LPVO 1-6 (or 1-8) for a 14.5 5.56 rifle Kahles vs Swaro vs others

[hanktw2020]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

 

[Keith E.]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

Welcome to the forum. Give that search function some work and see if that'll get you started.

Keith

 

[BCP]

Its more about the reticule than anything else.

 

[RKBArmory]

Nothing you have said is incorrect. However, you have a pretty wide variety of optics that you're considering. None of them are bad, but they each have their own unique strengths. Can you be more specific about your question? Are you mostly concerned about weight, field of view, value for the dollar, or something else.

For example, the Vortex Razor HD Gen II-E 1-6x24 has a generous eye box, and really good illumination. While the Kahles K16i is light weight. If your question is more specific, people will have a better answer, for you.

 

[kyjd75]

I have a SAI 1-6X24, weighs 18 ounces, great glass, costs around $1250 or so depending on where you look. So far I am really liking it. I have it mounted on a 14.5 MCX Virtus, which is a heavier rifle so the lighter weight of the SAI is appreciated.

 

[Charmingmander]

I have a SAI 1-6X24, weighs 18 ounces, great glass, costs around $1250 or so depending on where you look. So far I am really liking it. I have it mounted on a 14.5 MCX Virtus, which is a heavier rifle so the lighter weight of the SAI is appreciated.

How bright is the illum on those? Red dot like or does it wash out to faded red in the sun?

 

[kyjd75]

The SAI, if you are familiar with it, has a rather unique reticle that I find really does not need illumination to be useful. Having said that, I find the illumination to be good but not equivalent to an actual RDS. It is, however, clearly visible and useful in daylight. I wouldn't call it "washed out" at all.

 

[Night Vision Viking]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

The Swaro and the Kahles are the same thing. Same owner, different outsides.

I've used several Z6i over the years - magnificent scope! 100% recommended.

Old K18i had tighter eyebox than the Zeiss, so I went for a Zeiss V8 1.1-8x and have been very happy (3 IPSC World Shoot Medals).

With the new K18i I'm ready to take a new look, but will probably stay with Zeiss.

 

[Burdy]

Since it seems you are OK with SFP, buy a Kahles K16i and be done with it.
Personally, I would stick with 6x for an SFP LPVO, if you move above that, consider FFP.

 

[hanktw2020]

Nothing you have said is incorrect. However, you have a pretty wide variety of optics that you're considering. None of them are bad, but they each have their own unique strengths. Can you be more specific about your question? Are you mostly concerned about weight, field of view, value for the dollar, or something else.

For example, the Vortex Razor HD Gen II-E 1-6x24 has a generous eye box, and really good illumination. While the Kahles K16i is light weight. If your question is more specific, people will have a better answer, for you.

Hi boss,
Yeah I feel like having too many questions and hard to make a decision even though searching lots of info, looking into spec of each model. My biggest question do Kahles/Swaro have same/similar durability as NF/Razor? (I saw people said only NF/Razor are selected by SOCOM) For more specific, did NF ATACR/ Razor have stronger material/ mechanical design /QC? Now I'm leaning towards Kahles more due to FOV/Clarity/light transmission (features I can see and feel).

 

[hanktw2020]

The Swaro and the Kahles are the same thing. Same owner, different outsides.

I've used several Z6i over the years - magnificent scope! 100% recommended.

Old K18i had tighter eyebox than the Zeiss, so I went for a Zeiss V8 1.1-8x and have been very happy (3 IPSC World Shoot Medals).

With the new K18i I'm ready to take a new look, but will probably stay with Zeiss.

Wow it's another brand I can look into! I saw that k18i has larger FOV, and they are same 30mm tube. Really sad that eyebox can't be found on spec, that's very useful info. Did you feel it's faster to track the target by Zeiss?

 

[hanktw2020]

Since it seems you are OK with SFP, buy a Kahles K16i and be done with it.
Personally, I would stick with 6x for an SFP LPVO, if you move above that, consider FFP.

For 1-8, did you think FFP is a must?

 

[Night Vision Viking]

For 1-8, did you think FFP is a must?

Wow it's another brand I can look into! I saw that k18i has larger FOV, and they are same 30mm tube. Really sad that eyebox can't be found on spec, that's very useful info. Did you feel it's faster to track the target by Zeiss?

For a 14.5" FFP is hardly needed.
My old Zeiss uses a 34 mm tube I think, but maybe the new gen went back to 30 mm and kept the large ocular?
IMO the Zeiss was better than the Kahles/Zeiss 1-8x, but this is old gen I'm talking about. I have not checked the new ones.

If you have a lot of monies, the S&B 1-8x Dual CC Shortdot is pretty nice, with FFP Mildot. But too much for your gun really.

 

[Burdy]

For 1-8, did you think FFP is a must?

Not a must but I find myself in the 5-7x range often where the holds don't work in a SFP scope. With a 1-6 I just go straight to 6X. If I go to 8x in a SFP, my holds work, but my FOV and view of the range fan is diminished.

 

[Night Vision Viking]

You might want to take a look at this one: Meopta Meopro Optika6 1-6×24 RD FFP LPVO Riflescope​

The rifle is a JP CTR-02 223 Rem 14.5" pinned comp for 16" OAL.

TFB Review: Meopta Meopro Optika6 1-6×24 RD FFP LPVO Riflescope

Review of the Meopta Meopro Optika6 1-6x24 RD FFP Riflescope. The price is right but is it any good? This review will find and let you know.

www.thefirearmblog.com

 

[FDchief8]

I put a U.S. optics TS8x on my rifle and love it. FFP. True 1 power making it useful as a red dot, not daylight BRIGHT but visible. 8 power makes the red dot into a useable (and accurate) BDC / mil reticle. Good field of view. Very clear glass. I’ve been really rough on it the past few years and it still holds zero and works flawless. Only con I have is the illuminated reticle could be brighter.

 

[Glassaholic]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

I’ll let the LPVO experts give advice here on the scopes but wanted to address “durability”. This often comes up when talking about Nightforce scopes. These claims are qualitative based on various user testimonials, experience and some very effective marketing from NF. But there are no quantitative tests that have been done on multiple scopes from different manufacturers that are reliable and repeatable. Yes, Rokslide tried but many arguments have been made as to the reliability and repeatability of their tests, even though they did their best to convince the public of such. Similar to Nightforce’s videos, they are clever on the surface, but to be repeatable one has to ask how thick is the ice the scope is frozen in, is it perfect every time with the placement of the scope, how hard is the wood you’re pounding the spike into, are you using the same force with each blow every time? As you can see, different outcomes could be obtained through slight variations in the method. I have no doubt that NF scopes are durable, but the question is whether or not NF scopes are any more durable than other manufacturers at a similar price point. Some have tried to claim that NF has less warranty returns than competitors but since no manufacturer releases these numbers I find these claims to be suspect. When dealing with scopes of similar quality it is usually a good idea to identify other features that make a difference for you.

 

[Burdy]

I’ll let the LPVO experts give advice here on the scopes but wanted to address “durability”. This often comes up when talking about Nightforce scopes. These claims are qualitative based on various user testimonials, experience and some very effective marketing from NF. But there are no quantitative tests that have been done on multiple scopes from different manufacturers that are reliable and repeatable. Yes, Rokslide tried but many arguments have been made as to the reliability and repeatability of their tests, even though they did their best to convince the public of such. Similar to Nightforce’s videos, they are clever on the surface, but to be repeatable one has to ask how thick is the ice the scope is frozen in, is it perfect every time with the placement of the scope, how hard is the wood you’re pounding the spike into, are you using the same force with each blow every time? As you can see, different outcomes could be obtained through slight variations in the method. I have no doubt that NF scopes are durable, but the question is whether or not NF scopes are any more durable than other manufacturers at a similar price point. Some have tried to claim that NF has less warranty returns than competitors but since no manufacturer releases these numbers I find these claims to be suspect. When dealing with scopes of similar quality it is usually a good idea to identify other features that make a difference for you.

I have been critical of Nightforce in the past mainly due to my experience with the NX8 line. I had two bad copies of the 1-8 right out of the gate and when I say bad I'm not even talking about the sub par optical quality but zero stop failures and debris in the glass.

However I did relent and order a 4-32 NX8 that should be here early next month as my recent experience with late release 2.5-20's pushed me over the edge. Like you, I always believed the durability of their optics to be grossly overblown. However, my experience over the last year and a half or so with those that are truly abusive with equipment shows that Nightforce is still the brand of choice among them with some pretty strong user testimony. I don't believe these entities would run optics that have shown subpar durability.

As difficult as it is to perform fair tests as Rokslide attempted, I do think there is some consistency there in the fact that Nightforce across multiple models and variations tend to perform better than most regardless of how difficult it can be to truly control a test like that.

Additionally, I was at an event recently where someone from Nightforce was literally slamming the scope with a hammer all day long and then placing it into a device projected on the screen to show that it still held zero and still tracked. The guy sat there for like 8 hours beating on this scope. Now, I have no idea if another scope could have easily passed this same test, but I can tell you no other scope company was blatantly beating on their scope for all to see and then proving that it had no affect on zero and tracking.

All of this could prove something, or prove absolutely nothing, but when we don't have any independent 3rd party testers to draw proper conclusions we are left to circumstantial evidence. At this point I think the evidence points to NF producing scopes that are likely at or near the top of their class when it comes to durability.

The real question is how much of this is affected by NF and how much is affected by LOW. It's obvious that Nightforce provides the spec but is the level of durability inherent in LOW's processes? If so, we would be able to conclude that other LOW scopes of like specs should perform similarly.

I have not gone down that rabbit hole but it could be a worthwhile journey.

 

[Glassaholic]

I have been critical of Nightforce in the past mainly due to my experience with the NX8 line. I had two bad copies of the 1-8 right out of the gate and when I say bad I'm not even talking about the sub par optical quality but zero stop failures and debris in the glass.

However I did relent and order a 4-32 NX8 that should be here early next month as my recent experience with late release 2.5-20's pushed me over the edge. Like you, I always believed the durability of their optics to be grossly overblown. However, my experience over the last year and a half or so with those that are truly abusive with equipment shows that Nightforce is still the brand of choice among them with some pretty strong user testimony. I don't believe these entities would run optics that have shown subpar durability.

As difficult as it is to perform fair tests as Rokslide attempted, I do think there is some consistency there in the fact that Nightforce across multiple models and variations tend to perform better than most regardless of how difficult it can be to truly control a test like that.

Additionally, I was at an event recently where someone from Nightforce was literally slamming the scope with a hammer all day long and then placing it into a device projected on the screen to show that it still held zero and still tracked. The guy sat there for like 8 hours beating on this scope. Now, I have no idea if another scope could have easily passed this same test, but I can tell you no other scope company was blatantly beating on their scope for all to see and then proving that it had no affect on zero and tracking.

All of this could prove something, or prove absolutely nothing, but when we don't have any independent 3rd party testers to draw proper conclusions we are left to circumstantial evidence. At this point I think the evidence points to NF producing scopes that are likely at or near the top of their class when it comes to durability.

The real question is how much of this is affected by NF and how much is affected by LOW. It's obvious that Nightforce provides the spec but is the level of durability inherent in LOW's processes? If so, we would be able to conclude that other LOW scopes of like specs should perform similarly.

I have not gone down that rabbit hole but it could be a worthwhile journey.

The NX8 line is NF’s cheaper line of scopes so I suppose it’s not too much of a surprise that it has a higher failure rate vs their top line ATACR. Most mfr’s have differing tiers of quality. I am familiar with NF’s latest marketing tool with the beating of the stump and then putting it on a collimator, I think they started this at SHOT last year or possibly the year before. What surprises me is that no other manufacturer has tried the same which of course leads some to ponder that maybe they've tried but their scopes failed? Of course, this is an unfair assumption. Trijicon, NF and Leupold have had some pretty hefty military contracts which likely has contributed to their confidence among users.

NF assembles all their ATACR’s in the USA if I’m not mistaken, whether LOW still manufactures any pieces or just provides the glass I am not certain. Burris’ Greeley location machines the scope tubes in house for XTR Pro and Steiner T6Xi but sources internals and glass elsewhere. How much difference does this make? For many patriotic Americans seeing “Made in USA” or “Assembled in USA” has a psychological impact, but whether or not these scopes are more durable than their German or Japanese counterparts remains to be seen (again, at the same tier level).

I know that you use your equipment hard Burdy, you've had Kahles and Vortex in the past, any of those scopes ever fail you like the early NX8 line?

 

[Burdy]

The NX8 line is NF’s cheaper line of scopes so I suppose it’s not too much of a surprise that it has a higher failure rate vs their top line ATACR. Most mfr’s have differing tiers of quality. I am familiar with NF’s latest marketing tool with the beating of the stump and then putting it on a collimator, I think they started this at SHOT last year or possibly the year before. What surprises me is that no other manufacturer has tried the same which of course leads some to ponder that maybe they've tried but their scopes failed? Of course, this is an unfair assumption. Trijicon, NF and Leupold have had some pretty hefty military contracts which likely has contributed to their confidence among users.

NF assembles all their ATACR’s in the USA if I’m not mistaken, whether LOW still manufactures any pieces or just provides the glass I am not certain. Burris’ Greeley location machines the scope tubes in house for XTR Pro and Steiner T6Xi but sources internals and glass elsewhere. How much difference does this make? For many patriotic Americans seeing “Made in USA” or “Assembled in USA” has a psychological impact, but whether or not these scopes are more durable than their German or Japanese counterparts remains to be seen (again, at the same tier level).

I know that you use your equipment hard Burdy, you've had Kahles and Vortex in the past, any of those scopes ever fail you like the early NX8 line?

I've had no issues with Vortex, however my use case for the three Vortex I own is much more mild so not really a fair comparison. I have however beat on my Kahles K16 and K18 pretty heavily without issue so far. I don't skimp on mounts though which I do believe provide more protection than most realize if it has robust and wide rings. The vast majority of my stuff now is either Spuhr ISMS or ARC with a few NF Ultra mounts thrown in.

 

[Hesperidins]

Steiner T6Xi 1-6.

 

[tarheel7734]

I currently run a atacr 1-8 and a gen 3 razor on two 14.5. Prior to these I ran a sig tango msr 1-8 for some time. The msr was great for a budget optic. Built like a tank and glass was good for the price.

The razor and atacr have better glass and illumination of course. The build quality on these two are pretty outstanding.

 

[Glassaholic]

I don't skimp on mounts though which I do believe provide more protection than most realize if it has robust and wide rings. The vast majority of my stuff now is either Spuhr ISMS or ARC with a few NF Ultra mounts thrown in.

I think this can very much be a factor and agree with your assessment. A good strong mount is important for a scope to not lose zero when bumped around and abused a bit. I know we are often looking for ways to shave weight but if RTZ is critical I don't think we ought to skimp on the mount.

 

[Burdy]

I think this can very much be a factor and agree with your assessment. A good strong mount is important for a scope to not lose zero when bumped around and abused a bit. I know we are often looking for ways to shave weight but if RTZ is critical I don't think we ought to skimp on the mount.

Correct. Even as weight conscious as I am, I don't take that into consideration when it comes to the mount.

 

[GUNNER10]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

LPVO's are a comprised class of optic where even the best in class have serious issues such as weight vs performance.

I suggest really nailing down how you are going to using this rifle and asking your self what aspect of the optic is most important to you and go from their.

Generally LPVO's are marginal 4 out of 5 areas and shitty in 1 out of 5 areas.

 

[Burdy]

LPVO's are a comprised class of optic where even the best in class have serious issues such as weight vs performance.

I suggest really nailing down how you are going to using this rifle and asking your self what aspect of the optic is most important to you and go from their.

Generally LPVO's are marginal 4 out of 5 areas and shitty in 1 out of 5 areas.

While point #1 and point #3 hold some weight, the answer to point #2 for the vast majority of real world use cases leads them right back to the LPVO.

 

[Ikeman83]

K18i-2 has a FOV at 8x (18.6 ft @ 100 yds that's so wide you won't want to drop your mag.

 

[gunfighter98]

I currently run a atacr 1-8 and a gen 3 razor on two 14.5. Prior to these I ran a sig tango msr 1-8 for some time. The msr was great for a budged optic. Built like a tank and glass was good for the price.

The razor and atacr have better glass and illumination of course. The build quality on these two are pretty outstanding.

Is the eyebox on the Razor gen 3 as bad and tight as some say? I cant decide between gen 2 or 3 for my 14.5.

 

[FuhQ]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

K18i-2 gets my vote...

 

[Imw787]

Is the eyebox on the Razor gen 3 as bad and tight as some say? I cant decide between gen 2 or 3 for my 14.5.

It gets tight at 10 but I find it easy to get behind/comparable to others up through 8.

 

[sawman556]

My K16i is my favorite scope. My NX8 1-8x, not so much.

 

[FRESHPRINCE556]

Is the eyebox on the Razor gen 3 as bad and tight as some say? I cant decide between gen 2 or 3 for my 14.5.

Gen 2 if 1x is more of a focus for you . Gen 3 if using at higher power magnification is more important. The Gen 2 reticle is much more usable at 1x than the Gen 3. But the Gen 3 reticle is much more useful than the Gen 2 for extended range shooting at 300yds and further where you are using the scope at 6x power and higher. In my experience the Gen 3 eyebox is more than usable at 8x to 10x even though it is a little tight.

 

[VargmatII]

Is the eyebox on the Razor gen 3 as bad and tight as some say? I cant decide between gen 2 or 3 for my 14.5.

To me, the Razor G3 is great between 1-8 magnification. Above around 8x the eyebox gets to be a bit tight and at 10x I feel that the contrast falls of a bit. Its still very usable but you can tell the difference. At 1x I think it is the best red-dot optic I have ever looked through. I run the Razor G3 on my Mk12 build.

 

[Matt ironwood]

Hi folks,
I am debating these LPVOs for my 14.5 5.56 do-it-all rifle. I will play it in range 25-100 yards and BLM land (? up to 300, 400 yards).

After some research, I felt that Kahles and Swaro may be the best choice for me, the largest FOV among many big brands, great light transmission, eyebox, glass clarity, good throw lever and looking. However, my friend said that nightforce is more durable, does nightforce (atacr) uses better material and design (I understand SOCOM uses ATACR, but I like to know more)? I feel the FOV, clarity, light transmission, and the rotation mechanism is not very good. And the 1x really needs battery to work for nightforce due to reticle. Do you think NF first focal plane, reticle, illumination, durability(?) are more important than glass and price?

Second question, suppose swaro and kahles have similar price, which one is better? I heard kahles is more durable, and swaro has more light level for adjustment?

Any other brands should I take a look? I saw razor gen-ii e and SAI 1-6 are good too, but FOV is not as good as Kahles and swaro.

K16i, K18i, z6i, z8i: 127ft FOV at 100
k18i-2, z8i+: 150ft FOV at 100

I just went down this rabbit hole. Considered numerous variables, was left with kahles k18, swaro z8i, schmidt bender pmii.

There was more to it, much more but i wound up with this in my mind. Glass is most important. All 3 have top glass. Then the warranty if something goes wrong. Not a fan of 6 months waiting, so kahles got put to last, then i came to the conclusion, my opinion, the pmii was not worth 2k more than the z8, i feel the technology in a 1-8 is not as expensive as a 5-25 or greater. Just in materials there is more cost. And felt the pmii should be no more than 3500, and swaro no more than 2500.

I know most wont agree with my opinion, and thats kool, it be boring if everyone felt same and agreed with everything,

Some how. By accident i stumbled across a scmidt bender exos, i was skeptical. Wow,tjis is what i wanted, great glass. Tracks like every top tier scope i have, and at a price point, i feel a top tier 1-8 should be at. The cc adjustment is amazing, and so easy to learn.

I bought thinking id sell later and put another pmii on it. No way. Yes, the pmii is a better scope, i just dont feel like i can appreciate the difference of 2k.

i have numerous schmidt scopes. Classic to the pmii, A tangent theta, a atacr.

Was going to wait for the new zco to drop, i dont regret not waiting,

 

[TheHorta]

my LPVOs…

NF ATACR 1-8x DMx
Vortex 1-10x G3 MRAD
March 1-10x Shorty
S&B 1-8x CC Short Dot
Sig Tango6 1-6x
Elcan SpecterDR 1/4x
Elcan SpecterDR 1.5/6x
Trijicon 4x32 ACOG ECOS

They all suck. Stick with Barska.

 

[lastshot12]

When you're talking scopes under a grand, there's only one that's worth a second glance: the SWFA 1-6x HD.

 

[TheHorta]

Left-to-Right:

Sig Tango6 1-6x
S&B 1-8x CC Short Dot
March 1-10x Shorty
NF 1-8x ATACR DMx
VO Razor G3 1-10x
VO Razor G3 6-36x
NF 7-35x ATACR T3 FDE

Closer view of LPVOs for size comparison:

Just took these about 30 minutes ago — ‘cuz I luv yuz guise.