Rifle Scopes Where Are We At With LPVO's

[dms416]

Oh I get it. Sorry for taking it that way. I was unlucky enough to learn 'cqb' or whatever the popular phrase is now on an m16 with a 203 and acog. I STRONGLY believe that's why I can be consistent across the board with optics. Once you clear structures with that, literally anything is easy.

As for patterns, some days, I simply did better with certain optics. Some days didn't matter. But what ALWAYS mattered was the set up leading to the engagment-
Was my angle of approach the best it could be
Was my footwork correct to break the threshold efficiently
Was I able to time my body mechanics to be as smooth as possible without adding extra steps
Was I able to time my movements off the guy in front of me correctly.

The majority of the time I found outliers in the footage we've taken was from one of the above variables. Every once in awhile the optic/rifle combo just jived or didn't with me that day. Some days we are just off.

Oh, I get that I'm blunt and contentious from all the complete BS out there. Just last month, I had a PRS shooter (who was skilled) braggin on his Staccato and how it got him to "Sub 2s Bills". My man was showing us videos of him pointed in on target with his finger on the trigger, pumping 6 rounds onto a full steel IPSC....

Some years ago, we had to do comprehensive tests to prove that LPVO's would not get one "killed in da streetz" for CQB stuff. We had a Razor HD, Short dot 1.1-4x, Aimpoint Comp M3, and an Eotech. 4 guns/shooters on 3 drills (10x runs on each).

To use the ready-up (25y on A Zone) for example, pretty much everyone was under 1s across the board (as I would hope). Essentially, we proved that there was no critical differences in achieving prescribed standards; however, we were also able to extrapolate that all things being equal, there was a clear heirarchy in terms of the data...even if averages trended only a few hundredths of a second. In an operational sense...it doesn't matter. If I were trying to post my single best time for a million bucks, I'd probably be a little more choosy.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Oh, I get that I'm blunt and contentious from all the complete BS out there. Just last month, I had a PRS shooter (who was skilled) braggin on his Staccato and how it got him to "Sub 2s Bills". My man was showing us videos of him pointed in on target with his finger on the trigger, pumping 6 rounds onto a full steel IPSC....

Some years ago, we had to do comprehensive tests to prove that LPVO's would not get one "killed in da streetz" for CQB stuff. We had a Razor HD, Short dot 1.1-4x, Aimpoint Comp M3, and an Eotech. 4 guns/shooters on 3 drills (10x runs on each).

To use the ready-up (25y on A Zone) for example, pretty much everyone was under 1s across the board (as I would hope). Essentially, we proved that there was no critical differences in achieving prescribed standards; however, we were also able to extrapolate that all things being equal, there was a clear heirarchy in terms of the data...even if averages trended only a few hundredths of a second. In an operational sense...it doesn't matter. If I were trying to post my single best time for a million bucks, I'd probably be a little more choosy.

That last part articulates what I was trying to say very well.

The sb 1.1-4.... man that brings back memories

 

[dms416]

That last part articulates what I was trying to say very well.

The sb 1.1-4.... man that brings back memories

I sold my last one this past year. Pretty sure that made 17 consecutive years I had one on a gun.

For your viewing pleasure...cause they say you "need" 8x...or more:

 

[Hoody2shoes]

I sold my last one this past year. Pretty sure that made 17 consecutive years I had one on a gun.

For your viewing pleasure...cause they say you "need" 8x...or more:

That brings back memories...

@C_Does something I've noticed across the board with lpvo's regarding 'fish-eye'-I think every manufacturer seems to set the best image quality for a specific spot on the diopter.

Both my nx8 samples have had some fisheye around the last 20% of the glass or so, but it wasn't bad distortion. I've had a few people look through mine and say the image was way better but they couldn't see the reticle-it was super blurry (crystal clear to me though) and when I've looked through theirs the fisheye seemed to be far more pronounced. On the flip side, my atacr is better edge to edge but for the life of me, I cannot get 1x unity on it like I can an nx8 but I've seen TONS of other atacr samples (issued) where they had clear reticles and a unified 1x to their eyes, but when I look through it I have a good 1x view but shit reticle. Another example is the razor 1-10-i for the life of me cannot get it to look good through the whole rep range. Either 5-10 is good and on 1x I get a double reticle, or 1-5 are good and 10x is so blurry I my eyes strain. Perhaps someone smarter than me could chime in and explain that.

 

[dms416]

Can't remember if it was Scott Peterson (or maybe Mark Smith when he had Scott on) but they were talking about how, every optic and LPVO, the WORST it's ever going to look is max power. I think the Razor 1-10 is the biggest culprit of that. Some companies do it better than others...

 

[W54/XM-388]

For me it’s the ability to shoot close and long range seamlessly with good glass and eye relief, do courses and/or competitions, and home defense.

Never owned a S&B but have shot other peoples rifles with them and they check the boxes except the price box lol. Love the CC mode and the super clear glass throughout all magnifications.

And I never owned an LPVO and don’t really want to climb the ladder of buying and selling a bunch of LPVOs just to find one I like.

Here is something that not everybody will mention up front.

There is no "perfect scope" for everything any more than there is the "perfect rifle" for everything or "the perfect shoes" for everything and that applies to LPVOs in a HUGE amount.

Basic LPVO designs generally fall into 2 categories that are kind of not easily compatible.

1. Designed for speed and quick target acquisition at lowest power / widest field of view, even without illumination.
2. Designed for precision target work at the highest power.

Primary Arms is a good example of heavily skewed towards #1
Vortex Razor Gen III is a good example of heavily skewed towards #2

Now there is a 3rd category, of how do you try to make this able to do both via some special tricks or tech or such.
The most common path is trying to be the best of both worlds by making a scope that is hard geared towards #2 BUT has a super bright illuminating dot or center for use as a #1

S&B is a very good example of #3, and they go even further with their dual CC in trying to actually have both options. But they will never be as much of a #1 as a Primary Arms one is. However they will best the Vortex Razor Gen III easily.

Then you start adding in weight, size and such and of course price.

Then you start also looking at other options such as the 1.5x - 15x or the 2 - xx range.

Pick the option for the specific rifle you are putting it on and the specific job and niche that rifle has to fill.
Then get another one for a different rifle.

You aren't going to try to run a pavement race in your mountain hiking boots.
You aren't going to try to hike a mountain in your street running shoes.
But for daily use, you might use neither and instead wear some crossover shoes that do decent for walking and can work on mild rough stuff and are comfortable for all day wear.

 

[TheRealDonCorleone]

Here is something that not everybody will mention up front.

There is no "perfect scope" for everything any more than there is the "perfect rifle" for everything or "the perfect shoes" for everything and that applies to LPVOs in a HUGE amount.

Basic LPVO designs generally fall into 2 categories that are kind of not easily compatible.

1. Designed for speed and quick target acquisition at lowest power / widest field of view, even without illumination.
2. Designed for precision target work at the highest power.

Primary Arms is a good example of heavily skewed towards #1
Vortex Razor Gen III is a good example of heavily skewed towards #2

Now there is a 3rd category, of how do you try to make this able to do both via some special tricks or tech or such.
The most common path is trying to be the best of both worlds by making a scope that is hard geared towards #2 BUT has a super bright illuminating dot or center for use as a #1

S&B is a very good example of #3, and they go even further with their dual CC in trying to actually have both options. But they will never be as much of a #1 as a Primary Arms one is. However they will best the Vortex Razor Gen III easily.

Then you start adding in weight, size and such and of course price.

Then you start also looking at other options such as the 1.5x - 15x or the 2 - xx range.

Pick the option for the specific rifle you are putting it on and the specific job and niche that rifle has to fill.
Then get another one for a different rifle.

You aren't going to try to run a pavement race in your mountain hiking boots.
You aren't going to try to hike a mountain in your street running shoes.
But for daily use, you might use neither and instead wear some crossover shoes that do decent for walking and can work on mild rough stuff and are comfortable for all day wear.

See, I like that “third” category. That’s why I originally commented about the 1-8 exos because it seems to go for less than half the street price of a Short dot and because that has the CC setting and it’s very nice glass up towards the max magnification. Yeah, the reticle choices aren’t ideal but I can either train through it or cough up the dough to send it out to S&B to get it changed.

 

[dms416]

Here is something that not everybody will mention up front.

There is no "perfect scope" for everything any more than there is the "perfect rifle" for everything or "the perfect shoes" for everything and that applies to LPVOs in a HUGE amount.

Basic LPVO designs generally fall into 2 categories that are kind of not easily compatible.

1. Designed for speed and quick target acquisition at lowest power / widest field of view, even without illumination.
2. Designed for precision target work at the highest power.

Primary Arms is a good example of heavily skewed towards #1
Vortex Razor Gen III is a good example of heavily skewed towards #2

Now there is a 3rd category, of how do you try to make this able to do both via some special tricks or tech or such.
The most common path is trying to be the best of both worlds by making a scope that is hard geared towards #2 BUT has a super bright illuminating dot or center for use as a #1

S&B is a very good example of #3, and they go even further with their dual CC in trying to actually have both options. But they will never be as much of a #1 as a Primary Arms one is. However they will best the Vortex Razor Gen III easily.

Then you start adding in weight, size and such and of course price.

Then you start also looking at other options such as the 1.5x - 15x or the 2 - xx range.

Pick the option for the specific rifle you are putting it on and the specific job and niche that rifle has to fill.
Then get another one for a different rifle.

You aren't going to try to run a pavement race in your mountain hiking boots.
You aren't going to try to hike a mountain in your street running shoes.
But for daily use, you might use neither and instead wear some crossover shoes that do decent for walking and can work on mild rough stuff and are comfortable for all day wear.

Props for the fresh "shoes" analogy and not the tired car comparison.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

@Hoody2shoes completely agree about how subjective this stuff is. I am no one special, but have experienced the same thing with a couple of the scopes in the c does review posted above. I previously had a vortex razor gen 3, but much prefer the March 1-10. My experience is basically the same as @koshkin and I do not have the same issues as the c does video with the march.

If someone else thinks the razor is a lot better than the March, who am I to disagree? I do want to eventually try out a NF atacr one day, but these top end scopes are expensive! I would also really like to try out a S&B dual reticle lpvo, but @dms416 is 100% correct about S&B pricing themselves out of the market. 5k or more for a lpvo is just so insane, no matter how good it is, that I won't even consider it.

 

[TheOE800]

ATACR blows. Total groupthink optic.

 

[TheRealDonCorleone]

ATACR blows. Total groupthink optic.

I hated the NX8 so I kinda swore off NF and I didn’t want to get into an ATACR because everyone and their mother has it because URGI and discounts, and doing research people just say it’s an okay optic. Better than the NX8 though.

 

[TheRealDonCorleone]

@Hoody2shoes completely agree about how subjective this stuff is. I am no one special, but have experienced the same thing with a couple of the scopes in the c does review posted above. I previously had a vortex razor gen 3, but much prefer the March 1-10. My experience is basically the same as @koshkin and I do not have the same issues as the c does video with the march.

If someone else thinks the razor is a lot better than the March, who am I to disagree? I do want to eventually try out a NF atacr one day, but these top end scopes are expensive! I would also really like to try out a S&B dual reticle lpvo, but @dms416 is 100% correct about S&B pricing themselves out of the market. 5k or more for a lpvo is just so insane, no matter how good it is, that I won't even consider it.

@Hoody2shoes completely agree about how subjective this stuff is. I am no one special, but have experienced the same thing with a couple of the scopes in the c does review posted above. I previously had a vortex razor gen 3, but much prefer the March 1-10. My experience is basically the same as @koshkin and I do not have the same issues as the c does video with the march.

If someone else thinks the razor is a lot better than the March, who am I to disagree? I do want to eventually try out a NF atacr one day, but these top end scopes are expensive! I would also really like to try out a S&B dual reticle lpvo, but @dms416 is 100% correct about S&B pricing themselves out of the market. 5k or more for a lpvo is just so insane, no matter how good it is, that I won't even consider it.

Huge rabbit hole this LPVO stuff is. Not really a place to just pick one and be happy like you can with red dots. Learned a lot just from browsing threads on here and from @dms416 .

I hate buying expensive hardware and then wishing that I had I bought something else. Part of the reason I was drawn to the S&Bs was due to them doing with low and high magnification decently well. Big buy once cry once guy.

and there’s been so many versions of their LPVOs as well. The best deal I’ve seen for a 1-8 was a 1.1-8 PMII High power for 1800 but it had a 7.62 ballistic reticle that I could not find any info on and I’m putting together an SR-15. So a 7.62 reticle isn’t ideal/optimal for that.

 

[TheRealDonCorleone]

I mean, they're out there. I say this having listed one for sale recently (and not having it sell). Mind you it was not a Dual CC, but a 1-8x24CC 2nd focal...and in baby shit RAL8000. I mean...if you got the cash, I can certainly get you into a S&B for under $3k...

As per the reticle change, Jerry has done some interesting reticle swaps for me. I wanna say the last Short Dot (on a 1-4) swap was $550 on that older model for a new reticle and a new beam splitter together.

Haha, you’d probably want to kill me if I gave you my offer.

 

[dms416]

Haha, you’d probably want to kill me if I gave you my offer.

With S&B, it's much more cruel to leave people to deal with EuroOptic's pricing.

 

[phlegm]

I like LPVOs.