- Thread starter Im2bent
- Start date
Still missing specs on the website. Weight and FOV in particular.
Not sold on the reticle.
Not sold on the reticle.
Cool that it's a FFP, sucks that they went with a BDC type reticle.
SFP is just stupid on everything so
Also...they might have beaten PA for shittiest reticle which is astonishing
Then you're stupid.SFP is just stupid on everything so
I can't wait for all the reviews that say its better than a Vortex Gen III...
Arken should have made it a 1-10 and a 1-6/8 SFP
I seriously wanna know how Arken and PA design their reticles though. It's like the reticle department looks at every single reticle on the market and says nah fuck it we're doing something completely different cause that shit doesn't work
The reticle looks like it includes ancient alien glyphs.
According to Arken you use the squiggly lines to bracket your target for ranging from their description....... Reticle Details: KL Box MIL ('KL'= 'Known Length'. Pronounced: "KILL BOX") This incredibly intuitive, patent pending reticle was designed to increase effectiveness under high stress environments. The outside numbers extending diagonally below centerline correlate to distance in yards. 'Frame and Fire!" By framing a silhouette target in the appropriate KL box, the user is able to rapidly identify distance by simultaneously using shoulder width and torso height to calculate point of aim
I completely understand what they're going for, but, ugh. There has to have been a cleaner way to implement it.
Just shrink down their VPR mil or whatever it is and send it!
BDC reticles are nice. But most rifles are not less than say .25 to .375 MOA at best. And that is still enough of a variance. I would rather dial solutions. Especially with, say, a 1 MOA rifle. But I like the idea. And it looks like it is set up for AR rifles with a combat zero of 25-300 but I could be wrong.
I think it is the Arken answer to the Primary Arms reticle that has known length in the reticle.
I think it is the Arken answer to the Primary Arms reticle that has known length in the reticle.
Not for me. When I'm using an LPVO I want a BDC. But not that one. It's the vertical auto ranging bars that kill it. The horizontal shoulder width bars have been done many times and serve the dual purpose of ranging and as a wind hold hash. Those verticals are just a disaster.
All that said, I've still not seen an FFP LPVO reticle I really like for my uses.
That reticle is next level shit.SFP is just stupid on everything so
Also...they might have beaten PA for shittiest reticle which is astonishing
I for one think the reticle is pretty cool!
As long as it actually matches your load from your rifle..
Though I dont like how close the numbers are to the wind holds, which im assuming are 5mph. They are going to obscure the target if the wind is blowing in the 7-ish range, as it often does round here.
As long as it actually matches your load from your rifle..
Though I dont like how close the numbers are to the wind holds, which im assuming are 5mph. They are going to obscure the target if the wind is blowing in the 7-ish range, as it often does round here.
Nope, while I appreciate your sarcasm, I don’t. I actually have more scopes than guns right now.I’m just hoping they release one with a more traditional reticle. I’m sure @FuhQ has 5-6 on the way already so I’ll wait for his impressions
I don't like the squiggly lower portion of the reticle either.
However I did notice if you look closely the squiggly lines say FAGGOT.
However I did notice if you look closely the squiggly lines say FAGGOT.
SFP is just stupid on everything so
Also...they might have beaten PA for shittiest reticle which is astonishing
I would actually have to say that the PA Illuminated ACSS Griffin MIL M8 Reticle is actually a pretty interesting one specifically for a FFP LPVO.
It does a good job of being usable even in dim light even without illumination for the whole range from 1x to 8x
So yesterday evening I sent an email to Arken asking about the weight and FOV. This morning ,yes Saturday, they replied to say I was stunned is an understatement. Unfortunately their answer was just as stunning and I quote .... " We do not currently have that information. Please check back on the website for those details as they become available. Thanks!"
Impressive response time, ridiculous answer.
How can you be taking orders for a product without knowing anything about it?
6x and below...eh. Above 6x, FFP is the only way.
I agree, just wish I could be happy with FFP. The wider the magnification range the more likely I am to want to use the mid powers and have use of the reticle for holdovers, so FFP makes sense. But I haven't seen any FFP reticle that I really loved at 1x, which is where my LPVO's live most of the time. I'll just keep being happy with SFP 6x stuff till the perfect scope arrives.
That's why it's best to mount your LPVO low and piggyback a RDS up top.
That reticle is what happens when you ask a retard to draw a swastika.
Nah. Not allowed in any divisions I shoot in. Also, that height over bore can be a real killer with tight no-shoot targets.
My LPVO has a HOB of 2.46" (1.25 mount) and my RDS a HOB of 4.0".
Zeroed at 100y the RDS gives me an offset of 3.3" at 5y and 3.0" at 10y and improving all the way to 100y. Additionally, I am only 2.3" low at 200 yards.This means my my offset with the LPVO is minimal. I can work horizontal VTACs with virtually no hold off considering I have a 1.9" offset or less on anything from 5y to 175y with my 50y zero. If I need a precise hostage shot, I can drop the LPVO and take advantage of the very small mechanical offset.
90% of the time the RDS is used as it is obviously always going to be the quicker of the two optics and engagement distances inside 100 are most common. When I need an accurate shot with minimal offset or a precision shot at distance, I drop to the LPVO. I do not believe a better set up on a fighting rifle exists. I don't make that statement lightly.
The competitions I shoot allow "run-what-you-brung" (Run and Guns) and I definitely favor competitions that allow this. With that being said, I am shooting the Tactical Games in October and only 1 optic is allowed, so I will be making a concession and running with a higher mounted LPVO. Whether I do 1.5 or 1.93 is still up in the air. I have both options depending upon the gun I decide to use.
Last edited:
I recently moved to 1.93 and love it.
I tried a low mounted LPVO once, my head won't let me get as low as you.
I could see the HOB of a top mounted dot not being as bad with a scope mounted that low though.
Even if I was allowed a LPVO+RDS I'm certain I would do 45° offset just to keep my HOB the same between optics, I don't want multiple things to memorize. Just as an example of target presentations I've run into that penalize HOB, I've seen two USPSA targets stacked, no shoot side out with just the A-zone head box cut out to shoot through into the second target. Sometimes they aren't stacked and there is some distance between them. Often you shoot through a port so short that you need to cant the rifle significantly to get a sight picture with a standard height LPVO, a top mounted dot would never have a chance. And plenty of variations of that sort of stuff. I want one optic and a consistent offset for that.
I typed out a long reply but I don't want to continue to derail this thread about a product. Would be a good discussion in an other thread perhaps.
As for this optic...
I feel like I don't like the center section, similar to the crowding I felt the NX8 1-8 has and why I think the FC-DMX of the ATACR is a much better design.
BDC has it's place, but its not for me. Being able to range a known target is nice, but more options are needed for different sizes. I think ZCO's fatal funnel design theory would be perfect on an LPVO, but I won't hold my breath.
As for current FFP LPVO's and 1x views....I think the Vudu 1-10 does a pretty good job of providing a useable image at 1x and 10x. I don't even run batteries in any of my scopes and I have no issue with the Vudu on 1x without illumination.
Maybe one day I can have the dough to pony up and have someone build exactly what I want. It's been in my head for quite some time...
Kinda want
It's a beefy looking little deal. If they would have left out the vertical lines and just had the 18" horizontal lines for range estimation on man size shoulders...and make a SFP version...
An SFP version of a 8x LPVO with a ranging function makes zero sense. You would have to be at 8x only for the ranging function to work and would sacrifice a lot of FOV on a fighting optic. What would it's use case actually be? I can't think of one.
Man only $300 with discount code but 4+ weeks out if you order. I'm tempted. Japanese glass according to Arken not that it means much.
Their glass has been pretty stellar for the price point.
Their glass has been pretty stellar for the price point.
I am experimenting with that approach right now with a 5x prismatic from PA and a piggybacked red dot. Since PA ships the prismatic with a ton of spacers, it is an easy experiment to do. I think it has a lot of merit, though not with all stocks.
With a regular height magnified optic (like my 4x Elcan), it did not work too well unless I lifted the cheekrest on the stock a bit.
ILya
I have two PLxC scopes, one with the meters reticle and the other with the mil. While I am normally in favor of mrad, in this case I prefer the meters BDC. It has a larger and bolder horseshoe that really helps on low power. If I could get that horseshoe with a 10mrad mil grid, it would be perfect. 15mrad grid like they have is excessive.
Generally, with ACSS reticles, I think they do a better than average job with low power optics. ACSS designs in precision scopes leave me cold. On the other hand, they are commercially successful, so enough people like them.
ILya
Similar threads
