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.
First batch is here. We are just waiting for the US sourced packaging to arrive.I think we're going to be waiting at least another month for the big initial drop.
I'll be talking to a PA rep in a few weeks so I'll see if I can get an updated estimate.
First batch is here. We are just waiting for the US sourced packaging to arrive.
In the past they have refused to provide subtension measurements for meters-based Aurora reticles. The claim is that it would work too well with 5.45x39 outside the U.S.Are there dimensioned reticle drawings somewheres? The only reticle drawings I've seen lacked dimensions, so it was hard to tell what I was looking at...
You're right, which makes it so odd to not publish the information. All that does is frustrate the buyers, like me, that want to see the differences between the two BDC reticles. Or be able use Strelok...I’m off my game today, a bit run down but can’t you just stick a CM meter stick at 100M and measure the shit yourself? We used to do it with Mildot reticle all the time to mark where the 2FP scopes actually subtended.
Huh. I was waiting to see the meters reticle hit Strelok just in case the BDC happened to be closer to my loads than the yards version. Apparently I won't be doing that.You're right, which makes it so odd to not publish the information. All that does is frustrate the buyers, like me, that want to see the differences between the two BDC reticles. Or be able use Strelok...
If you own the optic, yes. But not if subtension BDC measurements are a factor in your purchase.I’m off my game today, a bit run down but can’t you just stick a CM meter stick at 100M and measure the shit yourself? We used to do it with Mildot reticle all the time to mark where the 2FP scopes actually subtended.
Hopefully they change their policy, as they check this thread.Huh. I was waiting to see the meters reticle hit Strelok just in case the BDC happened to be closer to my loads than the yards version. Apparently I won't be doing that.
Pre orders will not be available once that happens. We are trying to get all the new reticles in StrelokCould you tell us if the pre-orders have exceeded the quantity of the first batch being released? Thanks!
CM
Fantastic!We are trying to get all the new reticles in Strelok
It's like you're thinking my thoughts...If some folks who are able could do some side by side comparisons and confirm that these don’t have the same retarded eye box as the NX8, I’m hella interested in one for sure. Meters one specifically because I like the larger horseshoe. All the other specs are so close to the NX8 that I’m really concerned about that eye box.
It's like you're thinking my thoughts...
It's like you're thinking my thoughts...
As gbaby showed, the exit pupil diameters and eye relief distances are nearly identical. So the eye box is likely to be so as well.If some folks who are able could do some side by side comparisons and confirm that these don’t have the same retarded eye box as the NX8, I’m hella interested in one for sure. Meters one specifically because I like the larger horseshoe. All the other specs are so close to the NX8 that I’m really concerned about that eye box.
Not trying to be obtuse but I’m not sure why you would say the eyebox is the same as the NX8 when a reputed optics reviewer has had this optic in hand for a while and said the eyebox is better? I understand there are limitations to these designs and I agree the 8x will be tighter than 1x but I’m excited for the PLX C regardless.As gbaby showed, the exit pupil diameters and eye relief distances are nearly identical. So the eye box is likely to be so as well.
However, and it’s a big however, the field of view is a good bit better with the PLX 1-8, so the eye piece ring around the ocular lens should nearly disappear like the Vortex Razor. Actually, the field of view is better than the Razor, on paper.
So that’s a pretty big factor in usability at 1x, but the 8x eye box is probably just about the same as the NX8.
Ultimately, I think it will come down to reticle preference and “red dot brightness” for most people who are cross shopping. I’ll probably give the meters PLx a go based on the weight, field of view, and being .1 mil adjustments. I’m not keen on chevrons in my reticles, but I like a lot of the other reticle features.
So far the eyebox on any manufactures optic at full mag that goes above 6x is going to be tight. That's just the way it is. I never had a problem with the NX8 at 8x except for the large center dot.Not trying to be obtuse but I’m not sure why you would say the eyebox is the same as the NX8 when a reputed optics reviewer has had this optic in hand for a while and said the eyebox is better? I understand there are limitations to these designs and I agree the 8x will be tighter than 1x but I’m excited for the PLX C regardless.
PA, if you’re listening, please consider a version without the chevron as the aiming point. I’m not totally against it but this will be my only scope with a chevron as an aiming point and it would be nice to have the option to keep it consistent. I know you’ve mentioned the possibility of a more expensive version with different (brighter) illumination in the future. If you did that and made the reticle closer to the NF FC-DMx or Vortex EBR-9 reticles (MIL not BDC) I think you’d have a scope that may become the new standard assuming it is durable.
Right on, I misunderstood then. 8x will be tighter regardless of size but I thought you were saying 1x would be the same as the NX8.So far the eyebox on any manufactures optic at full mag that goes above 6x is going to be tight. That's just the way it is. I never had a problem with the NX8 at 8x except for the large center dot.
Looks like it's a sure thing the new PA is going to be much much better at 1x vs the NX8, and will have a better reticle at 8x so it should be a winner for me. I'll be the judge of that for myself when I get one mounted.
We can all try the best we can to try and communicate over the internet how good an optic is to somewhat help with others deciding whether to get one or not, but the only real way to tell how each individual is going to perceive it will be to look through one themselves in the long run.
I could get mine in the next couple of weeks and be totally blown away by it, and sing it's praises here and there, but than maybe some resident "operator" will get one and hate it for their "needs" and say I'm a total moron for liking mine.
We'll all try to live vicariously through other members experiences here in the hopes that we can make a discission on whether to purchase something or not, but in the end it will be up to you to experience it and decide for yourself.
I know for myself many many times I was blown away by something new that was out, and once I started to use it enough, I would find something I may not like about it and that's when you have to decide is it worth that particular compromise to keep using it.
Eye relief and exit pupil diameter are pretty deterministic on the eye box. That’s why I said what I did.Not trying to be obtuse but I’m not sure why you would say the eyebox is the same as the NX8 when a reputed optics reviewer has had this optic in hand for a while and said the eyebox is better? I understand there are limitations to these designs and I agree the 8x will be tighter than 1x but I’m excited for the PLX C regardless.
PA, if you’re listening, please consider a version without the chevron as the aiming point. I’m not totally against it but this will be my only scope with a chevron as an aiming point and it would be nice to have the option to keep it consistent. I know you’ve mentioned the possibility of a more expensive version with different (brighter) illumination in the future. If you did that and made the reticle closer to the NF FC-DMx or Vortex EBR-9 reticles (MIL not BDC) I think you’d have a scope that may become the new standard assuming it is durable.
Gotcha, that makes sense. I assume that if the objective is increased (larger exit pupil) then the depth of field decreases? I’m sure there was a reason they went 24mm and not 28mm (probably has to do with 30mm tube)Eye relief and exit pupil diameter are pretty deterministic on the eye box. That’s why I said what I did.
But there is the qualifier that I mentioned about the field of view. So, even as you start to get scope shadow while moving out of the eye box, there will be a point where even with scope shadow you will have the same field of view as the NX8 without scope shadow. This will have a larger influence at 1x than 8x as the fields of view are a lot closer between the two at 8x. And to clarify, I mean closer in linear measurement, not angular measurement.
The field of view at 1x is a big deal, which is why I said it was a “big however”.
All other things equal, yes a larger objective lens will decrease depth of field. With an 8x or 10x top end and with no parallax adjustment, I’d prefer to have a 24mm objective over a 28mm for an LPVO on a carbine designed for engagements out to 600+ yards. But if the carbine’s primary purpose was as a hunting rifle within 200 yards, then I’d rather have the larger objective to get more light in at dawn and dusk. It’s all a trade space depending on use cases.Gotcha, that makes sense. I assume that if the objective is increased (larger exit pupil) then the depth of field decreases? I’m sure there was a reason they went 24mm and not 28mm (probably has to do with 30mm tube)
Looking forward to you PLx Compact 1-8 reviewProbably. I went and visited PA a little while back, so I was able to take a look at the pre-production 1-6x and 1-10x GLx scopes. They looked pretty good. I did a re-cap of the visit on my website: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/post/1782777/visiting-primary-arms
The upcoming GLx scopes are really interesting.
ILya
Some impressions are here: https://darklordofoptics.locals.com/post/1969017/primary-arms-plx-compact-1-8x24Looking forward to you PLx Compact 1-8 review
I mean the orginial PLx is ridiculously clear, it felt better than my old nx8, accupower 1-8, or razor gen 3 imo.Reduced clarity is a big bummer. I will continue with my ACOG I guess.
I had the NX8 and sold it because of the lack of clarity. I got the ACOG due to clarity and because it is so light weight. For a brief period I owned both at the same time. I went shooting at dusk/evening twilight and the ACOG with its 4 power was more useable to me than the NX8 at 8 power at distance. Maybe the ACOG had better illumination too which might also have contributed to it.I mean the orginial PLx is ridiculously clear, it felt better than my old nx8, accupower 1-8, or razor gen 3 imo.
Sorry just the Raptor reticle version that is up on our website for pre-orderWow, if you have any of the MIL reticles available for preorder I'd love to do that over PM. I'll take it in a Walmart sack for all I care
Which reticle is that?The scope arrived today, it hasn't been mounted so this is just looking through it in my hand where it's hard to tell about something like eyebox or eye relief compared to others. However, my initial impressions are as follows.
#1- Fit and finish is excellent. The scope feels and looks really nice. The magnification ring is very smooth. The "knurling" on the mag ring, the scope caps the illumination dial are just really well done and feel great. The included throw lever gets the job done. It also comes with a little rubber bikini cover that is a nice touch.
#2- The turrets feel really good for an lpvo. This is kinda hard because I don't really foresee dialing with this, but you could do it if you wanted. The clicks are positive and tactile. They feel like a top quality LPVO should IMO, they aren't as good as a top PRS scope.
#3-Glass- So the glass is really stellar. I am seeing little to no fish eye and the glass is clear and bright edge to edge. The bezel also disappears like a Razor 1-6, I mean, it may be better... somehow. They really did a lot of work here to achieve this I'm sure, but the FOV and the disappearing bezel effect make this absolutely a thrill to look through.
#4- Reticle and illumination - The illumination dial is positive and stays in place once set. It has off in between each setting. It goes to 10. The Illumination is going to be daylight visible or daylight bright according to your definition. Most would consider it daylight visible on here, I think that's what I would say, it's right on the edge like the old one. But here's the thing, with this reticle I don't think it really matters. Having the stadia or the crosshairs with the ACSS reticle on the center was an absolutely brilliant move by PA and is exactly what this(and all FFP LPVOs imo) need. It looks like a SFP crosshair LPVO on 1x then scales accordingly as you go up.
#5 It's insanely lightweight! But it still feels sturdy.
More to come, this is just first impressions in hand, but man this thing is shaping up to be spectacular.
PS, I have hands on experience with these other LPVOs- Primary arms 1-6, Swampfox Arrowhead 1-10, Vortex PST 1-6 gen II, Delta Stryker 1-6, Vortex Razor 1-6, Vortex Razor 1-6 gen 2e, Vortex Razor 1-10 gen III.
Holy crap that disappearing bezel and FOV is beautiful. Can we get some 8x pics please?The scope arrived today, it hasn't been mounted so this is just looking through it in my hand where it's hard to tell about something like eyebox or eye relief compared to others. However, my initial impressions are as follows.
#1- Fit and finish is excellent. The scope feels and looks really nice. The magnification ring is very smooth. The "knurling" on the mag ring, the scope caps the illumination dial are just really well done and feel great. The included throw lever gets the job done. It also comes with a little rubber bikini cover that is a nice touch.
#2- The turrets feel really good for an lpvo. This is kinda hard because I don't really foresee dialing with this, but you could do it if you wanted. The clicks are positive and tactile. They feel like a top quality LPVO should IMO, they aren't as good as a top PRS scope.
#3-Glass- So the glass is really stellar. I am seeing little to no fish eye and the glass is clear and bright edge to edge. The bezel also disappears like a Razor 1-6, I mean, it may be better... somehow. They really did a lot of work here to achieve this I'm sure, but the FOV and the disappearing bezel effect make this absolutely a thrill to look through.
#4- Reticle and illumination - The illumination dial is positive and stays in place once set. It has off in between each setting. It goes to 10. The Illumination is going to be daylight visible or daylight bright according to your definition. Most would consider it daylight visible on here, I think that's what I would say, it's right on the edge like the old one. But here's the thing, with this reticle I don't think it really matters. Having the stadia or the crosshairs with the ACSS reticle on the center was an absolutely brilliant move by PA and is exactly what this(and all FFP LPVOs imo) need. It looks like a SFP crosshair LPVO on 1x then scales accordingly as you go up.
#5 It's insanely lightweight! But it still feels sturdy.
More to come, this is just first impressions in hand, but man this thing is shaping up to be spectacular.
PS, I have hands on experience with these other LPVOs- Primary arms 1-6, Swampfox Arrowhead 1-10, Vortex PST 1-6 gen II, Delta Stryker 1-6, Vortex Razor 1-6, Vortex Razor 1-6 gen 2e, Vortex Razor 1-10 gen III.
It's the Illuminated ACSS Raptor M8 Yard 5.56 / .308 Reticle.Which reticle is that?
It's flat. Have to get it mounted and compare to really get a better read. However, my eye is not trained well enough to tell a .01 difference between 1x and .99x. Of all the LPVOs I have looked through, this seems to be one of if not the best 1x experience I've seen.How flat is the 1x? In the pictures is looks more like a 0.99x or something.