Hello all,

Currently I have one LMT MRP Specwar outfitted with a NF 1-8X with an Aimpoint ACRO P2 mounted at 12 o'clock. Now it's time to decide on an optics package for another Specwar. I'm deciding between a Trijicon Credo 1-10X or a Leupold MK5 2-10X. Both will wear another ACRO mounted again at 12 o'clock.

Does anyone have any opinions or feedback on either optic?

I’d go Credo 2-10x36 over either of those.  I’d also look at the Mk4HD 2.5-10x if you wanted a locking elevation turret and don’t care about having an X-Mas tree type reticle.

The Mk5HD is too close in weight and price to the 3.6-18x Mk5.  At that point I’d say just go for the higher mag optic as it opens up your reticle selection as well.  

5.56 effective range doesn’t warrant much more than a 6 power max, IMHO….maybe 8 power for target ID.

If you like the current setup, why change? You are already familiar with it.

If you have LMT money then you have March Dual Focal Plane 1.5-15x42mm money.

I just assume that if you go the MPVO + piggyback route, that you’re not going to do a lot of shooting at close distances <25 yds. So, you’re going to spend most of it benched or prone.

If you are already going to do a red dot no doubt I would choose the Leupold.  LPVOs are nice but they are a lot of compromises and the more you drive up the magnification on them the more the eye box narrows and gets real tight.  So then you end up with a scope that is not very forgiving when you get behind it at the 8x and 10x.  The 2-10x is going to have a bigger objective so brighter image, more forgiving eye box, and all around going to be a great optic.  Even at 2x you can also do up close shooting I do it with my Viper PST2 2-10x and it is not a problem.

VCOG 1-6, skip the piggyback, if this is a GPR role. Simple BDC reticle

If mostly shooting beyond 100, and you like MIL, then an ATACR 4-16x50 with RMR HD would be my choice.

The 1-6x VCOG isn’t a very good LPVO.  No daylight bright illum, meh reticles, mediocre glass, heavy as a cinder block, and an integral mount that limits mounting options to appropriately set up eye relief.  I’ve owned and used one.  It’s not even top 10 in the LPVO market.

4-16x50 ATACR is just a poor choice for a 12.5” 5.56 gun.  It’s big and also a boat anchor, like 3/4 - 1 full pound heavier than what he’s considering.  Maybe the x42 ATACR (which has a better elevation turret for the application), but it’s still a lot of scope.

You forget that the VCOG can be used backwards or forwards. It’s the ultimate SHTF optic.

Thank you everyone for the well thought out replies! I’m not a fan of the VCOG and not looking for anything in a magnification range. The March looks awesome but I don’t have that kind of money. Out of curiosity what’s the general consensus on the March, is it good quality?

Here’s the current setup on the FDE specwar I’m deciding on one for the the black specwar. Honestly I’m kind of leaning towards the Credo 1-10X but still open minded to those with more experience with optics than me. Whatever the choice it will wear an ACRO as I prefer a piggybacked red dot and find them faster than a LPVO on 1X.


Love this setup

Its optical performance and durability leave a lot to be desired.

What are you actually going to do with the rifle?

I found my optics choices got simpler and easier when I started putting optics on guns that matched the things I actually did with them instead of trying to address things I might do. I also enjoyed the guns more. Sometimes, it seems like people get more hung up on what they might use a gun for than what they will for sure use it for.

Also, if you don't like 1x on LPVOs, I'm not seeing much point in getting an LPVO.

Go Navy!

Edit missed the quote:

Originally Posted By PacNW5:


You forget that the VCOG can be used backwards or forwards. It’s the ultimate SHTF optic.

you're getting a second identical rifle with functionally identical attachments? what are you doing with this that your current gun can't? because that decides what to buy.

the entire point of LPVOs is to render red dots useless. that capability is built into the scope. don't buy one if you want a red dot.

seeing as we're talking about an SBR, anything more than an ACOG with a piggyback is a waste of time. that or a dot + magnifier is the move. i assume you're a civilian, in which case optimizing a combat rifle for the most dangerous and teamwork-oriented task you could do (CQB) seems like a misstep.

however, arguing the merits of a particular rifle isn't really the point of the thread, so i'd say just buy a prism of some sort. i don't think an 8x could be justified on such a short gun as it is, let alone 10x.

What about an ATACR 1x8?

I and many others disagree your opinion about LPVOs and Red Dots.  They can and do Complement each other.

ok. you and many others are wrong, and they do not complement each other.

Your opinion is appreciated.  We all thank you.

Alas I too am poor. Maybe someday I'll trade up.

The general consensus is that their features (dual focal, nice trees, illumination, good turrets) are indeed well thought out, their scopes are clear, and generally have very high but usable mag ratios for their objective size.

But because they lean heavily on optical engineering wizardry to get such fantastic weight and size in large mag ratios(8x or better), they sometimes have more finicky depth of view with their parralax adjustment.

So I see you've never heard of passive aiming under nods? Because I can't do that with my lpvo, I sure can with a piggy'd dot.

so you agree that the entire purpose of an LPVO (which is to have a 1x) is rendered useless by red dots? and yet you chose to buy an LPVO anyways, even though you never use it at that 1x setting? thanks for proving my point for me.



yep. just an opinion. they're all equally valid and cannot be criticized, right? here's another one: the musket is a superior combat arm to an M4. oh, you think i'm wrong? well that's just your opinion man.

Pretty sure the "entire purpose" of an lpvo is to have an optic that has low power, but variable magnification (that means more than just 1x).

Well hey, looky here! Thats what the name says it does!

It's called versatility. I like my lpvo because it is more versatile than, say, my eotech with magnifier, but it has its own draw backs. Each one has pros and cons.

Depth of field decreases with increased magnification and objective size, generally speaking.

Compact scopes (in length) tend to be pickier on eye placement (in distance) and have a smaller sweet spot for eye relief.

So while a compact March 1.5-15×42 is always going to have some picky depth of field at max power, it won't be any different than a 3-15×42 or 4-16×42 traditional scope turned all the way up. And any 10x ratio scope that is compact will be picky on your eye placement.

IMO it's just that March scopes have adjustable parallax down to 10 yards and as you focus closer, distant targets become increasingly blurred, so people notice that more. Many 4-16× or 3-15× scopes have minimum adjustable parallax set at 25-50y (if they even offer adjustable parallax) and just rely on reducing magnification to get close targets in focus. Everything from 50y and out on the traditional scope will have the same DOF issues at high power, however.

And if you have a 5-50×56 scope? Well, it will have the depth of field of a spotting scope... but that is caused by the large objective and huge magnification, not technical wizardry, turrets, or reticles.

....except you don't take advantage of that versatility because you use the red dot. you're dodging the main point. LPVOs were invented with the explicit goal of cramming 1x into a magnified optic at the expense of everything else. you'd be way better off with a 3-18 or a prism or anything other than an LPVO, really. if you get something like a 1-6x with a red dot, they're just dead weight when compared to an ACOG+RMR, and if you get a 1-10x with a red dot, the optical quality at 10x is so poor that even the best LPVOs look like trash when compared to something like a 4-16x. you've greatly ruined the optic quality for no material advantage because you don't use the low end, nobody does. they just have a red dot for close range.

As I understood it, depth of field is mostly an objective diameter vs first focal length thing. So all things being equal a longer scope has a better chance at having a good depth of field. But I see where you are coming from on 10x mag ratios exasperating the problem compared to 5x ratios.

Dare I say PA 5x micro prism with a dot on top

People most certainly use the lpvo on 1x even when they have a canted or piggy'd red dot. The red dot, for me at least, is for when the lpvo is not on 1x and you need a quick transition from distant to close target. However, I still use the lpvo as the "primary", even on close targets.

The dot is a back-up, for when I either need passive aiming with nods, or need a quick transition to a near target when my lpvo happens to be on a higher magnification.

Just because you haven't figured out how to use a specific setup, or you dont prefer the setup, does not mean there is not merit to the setup.

How would the PSA 5x durability compare to a NX8 or a Razor???

Sure, focal distance for a particular objective size is what controls depth of field. Still, objective size is an equal part vs. scope length. But you are still shortening the scope focal distance as you increase magnification. A big objective and high magnification scope will always matter more than an inch of scope length in practical terms. All high power big objective scopes have touchy DOF.

But also decreasing distance of focus to the target compresses the depth of field. As you focus more closely, of course you are further from the in focus distance, but closer focus decreases DOF because it is, by definition, a focal length.  

Also, when you allow for short range focus (like the March with 10 yard close range focus) you are stuck with a single rotation of the knob for all of the focus range. If you include very short distance focus on that knob, the whole knob will tends to be shifting the focus more per angular movement of rotation. This combination results in small movements of the side focus adjustment causing bigger shifts in focus than if the same amount of rotation only covered 50 yards to infinity. This is why many scope makers shy away from very short range focus ability. If you limit your short focus to 50 yards, no one notices the DOF issues. Focus close enough and DOF appears to be an issue for any scope, compact or not.

The close focus ability is the primary cause of touchy DOF complaints on March scopes, IMO, more so than the compact form factor. If you put an adjustable aperture on a March, and fixed the objective to focal distance ratio, people would still complain IMO.

Well said.  And I agree with all of your points.

For thinking people this is NOT an Either / Or proposition.  I've seen very good setups involving multiple optics.  Anyone who dismisses something because THEY think it isn't proper or has value is what some would call a prude.

there's no reason to have two 1x optics. it's completely superfluous. there's nothing to "figure out", it's just inefficient.
the LPVO 1x offers no advantages over the red dot, it's a straight downgrade.

you use it simply because it's there and you need to justify having it,
not because you need it and could not accomplish close range shooting without it.

it's like opening a door by popping the hinges rather than just turning the nob,
because if you didn't the chisel and hammer you carry around would go unused. better to ditch them entirely.

similarly ditching an LPVO for a prism would shave about a pound off your gun,
or alternatively going with a 3-18 would make you way more capable for the same weight.

just because we can do something does not mean we should.
some things are just better than others outright.