• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    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 more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes "Best" LPVO

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.

In my long-running LPVO thread on Lightfighter, I said years ago:

"It's best to approach it from one end or the other...
- Either it's going to do most work on 4,6,8x and get turned way down once in a while ( to which I'd recommend the Kahles or S&B Dual CC)
- or it's going to be on 1x most of the time and dialed up every once in a while (to which I'd recommend Vortex Razor HD2 or the S&B 2nd FP 1-8CC)"

That's the starting point that checks a lot of the feature set requirements. Distance (for hold/adjustment requirements), price, and the value of the "in between" magnifications (1.5-4x) to the user, and target size should narrow things down pretty well to a set choice.
 
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.

Thats the issue with March, on paper they look great. They have the absolute worst eyeboxes of any optics I've seen. That makes them pretty much irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tictacticaltimmy
Totally agree with "there's no perfect LPVO" . You gotta weigh the pro's and con's . As for the Vortex G3 1-10 : It's my current DMR choice. If you consider this optic , I highly recommend a mount no higher than 1.50" to ensure proper cheek weld / eye position at higher mag levels. With 77 TMK it's a beast past 300y. Quick ranging feature works well out to 600 in my experience. Throw an RMR on top and there's no downside other than cost. I do prefer the NF DM-X layout though . If ultimate speed is needed , I keep a Eotech or a T2 in my pack. No optic does it all.
 

Attachments

  • 20220203_053214~3.jpg
    20220203_053214~3.jpg
    605.1 KB · Views: 171
  • Like
Reactions: Clayman
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacticalPlinker
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.

Found a pretty easy fix for the 1.70 and cheek weld...provided one is not a nose-2-ch weirdo

QgDseae.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TF626 and Clayman
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.
Point. I like my Sig Tango6 - but no way in the world I'd claim it to be "best" by any means!
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tucaz
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


Either this is a Felipe account (same location) or the slowest fucking comeback ever.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: FuhQ
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
These three posts (not whole threads, just posts) should put you on the right path ...



 
surprised no one mention swarovski Z8i 1-8. I've owned K16, Razor genii and Z8i and ended up keeping the Z8i. Other than the light weight and sharp glass, Z8i has the brightest illumination among the three scopes. There's a switch for both night and daytime illumination, and intensity can be adjusted individually. BRT-1 reticle is very fine and is great for long range shooting. You can use Swaro's ballistic calculator for holdover: https://ballisticprograms.swarovskioptik.com/Ballistic-Program/Konfiguration
Z8i has the best turret click feel and a toolless re-zero feature. I also like the tilt sensor it comes with, the scope can sense if rifle is in position to shoot, if not, the the illumination can automatically shut off to save the battery.
 
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.
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.

I might have to pick up a P4Xi next.

I have looked through the ATACR and the illuminated reticle is nice.
 
I really like my NX8 FcDMx. I mounted it in a 1.54 Reptilia with an Acro on top for passive capability. The whole ensemble is something like 27oz, and offers day and low light, 0-WhateverYouUse8xTo range capability with wind holds, drop, nuclear bright 1x performance, etc. The only downside is eyebox and glass quality at 7-8x, neither of which are "bad", just not its strongest points. Overall, a fine compromise in the world of "does it all".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa and BurtG
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.
 
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.

AMEN! But getting things "figured out" can be quite a bit of a chore for some...especially if they think it involves the internet and not getting behind a rifle in the context of use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyTheTiger
especially if they think it involves the internet and not getting behind a rifle in the context of use.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
 
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:

 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMammoth
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:



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.
 

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 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!
I noticed that too and am always pointing out the "fov" nonsense for 1x.

I find it odd when people post reviews geared towards "performance" but never show split times to see if their gripes are actually affected. I watched a review recently of two dudes comparing lpvo 1x to rds 1x-they began by saying they are both tons faster with rds... but the split times told a different story. They even admitted to not having much practice time behind the lpvo and after the first couple drills had indistinguishable split times between the systems.

Aaron Cowen did an interesting video on the effects of scope shadow and 1x cqb range shooting showing again, people's gripes about eyebox and positioning didn't matter as long as they could resolve the reticle and place it in an appropriate area the shot will land good.
 
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:
  • 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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakwa and PappyM3
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.
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.
 
Well technically, I don't see an issue:
  • 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.
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.
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.
 
All the FOV in the world is irrelevant if the reticle is not yet in view because your window is tiny.
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
 
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 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.
 
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.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makinchips208
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
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.

In your NX8 example...I bought two at launch and HATED that optic for the exact reason you mentioned, sold it almost immediately.
My S&B has more tunneling than my Vudu 1-10, but still the S&B is easier to get behind.
We can define that ease of use in a number of ways and it may not always show up in FOV, so you are absolutely correct there.

The human eye is pretty complex, and data sets essentially tell us only what a robot's eye can see.
It reminds me a lot of the problem I see with NV buyers...you must look through the optic. I have had 2300 FOM units that to the human eye blow away 3000 FOM units when the spec sheet for the 3k FOM unit is better in every single data point.

I have had or had experience with all the LPVOs in the test except for the March. Depending on your use case, I could see any one of them being the best choice. Having owned the K16i and now the K18i, in my mind, the the K16i is still the 1x king if that is where the majority of your work is done. If Kahles could keep that view in a FFP optic...
 
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.
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.

I live in a small house so the gun stays on 1x 99% of the time.
Might put it on a air rifle or rimfire at some point so I wanted that side focus.
The other .05% of the time it's on 6x for mid range medium sized steel out to 250Y or so and the other .05% on 10x past mid range to 1122Y.
I didn't like 8x for long range and 10x is barely cutting it for me.

DFP is a nice feature! The advantages of FFP and SFP.
The illume is bright enough during the day on the highest setting.

It's a great versatile little scope that covers a lot of bases well enough for me to keep it.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kyjd75
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?


I shoot with both eyes open and also appreciate a wide FOV. At 1x, it allows me to have an uninterrupted view of more things around my target. That’s valuable to me for SA. This benefit is heightened with a nicely designed ocular body of the scope for that nearly edge less view. As for comparison to red dots, people value FOV on red dots too. Usually people value weight and durability for red dots more than FOV, but it is a consideration that some prefer, e.g. people who prefer EOTECH over T2s.

But another thing with FOV is that it’s not limited to 1x. It is angular, and benefits are had at higher magnifications too. One of the reasons the 4x ACOG was such a successful combat optic was because of its wide field of view. It really helped me with observation, not just engagements. You can see what that sketchy looking dude is doing down by the market without having tunnel vision, or similarly have a wider view of things going on while surveilling with an SKT or similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FredHammer
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 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoody2shoes
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.
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 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.
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.
 
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.
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!
 
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!
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?

some of these paralax horror stories make be question their usefulness. my tr24 doesnt seem to be bad all but i guess i should revisit that.