up, that crap drives me up the wall. Same for hero worship that Formi seems to enjoy on 24hcf. I do not like unconditional statements.
When I was just getting into writing scope reviews, I made an early decision to be very clear on why I like and dislike certain things so my statements are based on a reasoning of some sort. Whether you agree or disagree with me, my purpose is to make sure you know why I say the things I say. I have a strong suspicion that has limited how large my audience is. I probably would get more people to pay attention if I used short sentences and posted pictures of dead animals a bit more. That's just not my way.
ILya
In the context of that forum, the frequent SWFA, NF, LRHS, etc recommendations are based upon options that are weight conscious and make sense on a backcountry hunting rifle. In the context of this forum of course there are many more options but they don't weigh 30 ounces or less.
His delivery rubs people wrong but he seems very credible. He has shared a lot of information and basics on hunting forums that help folks with limited knowledge make decisions that help them build a more solid aiming system that they can understand and trust.
In regards to 3 vs 6 Mil of windage - valid points that some people do in fact shoot with wind holds over 3mil or shoot movers. I would guess that in a hunting/crossover scope you will still have more wind holds in area out to 1.5 mil that isn't the greatest with the MIL1. If the donut is the preferred method, the G2H is a good example of a reticle that has a donut without making common wind holds more confusing.
