Rifle Scopes Which Crossover Scope would you choose?
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
Out of your list, I would have to say 3-18x56. I agree the T6Xi 3-18x56 is close. However, I find the reticle too fine at the low end for true hybrid use (hunting under cover at low power for example). It is useable with the lit reticle, but I prefer not to have to rely on batteries to see my reticle. I understand many others might not feel the same way.
The best scope I have used that meets most, but not all of your criteria (only 12x on top end, mildot reticle) is the Hensoldt 3-12x56FF. It weighs 28.2 ounces, 12.8 in length, fantastic eye box, impressive low light performance, and a reticle that can actually be seen at 3 power without illumination. I love it with and without a NV clipon. It is probably the most versatile optic I own. Negatives, it does not have a zero stop, only available in mildot reticle, and it is only available used.
The examples below are nowhere close to meeting your criteria but I have found to be very practical crossover scopes:
NF NXS 2.5-10x42 scope - second focal plane, only 10x (plenty for most hunting uses) but light (20 ounces), short, and relatively cheap and rugged.
SS SWFA 3-9x42 FFP with mil-quad reticle - also about 20 ounces and cheap. Optics are only fair, turrets are reliable but leave a lot to be desired, useful reticle size and subtensions.
TA11 Acog - 18 ounces, bulletproof, bright, no batteries, excellent optical quality, good eye relief, works great with a clipon, and good enough most the time out to 600 yards for practical and hunting type scenarios. Like anything, requires practice to get comfortable with it.
TA33 Acog - crazy light!, I love the 300 Blk reticle, good eye relief, very rugged, and no batteries required. Very limited FOV.
The best scope I have used that meets most, but not all of your criteria (only 12x on top end, mildot reticle) is the Hensoldt 3-12x56FF. It weighs 28.2 ounces, 12.8 in length, fantastic eye box, impressive low light performance, and a reticle that can actually be seen at 3 power without illumination. I love it with and without a NV clipon. It is probably the most versatile optic I own. Negatives, it does not have a zero stop, only available in mildot reticle, and it is only available used.
The examples below are nowhere close to meeting your criteria but I have found to be very practical crossover scopes:
NF NXS 2.5-10x42 scope - second focal plane, only 10x (plenty for most hunting uses) but light (20 ounces), short, and relatively cheap and rugged.
SS SWFA 3-9x42 FFP with mil-quad reticle - also about 20 ounces and cheap. Optics are only fair, turrets are reliable but leave a lot to be desired, useful reticle size and subtensions.
TA11 Acog - 18 ounces, bulletproof, bright, no batteries, excellent optical quality, good eye relief, works great with a clipon, and good enough most the time out to 600 yards for practical and hunting type scenarios. Like anything, requires practice to get comfortable with it.
TA33 Acog - crazy light!, I love the 300 Blk reticle, good eye relief, very rugged, and no batteries required. Very limited FOV.
Last edited:
Some will scoff, but the Kahles K318i SKMR3 is another solid crossover scope. I have one on my main hunting rifle. I don't feel any disadvantage with the SKMR3 reticle, but some folks don't like it.
Well, if that’s the case, you can count Swaro and Leupold out.
YES! It’s happening! Do you, by chance, shoot free standing O2 bottles at over 1000 yds with your Mosin Nagant? Is it too much to hope that you work in concrete? How many bow kills do you have? Hold nothing back, tell us everything!
Last edited:
Leave the Mosin out of it. I have a Mosin with a Tangent Theta on it that makes it to 1000yards just fine. To be fair, I have not shot at O2 bottles with it and do not know a thing about concrete.
ILya
I dont own O2 bottles or a Mosin. But if I did yes I could get a hit or 2 on the O2 bottles at over 1000 standing offhand. Sorry I do not work in concrete. Not sure why you wish I did. Please explain. My smallest bow kill is a stellar jay. And no it was not in flight.
Be a smart alack all you want. You do not know me. And the differences between people like you and me. You ask why? I ask why not? What you think is impossible is just another challenge for me. Feel free to take all the cheap shots at me you want. Remember I neither seek or need your approval.
Nevada Desert Rat.
For the most part, yes.Well, if that’s the case, you can count Swaro and Leupold out.
Up front, it was really selfish of me to get excited about an otherwise good discussion turning into Bear Pit material. What can I say? Most entertainment is expensive, and I like a cheap thrill. I apologize for the diversion.
There are a couple historical forum discussions (the Mosin bit might be on Lightfighter versus here) out there of which your comments were reminiscent with the "aww shucks fellas, I can shoot over that there mountain with my open sighted .22 lr, don't understand why everyone else can't do it" schtick. That being said - I will stipulate that you're a far better shot than I can even imagine and I'm happy to leave it there for the sake of decorum.
This forums' heart grew three sizes this day.
Some say (and I have no clue about that) that the glass of the Steiner can´t hold up with other premium manufacturers.
Some just like to trash Steiner and haven’t even looked through the scope
Hint: I sold a Razor for the Steiner
Well, I do have a Steiner M7Xi 4-28 but won´t set it next to my S&B 3-12 Polar.
But that´s just me, and that means, I am no expert at all.
But BTT.:
I don´t get why most rate the 4-20x50 above the 3-20x50, almost double the number.
Maybe because they have something in mind (like the ZCO)?
But that´s just me, and that means, I am no expert at all.
But BTT.:
I don´t get why most rate the 4-20x50 above the 3-20x50, almost double the number.
Maybe because they have something in mind (like the ZCO)?
for hunting optics, I really like the NX8 2.5-20 and 4-32. That's an insane zoom range for such a small pkg. Also a big fan of the 4.5-28 HighMaster for FOV
I disagree on the SFP statement.
I was once a devotee to FFP, but have since found that in most circumstances SFP is absolutely fine and in some cases, superior.
The vast majoity of 2.5x or 3x FFP scopes have reticles that are unusable at the low end (which you mention).
If you're max magnification is 15 X and you need true sub-tensions, 15x is low enough to allow you to run that max mag to do what you need to do.
One of the few exceptions to that is the G2B reticle that was offered in the XTRII, it worked very well at 3x as a standard duplex style reticle, so of course they discontinued it.
In addition, I have come to the conclusion that the tree reticles are not for me. I dial elevation and hold wind. I know lots of folks run the reticles as they are designed and they work well for that, but it's not for me. I prefer something like the NF Mil-C reticle.
The reticle in my Bushy 4.5-18 LRTSi is a good compromise, it does have a more minimal tree reticle.
At least for me, it's because if anything is over a 6x erector, I know there's going to be compromises. ZCO, NF ATACR, TT, S&B PM II, Vortex Razor III have the best optical qualities, and 4/5 of them are using 5x erectors and one is using a 6x erector. The fact that Vortex pulled it off with a 6x is honestly surprising. There are reasons that the best optics are long and are using ~5x erectors.
Not only that, but after 5x, I start to see issues with reticle design being too small/too thick at max or min powers on an FFP scope.
And yeah, I'm guessing you are right too - people favoring the ZCO 4-20 as a dream scope is probably influencing those numbers too.
We can agree to disagree. I know there are many who prefer SFP but for most these applications are hunting and not what I would define as crossover. If you are going to compete in a dynamic type sport then the disadvantage of SFP hash only being accurate at specific magnification is too much of a disadvantage, we have seen this with hunting as well, longer shot and hunter forgets to adjust mag when using hash mark. I’d like to see FFP Crossover design's improve especially in the reticle department at low mag. The Bushnell G2H was a fantastic design for FFP crossover use and would like more manufacturer's to be inspired by this design.
Had mine out today, put it against a zp5 and a 3-20x pmii. Honestly for the price I preferred the T6xi. It’s fucking awesome for the price. The fov and overall image is huge. Tiny but of ca in my sample but I almost thought about selling the pmii to have some more cash in hand.
See?
This is exactly what I’m taking about
I’m gonna be getting another T6 in the future with the MSR2 reticle
I’ve been trying scopes out for the crossover role, I currently have the following
-Steiner T6Xi 3-18 SCR2
-Burris XTR3i 3.3-18 SCR2
-NF NX8 4-32 mil-xt
-NF NX8 2.5-20 mil-xt
I was fortunate and my example of each scope is good, I like them all but the 2.5-20 NX8 is my favorite. It’s small and reasonably light, to me the mil-xt reticle is one of the more usable ones at low power and if needed the illumination is daytime bright.
-Steiner T6Xi 3-18 SCR2
-Burris XTR3i 3.3-18 SCR2
-NF NX8 4-32 mil-xt
-NF NX8 2.5-20 mil-xt
I was fortunate and my example of each scope is good, I like them all but the 2.5-20 NX8 is my favorite. It’s small and reasonably light, to me the mil-xt reticle is one of the more usable ones at low power and if needed the illumination is daytime bright.
Is that can excited or just happy to
Be near the Steiner?
I feel I need to try yet another NX8 2.5-20, while I felt the illumination was daylight bright I still felt it came up short for low mag work but it might be more personal preference
It'd be interesting to put the NX8 up against the Delta Stryker 3.5-21.
These seem to be the two most promising designs for this crossover category; mag range, FOV, not too heavy etc.
Just now noticed Leupold has a Mark4 HD in 4.5-18x52, specs look close to what we have been asking for. Unfortunately the PR2 is only available in the 6-24 and up versions (but that one is only 0.5 ounces heavier)
Correction: PR2 is available in the 4.5-18 (non-illuminate only)
Correction: PR2 is available in the 4.5-18 (non-illuminate only)
Last edited:
Those looks pretty sweet. I like the locking windage and they fixed the stupid location of the windage zero marker that you could barely line up. The PR3 reticle seems to be new but there’s no info on it I can find.
The 2.5-10x42 is nice too but again they pulled a total Leupold move and just stuck their shitty TMR in it. I was hoping the MK5 2-10 would get a new appropriate reticle and it would be sweet if it went in that too.
Correction, you can get the PR2 Mil in the 4.5-18, but no illumination. I may buy this dang thing just to see what its all about.
Edit: Shows out of stock, I set an alert for when it comes in. I will probably pick this up and compare to my LHT 4.5-22
Last edited:
I’m going to try out the 6-24 with the PR3 if it’s a .2mil tree that’s not total ass. I don’t like the .25mil of the PR2.
I also noticed they’re even 10mil turrets too which also doesn’t suck. The 10.5’s on the MK5 never really bothered me since I almost never dialed that far with any of the rifles they were on, but it’s nice when they’re 10 mil for dialing further.
Yep I just found it and was coming back to post that. WTF Leupold? Why would they design yet another basic mil reticle when they already have the TMR and PR1. I swear they’re fucking retarded. They drop some great scope designs but just constantly fuck up with the reticle options.
Try out the 4.5-18 too. It’s got my interest especially if they track and aren’t ass
If they do it like they typically do the line thickness will be the same in all of them and the 5-25 PR2 I was behind started coming in decent at 6-7x. It makes more sense to me to just have the mag range start where the reticle becomes usable than the have a little less magnification on the bottom but you can barely pick up or use the reticle. Weight and dimensions on them are the same and you gain 6x on the top end so my armchair analysis would be that the 6-24 is the more logical option to get 6x more you can use on the top end vs 1.5x you likely can’t on the bottom end.
The 2.5-10 is what a lot of people have been asking NF to do with the NXS.
I can live with the TMR reticle for a scope like this, the lack of side focus and shitty FOV is a put off though.
You make good point. I do question if the published weights are correct between those two however.
Yeah they lost any interest I'd have with the lack of parallax and a decent reticle. I personally care a lot more about having a tree reticle for quick accurate holds in an optic like that than I do about the turrets. In a perfect world it would have both, but in a 2/2.5/3-10ish optic I'm picking the better reticle option if I have to choose.
I have a rifle that needs something like that and I'm probably going to go with another Z3 3-10 BRH. It's not tacticool but its got a 5 mil tree with wind brackets, great glass, holds zero like a mofo, and the 219 yard parallax setting ends up with a lot less parallax error at distance than a fixed parallax at 100 yards. It can have .5"ish error at 100 yard though so even if you want a 100 yard zero you still need to confirm around 200 yards otherwise you can potentially have a .15mil error in zero if you just zero at 100 yards and send it.
The body's and everything look identical and even the objective diameter is the same. If you go into dimensions all of those are consistent as well. They did fuck up the specs on the 2.5-10 in the titles though, so who knows.
That makes sense
I’ll have to wait for people to get hands on before jumping in
2.5-15x42 FFP with exposed locking top turret and capped side turret, daylight visible illumination, 12.5-13" long, 20-25 ounces, parallax (duh), a reticle that is more then useable at 2.5x for quick shots(some kind of circle, horseshoe etc) but disappears around 8 or 10 out of view and a tree with enough information to get stuff down at distance. Good glass and durable. Between $1,300-$1,700. That's my wish list scope.
The TMR reticle in the 2.5-10 is THICK. I think it'll be a great crossover scope. Per the spec sheet, the main stadia lines are .05mil. In reference, the SWFA 3-9 Mil-Quad is .04mil and the LRHSi G2H is .06mil on those primary stadia lines. I think the TMR even without illum is going to be excellent.
I was also looking at the FOV numbers since a lot of guys were ragging on the 'narrow' FOV. The Mk4HD actually has about the same FOV as the Mk5HD series and the LHT 4.5-22. It's not a wide field of view, but it's pretty much right at the standard of ~100-105ft @ 100yds @ 1x, not narrow at all. That number is grabbed by taking the FOV from the specs and multiplying it by the base mag of the scope (2.5x, 4.5x, etc.).
Obviously haven't seen the TMR in the 2.5-10 but I'm not sure how good the reticle will be on low magnification.
.05mil main stadia is about right but the outer stadia lines aren't that thick though, say compared to the Mil Quad in the 3-9 SWFA which is a whopping 1.2mil thick and comes in to the 5mil marks, as opposed to the .2mil to from 5-10mil and .4mil out from there.
I'm sure it won't be terrible but it if I had to guess I'd say it'd be thicker in a perfect world.
The issue for me is the TMR reticle, that thing was outdated in like 2010. The line thickness sounds good for the magnification but the reticle just blows. If it doesn’t have some form of a tree I really have no interest in it.
T
Funnily enough if it'd have a reticle like you've described the guys on Rokslide would be pissed.
The new Maven R1.2 2.5-15 isn't far off your specs but doesn't have a reticle like that. A bit of info about ot over on Rokslide.
Funnily enough if it'd have a reticle like you've described the guys on Rokslide would be pissed.
