Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Usually when someone does the "point on this diagram" schtick, they provide said diagram. I'm not sure where you expect us to start pointing. Your post makes as much sense as say, putting a chevron on a precision optic reticle.Please point on this diagram where the chevron reticle touched you inappropriately.
I like this scope overall, but I just wish PA would stop with the center chevron in precision reticles. There is no good reason for it.
Of course. It just makes no sense on this scope and is literally the ONLY thing that keeps me from buying it.I would rather have a crosshair or dot
Chevron makes sense in an ACOG and they work well in lower magnification hunting scopes
In general PA offers multiple reticles with their scopes.I would rather have a crosshair or dot
Chevron makes sense in an ACOG and they work well in lower magnification hunting scopes
Both have Chevrons at the center.In general PA offers multiple reticles with their scopes.
A Horus crosshair: ACCS Athena BPR mil
Home
DetailsAfter rigorous field testing, this optic has been given a silver-tier rating by the National Tactical Officers Association.This rifle scope is part of the mid-tier optics line called GLx. GLx brings premium technology and materials into an approachable price range.Building on the features...www.primaryarms.com
Not Horus crosshair: ACCS Apollo mil
Home
DetailsThis rifle scope is part of the mid-tier optics line called GLx. GLx brings premium technology and materials into an approachable price range.Building on the features of our award-winning GLx rifle scopes, the GLx 3-18x44mm FFP Rifle Scope brings premium optical performance to a versatile...www.primaryarms.com
My bad, I wasn't paying enough attention to the center.Both have Chevrons at the center.
Does it help at all at low magnification? In other words, at 3x is it easier to see center with the chevron?I like this scope overall, but I just wish PA would stop with the center chevron in precision reticles. There is no good reason for it.
Possibly. I would think with illumination it wouldn’t matter though? Maybe a chevron is easier to pick up at low mag than an non-illum floating dot.Does it help at all at low magnification? In other words, at 3x is it easier to see center with the chevron?
I did exactly this and couldn’t be more pleased for the price. I just ordered the 1-8 LVPO for another rifle. Should be here this week.I ended up with one of the FFP 2.5-10, put it on a 18 inch SPR and have been pretty happy with it.
I can see that, but if not a patent issue, I wish one of the reticle options came without the chevron so that the user could choose if that was important to them or not. I would think most users opting for a 6-24x, or hell even a 3-18x are not prioritizing fast acquisition over precision. On the 2.5-10x or 1-6x i could see that being the case and making more sense.It might be one of those compromises. In this case precision shooting vs fast acquisition. I could see valid arguments on both sides with this particular scope. I'm thinking that glass quality will be the deciding factor for me.
Good thinking. I am going to use that strategy in a local 300 yard match and see how it works out. The chevron horrible, but I think that will work out fine.Finally got my GlX 3-18 in, I preordered it about a month ago. I also have the 2.5-10 GlX.
Just mounted it up and looking around inside my house, initial impressions are that the eyebox is much less forgiving on 3x compared to the 2.5-10 on 3x, and the reticle is far slower for quick target acquisition from offhand. I was hoping that this would be able to fulfill the same role as my 2.5-10 while having a better magnification range and reticle for precision, aside from being a half pound heavier. Initially it does not look like it will be able to come close to the 2.5-10 for quick/close shooting.
The scope with a battery weighs 30.5oz, so a little heavier than the website specs. It did not come with flip caps which was a little disappointing.
On the chevron:
-on this scope the chevron is very small, looks like .2mil wide and .1mil tall. I don't really see the point of it either, but on the other hand it is so small I don't think it will hinder precision shooting.
-on the 2.5-10 the Chevron is excellent. It is just big enough that it can be picked up quickly at 2.5x for offhand shooting with the illumination off. It does suck for precision shooting, so on that scope if I am taking the time to dial I dial 2mil low and just use the mil grid as my center aiming point, same with holds if I have 2 mil of drop to work with. This does mean I can't use the zero stop feature. Overall I think its a reasonable compromise to have a reticle that is both fast for offhand shooting and pretty usable for precision work of the type you might be doing with a gas 5.56.
Sorry it's taken so long to get back on this I was overseas and could not post. I will start looking at it side by side with a mk 5, mk 6, and march 3-24.Do you have anything to compare it to? Eye box, CA, clarity, tracking, low light image?
But how is IQ at extreme magnification? Some scopes offer a lot of travel but suffer pretty badly from optical distortions beyond 30 mils.Overall fit and finish feels pretty quality. I also have 60.8 MILS of travel so this could be a sweet 22LR ELR scope.
But how is IQ at extreme magnification? Some scopes offer a lot of travel but suffer pretty badly from optical distortions beyond 30 mils.
Oh I really like it. It’s not going anywhere. Just always looking at my toys and thinking I could spend x money on y…lol@ChrisAU you don’t like the t6xi 2.5-15?
Oh I really like it. It’s not going anywhere. Just always looking at my toys and thinking I could spend x money on y…lol
This is the 1st gen. What you have is their SlX 3-18 which is lower tier and still produced.I have the first gen 3-18 and the glass sucks, it's probably my worst scope optically, however it tracks fantastic, trade-offs I guess.
Ok, well it is labeled GLX....so.....?This is the 1st gen. What you have is their SlX 3-18 which is lower tier and still produced.
I don't trust through the scope pics, how did it look to your eyes, were you able to resolve as much detail in the bricks at full travel as you were mid travel and if not where about did the falloff begin?Alright, here’s some super science-y science (not). Brick wall at 300ish yards. Parallax probably not dialed perfectly. Best I got given it’s not mounted. Scope at 6x to make pic taking a bit easier.
View attachment 8134141View attachment 8134142View attachment 8134143
I don't trust through the scope pics, how did it look to your eyes, were you able to resolve as much detail in the bricks at full travel as you were mid travel and if not where about did the falloff begin?
That is encouraging, some scopes are very noticeable once you go above 30 which is why I've added extreme elevation testing to my review sheets for the past few years.I didn't notice any difference in the view. They looked the same to me. A more discerning eye may be able to find something. Oddly enough the eye box seemed a bit more forgiving at the end of travel than it did in the middle, but I could have been imagining that.
Ok, I double checked in the safe, I have the GLX 4-16x50, so my bad for bashing the 3-18, the 3-18 may have much better glass. However I will stand by my thoughts that the 4-16 does not have quality glass, but does have good and accurate turrets.This is the 1st gen. What you have is their SlX 3-18 which is lower tier and still produced.
I think the 10x came out after the 16x did, from memory? I did buy the 16 prior to reading any reviews, to my own detriment. It sounds like they got the glass sorted a little better now. I would look again at these options vs. the Athlons just as a matter of aligence as the Phillipines is an ally.I havent seen much info about the GlX 4-16, and it seems like a fair bit of whats out there is negative. Its interesting because I really like my 2.5-10 GlX and most others do as well, you would think the glass would be about the same.
I plan to buy the new GLx 4.5-27x56 hope its nicer than my Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x50. I was pretty disappointed after buying the Bushnell Match Pro ED pretty sucky glass on high magnification they shouldn't label it ED and it has pretty mushy turrets a little better than the Vortex Diamondback Tactical for $699.99 it's a real rip off for the price they're currently selling it for IMHO and my Ares BTR and Midas Tac literally smokes it.Have any of you all compare the GLx 3-18 to say an Athlon Ares or PST Gen2? I'm just trying to get an idea on glass quality. I'm very intrigued, and I want to stay away from Chinese glass.
Is the center of the FFP reticle easy to pick up at 3x magnification for quick point and shoot target acquisition? I'd consider the 3-18x but it's the disappearing FFP reticle pushing me more towards their 4.5-27x model instead. I have several FFP reticle scopes with magnification starting at 3x and it's impossible to see unless cranked up to at least 5x-6x magnification rendering their lower magnification useless to me.Finally got my GlX 3-18 in, I preordered it about a month ago. I also have the 2.5-10 GlX.
Just mounted it up and looking around inside my house, initial impressions are that the eyebox is much less forgiving on 3x compared to the 2.5-10 on 3x, and the reticle is far slower for quick target acquisition from offhand. I was hoping that this would be able to fulfill the same role as my 2.5-10 while having a better magnification range and reticle for precision, aside from being a half pound heavier. Initially it does not look like it will be able to come close to the 2.5-10 for quick/close shooting.
The scope with a battery weighs 30.5oz, so a little heavier than the website specs. It did not come with flip caps which was a little disappointing.
On the chevron:
-on this scope the chevron is very small, looks like .2mil wide and .1mil tall. I don't really see the point of it either, but on the other hand it is so small I don't think it will hinder precision shooting.
-on the 2.5-10 the Chevron is excellent. It is just big enough that it can be picked up quickly at 2.5x for offhand shooting with the illumination off. It does suck for precision shooting, so on that scope if I am taking the time to dial I dial 2mil low and just use the mil grid as my center aiming point, same with holds if I have 2 mil of drop to work with. This does mean I can't use the zero stop feature. Overall I think its a reasonable compromise to have a reticle that is both fast for offhand shooting and pretty usable for precision work of the type you might be doing with a gas 5.56.
It seems thin but that's hard to say from a picture. How does it look to you?
Without illumination that reticle would be useless at 3x, but holy smokes, that illumination looks super bright! Have you tried it in bright daylight and can you still see illumination at 3x?
Might want to change your battery or get a replacement. I have 3 of these and they are daylight bright in the bright CA sun.The illumination is not nearly daylight bright.
Even at 3x? Are you able to pickup center of reticle using illumination at 3x in bright sun?Might want to change your battery or get a replacement. I have 3 of these and they are daylight bright in the bright CA sun.
You’re right. At low magnification illumination disappears. Sorry I gave you bogus info. I could have sworn it worked. I’m usually up in the higher mag and it’s daylight bright there. Two of mine are 4.5-27 though. The 3-18 is on loan with a friend.Even at 3x? Are you able to pickup center of reticle using illumination at 3x in bright sun?
Thank you for checking, I was starting to pull some cash out of the cushions as I've been looking for a budget mid-range scope that was usable at the low end of the magnification. Still waiting for that Nightforce NX8 1.5-12x42 with DMx reticle... but I suppose that wouldn't be very "budget" would itYou’re right. At low magnification illumination disappears. Sorry I gave you bogus info. I could have sworn it worked. I’m usually up in the higher mag and it’s daylight bright there. Two of mine are 4.5-27 though. The 3-18 is on loan with a friend.
You have to love this game. It’ll hurt the wallet.Thank you for checking, I was starting to pull some cash out of the cushions as I've been looking for a budget mid-range scope that was usable at the low end of the magnification. Still waiting for that Nightforce NX8 1.5-12x42 with DMx reticle... but I suppose that wouldn't be very "budget" would it