-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
New PA Glx 3-18
- Thread starter B Man
- Start date
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.
I would rather have a crosshair or dot
Chevron makes sense in an ACOG and they work well in lower magnification hunting scopes
Of course. It just makes no sense on this scope and is literally the ONLY thing that keeps me from buying it.
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
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
Might be part of their patent differentiating it from a Horus or other company's christmas tree bdc type reticules.
Does it help at all at low magnification? In other words, at 3x is it easier to see center with the chevron?
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.
I’m leaning more to them trying to avoid patent issues but I’m guessing we’ll never know unless PA addresses it.
I’ll still probably pick one of these up, but I would have already if they didn’t have the chevron. Makes more sense to me on the fixed power acogs for ranging and holds. Maybe it’s just a mental hang up for me as I trained and deployed with the acogs for 4 years and now I just associate the chevron with a different purpose than this scope is for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Got mine today, I really like it. I find the turrets to be better feeling than the 2.5-10 I had and just playing with it I don’t feel like the eyebox is bad.
The chevron is there but it’s not as obtrusive as the 2.5-10. On low power you don’t even notice it.
Overall fit and finish feels pretty quality. I also have 60.8 MILS of travel so this could be a sweet 22LR ELR scope.
As is I don’t really have a use for it. If it had a floating dot I’d consider it for my 6GT AR-10 that currently has a 2.5-15 T6xi on it just to free up some funding, I like it that much. However I believe it will make an appearance in the Px soon for someone else to try out at a discount.
The chevron is there but it’s not as obtrusive as the 2.5-10. On low power you don’t even notice it.
Overall fit and finish feels pretty quality. I also have 60.8 MILS of travel so this could be a sweet 22LR ELR scope.
As is I don’t really have a use for it. If it had a floating dot I’d consider it for my 6GT AR-10 that currently has a 2.5-15 T6xi on it just to free up some funding, I like it that much. However I believe it will make an appearance in the Px soon for someone else to try out at a discount.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The GLX is very rugged internally, and that's a good thing. And the price is right.
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.
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.
Attachments
It seems thin but that's hard to say from a picture. How does it look to you?
Fret, can you post some reticle pics on higher magnification? Say 12x and 18x?
12x and 18x. Was kinda hard to get good photo at max power.
Thanks Fret.
Man, I’m really interested in one of these scopes, but that reticle just doesn’t do it for me. Give me one with cross hairs or a dot.
The fine dots and the center chevron are not what I need. YMMV
Man, I’m really interested in one of these scopes, but that reticle just doesn’t do it for me. Give me one with cross hairs or a dot.
The fine dots and the center chevron are not what I need. YMMV
I’m super happy with my glx 4.5-27 for the price this thing beats most out there. Glass is surprisingly good. Tracking has been excellent. The chevron does not hinder me at all in shooting groups or running it under the clock on steel in fact I’ve grown to really like it. The only thing I can knock is maybe low light performance but it’s certainly not bad. Great scope for the sale or dealer price.
Last edited:
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.
Even at 3x? Are you able to pickup center of reticle using illumination at 3x in bright 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.
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
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
