Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn moreI wish more scope companies would do single turn turrets like S& B for LPVOsATTA boy!!!
I agree there's no "Best LPVO". Probably best to have opinions about different options, compare performance and weakness and decide what works best for you.
Agreed. The old-school PMII full-size that they put on the 1.5-8x26 was my favorite, no-BS turret they did for the Short Dot line.I wish more scope companies would do single turn turrets like S& B for LPVOs
Lol, bet you'll never guess whose advice swayed me!ATTA boy!!!
After looking at the specs, the March 1-10 looks pretty amazing if price is no object.
Adjustable parallax, dual focal plane reticle, fiber illumination, and under 18oz. Other than reticle preferences and price, not sure what else you could ask for, assuming its durability is equal to other top tier LPVOs.
Lol, bet you'll never guess whose advice swayed me!
I would agree with this. I have a 1.7 and 1.54. I can still use the 1.7 pretty comfortably but 1.54 I have a much better cheek weld. I might just run a cheek riser and 1.7. I do like being more upright but the cheek weld does suffer a bit for higher mag.I highly recommend a mount no higher than 1.50" to ensure proper cheek weld / eye position at higher mag levels.
I would agree with this. I have a 1.7 and 1.54. I can still use the 1.7 pretty comfortably but 1.54 I have a much better cheek weld. I might just run a cheek riser and 1.7. I do like being more upright but the cheek weld does suffer a bit for higher mag.
Also if prone the 1.7 becomes even more of a cheek weld disadvantage. A riser will fix this but 1.5 is easier.
Point. I like my Sig Tango6 - but no way in the world I'd claim it to be "best" by any means!There is no "Best LPVO". This is the wrong question to ask.
They all have fleas or weaknesses in some areas. Their intended use (and not the tired "from CQB to 1000y" thing) dictates which optic and features are better suited for the assigned task.
Anybody who tells you "(blank) is the best" with no context is just trying to justify their personal (spending?) decisions.
Ok, I understand now, you're completely ignorant of competitive shooting and the nature of typical LPVO/carbine classes. That explains the over compensation and condescending attitude without any substance to merit it.Yep and buzz phrases like "general purpose" and "Run & gun" "classes and matches" tell me nothing pertinent about how you intend to use the optic or enough to give an actual direction.
And with that, I'll leave the blind to be left by the blind. Good luck with your search and time here.
Ok, I understand now, you're completely ignorant of competitive shooting and the nature of typical LPVO/carbine classes. That explains the over compensation and condescending attitude without any substance to merit it.
I guess all forums have guys like you, just my luck you'd need to feel relevant by shitting in my thread.
Why can't you be more like the normal people here? I can do a psychoanalysis but I charge for that
These three posts (not whole threads, just posts) should put you on the right path ...Hi Everyone, still a relative newbie here. I read over this thread which had a lot of good info but things sometimes change and its a little old (2018).
I'm looking for the "best" LPVO to put on an all Aero carbine I built for general use/carbine classes/Run n Gun's, etc... I state Aero just so we know it's not a match rifle or LMT/DD rifle, etc...
I know "best" is subjective and I'm unlikely to find one with all of these features, but if you know an optic which meet most of them, (but might be weak in one or more areas), please share.
Desired Features:
Lightweight yet Rugged/Durable for field use.
True 1x
Clear Glass
Super Bright illuminated reticle for red dot-like performance
At least 1-6x, preferably 1-8x or 1-10x
SFP or FFP, I like the idea of being able to range with the reticle, but most longer shots would be at full magnification so a SFP w/BDC would work OK
Robust throw lever for quick magnification changes (Preferably using gross motor skills. I've had the throw levers on two strikes eagles break, loosen etc...)
Good eye box at higher magnification
Preferably mil rad over over moa adjustments, especially if FFP
I will offer this, assume cost is not an issue. I am willing to buy once/cry once. The best optic I own is a Nightforce Nx8 on my Tikka and while it may not be as good as their ATACR line or other higher end optics you all might use, it works for me. My second best optic is a VCog 1x8 on my AR10 and I like it, but it's heavy AF. While I'm willing to pay for quality, I don't need to buy a Mercedes if a Lexus or Toyota have the features I need.
Thanks in advance for any insights and opinions
I have a Steiner M8Xi and the red dot is very anemic to put it nicely. The glass is awesome, bright, clear but the illuminated reticle is not good.In my quest for the "best LPVO" , I've owned about every high-end LPVO except NF. Here are my observations. YMMV.
SB Dual CC: Best glass and turrets hands down. Two things I didn't like are (1) the diffractive red dot loses a lot of brightness unless you're directly behind it and (2) if your battery dies, there is only a small black dot at 1x that is hard to see.
Kahles 1-6 and 1-8: Great glass, reticles, and forgiving eye box. Only real downside is SFP. Not as good for longer distances. Almost kept the 1-8, as I liked the 3GR reticle at 1x, but wanted to be able to shoot past 300 as well as at 1x. If it was a FFP and had a reticle more useable for longer distances, I would have kept it.
Minox 1-10: Glass almost as good as SB. Very nice crosshair reticle that can be used without illumination and as good for distances as the SB. Downsides are that it's heavier and the illumination is not red dot bright and hard to see on bright days.
March 1-10: Like the compact size and weight and adjustable parallax. DOF very shallow, however, requiring precise parallax adjustments for clearest view. Illumination not red dot bright.
Steiner P4xi 1-4: Brightest red dot of all and simple, uncluttered reticle. Most forgiving eye box. Nice glass and price. Fastest for short distance run-and-gun (1x), but lacks the magnification and reticle for any distance shooting. Kept this one as a backup.
Vortex 1-10: The one I eventually settled on for my primary LPVO as having the best combination of glass, red dot bright illumination, reticle, weight, and price for me. Many think the eye box is not as forgiving. I've noticed some of that, but it hasn't bothered me once I got used to it. Diffractive red dot like SB, but brightness does not fall off near as much when not directly behind it. Good at both 1x and 8-10x.
Not if you know what features you care about, and in what order you prioritize them. Get that figured out and the choices will be more apparent.Is this the most difficult and anxiety producing topic in optics or is it just me? I have to get an optic for a new AR and am getting paralysis by analysis.
Not if you know what features you care about, and in what order you prioritize them. Get that figured out and the choices will be more apparent.
For sure. One of the things people get needlessly hung up on is focal plane location. There are legitimate use cases for FFP and SFP. I think I ton of people think they need FFP in an LPVO, but only because internet lore says FFP is best, not because they understand the pros and cons of it in the context of LPVO's.especially if they think it involves the internet and not getting behind a rifle in the context of use.
Know your use case first. Then start eliminating features that do not fit with your use case and the way in which you engage with your rifle. You need to back in to your optics purchases by deductive reasoning.Is this the most difficult and anxiety producing topic in optics or is it just me? I have to get an optic for a new AR and am getting paralysis by analysis.
Is this the most difficult and anxiety producing topic in optics or is it just me? I have to get an optic for a new AR and am getting paralysis by analysis.
Yeah. I have ordered a PA 1x and 3x prism for this setup. I was inspired to try it by this video from Modern Tactical Shooting:I posted in this thread last year on my quest to find the LPVO that works best for me. After trying almost all the leading candidates, I settled on the Vortex 1-10 Gen 3 with an offset 1x RMR on my AR-15.
I don't mean to add to your anxiety, but recently I've been rethinking the need for an LPVO if you're shooting competitively or just wanting a good setup for the "just-beyond-the-1x-red-dot" range. I've switched to a 1x red-dot in the primary position and a 3x prism in the offset position. For me, this setup works really well when shooting <250-300 yards—much faster and lighter than an LPVO (even with an offset 1x red dot) or a 1x red dot with a 3x magnifier. You will need to set the prism as far back on the rail as you can, as the eye relief is much shorter than the 1x red dot.
For self- or home-defense or competition rifles, the 1x RD/3x prism combo may be the better option. OTOH, if your rifle's primary use is SPR-ish, shooting/hunting from 300-600 yards or beyond, the LPVO with a 1x offset will work better. There are 5x prisms (haven't tried them), but I would expect the LPVO (or even a 3-20) to be the better choice at the longer ranges.
Yeah. I have ordered a PA 1x and 3x prism for this setup. I was inspired to try it by this video from Modern Tactical Shooting:
I noticed that too and am always pointing out the "fov" nonsense for 1x.This guy?
Says the atacr 1-8 is “heavy, one of the heaviest” yet its lighter than the number 1 scope, and only 1.4oz lighter than the number 2 scope.
Lift some fuckin weights yo!
Complains about field of view on some of them at 1x. Open the other eyeball or are you fuckin walleyed?
And red dots on top of the number 1 and number 2 scopes? The fuck?????
Otherwise, great reviews!
Keep ‘em coming!
Well technically, I don't see an issue:This guy?
Says the atacr 1-8 is “heavy, one of the heaviest” yet its lighter than the number 1 scope, and only 1.4oz lighter than the number 2 scope.
Lift some fuckin weights yo!
Complains about field of view on some of them at 1x. Open the other eyeball or are you fuckin walleyed?
And red dots on top of the number 1 and number 2 scopes? The fuck?????
Otherwise, great reviews!
Keep ‘em coming!
This is an interesting concept. I think it perhaps makes sense with a range limitation. I.E. if you are always engaging from 10 to 300-400 yards. I believe from 500-800y the setup would not be ideal but I haven't tried it.Yeah, didn't want to name-drop, but Jeff G is the one who encouraged me to go with this set up. He and I shoot together regularly. He's a great guy and definitely knows what he's talking about. Highly recommend his MTS youtube channel.
1x is 1x... if fov mattered in that context not a single person would be running a micro red dot over a full sized or eotech.Well technically, I don't see an issue:
FWIW, I just watched the video and realized the S&B was number 1. Coincidently, that is currently what I run with a Steiner MPS on top. To be honest, it probably "needs" the red dot more than the others in the test because the reticle is virtually useless on low magnification if you don't use illumination. For some, I would say this would definitely cause it not to rank that high in the test and I wouldn't blame them. However, because I use the dot up top for nearly 100% of my work inside of 100y, this is not an issue for me. The optic shines from 5-8x, the reticle is very fast, the single turn turret is superb and the glass is outstanding. I would say for the vast majority of people, the ATACR (with a different reticle than he tested) would be the overall #1because they are likely to prioritize that 1x view. It all comes down to how you use the optic.
- If it is heavier than most of the rest of the scopes in the test it would be "one of the heaviest", whether or not the top ranked scoped is heavier is irrelevant.
- FOV is always measured as field of view inside the optic. It is what you can see within the scope. Both eyes open is irrelevant. And for the I-run-both-eyes-open-so-FOV-is-meaningless camp, I would challenge you to try to run an optic with a 7 degree FOV as fast as one with a 40 degree FOV and then report back.
- Red dots are on top of those scopes because either #1, he runs NV goggles from time to time or #2 he realizes, as he should, that no LPVO is faster than a red dot. We can argue all day whether that difference is significant or even exploitable, but its still a fact.
All the FOV in the world is irrelevant if the reticle is not yet in view because your window is tiny.1x is 1x... if fov mattered in that context not a single person would be running a micro red dot over a full sized or eotech.
Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on scope shadow, eyebox, reticle choice, and the effect it has on 1x shooting at close range. He used a 1-10 razor for reference-All the FOV in the world is irrelevant if the reticle is not yet in view because your window is tiny.
I don't doubt it. Also depending upon how close/far your RDS is, greatly determines how quickly you get too see the reticle...then you have to decide what you think is an acceptable level of parallax. There are a lot of things to take into account. If I am always in a nice clean shooting position, I don't the the LPVO has many drawbacks, but I find it slower for me when my position is unable to be perfect or I have to take funky off axis shots that are either set up on purpose in a comp, or by my hastiness in a situation where I just need to get a shot off. Having a LPVO/RDS combo is something I can't see replacing by just a LPVO only at this point.Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on scope shadow, eyebox, reticle choice, and the effect it has on 1x shooting at close range. He used a 1-10 razor for reference-
As it turns out, you can have the majority, if not all of lens covered in scope shadow and still be able to observe the reticle and then still place shots in an acceptable hit zone (ie minimal parallax shift). I understand what your getting at but it's an overly simplistic way of approaching eyebox in relation to 1x shooting. The reality is there's a lot more variables that lend themselves to that than fov.
Edit***some people can't get over the image their brain sees with some of these variables and it's a valid point. But that's a topic for a different discussion
That's a fair assessment of your individual capabilities and nobody would argue against that.I don't doubt it. Also depending upon how close/far your RDS is, greatly determines how quickly you get too see the reticle...then you have to decide what you think is an acceptable level of parallax. There are a lot of things to take into account. If I am always in a nice clean shooting position, I don't the the LPVO has many drawbacks, but I find it slower for me when my position is unable to be perfect or I have to take funky off axis shots that are either set up on purpose in a comp, or by my hastiness in a situation where I just need to get a shot off. Having a LPVO/RDS combo is something I can't see replacing by just a LPVO only at this point.
No, but I think we have to be careful to respect some level of scientific method. There is an argument to be made that a highly skilled individual can shoot a heavy recoiling rifle just as well as he can shoot a rimfire. On the surface, that's mostly correct, but technically we know that report/recoil has an absolute affect on the shooters capabilities.That's a fair assessment of your individual capabilities and nobody would argue against that.
Going to back the original topic though, another example is the nx8 vs the atacr. The nx8 has a wider FOV but is well documented to have a tighter eye box. Again, fov does not necessarily translate to speed at 1x
I'm very happy with my DFP March shorty 1-10. It was an easy choice for me because I wanted the adjustable parallax and don't want to supplement with a RD.After looking at the specs, the March 1-10 looks pretty amazing if price is no object.
Adjustable parallax, dual focal plane reticle, fiber illumination, and under 18oz. Other than reticle preferences and price, not sure what else you could ask for, assuming its durability is equal to other top tier LPVOs.
And red dots on top of the number 1 and number 2 scopes? The fuck?????
I noticed that too and am always pointing out the "fov" nonsense for 1x.
…
…
Complains about field of view on some of them at 1x. Open the other eyeball or are you fuckin walleyed?
…
The Accupoints really have aged well. Still great glass for the $.Old school Trijicon Accupoint 1-4 (triangle) is still a beast of a scope for all things practical out to 300. After shooting many of the big $$ options I still feel its a solid piece providing you know its limitations.
I experimented with this today using an EXPS3-0 EOTECH and a Steiner P4Xi (Because it has a great 1x). Yes, you observe the reticle inside the shadow and with both eyes open still take the shot....but, HOLY MOLY, parallax shoots through the roof as soon as it hits the scope shadow. There is almost no observed parallax prior to the shadow, and then once in the shadow it compounds significantly all the way to the edge. Additionally, you really must have illumination on in most lighting conditions in order to attempt using the reticle inside the shadow.Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on scope shadow, eyebox, reticle choice, and the effect it has on 1x shooting at close range. He used a 1-10 razor for reference-
As it turns out, you can have the majority, if not all of lens covered in scope shadow and still be able to observe the reticle and then still place shots in an acceptable hit zone (ie minimal parallax shift). I understand what your getting at but it's an overly simplistic way of approaching eyebox in relation to 1x shooting. The reality is there's a lot more variables that lend themselves to that than fov.
Edit***some people can't get over the image their brain sees with some of these variables and it's a valid point. But that's a topic for a different discussion
I think certain optics may be more susceptible than others-it's also important to know what an acceptable error is as that may vary from use to use. My atacr was about 2"@25y but for combative shooting that's no issue. Coming from competition that may be unacceptable.I experimented with this today using an EXPS3-0 EOTECH and a Steiner P4Xi (Because it has a great 1x). Yes, you observe the reticle inside the shadow and with both eyes open still take the shot....but, HOLY MOLY, parallax shoots through the roof as soon as it hits the scope shadow. There is almost no observed parallax prior to the shadow, and then once in the shadow it compounds significantly all the way to the edge. Additionally, you really must have illumination on in most lighting conditions in order to attempt using the reticle inside the shadow.
From my observations, possible, but not recommended.
The use case certainly would determine whether it's acceptable or not. I'm experiencing about 2" at 7y at the outer limits. It's a significant difference from something like the holographic sight obviously.I think certain optics may be more susceptible than others-it's also important to know what an acceptable error is as that may vary from use to use. My atacr was about 2"@25y but for combative shooting that's no issue. Coming from competition that may be unacceptable.
Holy cow that's a ton. Aaron's video had a 1-10 razor perform similar to how my atacr performed. I was able to get about 90% scope shadow before I lost the reticle so I was definitely cranking it hard. Thanks for the data!The use case certainly would determine whether it's acceptable or not. I'm experiencing about 2" at 7y at the outer limits. It's a significant difference from something like the holographic sight obviously.
hoody, i remember you from arf and recall your story of the embassy evac. i think you use lpvo’s alot and in the real world of combat, how often do you find yourself taking shots when you arent squarely behind the glass?Holy cow that's a ton. Aaron's video had a 1-10 razor perform similar to how my atacr performed. I was able to get about 90% scope shadow before I lost the reticle so I was definitely cranking it hard. Thanks for the data!