Zco lpvo???

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

That was much better articulated.
I respect your logic, just not your complete conclusion.

Let me give you a quick anecdote to counter your example.
I was on a team where one of our guys was overwatch alone [weird situation], we lost comms, then he had to make entry into a house with just a MK12 [all alone] in a pinch. Stuff goes wrong. Murphy's law and all that.
I'm sure he would have preferred a LPVO then instead of that stupid Leupold that we all hated.
I say all that [and agree] that there isn't any one optic to rule them all, but some can stretch into other roles more fluidly than others.

I agree with you that guys on the internet nitpick far too hard. I bet most of them couldn't discern the differences they demand in a blind test.
But none the less, there are undoubtedly features which would make a given optic more useful across a broader spectrum of roles.

Which Leupold are you referring to? I haven't kept up with every post in this thread. If you're referring to the standard mk12 mk4 optic....then your example is not counter to mine at all. In fact, it's exactly what I'm referring to.

An overwatch's primary role is to protect you from immediate threats, not engage further enemies nor make entry. And he may occasionally need to perform an entry. But when he needs to jump into an entry, an LPVO is not the ideal optic (even though it's the correct optic for his primary role)....it just works in a pinch. And when he may need to engage at a further distance, it still works fine as well. A Leupold Mk4 is the *wrong* choice for this role. I'm not saying he personally made a bad choice as he may not have had a choice at all. But someone, be it your overwatch or your leadership/supply....made the wrong choice. And sometimes those wrong choices weren't really known at the time and we have learned from them since. But if a person tomorrow is picking a standard precision optic as an overwatch for an entry team......it's the wrong choice unless they are never going to need to get down there with you.

And the inverse is true......when your role is an assaulter, you're going to be running something like an Eotech with a magnifier mounted, or stowed in a pack/pouch. If something happens that you need to perform a duty similar to an overwatch, your RDS + Magnifier will work just fine, but won't be the ideal choice. And even then, without the magnifier mostly works in a pinch, but the magnifier helps.


Obviously depending on service/agency/dept/unit policy/rules, people don't always get to choose their load out. But generally speaking, most currently have access to at least a choice between RDS, LPVO, and standard precision optics. Or a combination of LPVO/standard optic with an offset or 12 o'clock RDS.



All of this still drives home the point, no optic is going to be able to do every job at the level required for a primary duty.


If it worked that way, literally everyone would either be carrying an LPVO or an RDS/Holo + Magnifier........as if either of those did the other's primary role adequately, there would be no reason for the other.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Sometimes your dickhead commander doesn't give you a choice despite what was briefed

But most of what you said I am inclined to agree with.


Anyways...8 weeks ago ZCO commented on IG the 2-10 was about 10 weeks out. So in scope development math, Labor Day gonna be

Yea, I should have put a disclaimer that "you did piss poor planning" is a general statement. Many times its someone else that made the bad decision.....unfortunately.

 

[Bakwa]

Which Leupold are you referring to? I haven't kept up with every post in this thread. If you're referring to the standard mk12 mk4 optic....then your example is not counter to mine at all. In fact, it's exactly what I'm referring to.

An overwatch's primary role is to protect you from immediate threats, not engage further enemies nor make entry. And he may occasionally need to perform an entry. But when he needs to jump into an entry, an LPVO is not the ideal optic (even though it's the correct optic for his primary role)....it just works in a pinch. And when he may need to engage at a further distance, it still works fine as well. A Leupold Mk4 is the *wrong* choice for this role. I'm not saying he personally made a bad choice as he may not have had a choice at all. But someone, be it your overwatch or your leadership/supply....made the wrong choice. And sometimes those wrong choices weren't really known at the time and we have learned from them since. But if a person tomorrow is picking a standard precision optic as an overwatch for an entry team......it's the wrong choice unless they are never going to need to get down there with you.

And the inverse is true......when your role is an assaulter, you're going to be running something like an Eotech with a magnifier mounted, or stowed in a pack/pouch. If something happens that you need to perform a duty similar to an overwatch, your RDS + Magnifier will work just fine, but won't be the ideal choice. And even then, without the magnifier mostly works in a pinch, but the magnifier helps.


Obviously depending on service/agency/dept/unit policy/rules, people don't always get to choose their load out. But generally speaking, most currently have access to at least a choice between RDS, LPVO, and standard precision optics. Or a combination of LPVO/standard optic with an offset or 12 o'clock RDS.



All of this still drives home the point, no optic is going to be able to do every job at the level required for a primary duty.


If it worked that way, literally everyone would either be carrying an LPVO or an RDS/Holo + Magnifier........as if either of those did the other's primary role adequately, there would be no reason for the other.

I agree with almost everything you said. And yes, it was the older MK4. That's all we had for MK12 optics during that time.

To correct one thing, it was an observation team. Dude had the "right" optic for the job. But a potential requisite for being on a small specialized team is [necessarily speaking] knowing that you will find yourself in a situation that you weren't there to get involved in.
I 100% agree that no optic is a do all.
LPVO's just attempt to bridge that gap [for better or for worse].
For CQB: RD>LPVO>MPVO>Precision Optic
For longer distance observation and precise engagements: Precision Optic/MPVO>LPVO>RD
The concept of the LPVO in my opinion is the better all around optic for the guys that don't know what they're going to get into.

Cheers

 

[AngryKoala]

I agree with almost everything you said. And yes, it was the older MK4. That's all we had for MK12 optics during that time.

To correct one thing, it was an observation team. Dude had the "right" optic for the job. But a potential requisite for being on a small specialized team is [necessarily speaking] knowing that you will find yourself in a situation that you weren't there to get involved in.
I 100% agree that no optic is a do all.
LPVO's just attempt to bridge that gap [for better or for worse].
For CQB: RD>LPVO>MPVO>Precision Optic
For longer distance observation and precise engagements: Precision Optic/MPVO>LPVO>RD
The concept of the LPVO in my opinion is the better all around optic for the guys that don't know what they're going to get into.

Cheers

Thats why something like the ZCO with a red dot is a decent compromise. Added weight will suck but most of us aren't high speed dudes kicking in doors so for an all around use it works.

 

[PappyM3]

…And using fairly ridiculous arguments that only exist on the internet.

…

I.E. you're not going to be in a position where you're mainly in a cqb role, and your magnifier isn't going to be fine for longer engagements. Or you're not going to be a position where you are mainly in a patrol situation or longer engagements where the LPVO shines.....and it's not good enough to work the times when you have to do a bit of cqb here and there.

If you're somehow in a position where you need to top performing optic in both cqb or patrol scenarios.....you either did some piss poor planning or you've landed in a lot more trouble than a mythical perfect optic will ever get you out of.

What types of patrols are you talking about? Are you including raids on compounds/buildings? Or cordon and searches? Most everything is a patrol. You do know many raids involve insertion on foot over rural terrain, right? Or even presence patrols through dense neighborhoods that abut farmland with wide open engagement zones, right?

What’s your background to hypothesis about these “CQB” or “patrol” requirements that only “exist on the internet”?

I agree there’s no one optic for everything. But many of your claims about use cases are not founded in reality.

 

[Ordnance Locker]

I should go let all the guys I know running LPVOs with offset or 12 o'clock dots that are active SOF and SF and still deploying, that they're totally doing it wrong. I should probably also tell the dozen or so same guys that when they were actually hands on with the ZC210, and with it mounted up on rifles while running around in kit with it for photos, that when we discussed the weight and they said it wasn't an issue given the performance, well... they must be mistaken, lol.

 

[PappyM3]

I should probably also tell the dozen or so same guys that when they were actually hands on with the ZC210, and with it mounted up on rifles while running around in kit with it for photos, that when we discussed the weight and they said it wasn't an issue given the performance, well... they must be mistaken, lol.

If it’s the only option that meets your(or their) set of performance requirements, it’s what you run. There’s a lot of heavy crap that we just accept because it’s what’s needed. But if there’s something else that also meets requirements but is lighter, you go with that. Example, DD RIS II vs Geissele Mk16. Or the M240B vs M240L.

This ZCO is still a porker, even if it’s the only option for some people’s needs, and can rightfully be called such. It’s not a baseless claim. And saving weight when possible isn’t some internet fantasy consideration.

That’s all I’m saying. Well, that and it’s silly to think there aren’t real world scenarios when one might have to engage both close and medium range targets on the same patrol.

 

[Burdy]

From ZCO’s reposted story, DMR reticle looksie:

View attachment 8363979

It seems the DMR reticle has made some changes, I hope its the one in the IG photo and not the one below.

 

[beetroot]

Thats why something like the ZCO with a red dot is a decent compromise. Added weight will suck but most of us aren't high speed dudes kicking in doors so for an all around use it works.

Why wouldn't you get something like the Mark 5 3.6-18 if you are going to run a red dot?
If you are happy with a 27oz scope and going to use a red dot for close work, 2x vs 3x (or 3.6x) on the low end is much of a muchness.

 

[PBWalsh]

Why wouldn't you get something like the Mark 5 3.6-18 if you are going to run a red dot?
If you are happy with a 27oz scope and going to use a red dot for close work, 2x vs 3x (or 3.6x) on the low end is much of a muchness.

I believe it is that the overall dimensions of the 3.6-18x44 (and 4-16x42 ATACR) compared to the Leupold/ZCO 2-10x30 that make the 2-10 optics superior in a general purpose role. The added bulk (not weight) of the 3.6-18/4-16 simply makes it not as “handy”. The 2-10s are both shorter and slimmer than their higher powered brethren.

I personally see these two 2-10s as an LPVO+. In other words, if you’re dead set on using a dot with your LPVO, these are a worthwhile upgrade to the standard 1-6/8 LPVO when combined with a dot.

The 2-10x<36mm class neither replace a dedicated 1-x LPVO nor does it replace a 3-18 class optic. It does something in the middle and shines with a dot mounted to its mount.

 

[Burdy]

Why wouldn't you get something like the Mark 5 3.6-18 if you are going to run a red dot?
If you are happy with a 27oz scope and going to use a red dot for close work, 2x vs 3x (or 3.6x) on the low end is much of a muchness.

Because you don't want to have to fiddle with the side focus very often to get a clear to DOF and you can get away with with more parallax forgiveness with the smaller objective. Basically, it's about speed in an unknown circumstance for me.

 

[AngryKoala]

Why wouldn't you get something like the Mark 5 3.6-18 if you are going to run a red dot?
If you are happy with a 27oz scope and going to use a red dot for close work, 2x vs 3x (or 3.6x) on the low end is much of a muchness.

It's going to go on a 12.5 AR.