Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi

[beetroot]

I had a pst I 2.5-10x32 for a long time.i reviewed it and used it on my Steyer Scout for a year or so. The optics in that scope were excellent despite the age. Sharp, clear and crisp.the view through it was small,the fov was ok, the mrad reticle was good too. Non locking turrets are a turn off for me and there were a bunch of people that had them fail under odd circumstances. I would give the pst the glass edge. But the Helos is the better, more rounded package.

But again, different strokes for different folks. If the pst works better for you then that's awesome.

It's certainly not my dream MPVO (for all the reasons you mentioned) but the glass was considerably better than my PST, especially in low light it wasn't even close.
Perhaps I had a bad example of the Helos but I couldn't really live with the glass in the Helos.

 

[beetroot]

I'm trying to have this make sense I'm my brain.but it feels scrambled lol

Sorry that message was a bit cryptic.

I didn't hate the Helos reticle, and certainly didn't find the centre dot so large that it was unusable, but the reticle was far from perfect.
Heres my take on the reticle (for what it's worth).

The reticle needs to be thought of in two different ways, visibility features on low mag (2-4x ish) and usability features at high magnification (8-12x).

Low mag visibility features are (or could be):
-2mil "ring of death"
-large 0.3mil centre dot
-thicker 0.08mil centre stadia thickness
-outer stadia thickness/distance from centre
-illumination

The 2mil ring of death is what makes this reticle so easy to use on 2x, presumably you will be shooting at a fairly close or fairly large target if using 2x-3x, so the ring of death is what you end up using as your aiming point.
The large centre dot is actually visible on 2x and could be used as a finer aiming point if shooting a smaller target, but the 0.08mil centre stadia is more than thick enough to see on 2x, the PST G1 reticle is only 0.06mil thick and is fairly easy to see on 2.5x, so I'd have just extended those line a little closer to the centre which would negate the need for the large centre dot.

I don't like the whole tree being illuminated, it destroys too much of your night vision (if using in low light) and IMO is too distraction being fully lit, I'd prefer to only light the ring of death and the centre cross that's within the ring, so 2mils each direction or at least not the entire tree.

I potentially would bring the thick outer stadia into the 5mil mark and make them even thicker (like the SWFA Milquad) but that may not be necessary.

High mag usability features are (or could be):
-a fine centre aiming point
-a main cross hair that doesn't obscure the target but has enough information to be useful
-a tree that is fit for purpose (eg not H59)

The 0.3mil centre dot is too large for ultimate precision, I wouldn't want to see a tiny one, but 0.05 or 0.06mil would probably be about right, or you could also do it 0.15mil to match the tree dot size.
The wind holds not starting until 1mil is annoying (other reticles do this too), I'd have bought it in to start at .5mil.
The tree and main cross is fine for the most part, I'd like to see the numbers on both sides of the tree (I'm actually a heathen who prefers number on the centre stadia rather than outside of the tree), would also like to see more number on the horizontal cross for easier wind holds.

TLDR; I don't hate the reticle but I'd definitely like to see some changes if they were to put it in a more expensive scope.
Most of the features I've described exist in other reticles (many that you've reviewed) but bringing them all together appears to be the difficult part.

I know that you are fairly passionate about the whole MPVO concept, so here's my thesis about MPVO reticle design.

 

[lash]

Sorry that message was a bit cryptic.

I didn't hate the Helos reticle, and certainly didn't find the centre dot so large that it was unusable, but the reticle was far from perfect.
Heres my take on the reticle (for what it's worth).

The reticle needs to be thought of in two different ways, visibility features on low mag (2-4x ish) and usability features at high magnification (8-12x).

Low mag visibility features are (or could be):
-2mil "ring of death"
-large 0.3mil centre dot
-thicker 0.08mil centre stadia thickness
-outer stadia thickness/distance from centre
-illumination

The 2mil ring of death is what makes this reticle so easy to use on 2x, presumably you will be shooting at a fairly close or fairly large target if using 2x-3x, so the ring of death is what you end up using as your aiming point.
The large centre dot is actually visible on 2x and could be used as a finer aiming point if shooting a smaller target, but the 0.08mil centre stadia is more than thick enough to see on 2x, the PST G1 reticle is only 0.06mil thick and is fairly easy to see on 2.5x, so I'd have just extended those line a little closer to the centre which would negate the need for the large centre dot.

I don't like the whole tree being illuminated, it destroys too much of your night vision (if using in low light) and IMO is too distraction being fully lit, I'd prefer to only light the ring of death and the centre cross that's within the ring, so 2mils each direction or at least not the entire tree.

I potentially would bring the thick outer stadia into the 5mil mark and make them even thicker (like the SWFA Milquad) but that may not be necessary.

High mag usability features are (or could be):
-a fine centre aiming point
-a main cross hair that doesn't obscure the target but has enough information to be useful
-a tree that is fit for purpose (eg not H59)

The 0.3mil centre dot is too large for ultimate precision, I wouldn't want to see a tiny one, but 0.05 or 0.06mil would probably be about right, or you could also do it 0.15mil to match the tree dot size.
The wind holds not starting until 1mil is annoying (other reticles do this too), I'd have bought it in to start at .5mil.
The tree and main cross is fine for the most part, I'd like to see the numbers on both sides of the tree (I'm actually a heathen who prefers number on the centre stadia rather than outside of the tree), would also like to see more number on the horizontal cross for easier wind holds.

TLDR; I don't hate the reticle but I'd definitely like to see some changes if they were to put it in a more expensive scope.
Most of the features I've described exist in other reticles (many that you've reviewed) but bringing them all together appears to be the difficult part.

I know that you are fairly passionate about the whole MPVO concept, so here's my thesis about MPVO reticle design.

I’m pretty much in this camp. Very well stated.

Though I’d like to propose that for those that have an aversion to the ring of death, instead make the stadia at 2 mils a bit heavier. Noticeably. Then make those stadia and at least .5 hash marks the only parts that are illuminated.

Add .2 minor marks inside that if you must, but for illumination, just the major marks.

 

[lash]

…I mean, as long as we are throwing our wish lists out there…

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

There's no one reticle that will solve what everyone is looking for. The only solution is for multiple manufacturers to actually listen to what people are asking for and make multiple scopes/reticles to fulfill everyone's needs.

My problem with the Helos was the opposite of most here: I didnt find it visible enough on 2x. When doing timed drills it took me an extra .1+ to get that 2mil circle on target, and I was less precise, as compared to a red dot or a fast reticle like the PA Griffin at 2.5x. i found I was faster setting the scope to 3x to make that circle more bold, and at that point it was just a 3-12 that was heavier and lower quality than the PA GlX.
For me, the Helos reticle would be about perfect if they made that outer circle more thick so it was quicker to pick up. I found the 1moa/.3mil center dot perfect for my needs, definitely wouldn't want it any smaller. Its also way better than the tiny Chevron PA puts in several of their reticles in this general mag range.

 

[C_Does]

There's no one reticle that will solve what everyone is looking for. The only solution is for multiple manufacturers to actually listen to what people are asking for and make multiple scopes/reticles to fulfill everyone's needs.

My problem with the Helos was the opposite of most here: I didnt find it visible enough on 2x. When doing timed drills it took me an extra .1+ to get that 2mil circle on target, and I was less precise, as compared to a red dot or a fast reticle like the PA Griffin at 2.5x. i found I was faster setting the scope to 3x to make that circle more bold, and at that point it was just a 3-12 that was heavier and lower quality than the PA GlX.
For me, the Helos reticle would be about perfect if they made that outer circle more thick so it was quicker to pick up. I found the 1moa/.3mil center dot perfect for my needs, definitely wouldn't want it any smaller. Its also way better than the tiny Chevron PA puts in several of their reticles in this general mag range.

A perfect case scenario of 'different strokes' I never heard of the tricky being to hats to pick up. Might I suggest you try a Leupold with the tmr to try it out.

 

[lash]

A perfect case scenario of 'different strokes' I never heard of the tricky being to hats to pick up. Might I suggest you try a Leupold with the tmr to try it out.

Yikes, auto incorrect butchered your second sentence. I had to read it a few times to get what you meant.

 

[beetroot]

There's no one reticle that will solve what everyone is looking for. The only solution is for multiple manufacturers to actually listen to what people are asking for and make multiple scopes/reticles to fulfill everyone's needs.

My problem with the Helos was the opposite of most here: I didnt find it visible enough on 2x. When doing timed drills it took me an extra .1+ to get that 2mil circle on target, and I was less precise, as compared to a red dot or a fast reticle like the PA Griffin at 2.5x. i found I was faster setting the scope to 3x to make that circle more bold, and at that point it was just a 3-12 that was heavier and lower quality than the PA GlX.
For me, the Helos reticle would be about perfect if they made that outer circle more thick so it was quicker to pick up. I found the 1moa/.3mil center dot perfect for my needs, definitely wouldn't want it any smaller. Its also way better than the tiny Chevron PA puts in several of their reticles in this general mag range.

I'm curious what your use case is that you like the centre dot and wouldn't want it any smaller?
As is what sort of targets are you shooting, or shooitng discipline, and at what magnification?

 

[KimberGuy]

H27D and be done with it.

 

[koshkin]

H27D and be done with it.

I like those thick outer bards on the H27D. Everything else....

ILya

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

I'm curious what your use case is that you like the centre dot and wouldn't want it any smaller?
As is what sort of targets are you shooting, or shooitng discipline, and at what magnification?

General training with a 5.56 GPR.
I run an offset dot set up in such a way that it is my primary weapon sight, the MPVO is there to immediately give more magnification OR as a backup if the red dot should go down or I'm shooting from a position that would be awkward to mount the dot.

One example of a drill I like, and that I use to evaluate MPVOs because it is beyond the precision range of a red dot yet requires rapid acquisition off difficult targets under stress, I call "offhand precision", a simplified version of a 2gun stage I shot. keep in mind I typically paint the targets to camo reasonably with the background, I'm not shooting freshly painted white steel.
Basically you start 100M from 2 targets, one 8" one 12". You advance through a series of 8 positions and take one shot at each target from each position, such that you are having to rapidly move, take a precise offhand shot, move to the next position, repeat. Each position you switch between engaging the 8" target to the 12" target. This drill teaches a lot in only 8 rounds (if you don't miss).
Do the math, the smaller target is exactly 2 mils and the larger 3 mils. The 2mil circle should be perfect for rapid acquisition of these targets right? Well what I found is it wasnt. The thin circle was too hard to rapidly pick up against the brush-cluttered background and camoed target, and as I get out of breath from shooting multiple runs this only gets worse. By contrast the pa griffin reticle was great for this, with no illumination.

On the other end of the spectrum, consider using the scope where you would prefer to use a red dot or 1x on an lpvo. I often practice shooting from the low ready, at targets ranging from a uspsa a zone at 7M out to a 50M 4" gong, with agressive par times.
Here especially the Helos was was slower than the PA Griffin and less precise, and I actually had better results turning it up to 3x to acquire that circle more rapidly. By contrast the pa griffin is consistently within about .1s of a red dot.

On the other hand, when it comes to precise shooting with a gas gun the 1moa circle is excellent. Are you shooting targets that are sub moa? Under realistic stress and time pressure? I sure cant! This is where the Helos beats down the PA Griffin, its 1moa dot allows far more precise targeting than that bigass chevron, yet is visible at all mag ranges.
It isn't as good as a true precision reticle with markings around the center to spot and correct your near misses, but that would be a tradeoff I'm happy to make all day IF the reticle allows lethal speed in the type of dynamic shooting described above.

 

[beetroot]

General training with a 5.56 GPR.
I run an offset dot set up in such a way that it is my primary weapon sight, the MPVO is there to immediately give more magnification OR as a backup if the red dot should go down or I'm shooting from a position that would be awkward to mount the dot.

One example of a drill I like, and that I use to evaluate MPVOs because it is beyond the precision range of a red dot yet requires rapid acquisition off difficult targets under stress, I call "offhand precision", a simplified version of a 2gun stage I shot. keep in mind I typically paint the targets to camo reasonably with the background, I'm not shooting freshly painted white steel.
Basically you start 100M from 2 targets, one 8" one 12". You advance through a series of 8 positions and take one shot at each target from each position, such that you are having to rapidly move, take a precise offhand shot, move to the next position, repeat. Each position you switch between engaging the 8" target to the 12" target. This drill teaches a lot in only 8 rounds (if you don't miss).
Do the math, the smaller target is exactly 2 mils and the larger 3 mils. The 2mil circle should be perfect for rapid acquisition of these targets right? Well what I found is it wasnt. The thin circle was too hard to rapidly pick up against the brush-cluttered background and camoed target, and as I get out of breath from shooting multiple runs this only gets worse. By contrast the pa griffin reticle was great for this, with no illumination.

So how does the Griffin reticle do this better than the Helos?
Is it that you are able to bracket the target in the middle of the big circle, or do you use the big circle to locate the target then aim with the chevron?

I assume you are using the PA 2.5-10x44?

I too like to test my lower magnification scopes (2-10, 2-12 ,3-15) on smaller targets, maybe it's because I like using low magnification in matches, or my love of small game hunting.
I've always found the most effective was to make a FFP reticle visible at low power is to just have the main cross hairs to be a reasonable thickness, the donut and 1moa centre dot in the Helos never seemed to make much difference as if I couldn't see the main cross hairs then I couldn't see them either.

I've also found that zooming out to 3x is often a better magnification for shooting smaller targets, you can see the target better and also get a thicker reticle. That's sorta the main reason why I don't like the 1moa dot, after about 4x the main cross hair is more than thick enough to see and the big dot is making little difference, other than big unnecessarily large once I get to 12x.

I think MPVOs are in a difficult spot reticle wise, they are trying to combine the features of a LVPO reticle and a high magnification reticle, and manufacturers seem to keep leaning towards a high magnification reticle (like the one they look to be putting in this Steiner).
Perhaps it'll prove that they need to rely on illumination or a dual focal plan design, or just admit that 2x isn't required if people are using offset red dots with them.
To drag up another thread, if Vortex had done a FFP version of the 3-15x44 Viper HD they may well have made the whole MPVO idea irrelevant, as a 22.5oz 3-15x44 is the same weight (or less) as many of these MPVO designs, with a super wide FOV (almost the same of 3x as many other designs on 2.5x) and the advantage of a little more magnification on the high end.

I should probably stop commenting in this thread now and just wait and see what the Steiner looks like when it comes to market.

 

[Glassaholic]

I think MPVOs are in a difficult spot reticle wise, they are trying to combine the features of a LVPO reticle and a high magnification reticle, and manufacturers seem to keep leaning towards a high magnification reticle (like the one they look to be putting in this Steiner).

That is the challenge. Athlon's reticle is close, but I might like the ZCO HTR better, have to wait and see how it looks at 2x and at 10x but that's the closest.

Perhaps it'll prove that they need to rely on illumination or a dual focal plan design, or just admit that 2x isn't required if people are using offset red dots with them.

The March DR-TR2B reticle has the closest I've seen to ideal for a reticle for MPVO, but DFP reticles are tricky especially for "cheaper" say $1500 class optics. This leaves the donut/quad/horseshoe option and/or super bright center cross type illumination. Manufacturers aren't yet convinced there is a market desire for MPVO because too many are still being influenced by the hunting world which insists on SFP optics.

To drag up another thread, if Vortex had done a FFP version of the 3-15x44 Viper HD they may well have made the whole MPVO idea irrelevant, as a 22.5oz 3-15x44 is the same weight (or less) as many of these MPVO designs, with a super wide FOV (almost the same of 3x as many other designs on 2.5x) and the advantage of a little more magnification on the high end.

Vortex never intended the Viper line to be what that thread was looking for, the Viper line is designed for hunters pure and simple while giving the long range crossover community an option with a FFP 5-25. I am still holding out for hope that Vortex has another line with which they will address this crossover and MPVO need...

I should probably stop commenting in this thread now and just wait and see what the Steiner looks like when it comes to market.

Makes me wonder if Steiner went back to the drawing board on the mil reticle for the H6Xi, based on the sketches provided from SHOT it seemed they missed the mark but who knows what the final reticle will look like in the production models is anyone's guess at this point. What we do know is that many manufacturers don't seem to understand the MPVO market and continue to just throw in a long range reticle into a lower powered FFP scope.

 

[kskevin]

just couldn’t hold myself back any longer and didn’t have much faith in what reticle Steiner would put in this scope so pulled the trigger on the ATACR 4-16x42.

 

[beetroot]

Vortex never intended the Viper line to be what that thread was looking for, the Viper line is designed for hunters pure and simple while giving the long range crossover community an option with a FFP 5-25. I am still holding out for hope that Vortex has another line with which they will address this crossover and MPVO need...

I know, but they have the base there to make an amazing crossover/ MHPVO (new market segment, mid-high power variable optic).

Basically everything change I wanted for the PST G2 3-15.
But alas it was not to be.

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

So how does the Griffin reticle do this better than the Helos?
Is it that you are able to bracket the target in the middle of the big circle, or do you use the big circle to locate the target then aim with the chevron?

I assume you are using the PA 2.5-10x44?

I too like to test my lower magnification scopes (2-10, 2-12 ,3-15) on smaller targets, maybe it's because I like using low magnification in matches, or my love of small game hunting.
I've always found the most effective was to make a FFP reticle visible at low power is to just have the main cross hairs to be a reasonable thickness, the donut and 1moa centre dot in the Helos never seemed to make much difference as if I couldn't see the main cross hairs then I couldn't see them either.

I've also found that zooming out to 3x is often a better magnification for shooting smaller targets, you can see the target better and also get a thicker reticle. That's sorta the main reason why I don't like the 1moa dot, after about 4x the main cross hair is more than thick enough to see and the big dot is making little difference, other than big unnecessarily large once I get to 12x.

I think MPVOs are in a difficult spot reticle wise, they are trying to combine the features of a LVPO reticle and a high magnification reticle, and manufacturers seem to keep leaning towards a high magnification reticle (like the one they look to be putting in this Steiner).
Perhaps it'll prove that they need to rely on illumination or a dual focal plan design, or just admit that 2x isn't required if people are using offset red dots with them.
To drag up another thread, if Vortex had done a FFP version of the 3-15x44 Viper HD they may well have made the whole MPVO idea irrelevant, as a 22.5oz 3-15x44 is the same weight (or less) as many of these MPVO designs, with a super wide FOV (almost the same of 3x as many other designs on 2.5x) and the advantage of a little more magnification on the high end.

I should probably stop commenting in this thread now and just wait and see what the Steiner looks like when it comes to market.

True daylight bright center dots, or center crosses (like the MSR2 has) would negate the need for a thicker reticle for low magnification use.

 

[beetroot]

That is the challenge. Athlon's reticle is close, but I might like the ZCO HTR better, have to wait and see how it looks at 2x and at 10x but that's the closest. I

It does look quite good that reticle, it should be fairly well usable on low power even without illumination.
I wonder if it'll use diffractive illumination to make it super bright, the illuminated areas is quite small so it likely is.

True daylight bright center dots, or center crosses (like the MSR2 has) would negate the need for a thicker reticle for low magnification use.

I agree, but you really need to do diffractive or fibre optic (then dual focal plane) for it to be true daylight bright, which adds cost and complexity.
It is a solution that clearly does work but I don't like needing to rely on illumination to be able to use my reticle.

I know at 2.5x or 3x you don't need reticle illumination to have a properly usable FFP reticle, but perhaps <2.5x is just a bridge too far.

 

[Burdy]

The OP was Sept 2, 2023. “Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi”

9 months later the answer is still - NOPE.

Don't worry, I am used to waiting for things that never happen to my satisfaction.

 

[zero0zero]

Anyone have one of these for review?

I know one guy on ig, bruiser industries, has it but he hasn't really said anything about it yet.

 

[zero0zero]

I'm also going to add some negativity sadly.

I'm holding out hope that this is a great scope, but I've been disappointed in steiner qc lately.

My experience with them started 8 months(ish) ago. I bought a t6xi 3-18 with an msr2. It was an incredible scope for the money except I didn't care for the reticle so I sold it to fund an scr2 version whenever I found a deal. Got an scr2 and it looked like crap. Sent it back and they sent me another that looked a little less like crap.

The inconsisties with the turret and mag ring stiffness, the image quality, and the CA leave me wondering what the point is in buying american made. It almost feels like steiner doesn't want me to buy scopes from them lol.

I really want to like it but I'm tired of hoping for a good one. Seems like I'll probably be selling the t6 for an nx8.

Point of the rant is, I'm not so much worried about the reticle, but more so about getting an actual good scope from them without having to go through half a year of sending scopes back to them to have them replaced.

Just my limited experience.

 

[C_Does]

I'm also going to add some negativity sadly.

I'm holding out hope that this is a great scope, but I've been disappointed in steiner qc lately.

My experience with them started 8 months(ish) ago. I bought a t6xi 3-18 with an msr2. It was an incredible scope for the money except I didn't care for the reticle so I sold it to fund an scr2 version whenever I found a deal. Got an scr2 and it looked like crap. Sent it back and they sent me another that looked a little less like crap.

The inconsisties with the turret and mag ring stiffness, the image quality, and the CA leave me wondering what the point is in buying american made. It almost feels like steiner doesn't want me to buy scopes from them lol.

I really want to like it but I'm tired of hoping for a good one. Seems like I'll probably be selling the t6 for an nx8.

Point of the rant is, I'm not so much worried about the reticle, but more so about getting an actual good scope from them without having to go through half a year of sending scopes back to them to have them replaced.

Just my limited experience.

That is sad to hear about one scope to the next seeming like completely different scopes. That isn't the first time I've experienced that phenomenon in this industry tho. How did you find the scr2 when compared to the msr2?

 

[5RWill]

Mine has been very impressive for what i paid. The turrets leave a lot to be desired though.

 

[PBWalsh]

The H6xi appears to have the same turrets found on the T6xi 1-6. Good turrets and very low profile with an idiot proof zero stop. That said, make sure the screws are tightened down properly, I had one or two times the elevation turret slipped on me, or missed a click when dialing.

 

[zero0zero]

That is sad to hear about one scope to the next seeming like completely different scopes. That isn't the first time I've experienced that phenomenon in this industry tho. How did you find the scr2 when compared to the msr2?

It's a little on the thin side, but I like the design.

Mine has been very impressive for what i paid. The turrets leave a lot to be desired though.

I will say that for the price I paid it is good. I don't think this scope is worth what alot of places have it listed at though.

 

[5RWill]

I will say that for the price I paid it is good. I don't think this scope is worth what alot of places have it listed at though.

Same, for the money I was able to acquire one it's excellent. However had I paid retail I'd be pretty disappointed.