Rifle Scopes Which 3-x scope for SPR - MPO, ETR, LRHS, PSTII, Optika6, other?

[Fanon]

Hi y'all. I'm building a semi-precision small-frame AR (.223 Wylde for now, 6mm ARC later when there's ammo, SSA-E trigger, Magpul bipod), and the last piece of the puzzle is the optic. I'm having a little option paralysis there and could use some direction.

I know I want MRAD FFP, illumination, and a top end above 10x. This will be primarily for range use to 500 yards, but I don't want it to be super unwieldy, so I guess lighter weight / shorter are slightly preferred. That said, that's not the top consideration - I'm mainly concerned with glass quality, tracking, reticle, and FOV. I'd like to keep it under $1k.

Here are the options I've got so far:

Brownells MPO 3-18
Vortex PST II 3-15
Meopta Optika6 3-18 (MRAD1 reticle)
Crimson Trace 5 series 3-18

Or wait for

Athlon Ares ETR 3-18
Bushnell LRHS2/LRTS2 3-12 (probably?)

I'd also consider a used Bushnell if I could find one for a decent price but they seem scarce these days.

Or something else not on my radar?

Of the listed scopes' reticles, I probably like the G2Hi from the LRHS the best for this use case, but from looking at them online, I think I'd also get along fine with most of the others (the Crimson Trace's lack of a tree puts it slightly below the rest, but I dial for elevation when possible so it is not a complete dealbreaker).

Any insight into or comparison between scopes on the list (or off) would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Fanon]

Also should say that I know there have been other threads on similar topics and did search first, but I'm hoping someone can offer specific feedback on these options. Thanks in advance!

 

[srt-4_uk]

The Meopta 3-18 doesn't come with the MRAD reticle. It comes with MRAD 1. Based on your criteria, it doesn't fit with the rest.
The Crimson Trace and MPO are going to be similar scopes. One has Brownells forever guarantee, the other is being discontinued...

 

[Fanon]

The Meopta 3-18 doesn't come with the MRAD reticle. It comes with MRAD 1. Based on your criteria, it doesn't fit with the rest.
The Crimson Trace and MPO are going to be similar scopes. One has Brownells forever guarantee, the other is being discontinued...

Thanks!

I was considering the CT scope because it's a bit lighter than the MPO and $200 cheaper currently ($800 vs $1k), but I think you are right that it's probably better to go with the supported scope if I were gonna do one of those two.

I actually like the MRAD1 RD reticle (edited OP for correct name) well enough except that the windage hash marks stop at the donut. If they continued as in Bushnell's version on the G2H, I'd probably be good with it. But I did read that there were some tracking issues related to the turret lock design and that it gets washed out very easily, so I'll probably scratch that one from my list too.

 

[beetroot]

The Athlon Ares isn't a particularly light weight scope but should meet most of your specs.
Can't comment on the Brownells MPO but the MPO seems to be considered a better scope than the similar Crimson Trace.

I'm very partial to my Vortex PST 3-15x44, there are some small things that aren't perfect but as far as glass, tracking, light(ish) weigh and FOV goes it's been an excellent scope. I didn't intend to keep it for as long as I have but I've grown so fond of it I don't think I'll ever sell it.

Good thing with the PST is you could likely find one on the buy/sell page on here lightly used as sell it for similar money if something new gets released later this year which is better suited for your use.

 

[lvmike]

The ta33 acog

It goes 3x to well... 3x tho..

Seriously tho, the old NF 3-15 F1 is a fantastic and proven scope for that application. Lots of less expensive scopes now with the same features as well

 

[YotaEer]

Vortex PST or Bushnell LRHS/LRTS.

Athlon ares ETR would be solid too but heavy. Check out the new Athlon Helos Gen 2 12x. It’s DMR design.

 

[BoulderE89]

an under rated scope but one that I was really impressed with was the sig tango6 3-18 (gen 2 model. its short and compact with great Japanese glass and has 2 solid mrad reticles choices depending on your preferences.

 

[daylate]

The Meopta 3-18 doesn't come with the MRAD reticle. It comes with MRAD 1. Based on your criteria, it doesn't fit with the rest.
The Crimson Trace and MPO are going to be similar scopes. One has Brownells forever guarantee, the other is being discontinued...

The Crimson Trace still has a lifetime guarantee and I suppose it would be upgraded to a newer model if discontinued if there was a problem....There are new models coming out....

 

[daylate]

The Crimson Trace still has a lifetime guarantee and I suppose it would be upgraded to a newer model if discontinued if there was a problem....There are new models coming out....

After looking at the new lineup im going to retract my recommendations for the Crimson....I have a series 5 3x18 that i think is decent scope and i prefer over the brownells but the new lineup is not looking good to me....Apparently no scope expertise in the house ......

 

[Fanon]

Vortex PST or Bushnell LRHS/LRTS.

Athlon ares ETR would be solid too but heavy. Check out the new Athlon Helos Gen 2 12x. It’s DMR design.

The ETR is 31.4oz, which isn't light but is less than the MPO (33) and Tango6 (37.6).

I'll check out reviews on the Helos as I like its specs, but I'm not sure what the glass and build quality will be like.

I was also just looking at the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 (24.4oz), which seems like it might actually be a good solution for me (other than being kinda long). However unfortunately it's beyond my budget, so I'd have to find an awesome deal on a used one.

Since y'all have dissuaded me from jumping on the Crimson Trace closeout, I'm now thinking I may wait for the ETR to make the rounds and see what people make of it, then decide if the extra weight and cost are worth it over the PST II. I'm still waiting on my barrel anyway, so no huge rush I guess...

 

[Cotay]

I've said it before, don't forget the Sightmark Pinnacle 3-18x44. Made in Japan by LOW. I now have two of them. I wouldn't own any other Sightmark outside of the Pinnacle line (excluding the TMD 1-6x...FOV is too narrow on that one). The 3-18x is $799 right now: https://sightmark.com/products/2187/sightmark-pinnacle-3-18x44-tmd-riflescope/

My two are now on 18" and 20" Grendels. I have Bushnell Elites on six rifles, a Tango 6, a Cronus BTR, several PST 5-25s, and the Sightmark Pinnacle 3-18x is a hidden gem that is as good as the Bushnells. I love the option to run it capped. Yeah, resale will suck but that's a trade off I was willing to make.

 

[Fanon]

I've said it before, don't forget the Sightmark Pinnacle 3-18x44. Made in Japan by LOW. I now have two of them. I wouldn't own any other Sightmark outside of the Pinnacle line (excluding the TMD 1-6x...FOV is too narrow on that one). The 3-18x is $799 right now: https://sightmark.com/products/2187/sightmark-pinnacle-3-18x44-tmd-riflescope/

My two are now on 18" and 20" Grendels. I have Bushnell Elites on six rifles, a Tango 6, a Cronus BTR, several PST 5-25s, and the Sightmark Pinnacle 3-18x is a hidden gem that is as good as the Bushnells. I love the option to run it capped. Yeah, resale will suck but that's a trade off I was willing to make.

Interesting - I hadn't seen this one before. The price is right and specs generally look good. It's slightly heavy but doable and the reticle looks a little thick in the photo, but that may not be representative of reality.

I have a Cronus BTR as well (and love it); how does the Sightmark stack up to the Cronus optically, in your opinion? If you had to rank it next to your other scopes, where would you put it?

Thanks!

 

[FjallJager]

I own an Optika, glass is really good ("it's Schott Glass") ok, maybe it's not, but it is really good. Adjustments are ok.

I also own a Vortex PST, and I am on my 3rd one back from Vortex. I wouldn't do it again, but if you do it they will keep sending you more of them.

Buy a Japanese made scope with a good warranty. Or save some money and get a Nightforce SHV(also a Japanese made scope) and don't worry about it.

 

[beetroot]

I own an Optika, glass is really good ("it's Schott Glass") ok, maybe it's not, but it is really good. Adjustments are ok.

I also own a Vortex PST, and I am on my 3rd one back from Vortex. I wouldn't do it again, but if you do it they will keep sending you more of them.

Buy a Japanese made scope with a good warranty. Or save some money and get a Nightforce SHV(also a Japanese made scope) and don't worry about it.

Gen 1 or 2 PST?
What's been the problems with them?

 

[FjallJager]

Doesn't matter the gen, it is a well document problem of chinese products.

Everything you can imagine, broken internals, focus issues, rotated crosshairs. When they work, they work well.

It is isn't a problem that Vortex has a lone. It is a chinese manufacturing problem. Step up to Japanese made stuff and you are generally fine.

Even good old Red White and Blue Leupold send dog's out.

 

[Cotay]

Doesn't matter the gen, it is a well document problem of chinese products.

Everything you can imagine, broken internals, focus issues, rotated crosshairs. When they work, they work well.

It is isn't a problem that Vortex has a lone. It is a chinese manufacturing problem. Step up to Japanese made stuff and you are generally fine.

Even good old Red White and Blue Leupold send dog's out.

PSTs have always been made in the Philippines.

 

[beetroot]

Doesn't matter the gen, it is a well document problem of chinese products.

Everything you can imagine, broken internals, focus issues, rotated crosshairs. When they work, they work well.

It is isn't a problem that Vortex has a lone. It is a chinese manufacturing problem. Step up to Japanese made stuff and you are generally fine.

Even good old Red White and Blue Leupold send dog's out.

It does matter the gen.
The Gen 2 is widely considered to be more reliable than the Gen 1.
Most of the complaints about PSTs are about the 1st Gen scopes with the 2nd Gen giving little trouble.

If you've had 3 dud Gen 2s then it may help the OP in their decision.

 

[Cotay]

Interesting - I hadn't seen this one before. The price is right and specs generally look good. It's slightly heavy but doable and the reticle looks a little thick in the photo, but that may not be representative of reality.

I have a Cronus BTR as well (and love it); how does the Sightmark stack up to the Cronus optically, in your opinion? If you had to rank it next to your other scopes, where would you put it?

Thanks!

I'd put it optically well ahead of the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS and my Gen 1 Tango 6. I think it compares very favorably to my XRS2 and Cronus BTR. I also have a Pinnacle 5-30x and the 3-18x is better optically.

 

[FjallJager]

I would make this caveat on any scope purchase. If you are going to be using the reticle, and not using a dials for 99% of your shooting, then the quality of the optic can be greatly reduced.

I have bought about 40 scopes in my life, and only bought the past 5 that were over $1000 retail. You get what you pay for, if you can deal with a lower quality optic and possible problems then do it.

I am no longer one of those people.

 

[dgheriani]

I'm very partial to the 3-12 LRTSi in that application. I have a few of them and they're great little scopes. would be nice if they were a bit lighter but they're a lot of scope for the money.

 

[Cotay]

I'm very partial to the 3-12 LRTSi in that application. I have a few of them and they're great little scopes. would be nice if they were a bit lighter but they're a lot of scope for the money.

I have the 3-12x LRTSi on an 223 Wylde SPR build as well. It's really about perfect in that role.

The only reason I didn't suggest that he track down a used one is that he is eventually going to re-barrel to 6mm ARC. A 3-15x or 3-18x will serve him better down the road.

 

[Fanon]

I would make this caveat on any scope purchase. If you are going to be using the reticle, and not using a dials for 99% of your shooting, then the quality of the optic can be greatly reduced.

I dial for elevation whenever possible, so I value accurate tracking. I also just enjoy good glass. In general, I tend to aim for solid mid-to-upper-mid-tier optics that punch above their weight class. For instance, I got my Cronus BTR for $1150 new, which isn't an insignificant sum for me, but I still felt it was a great value and I really enjoy using it.

Given my positive experience with LOW-made optics so far, I think I am actually currently leaning toward grabbing a Sightmark Pinnacle and seeing how it feels. My main worry (other than resale) is that the eyebox might be tight at higher magnification given the smaller objective - before moving over to MRAD exclusively, I had a Zeiss V4 4-16x44 that was tight but manageable at 16x, and I imagine the Sightmark may be a bit tighter still at 18x. That's one reason I was initially looking hard at the MPO / Crimson Trace and Athlon ETR designs.

 

[FjallJager]

I also have a Meopta ZD 6-24x56. It is kind of a transexual long range/tactical scope 2nd focal, and is an older model with MOA turrets and a MIL reticle.

Optically it is the best scope I own. I paid about 1400 Euros for it, and it is so much better optically than my ATACR or Mark 5 Leupold it isn't even funny.

But it has no zero stop, has the trannie 2nd focal/MOA/MIL issue and as much as I love it I wish that the Optika 6 was as good. It is not, but it is 1/3rd the price.

I am of the theory that some number near $2000 retail is about what is needed to get everything a PRS type guy is going to need at a really good quality for a Japanese scope.

 

[dgheriani]

I have the 3-12x LRTSi on an 223 Wylde SPR build as well. It's really about perfect in that role.

The only reason I didn't suggest that he track down a used one is that he is eventually going to re-barrel to 6mm ARC. A 3-15x or 3-18x will serve him better down the road.

Fair enough. I had one on a 19" 6.5 Creed AR-10 and thought it was plenty for <1000 yards. I prefer "smaller" optics on SPR/DMR type rifles. The Mk5 3.6-18 is probably the ideal scope for a rig like he's putting together but not in the budget.

 

[BCP]

Maybe this?

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

 

[Fanon]

Maybe this?

Product Description

Product Description | Camera Land NY

cameralandny.com

I thought about it, but this one seems to be the non illuminated version, and I'd ideally like to get lower than 4.5 on the bottom.

If the 3-12 illuminated models were available for what they were going for a few months ago, I'd probably have grabbed one already.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

I usually only post on these kinds of threads because it’s in my wheel house..

How set are you on illumination?

I’ve come to realize that for the most part it a bandaid for a poorly designed reticle

 

[Fanon]

Since it is still a small frame AR, I liked the idea of being able to do bindon / covered objective aiming for closer stuff (although that's obviously not what this setup is primarily designed for). I do use illumination on my LPVOs, but I have not had a use for it yet on my Cronus.

I hear what you are saying about the reticle design - the CT one seems like it would be totally useless at low power without illumination, for example.

 

[BCP]

Well I personally want to try out the optika6 3-18 308 one really bad on my M1A or an AR10 type rifle. To me it's everything I want except for the weight. That bushnell is probably sturdier though, and lighter too.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Since it is still a small frame AR, I liked the idea of being able to do bindon / covered objective aiming for closer stuff (although that's obviously not what this setup is primarily designed for). I do use illumination on my LPVOs, but I have not had a use for it yet on my Cronus.

I hear what you are saying about the reticle design - the CT one seems like it would be totally useless at low power without illumination, for example.

The swfa 3-9 is what ur after.

Optics are aiming devices. Rugged reliability is first.

A lot of recommendations here most likely won’t pass any sort of durability test.

A good reticle is second. The mil quad is very good. At 3x and 9x.

Forgiving eyebox, large FOV and depth of field. No explanation required.

Weight shouldn’t be excessive. 18-22oz is what we’re after.

Glass should control harsh lighting adequately.. veiling glare and flare..

I shouldn’t have to put inclination into the platform to get to 1000 yards. 25 mils minimum on the erector.

The swfa ticks all those boxes.

The bushnell 3-12’s has the two added feature sets of a good zero stop and 10 mil turrets.

Killed a lot of critters with the bushnell 3-12. On 18” gassers and other platforms as well.

But the 3-9 is better mouse trap and it’s nearly a quarter pound lighter.. and shorter, and has a larger eyebox, and wider field of view. Shims for a zero stop isn’t my favorite, neither are the mushy turrets, or lack of parallax adjustments.

That’s it’s best in class for 450$ is sweet too. There isn’t another scope in the 18-22 oz range that really offers what the 3-9 does. There really isn’t. And it’s a shame.

 

[Fanon]

Well, I just snagged a lightly used MPO from a member here for a reasonable price. Hopefully it'll work out. If it ends up feeling like overkill, I'll move it to another rifle and get something smaller; we'll see.

Thanks for all the help y'all.

 

[Glassaholic]

Reticles are very much personal preference, that being said, the Crimson Trace LR1 reticle is one gawdawful design, but if it works for you then don't let me persuade you otherwise, I'm just very picky about reticles, especially busy tree reticles.

I have high praise for the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS line and if you can find yourself an LRHSi 4.5-18x44 there are few scopes that can match it with price/performance ratio. Another scope that comes very close is the Vortex PST II 3-15x44. The new LRHS2 should also be very good, but without illumination it doesn't have as much draw for me.

I have a LRHSi 4.5-18x44 on my SPR right now, my only gripe is the length but since it's an SPR and not a Mk18 I'm okay with it, I love the clarity of the glass and I love the circle of death in the G2H reticle. There are few lightweight FFP designs but I have a feeling we'll see another coming out very soon.

 

[Fanon]

The LR1 is one of the worst reticle designs I've seen. The MR1 in the CT 3-18 would be alright if it had crosshairs as you zoom out, instead of becoming a tiny floating cross at low power. That design would only work for me if the illumination was very bright, which it does not appear to be.

I'm not sure I will like the MPO's double-line reticle, but it makes sense to me in principle as a compromise.

I also really like the G2H reticle, and if the 3-12 LRHSi wasn't discontinued I might have gone with it instead.

If an illuminated LRHS2 or something better / lighter does pop up soon, as you suggest, I'll consider swapping. For now, I expect the MPO should be pretty solid for the price I paid.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Bushnell never made an lrhsi in 3-12


The lrhsi 4.5-18 is a damn decent scope For what it is.

 

[Glassaholic]

Bushnell never made an lrhsi in 3-12

I learned this a while ago myself, but they did make a LRTSi 3-12.

 

[Fanon]

Ah, I didn't get into researching this range until after the line was discontinued, but thanks for the correction. Maybe the new ones will have an illuminated donut of death with a lower bottom end - seems like a good idea to me.

 

[Evlshnngns]

Ah, I didn't get into researching this range until after the line was discontinued, but thanks for the correction. Maybe the new ones will have an illuminated donut of death with a lower bottom end - seems like a good idea to me.

How do you like the mpo? I'm between the mpo and the bushnell dmr.

 

[Fanon]

So far so good - I'll have a range report after this weekend.

 

[Fanon]

Here's my quick take having just looked through it a bit but not mounted it yet (gotta finish the build first):

Glass appears very good for the price I paid (maybe not quite as good as my Cronus but close enough - I'll have to get behind it on a rifle to really tell), turrets are fine (feel is subjective, but they're clicky and definite), illumination works well, and I actually really like the reticle's functionality a lot even if it is not the most immediately aesthetically pleasing design - the reticle is very usable throughout the whole magnification range. In terms of negatives, the mag and parallax rings are pretty stiff, and it's a little heavier than I'd ideally prefer. But it feels solid, for whatever that is worth.

 

[Fanon]

Update after mounting it: I am still liking the MPO. It is easy to get behind, and the reticle is very good. There is some chromatic aberration apparent in high contrast scenes (today, dark branches against snow) if you're not absolutely centered up, and the image at 18x is not world-beating. Back it down a bit and the contrast and clarity improve. There's also a bit of distortion at low power. The image between 5-14 is great.

The Cronus glass is a bit better overall. However, for my purposes the MPO will be great.

 

[Fanon]

Further update - once I was able to actually shoot with it, I realized the eyepiece was not perfectly adjusted. I did it by the book, as usual - started with the eyepiece dialed all the way in viewing against a white background at max zoom and parallax, closing eyes for several seconds, etc. - but for some reason my eyes seem to be focusing this reticle super fast on a pretty wide range of settings, making it harder to dial in perfectly. After tweaking that a bit more, the image quality also seemed to improve a little. I think my earlier impression of mild softness at high mag was impacted by the reticle being slightly OOF at the correct parallax setting. Basically, user error.

 

[koshkin]

Further update - once I was able to actually shoot with it, I realized the eyepiece was not perfectly adjusted. I did it by the book, as usual - started with the eyepiece dialed all the way in viewing against a white background at max parallax, closing eyes for several seconds, etc. - but for some reason my eyes seem to be focusing this reticle super fast on a pretty wide range of settings, making it harder to dial in perfectly. After tweaking that a bit more, the image quality also seemed to improve a little. I think my earlier impression of mild softness at high mag was impacted the reticle being slightly OOF at the correct parallax setting. Basically, user error.

Adjusting the eyepiece on FFP scopes is a little different than on the traditional SFP designs. Doing it on high magnification is a good start, but it is usually worth your while to finetune it on low magnification. Essentially, on as low of a magnification as you can set while still seeing the thin lines clearly.



ILya

 

[Fanon]

Thanks, this is really helpful and would have saved me some time!