-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New Primary Arms PLXC 1-8 FFP
- Thread starter 308ftWIN
- Start date
I think you are saying that your 4-16x GLx works great on 1x. Did you mean the 1-6x24 GLx? It is a pretty respectable scope, but the more expensive PLxC 1-8x24 is notably better.
ILya
I have a 4-16 GLX and the new PLxC. The PLxC simply blows the GLX out of the water. I was impressed with the Arken EP5 so plan on replacing the GLX 4-16x with the upcoming Arken EPL4s. The eye relief simply does not work for me(flipping between 4-16x requires stock adjustment) and not a big fan of the "tube" effect. It's not bad but I did like the glass on the Athlon Helos that it replaced(reticle/dot on the Athlon was too big for my needs).
Attachments
Don’t be that douche man
You would think by now he would have realized that nobody here likes him. Kind of narcissistic to be still posting when you get ganged up on by the majority in almost every thread due to being a douche 99% of the time.
Yes, i meant it worked well for closer shots on 4x on the cross, additionally, im able to mount it low, as cross forward rail slopes down below the scope rail. I can then have a lower cheek piece, which aids close range snap shots in brush i dont use sights for those, rather i shoot it like a shotgun. Last weekend in texas i shot 4 pigs at close range using snap shots, 1 at night using clipon thermal, 1 running at over 100 yards.
I tried using a trijicon 1x8 , razor 1x10 on the kimber, but they reqyired high mounts and were heavier. i ended up using a zeis 1x4. Id like something like it with a higher top end, hence PA 1x8 might be just right
They are awesome rifles until you shoot them. Seen them go down at NRL hunter and no one with any ounce of experience in this industry would recommend a Kimber made in the last 10-15 years. Just another long line of companies that squandered the reputation they built early on by selling out.
Ironicly the same guy who ran kimber into the ground, also ran sig into the ground.... Ron Cohen.
Funny thing is, my good buddy works at sig building them. Even he wont run their shit when he gets everything 50% off or more.
Its almost like some of you were born yesterday and this whole gun thing is a all new and shinny. L O fucking L.
Hmmm…. Obviously a troll, but illl bite. shot expert rifle, pistol USN (USMC range, quals M14, 1911). Shot small bore rifle , BE pistol while in college (3 STEM degrees in 7 years) Sillhouette Master, SB and HP. 3 state championships, one national team title. Hi Master in High Power Rifle, Distinguished Rifleman , Distinguished Pistol Shot. Hunted since 12, not much I haven’t taken in N. America. Ive shot on teams and along side olympic, national champions ( i relish learning from best).
I dont recall ever running into you? Whats your experience?
As for Kimber, Cross. I only keep rifles that are accurate , reliable , ones I can shoot well in the field or in competition. enuf said.
I think there is something lost in translation here. I am not sure what "as cross forward rail" is. PA's GLx 4-16x50 (I assume that's what you have) is a couple of ounces heavier than the Razor 1-10x24. Still, PA PLxC 1-8x24 is lighter yet.
ILya
yes, i didnt describe it well. I mixed 2 rifles.
i never weighed the razors, but they reqired higher mounts on my kimber. That hurt the balance and cheek weld on my kimber. I ended up going to a zeiss 1x4 for that rifle. Im considering PA PLX 1x8, and PA GLX 1x6 for better top end , and i really like the reticle for both shorter range running shots.
The forend of the cross dips down below the scope rail mount. That allows the objective lens of a scope to clear it with lower scope mounts. just another nice nuance of cross design. The lower the cheek piece, the better for close range snap shots in heavy cover. Im finding those shots increasing as hogs adapt to hunting pressure.
i also used the cross, PA 4x14 to win a local 2 gun match. The rifle portion has stages at 600, 500, 300 and 200 yards. The PA 4x14 was rock solid on elev. The 200 yard stage is all pop up, moving targets shot offhand, kneeling with short exposure. The PA reticle excelled here, as i had only perfect score. great practice for hunting
i did mount a rail on the forend for a steiner C35 clip on. The scope mount is 20 moa cant. I bought a tika 20 moa scope mount, it has a flat base. I cut it back , drilled holes to match forend mlok slots. The cant for clip on now matches the scope cant. I dismount thermal during day.
Last edited:
pics louder than words.here you can see cross with 4x16 PA GLX. Im able to mount it very low. I
end up,with an effective hunting rifle thats accurate ( moa with hunting ammo), ergonomic, light
(carry it from dawn to after dark), accepts clip on, has great tactical reticle, solid elev adjustment, locking turrets.
my PRS rifles are AI ATX, backup is RPR. Several matches a year i substitute cross with my hunting bullets. While less competitive than regulars, i do get experience at long range, moving targets and awkward positions. Great hunting practice (you fight the way you train).
end up,with an effective hunting rifle thats accurate ( moa with hunting ammo), ergonomic, light
(carry it from dawn to after dark), accepts clip on, has great tactical reticle, solid elev adjustment, locking turrets.
my PRS rifles are AI ATX, backup is RPR. Several matches a year i substitute cross with my hunting bullets. While less competitive than regulars, i do get experience at long range, moving targets and awkward positions. Great hunting practice (you fight the way you train).
Attachments
Yes your right it's everyone else.
I'll bet you tell your shrink that all the time.
Im trying to get caps for the objective and eyepiece. I’d like to be able to use an ARD with them. I’m looking at the mk machine covers that slip on the outside and work with their ARD. Could someone please measure the outer diameter of the eyepiece? Another poster mentioned that a 1.184 objective cover fit the objective.
Alternatively, does anyone know of an ARD that will fit fit their thread pitch of M28x0.5? Kind of annoying that options in this space are so limited.
Alternatively, does anyone know of an ARD that will fit fit their thread pitch of M28x0.5? Kind of annoying that options in this space are so limited.
I'm that poster. I had no luck on threaded ARDs. Even emailed Tenebraex and offered to send them my sunshade to be sure. No dice.
That MKM ARD fits really well.
Rear caps took away from the disappearing scope body experience you get with this scope. I'd stick with the bikini cover included with the scope.
I hunt hogs several times year with both cross and kimber. Accurate (1 moa with hunting ammo, cross about 3/4 moa). I saw same issues with taste with rugers black plastic stocks on thier model 77. The purists scoffed, detest them while i saw guides on alaska hunt loved thier utilitarian nature. When rubber hits road, i use cross and kimber several hunts a year in demanding conditions. They just work in world they were designed for
My son says the Plx 1-8 with ACCS reticle is not matching his DD M4 (14.5 inch barrel) beyond 300 yards when sighting in with IMI M193 at the suggested distance (50 y). When I get home, I will chrono it, put the data into a ballistic program, guess where a better sight in might be {perhaps 100y or maybe .5 inch high at 50, etc). Then, experiment with paper targets out to 400 yards (the extent of our range currently) until we find a sight in which fits the reticle. We can go out to 600 yards with steel. In this process, we will also find the exact MOA to dial for more precise shots. We will only use the IMI M193 ammo, and have a supply. Does this sound like a plan? Is there a better way?
I'm not too big on BDC reticles but in my opinion, that's just one thing you have to live with for extended ranges. They're not meant to be precise at further ranges where small variances have a more noticeable effect. I *think* they have their BDC reticle in Strelok where you can gauge the range for the dots better. This is probably your best bet. I just got the version with a MIL reticle and just use a dope card.
Last edited:
I use BDC Reticle where it fits, ie, in your case to 300 yards. Id then dial beyond that. The GLX, PLX have really robust erectors, turrets.
I use 100 concepts caps because I didn't want the disappearing bezel effect of my delta Stryker to be hindered by typical scope caps. These(like their light caps) use a shock cord and ranger bands to keep tension on the caps to stay on the front and rear of the scope then when you want them off you can "flip" them up or down(depending on your preference). The whole polymer piece will go above or below your scope leaving your scope with nothing on it (like typical scope caps). Check em out to see what you think. https://onehundredconcepts.com/products/scopecap
Thanks. I was thinking it was much further out based upon image softness with close range <50 yards and some magnification.
Has anyone found it difficult to adjust the diopter on their PLX-C?
I've tried adjusting for a flat image at 1x and for a sharp reticle at 8x. It seems like no matter what I do I end up with a fuzzy image at 1x(either the image is fuzzy or the reticle, or both).
This is my first FFP LPVO. I haven't had this kind of issue with my SFP scopes. Any suggestions @marsh1 ?
I've tried adjusting for a flat image at 1x and for a sharp reticle at 8x. It seems like no matter what I do I end up with a fuzzy image at 1x(either the image is fuzzy or the reticle, or both).
This is my first FFP LPVO. I haven't had this kind of issue with my SFP scopes. Any suggestions @marsh1 ?
I've messed with mine several times to get it perfect for me, leaving it alone then coming back and testing it and if it's not right doing the process over again. There are quite a few good techniques, including ones outlined on this forum and by posters on this forum via YouTube.
Sometimes there are compromises as far a "perfect" especially since for an LPVO you are trying to get the truest 1x possible. Having said that, I've got mine at a good flat image on 1x and a clear image and reticle at 8x. Unless there is an issue with your scope(which I'm sure PAs warranty would cover), I would continue to work at it and maybe look up some different techniques then perhaps your using.
Yeah, I just did a search and found an interesting suggestion from DLO to make sure you don't try to set indoors. You need ~10-15 yards or so to dial it in. I'll try outside again and see if it works better.
My main surprise is that I can get a sharp reticle at 8x and a flat image at 1x, but at 1x the reticle appears blurry or soft. Attempting to aim at an object ~ 50 yards away it feels like my eye is strained and can't resolve the reticle and image at 1x.
It also seems very sensitive to head position. Having my head slightly off center causes a lot of blurriness.
The key is to understand that all you are doing with the diopter is to get the reticle in focus at short distance against a blank background. YOu have to do it in a way that you don't give your eye time to focus. Here is a video Stephen did that might help.
How to adjust your diopter
I had a potentially similar issue, where the image was soft/fuzzy/low resolution at the center. I kept fiddling with the diopter, but it was always present. This was very noticeable at closer distances (25-50y) with >4x magnification looking at trees with finely detailed bark. None of my other LPVOs looked like this. I initially attributed this to the fixed parallax distance, but the PLxC had a closer distance than the others.
I sent it in for a warranty evaluation and it was replaced. The replacement looked the same so I figured it is what it was, and then sold it.
Why? We track every return. There was nothing wrong. That is why the replacement was the same.
You have to do the diopter setup carefully!! It is a one time thing, then you are set.
Last edited:
I can't fathom this was a diopter issue. The only area impacted was the center, roughly inside the horseshoe. Immediately above the horseshoe the image was perfectly clear with the resolution I would expect. This low resolution area would shift up/down, right/left with eye motion. I thought this may be an focus issue as the fixed parallax distance was significantly different from the actual distance. But when I moved my eye above the centerline, the image at the center would be perfectly clear; at this point the top ~1/3 of the image was covered by scope shadow.
During this I repeatedly played with the diopter. Setting as usual, as well as sweeping it in an attempt to correct the low resolution.
The GF even noticed this when looking at the same trees. I began to think it was a smudge or something on an internal lense.
So after the second one showed the same behavior, I didn't want to invest any additional time and replaced it with a Patrol6. It has a greater fixed parallax distance, and has no resolution issues at closer ranges.
Got it!! I will pull several and look for what you are talking about
Last edited:
Never mind. I see it posted above. We are trying to duplicate what you are seeing so I can speak to it.
It's amazing how many people don't know this. I RO at matches all the time and it blows my mind how many people get the make ready command, turn on illumination, look through scope, give the diopter a good crank, look again, hard crank the other direction, another look, then a satisfied face because their scope is now ready.
No. We found no issues. I will do a more thorough reply later but PM me you Order # and I will check on it
Tony the Tiger is right. The diopter adjustment is done quickly. If not your eye will have time to focus and you will never get it right. Then you move on and only look though the scope and focus on the target. We tested several and found all to be within specs. Every scope goes through a QC process before they are shipped, and any return is looked at much closer and put on the bench and optically tested.
As few other comments:
A SPF scope with a simple reticle will be way more forgiving. The higher the zoom ratio the less forgiving.
Is what Neurotic described seeing there. I am sure it is since he saw it on two scopes. It is probably an inherent part of the optical system. All designs have some weak spots. Making a scope perform at this level and be compact is not easy. This is why some brands will have a compact and a full size 1-8. The closest to perfection our head of engineering has seen is the Blaser 1-7X at $3K. Why is he seeing it and other do not? The only way to know for sure is for him to be at our place and put the scope on the test bench and look together. I am confident that as mentioned above get the diopter set for your eye and look though the scope you will be more than pleased with the clarity. As always if you buy from us you have 90 days to return if you are not completely satisfied. Most of our dealers have similar policies.
As few other comments:
A SPF scope with a simple reticle will be way more forgiving. The higher the zoom ratio the less forgiving.
Is what Neurotic described seeing there. I am sure it is since he saw it on two scopes. It is probably an inherent part of the optical system. All designs have some weak spots. Making a scope perform at this level and be compact is not easy. This is why some brands will have a compact and a full size 1-8. The closest to perfection our head of engineering has seen is the Blaser 1-7X at $3K. Why is he seeing it and other do not? The only way to know for sure is for him to be at our place and put the scope on the test bench and look together. I am confident that as mentioned above get the diopter set for your eye and look though the scope you will be more than pleased with the clarity. As always if you buy from us you have 90 days to return if you are not completely satisfied. Most of our dealers have similar policies.
Last edited:
Not at all discounting Neurotics experience and comments, he's a good poster here. I just wanted to say I haven't had the issue with clarity on mine. It has taken me longer to get my diopter dialed in then my previous SFP 1-6 lpvo, but as you mentioned that would seem to be a common dynamic with a compact, 1-8, FFP. Now that I have it dialed in, I couldn't be happier with it.
I have two 1-8x24 PLxC scopes and I have not had any issues getting them adjusted to my eye.
Now, it can vary for different eyes, so I am not sure what to make of it. There are enough questions about eyepiece focus that I did some videos on it and, most recently, a short piece for Shooting Illustrated specifically on LPVOs https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/eyepiece-adjustment-part-1-lpvos/
Looking at the post above, it sounds like he is trying to go about it correctly, so I am not sure where the problem lies.
ILya
Now, it can vary for different eyes, so I am not sure what to make of it. There are enough questions about eyepiece focus that I did some videos on it and, most recently, a short piece for Shooting Illustrated specifically on LPVOs https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/eyepiece-adjustment-part-1-lpvos/
Looking at the post above, it sounds like he is trying to go about it correctly, so I am not sure where the problem lies.
ILya
I can't say what was done to evaluate, but this was only noticeable in very fine details (like tree bark textures) at closer ranges (25-50 yards). It wasn't really noticeable at 200+ yards. I would have loved to done this in a more controlled fashion with a camera resolution test chart. At this magnification, distance and parallax error, there is a noticeable struggle to focus on the image vs the reticle. I don't believe this was the cause as moving my eye up, moved the clear area down to the reticle where resolution was as expected.
For note, my comparison included a Burris XTR2 1-8 FFP and Sightmark Pinnacle 1-6 (FFP) (both LOW products). The Burris out resolved both PLxC's and the Sightmark was slightly better in resolution but worse in other regards. I really wanted the PLxC to work for my light rifle and to replace the Burris as its 6.5 oz lighter. Once I could see it, I couldn't unsee it...
Again, there was difference in resolution in different areas of the image. Maybe this was an eye specific thing. But the GF noticed it with the simple instructions to rate the image quality at the center and roughly 1/4 FOV above the center.
I tried, it wasn't for me... Just sharing if someone else had this experience.
Edit: I'd love to know if I setup something incorrectly, it could save me time/issues elsewhere.
Similar threads
