-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New Primary Arms PLXC 1-8 FFP
- Thread starter 308ftWIN
- Start date
No. The donut part of the reticle or any part of it isn't transparent or translucent like the 1-10 Razor.
To help you guys gauge the size of the reticle at distance, the aiming point the scope is looking at on 8x is a hair over 300 yards.
Last edited:
Added some more pictures overall, some of the illumination on a brighter day. I would consider it daylight bright but not nuclear bright or red dot bright. I know that gets down to definitions of the individual, but it is brighter then I anticipated having not looked through the original PLx 1-8.
Now to the eye box. It seems good, is it SFP Razor 1-6 or delta 1-6 or some such scope good? No. It reminds me(based on memory) of something like the Razor 1-10 territory. At some point I'll have the opportunity to have them all lined up to really gauge it, but my initial impression is it's GOOD not GREAT on the "eye box". I don't think the eye box would be a reason not to buy this scope and I'll leave it at that.
Now to the eye box. It seems good, is it SFP Razor 1-6 or delta 1-6 or some such scope good? No. It reminds me(based on memory) of something like the Razor 1-10 territory. At some point I'll have the opportunity to have them all lined up to really gauge it, but my initial impression is it's GOOD not GREAT on the "eye box". I don't think the eye box would be a reason not to buy this scope and I'll leave it at that.
Attachments
If only the vertical above the donut wasn’t there, I think that would be a perfect BDC reticle.
I know I’ll get flamed for this, but why is it there? This ret isn’t meant to dial. I can understand maybe a 2mil verticals above the donut of death, but all the way to the top? It blocks too much view imho
I know I’ll get flamed for this, but why is it there? This ret isn’t meant to dial. I can understand maybe a 2mil verticals above the donut of death, but all the way to the top? It blocks too much view imho
I know at 1x(like most crosshairs reticles for me) it helps draw my eye to the center of the reticle more quickly. As opposed to say the Razor gen III 1-10 that just has the three bars(not full stadia) trying to direct your eye to the center; its just much harder to pick up sans illumination on.
My thought is it's there for if/when your illumination is off or out, it gives you the speed of a crosshair reticle that you get with most SFP. I for one think it was a brilliant addition but that is personal preference. Every other FFP LPVO reticle I have seen has been lacking in this arena, specifically speed if the Illumination is off or out. Not saying none of them work, I just feel like the full crosshairs is a better design.
Last edited:
This is why I like my Razor's in SFP for the crosshairs that be be picked up without the illum on.
Let us know how you like it at 1x being it's not exactly daylight bright. I'm wondering if that won't matter with those dark crosshairs.
Also let us know how that 8x is?
Only thingI think I wouldn't like is that chevron for a center aiming point.
Everyone seems to be very particular about reticles and I agree, I wish PA wouldn’t force everyone down the chevron path. From what I’ve seen, the NX8 would be obsolete if they had a non-chevron reticle available. I will likely try their MIL reticle but I really prefer an open crosshair or floating center dot for precision
It's definitely personal preference when it comes to reticles. Unfortunately we are in the minority when it comes to the PA chevron so I don't see one with a floating dot or crosshair like reticle ever coming to the PA line. The chevron is the main stay of their optic line.
So a couple thoughts of my own after checking the eye box/eye relief with some friends compared to a Razor 1-6 and my Delta 1-6.
It's not far off. Closer then I anticipated. In fact I couldn't detect a difference in eye relief. I could detect a slight difference in eye box but for only 1 reason. The etched vs wire reticle dilemma(or atleast my experience with it so far). With the wire reticles and fiber illumination, the reticle and illumination is still visible even under complete scope shadow, so you have some point of reference. The PAs etched reticle begins to fade out and the Illumination fades out as you get into COMPLETE scope shadow.
I'm not a scope expert, so I'm not sure if this is something that happens with just the PAs etched and filled reticle (I know it happens with the Razor 1-10 and with less shadow than the PA, meaning the PA does a better job here imo) but it does happen with this scope.
However, that just seems to be the nature of it with a FFP. As far as actual scope shadow and the flexibility of the eye box, there was not a large enough discernable difference between the Razor, Delta, or PA(all this being at 1x) for me to call the PA "worse". Do I think the other two are a touch more capable with those wire reticle and fiber dots visible so far off the scope? Yes. But do I think for a FFP, etched 1-8 short LPVO, the eye relief and eye box seem great(not just ok) on the PA? Equally yes. Your mileage may very and I'm not trying to talk someone into this scope, I'm just trying to be honest especially with the questions regarding the NX8(admittedly I have never looked through one) comparisons. Some of you may be better at gauging and or more picky, but I think the way the PA is getting around the exit pupil issue is the huge FOV and flat bezel less image. It just looks outstanding and makes pulling the scope to the eye and finding the reticle effortless seemingly. I truly think it's good to go on eye box. Whether you prefer a reticle that is visible and illumination completely visible in extreme scope shadow is up to you, there is merit in having that IMO.
As far as the reticle, it is completely personal preference. However, I'll say this about the Chevron, especially with it being FFP. I had the Primary arms SFP SLX 1-6 and wasn't a huge fan of the Chevron, especially once I got my delta 1-6 and had the crosshairs with a simple dot. But, with the FFP, the Arc or half circle above the chevron not only gets small enough to not be obtrusive (it creates a great fast aiming crescent to put on a targets "shoulders") but also the center of the Chevron is visible and big enough to be a dot at 1x and creates a very fine accurate aiming point. It separated enough from the half circle to still be distinguishable easily. It's also still big enough and bold enough to see even without illumination (I was trying this yesterday on a bright day and doing ready ups into a dark wooded area). So you have the half circle for extreme speed and the center Chevron/dot for that fine aiming point for precision on 1x.
Also, the Illumination is going to create enough contrast to give you speed. It's not aimpoint bright or red dot, no, but with the design of the reticle and imo "good enough" brightness on the Illumination, I don't foresee any speed difference between this and my Delta 1-6 or friends razor 1-6 or 1-10.
Just some more thoughts of mine, feel free disagree, especially as others get hands on. I am interested in opinions and yes dissenting opinions
It's not far off. Closer then I anticipated. In fact I couldn't detect a difference in eye relief. I could detect a slight difference in eye box but for only 1 reason. The etched vs wire reticle dilemma(or atleast my experience with it so far). With the wire reticles and fiber illumination, the reticle and illumination is still visible even under complete scope shadow, so you have some point of reference. The PAs etched reticle begins to fade out and the Illumination fades out as you get into COMPLETE scope shadow.
I'm not a scope expert, so I'm not sure if this is something that happens with just the PAs etched and filled reticle (I know it happens with the Razor 1-10 and with less shadow than the PA, meaning the PA does a better job here imo) but it does happen with this scope.
However, that just seems to be the nature of it with a FFP. As far as actual scope shadow and the flexibility of the eye box, there was not a large enough discernable difference between the Razor, Delta, or PA(all this being at 1x) for me to call the PA "worse". Do I think the other two are a touch more capable with those wire reticle and fiber dots visible so far off the scope? Yes. But do I think for a FFP, etched 1-8 short LPVO, the eye relief and eye box seem great(not just ok) on the PA? Equally yes. Your mileage may very and I'm not trying to talk someone into this scope, I'm just trying to be honest especially with the questions regarding the NX8(admittedly I have never looked through one) comparisons. Some of you may be better at gauging and or more picky, but I think the way the PA is getting around the exit pupil issue is the huge FOV and flat bezel less image. It just looks outstanding and makes pulling the scope to the eye and finding the reticle effortless seemingly. I truly think it's good to go on eye box. Whether you prefer a reticle that is visible and illumination completely visible in extreme scope shadow is up to you, there is merit in having that IMO.
As far as the reticle, it is completely personal preference. However, I'll say this about the Chevron, especially with it being FFP. I had the Primary arms SFP SLX 1-6 and wasn't a huge fan of the Chevron, especially once I got my delta 1-6 and had the crosshairs with a simple dot. But, with the FFP, the Arc or half circle above the chevron not only gets small enough to not be obtrusive (it creates a great fast aiming crescent to put on a targets "shoulders") but also the center of the Chevron is visible and big enough to be a dot at 1x and creates a very fine accurate aiming point. It separated enough from the half circle to still be distinguishable easily. It's also still big enough and bold enough to see even without illumination (I was trying this yesterday on a bright day and doing ready ups into a dark wooded area). So you have the half circle for extreme speed and the center Chevron/dot for that fine aiming point for precision on 1x.
Also, the Illumination is going to create enough contrast to give you speed. It's not aimpoint bright or red dot, no, but with the design of the reticle and imo "good enough" brightness on the Illumination, I don't foresee any speed difference between this and my Delta 1-6 or friends razor 1-6 or 1-10.
Just some more thoughts of mine, feel free disagree, especially as others get hands on. I am interested in opinions and yes dissenting opinions
Last edited:
So a couple thoughts of my own after checking the eye box/eye relief with some friends compared to a Razor 1-6 and my Delta 1-6.
It's not far off. Closer then I anticipated. In fact I couldn't detect a difference in eye relief. I could detect a slight difference in eye box but for only 1 reason. The etched vs wire reticle dilemma(or atleast my experience with it so far). With the wire reticles and fiber illumination, the reticle and illumination is still visible even under complete scope shadow, so you have some point of reference. The PAs etched reticle begins to fade out and the Illumination fades out as you get into COMPLETE scope shadow.
I'm not a scope expert, so I'm not sure if this is something that happens with just the PAs etched and filled reticle (I know it happens with the Razor 1-10 and with less shadow than the PA, meaning the PA does a better job here imo) but it does happen with this scope.
However, that just seems to be the nature of it with a FFP. As far as actual scope shadow and the flexibility of the eye box, there was not a large enough discernable difference between the Razor, Delta, or PA(all this being at 1x) for me to call the PA "worse". Do I think the other two are a touch more capable with those wire reticle and fiber dots visible so far off the scope? Yes. But do I think for a FFP, etched 1-8 short LPVO, the eye relief and eye box seem great(not just ok) on the PA? Equally yes. Your mileage may very and I'm not trying to talk someone into this scope, I'm just trying to be honest especially with the questions regarding the NX8(admittedly I have never looked through one) comparisons. Some of you may be better at gauging and or more picky, but I think the way the PA is getting around the exit pupil issue is the huge FOV and flat bezel less image. It just looks outstanding and makes pulling the scope to the eye and finding the reticle effortless seemingly. I truly think it's good to go on eye box. Whether you prefer a reticle that is visible and illumination completely visible in extreme scope shadow is up to you, there is merit in having that IMO.
As far as the reticle, it is completely personal preference. However, I'll say this about the Chevron, especially with it being FFP. I had the Primary arms SFP SLX 1-6 and wasn't a huge fan of the Chevron, especially once I got my delta 1-6 and had the crosshairs with a simple dot. But, with the FFP, the Arc or half circle above the chevron not only gets small enough to not be obtrusive (it creates a great fast aiming crescent to put on a targets "shoulders") but also the center of the Chevron is visible and big enough to be a dot at 1x and creates a very fine accurate aiming point. It separated enough from the half circle to still be distinguishable easily. It's also still big enough and bold enough to see even without illumination (I was trying this yesterday on a bright day and doing ready ups into a dark wooded area). So you have the half circle for extreme speed and the center Chevron/dot for that fine aiming point for precision on 1x.
Also, the Illumination is going to create enough contrast to give you speed. It's not aimpoint bright or red dot, no, but with the design of the reticle and imo "good enough" brightness on the Illumination, I don't foresee any speed difference between this and my Delta 1-6 or friends razor 1-6 or 1-10.
Just some more thoughts of mine, feel free disagree, especially as others get hands on. I am interested in opinions and yes dissenting opinions
Great info, thank you! What were your impressions of the eyebox at 8x? I thought the NX8 was a really nice scope but I did have two complaints. The first was the segmented circle was too close to center IMHO and made for a cluttered central aiming area. The second was the very tight eyebox at 8x. I am hoping the PA corrects both of these concerns.
I am not a huge fan of a chevron aiming point either, but having never used one, I am willing to give it a go.
CM
I'll have to get behind it and the Burris XTR II 1-8 which I have access to. I feel like that would be the best comparison both being 1-8, albeit the Burris is SFP. But my initial impressions is I can get behind it without struggling, it's tight like all LPVOs at max, but I'm not seeing it as being "difficult".
It is more forgiving on 8x than the NX8.
On the whole chevron business: I am somewhat ambivalent about the chevron under most circumstances and do not particularly like chevrons on precision scopes. In an LPVO, however, the chevron is a viable idea if you are looking to have a fairly large center aiming feature while maintaining the ability to aim precisely. In an FFP LPVO, if you make a dot big enough to be easily seen on 1x, it gets kinda too big on 8x. That's why on FFP LPVOs with conventional etched reticles, I generally prefer crosshair structures. The chevron is another solution to the same problem and a perfectly viable one at that. The whole "infinitely small" aiming point is mostly good marketing. That's not how our visual perception works. It is however, a better precision aiming point than a giant dot.
ILya
So I got the PA 1-8 next to the Burris XTRII 1-8 sfp and got them both on 8x. Checked eye box and eye relief. The Burris was slightly (I mean slightly) better at eye relief imo, the eye box or ease to get behind was honestly a wash. In real world application of switching from 1 to 8 and being able to get behind it and on target I don't expect there to be any time difference between these two 1-8s.
I am thoroughly impressed with Primary arms attention to detail and ability to get this scopes eye relief and eye box as good at it is at it's size. It is an extremely well rounded optic, it doesn't do everything perfectly, but imo does it all well enough, even great, to slot itself nicely in the current options with features others don't offer. For me, I think it's my favorite LPVO I've looked through to date and would be #1 on my recommendation list if you have the budget (I have by no means looked at every available option and that is a purely subjective statement by me). For me I would chose this over the razor 1-6 and razor 1-10 if given an option of the 3(and these three are the most expensive scopes I've looked through). Hope this helps and looking forward to guys who know a lot more then me review this thing.
I am thoroughly impressed with Primary arms attention to detail and ability to get this scopes eye relief and eye box as good at it is at it's size. It is an extremely well rounded optic, it doesn't do everything perfectly, but imo does it all well enough, even great, to slot itself nicely in the current options with features others don't offer. For me, I think it's my favorite LPVO I've looked through to date and would be #1 on my recommendation list if you have the budget (I have by no means looked at every available option and that is a purely subjective statement by me). For me I would chose this over the razor 1-6 and razor 1-10 if given an option of the 3(and these three are the most expensive scopes I've looked through). Hope this helps and looking forward to guys who know a lot more then me review this thing.
Last edited:
I keep talking myself out of one of these and then keep getting an urge to order one. Why am I like this? 
All three reticle versions are now available for pre-order on their website.Bump for this? Any updates?
Thanks! I’ve actually had one preordered for about 6 weeks now. Was hoping for a shipping update. Last we heard from Marsh was that the units were in, but they were waiting on packaging to arrive. He said he’d be looking into shipping some without the fancy packaging. Im down for that if it can happen…
My unit is inbound. Will probably be several days before I can get first shots on it but when I do I’ll report back!
Totally agree with this. I’ve shot what feels like every LPVO out there and I currently have the Athlon ETR 1-10 (FFP). This scope is nearly perfect for me, but yet falls short on 1x. The ghost ring stadia lines are too thin on 1x and even though the illumination is actually pretty bright, it is still kind of hard to pick up sometimes. Everything else about this scope is awesome (minus the 26oz weight, but I can live with that.).
The reticle/illumination on the Vortex 1-10 is great except the center illumination should be more like their 1-6, which is just the center dot illuminated. The 1-10 illumination is good on 1x, but the minute you zoom out and leave the illumination on, it covers up so much because it is so bright, whereas if it was just the center dot illuminated, it would be better on 1x and 10x.
IMHO, the ideal 1-10 scope would have:
1. Parallax setting in the left side like a traditional scope and have the illumination on top like the Swarovski scopes (wish I never sold my 1-6). Should also have auto on/off to save battery life for the times we forget to turn it off.
2. Exposed locking turrets with a zero stop. The Leupold turrets or the Primary Arms GLx ones are great. This way guys could dial or use holdovers. Covered windage turrets are good.
3. Dual plane reticle. Red dot like the Vortex 1-6 in the SFP with a Christmas tree style reticle in the FFP with stadia lines drawing the eyes toward the center like the Vortex 1-10.
4. Since it is hard to have everything in 1 scope, I’d favor the forgiving eye relief/eye box over other things like field of view, especially on an LPVO. These scopes should be used with both eyes open so field of view is not as big of an issue as eye relief/eye box for an LPVO. Not saying that field of view should be under 100’ at 100 yards on 1x, but it also doesn’t have to be 115’+ (JMHO).
5. Preferably a 34mm tube with good amount of internal elevation adjustment or just use an ADM 20 MOA scope mount which is what I use.
6. Keep the weight reasonable. My 1-10 is 26 oz and it is tolerable. I could always reduce weight in other areas anyway, but the lighter the better.
7. Scope lever is a no brainer.
8. This is just a dream of mine, but all LPVO’s should be like the VCOG (built in mount), which uses the ACOG mounts. Especially if they could keep the weight reasonable. I hate leveling a scope (although the vertical style rings like on the ADM and Larue are actually pretty easy).
Hopefully you guys can help a newb out. I have taken a liking to The Tactical Games and trying to figure out the best optic for me. I currently have a Vortex GII-E 1-6 Razor and a Sig 4T (with BDC) + 4X magnifier. I am brand new to LPVOs and used the Razor in the first two TTG and the second one gave me fits shooting behind a VTAC with scope shadow, etc. I couldn't find the reticle to save my life.
I come from a background of using red dots at close ranges. TTG is basically a crossfit style workout with shooting (AR/Pistol) during the workout. Speed is not necessarily a priority but precision is. Each miss is a 10 second penalty off your total time. Shooting through the VTAC we had to hit 2" dots at 20, 40, 60 yards so knowing holds was important. I didn't realize holds were completely different from 1x-6x on the Razor. Or at least didn't think it was enough to make a difference. Maybe it isn't. I still don't really know. LOL That's why I was stuck on FFP for a LPVO. Same holds at every magnification.
I have been eyeing this LPVO for a while now (1-8x plus light weight). I'm a bit of a brand snob (just saying how it is) but I do have PA optics (1-6x FFP ACSS, RDS, new Prism, and a 4-14x). I have been looking at the Razor 1-10, Vudu 1-10, PLx 1-8, NX8, ATACR, to name a few. We very seldom shoot out past 300 yards but will shoot from compromised positions a lot.
I also don't know if a BDC reticle or MIL/MOA is better for my type of shooting either. I don't have time to dial dope nor do I have time (or the capacity) to remember different holds at different magnifications. Am I correct in thinking FFP might be a better option for me?
Any help is greatly appreciated. I'm using the Sig 4T + 4X magnifier this weekend so I'll get an idea how that works vs the Razor.
I come from a background of using red dots at close ranges. TTG is basically a crossfit style workout with shooting (AR/Pistol) during the workout. Speed is not necessarily a priority but precision is. Each miss is a 10 second penalty off your total time. Shooting through the VTAC we had to hit 2" dots at 20, 40, 60 yards so knowing holds was important. I didn't realize holds were completely different from 1x-6x on the Razor. Or at least didn't think it was enough to make a difference. Maybe it isn't. I still don't really know. LOL That's why I was stuck on FFP for a LPVO. Same holds at every magnification.
I have been eyeing this LPVO for a while now (1-8x plus light weight). I'm a bit of a brand snob (just saying how it is) but I do have PA optics (1-6x FFP ACSS, RDS, new Prism, and a 4-14x). I have been looking at the Razor 1-10, Vudu 1-10, PLx 1-8, NX8, ATACR, to name a few. We very seldom shoot out past 300 yards but will shoot from compromised positions a lot.
I also don't know if a BDC reticle or MIL/MOA is better for my type of shooting either. I don't have time to dial dope nor do I have time (or the capacity) to remember different holds at different magnifications. Am I correct in thinking FFP might be a better option for me?
Any help is greatly appreciated. I'm using the Sig 4T + 4X magnifier this weekend so I'll get an idea how that works vs the Razor.
To my knowledge there is no LPVO on the market easier to get behind than the Razor 1-6x, so you either need to train more or stick with red dots, because buying a different scope is unlikely to solve this problem.
Whether your reticle is MIL/MOA or BDC it sounds like you'll still be using it like a BDC, so it might not really matter. BDC will probably be easier/faster to use but potentially less precise. FFP will be better if you're using intermediate magnification at ranges where holdover is required, if you always crank to max it doesn't really matter. There are plenty of other pros/cons but for your uses those are probably the biggest considerations.
The Vortex 1-6 is ideal for the TTG. When using the VTAC barricade remember that if you tilt the rifle to the left, you have to aim a little high and to the right. You just have to practice at different ranges to get your holds. It just takes practice.
Out to 300 years, either set-up will work. But even with a red dot, if you tilt your rifle, the same still applies.
You're probably right. Actually, I know you're right. LOL That's where I thought FFP may be an advantage. When shooting from compromised positions I could dial down to 3-4x, get a better eyebox, and still have some magnification to get accurate hits. In a bench rest type shooting position I could dial up and not worry so much about the eyebox issues? Would this be correct?
Using the 1-6x Razor will the holdovers be that drastic at different magnifications? I plugged numbers into Strelok and got at 1x 50/200, 7/593, 4/844, 1/1044. At 6x 23/290, 15/395, 10/496, 7/596. It's my understanding most people use SFP at either 1x or 6x (max magnification) and zero on max magnification? That's where I thought FFP and dialing down while maintaining the same holds would help.
And thanks! Sounds like a FFP with BDC in 1-8 or 1-10 might be the ticket? Oh, and more training behind a LPVO.
Yeah, I learned that the hard way at the last TTG. LOL I totally held the opposite way while shooting horizontally through the VTAC. I think my heart rate may have played into that as well. LOL Thanks!
Theoretically this is all correct. But typically any hold overs/unders inside of 200 yards won't be represented by any of the coarser reticles in LPVO's, it's on you to remember the relatively close range holds regardless of of focal plane location.
Most people do seem to either use minimum or maximum magnification in LPVO's. I guess I'm the oddball that uses 2-4x a lot inside of 200 yards with SFP scopes, and like I said above, there aren't even hashes for me to use inside of those ranges, it's all about knowing I've got roughly 1" hold under from 60-90 yards (inconsequential for any match shooting I do, but sounds like it might be pertinent to you) 2" hold under from 100-170 yards, then pretty much dead hold from there to 220. And that's all done off of the center dot.
I think I'm gonna go ahead and use the Razor 1-6x this weekend and look at a good FFP for my next events. I think a LPVO long-term (rather than a rds + magnifier) is what I need to use if I'm going to get better and more accurate at longer more difficult shots.
Anything you guys would recommend or am I on the right track? PA PLx 1-8, Vudu 1-10, Razor 1-10, Atacr 1-8? I would look at NX8 but I've heard it has eyebox issues? Anything else I'm missing? I think the $2500 mark is about where I tap out. Thanks!
Just got my new PLX compact - super fast on shipping, thank you Marsh! No fancy packaging, digital copies of scope manual and reticle instructions.
I have just thrown it on my rifle, haven’t leveled, zeroed or even shot it yet. However, in just handling it and getting behind the scope I can tell you this is exactly what I was hoping for.
I purchased the original Plx 1-8, and while I was impressed, it fell a little short for me - mostly in the weight category, but also in the 1x. Because there were no stadia at 1x, and because the illumination was less than “red dot bright,” it felt more like an optic intended primarily to be mounted on a stationary or emplacement rifle. This was reinforced by the plus size weight of the original unit. Otherwise, I quite liked the original. But because my intended use is on a patrol rifle, I returned the original, hoping (not having heard anything at all about a possible Gen 2) that a Gen 2 version would come out with at least a weight reduction. I ended up buying an Slx 1-8 to stand in until I found something more appropriate.
Much to my delight, about 6 months after returning the original Plx, I actually heard that not only was PA coming out with a new version of the Plx, but it was being redesigned from the ground up. As soon as I heard that Preorders were online, I jumped on it. I am not disappointed.
This little scope is excellent. Its had it’s stomach stapled, resulting in a massive weight reduction from the original. Its been made shorter and narrower (30mm tube versus a 34mm tube), and the turrets are lower profile. Overall, it is significantly less bulky and much less of a chonk. The illumination seems brighter, but this could be because the horseshoe on the Compact is smaller, resulting in a more condensed circle dot than the original. This extra perceived brightness, along with the new stadia lines at 1x totally solve my 1x issues with the previous Plx. Glass clarity is excellent, on par with other leading optics in the category. All controls feel professional and smooth. Fit and finish is impeccable.
In my opinion, after only a short time handling and looking through the optic, I think this is just about perfect for a do-all general purpose rifle. Subject to new information and testing through use, of course.
I can’t wait to get this thing leveled and zeroed, and to start slinging some lead.
Hope this little opinion piece helps some folks make a decision. If you’re on the fence, I’d say give it a try. Most will not be disappointed.
I have just thrown it on my rifle, haven’t leveled, zeroed or even shot it yet. However, in just handling it and getting behind the scope I can tell you this is exactly what I was hoping for.
I purchased the original Plx 1-8, and while I was impressed, it fell a little short for me - mostly in the weight category, but also in the 1x. Because there were no stadia at 1x, and because the illumination was less than “red dot bright,” it felt more like an optic intended primarily to be mounted on a stationary or emplacement rifle. This was reinforced by the plus size weight of the original unit. Otherwise, I quite liked the original. But because my intended use is on a patrol rifle, I returned the original, hoping (not having heard anything at all about a possible Gen 2) that a Gen 2 version would come out with at least a weight reduction. I ended up buying an Slx 1-8 to stand in until I found something more appropriate.
Much to my delight, about 6 months after returning the original Plx, I actually heard that not only was PA coming out with a new version of the Plx, but it was being redesigned from the ground up. As soon as I heard that Preorders were online, I jumped on it. I am not disappointed.
This little scope is excellent. Its had it’s stomach stapled, resulting in a massive weight reduction from the original. Its been made shorter and narrower (30mm tube versus a 34mm tube), and the turrets are lower profile. Overall, it is significantly less bulky and much less of a chonk. The illumination seems brighter, but this could be because the horseshoe on the Compact is smaller, resulting in a more condensed circle dot than the original. This extra perceived brightness, along with the new stadia lines at 1x totally solve my 1x issues with the previous Plx. Glass clarity is excellent, on par with other leading optics in the category. All controls feel professional and smooth. Fit and finish is impeccable.
In my opinion, after only a short time handling and looking through the optic, I think this is just about perfect for a do-all general purpose rifle. Subject to new information and testing through use, of course.
I can’t wait to get this thing leveled and zeroed, and to start slinging some lead.
Hope this little opinion piece helps some folks make a decision. If you’re on the fence, I’d say give it a try. Most will not be disappointed.
Depends on distance. If it's in front of your zero distance the hold will be opposite than if the target is further than your zero distance.
I use a 50/200 zero so under 50 aim a little high, 50-200 aim a little low, 200 plus aim a little high. Pretty negligible until 300 yards. I think 223/556 drops about 7" or so at 300 yards and stays within 1.5-2" inside 200 yards?
This target was past 50 yards (maybe 80 yards, can't remember exactly) and I held off left edge (leaning left) and I think I was missing left but couldn't see where I was missing or would've adjusted. The target was big enough, and close enough, I probably should've just held center and would've been fine. At least I think this would be correct. LOL
Learning a lot after three Tactical Games (Skirmishes). All this seems pretty simple after the fact. We had to hit 6" plates at about 70 yards this past weekend and I just held dead center and did just fine. Other than a double-feed.
Yeah, I don't want to hack up the thread but probably a dead hold there would be fine. Sight height over bore you have to watch on a VTAC when completely horizontal. Because my scope is very low, I have less hold issues and it's also much easier to acquire your eyebox. If your running a high mount it can be trickier.
So just a quick comparison update, I was on vacation near a buds gun shop which had an NX8 1-8 sitting out for display. So I grabbed it up to do a quick look through and I could immediately tell why people complain about the eyebox and eye relief. It is definitely noticeable compared to others and the PLx compact is noticeably better then it. Not really close imo. Just thought I would throw this out there for those looking at the PLx .
Just trying to decide which reticle I want at this point. Going on an AR-10 in .308.
I think since my AR-15 sports a TA31 ACSS (Non Aurora) the Raptor Yards version will be a natural transition, but I'm all ears if someone can make a good case for something else. Pretty likely to shoot M80 a great majority of the time.
I think since my AR-15 sports a TA31 ACSS (Non Aurora) the Raptor Yards version will be a natural transition, but I'm all ears if someone can make a good case for something else. Pretty likely to shoot M80 a great majority of the time.
Last edited:
Just posting a follow up to my previous post, which was written shortly after I received the optic and had not even leveled or zeroed yet. Since then, I have leveled, zeroed, and have shot about 120 rounds so far.
The PLx Compact is seriously excellent. In my opinion, this is the best overall LPVO I've handled to date. No, I haven't handled everything, but I have handled most of the top performers in the category. Some optics might have slightly better eye box or eye relief, some might be a bit lighter weight, some might have brighter illumination, etc - but none of them does EVERYTHING as well as this optic does everything.
On top of that, I believe this optic is sporting the first true 1x image I've seen in an LPVO. Or, if its not true 1x, its so close that I can't tell a difference. This is the first time I've been able to say that about an LPVO. Granted, my 38 year old eyes aren't what they were when I was 20, but they aren't far off yet, either. There's a little distortion near the edges of the glass, but not much. The object I'm looking at, though, absolutely does not change whatsoever when I move the optic in and out of my line of sight. Serious win here.
The illumination, while bright, is not "red dot bright." I do not think this detracts from the effectiveness of the optic in any way. In bright sunlight, you get better contrast with the black etched reticle than you would with an illuminated reticle or red dot anyway. The compressed horseshoe dot (compared to the previous PLx) is dense enough that you're not searching for it, and the stadia lines do a great job of naturally focusing your eye to the center. Really, really well done.
I have to say, this optic sits more to the center of my Goldilocks zone of ass-kickery than any LPVO I've seen. Excellent design and excellent implementation. I'm proud to own this optic, and I'm sure I'll be watching my rounds impact through this glass for years to come.
The PLx Compact is seriously excellent. In my opinion, this is the best overall LPVO I've handled to date. No, I haven't handled everything, but I have handled most of the top performers in the category. Some optics might have slightly better eye box or eye relief, some might be a bit lighter weight, some might have brighter illumination, etc - but none of them does EVERYTHING as well as this optic does everything.
On top of that, I believe this optic is sporting the first true 1x image I've seen in an LPVO. Or, if its not true 1x, its so close that I can't tell a difference. This is the first time I've been able to say that about an LPVO. Granted, my 38 year old eyes aren't what they were when I was 20, but they aren't far off yet, either. There's a little distortion near the edges of the glass, but not much. The object I'm looking at, though, absolutely does not change whatsoever when I move the optic in and out of my line of sight. Serious win here.
The illumination, while bright, is not "red dot bright." I do not think this detracts from the effectiveness of the optic in any way. In bright sunlight, you get better contrast with the black etched reticle than you would with an illuminated reticle or red dot anyway. The compressed horseshoe dot (compared to the previous PLx) is dense enough that you're not searching for it, and the stadia lines do a great job of naturally focusing your eye to the center. Really, really well done.
I have to say, this optic sits more to the center of my Goldilocks zone of ass-kickery than any LPVO I've seen. Excellent design and excellent implementation. I'm proud to own this optic, and I'm sure I'll be watching my rounds impact through this glass for years to come.
Last edited:
That's good to hear. My PLx Compact gets delivered tomorrow. I'm pretty excited to get my hands on it.
I echo everything you just said. I got mine today, and in the first few hours that I've had my hands on it, I have to say that it's my top all-around LPVO thus far!
Sorry I have not been around for a few week. For some reason I stopped getting email update on the thread. I shipped pre orders for people that said they were OK with white box and digital manuals. We not have boxes and manuals but not the outer sleeve. Just PM me if you have a pre order and want it shipped with partial packaging.
Anyone know what the center chevron covers at 100 yds in the yards version? Height and width, in inches, mils?
I draw up my own targets for zeroing, and working on handloads so I always try to get an exact or close to size and shape of whatever center dot, or in this case chevron when I design my targets.
I draw up my own targets for zeroing, and working on handloads so I always try to get an exact or close to size and shape of whatever center dot, or in this case chevron when I design my targets.
Similar threads
