User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 6:19:54 PM EDT
This post will be met with strong opposition, because it goes against the current coolness.
I have a significant number of LPVOs like NF, Trijicon Credo-HX, Steiner P4Xi, Vortex Razor, Geissele Super Precision, etc. I've owned and used A LOT of others, and have made a concerted effort to understand / appreciate / want them. However, I just do not see their advantage over an ACOG with RMR piggyback or Offset RDS. LPVO Disadvantages Heavier than an ACOG More fragile than an ACOG Short battery life (ACOG is tritium powered with ambient light gathering) Slower than an ACOG (I can transition instantly from 4x to 1x by just raising my head on the ACOG while I have to remove my support hand, find the dail, dail down the mag, resume support hand placement on the LPVO) LPVO Advantages Greater than 4x magnification available ACOG / RDS Advantages Durable Prism ACOG Nuclear Powered, yo RMR can run over a year on one battery / T1 or T2 can run for like 5 years on one battery Simple Lightweight ACOG Disadvantages Eye relief I've owned ARs for 40 years and have watched a lot of trends come and go. Are LPVOs a trend or the future? If the future, please help me understand why / how they're better than an ACOG with some sort of RDS combo. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 7:01:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#1]
If you don’t have near perfect eyesight, the ACOGs with short eye relief suck because shooting without glasses gives shit clarity but shooting with glasses you hit the eyepiece all the time.
So you’re pretty much limited to the Chonky TA11 or low powered TA44/45/47/50 and the TA33. Well the GLX 2X is legit better than the 44/45/47/50 and at TA11 length/weight I’d rather have NX8/VX6 *every* time. Which pretty much leaves TA33. And NO tritium acog is NV compatible (passive or active) - you have to mount a separate optic to get that capability (more money and weight). If push comes to shove, you can get behind a NF/Leupold/Vortex/etc. passively with NODs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 7:10:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#2]
I personally don't like or run LPVO's. I don't like the weight and I don't like the tiny objective lens which limits light input. I like the KISS of a fixed low power, such as at 2-3x or so. I also don't care for 1x, as to me if I'm going to have variable glass - a portion of its span is wasted on useless 1x. 2-10x is more attractive to me, than 1-6x. That, and they are very heavy 1x rigs.
But when I ran more 3'gun, the guys with LPVOs were always fucking with their zoom setting while the clock is running The guys with fixed power spent their time on-target, and were never frustrated by the zoom being at the wrong magnification after *Beep*. JMHo, but I think the ACOG 4x is too high and the AUG 3x version is pushing it for CQB. And I've never really mastered the side mount RDS vision. I like the concept, but never could really make ot work as smooth pr as seemless or well as I wanted. Probably my failing. To me, the 2.5X CQB was my favorite "just right" LPFO, with the Koala Of Death fast reticle. I like that so much, I went with the 2.5-10x GLX Griffin, which is the same reticle in a MPVO on longer range guns that need more magnification. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 7:27:12 PM EDT
[#3]
1) I do not struggle to love LPVOs.
 B) LPVOs get a bad wrap when you try to force them to compete with something that works really well in one role. A red dot will excel in some things, and prisms in others (this is why you want both of them together). The LPVO shines when it is asked to be adaptable - and the shooter can adapt with it. Last) I don't see the point in worrying about what you don't like. If the ACOG is your thing, just go with it. Even so, the LPVO is the future until someone figures out how to make more adaptable prism sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 7:59:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: -OdieGreen-]
[#4]
I gave up on LPVO’s a bit ago. Right there with you. Prisms and red dot combos for me.
The TA31 is the only ACOG I’d say doesn’t have good eye relief. All of them are more forgiving than LPVO’s with exit pupil error which is harder to navigate with speed anyway. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 8:43:39 PM EDT
[#5]
I am in the pro LPVO camp. No thanks on 1x optics unless I will only be using it short distances
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 8:51:42 PM EDT
[#6]
I have a couple of RDS on ARs but I have pretty bad astigmatism so the LPVO works better for me.
I rarely shoot my AR inside of 100 yards, just too boring, and most of the time it is at 200 and beyond, where an LPVO really shines. There isn't an offset RDS on them as I like to keep things simple. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 8:51:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DevL]
[#7]
TA31 has poor performance in many lighting conditions. It can frequently be too bright or too dim. LPVO can give Aimpoint dot with a crosshair and adjustable illumination.
You are immediately to a BDC that may not work well for you for distance. An LPVO can have adjustable elevation and custom BDC elevation turret for your EXACT rifle/optic/ammo/location. TA31 has the hardest battery swap in all of optics. A couple of 2032s will run a year on a good auto on/off LPVO. Battery desps are easy and cheap with no mail in your optic nonsense. At 1x, a good LPVO is not slower than a red dot in all but the most compromised positions. An LPVO is not slower than a red dot plus magnifier to swap magnification. A red dot over an ACOG has excessive height over bore and you must learn a second set of close range hold overs and unders. Offset red dot can't be used weak side. Lifting your head may be faster for you to aquire a red dot, but not being able to locate my sights via cheek to stock fit is slower and less instictive to me. The only ACOG I liked was the TA11. So any weight savings is minimal to none for ACOG plus dot at that point compared to my Leupold VX5HD. Is the TA11 more rugged/durable? Probably. But I chose the AR over the AK platform because the AR was better in every way BUT durability/reliability. I feel the same way for Leupold 1-5×24 CDS Firedot vs the TA11/RMR combo. It is better at 1x and better at high power too. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 9:08:40 PM EDT
[#8]
I also struggle with LPVO's, and I throw ACOGs in there with em. I think my big handup is the eyebox/eye relief.
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 9:46:13 PM EDT
[#9]
LPVOs suck. Get an ACOG and an offset dot. Infinitely superior.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 10:06:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Sometimes no magnification isn't enough, nor is 3x, but you never know when you need 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 to be available on demand, or you can skip right to 9X.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 10:37:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: I personally don't like or run LPVO's. I don't like the weight and I don't like the tiny objective lens which limits light input. I like the KISS of a fixed low power, such as at 2-3x or so. I also don't care for 1x, as to me if I'm going to have variable glass - a portion of its span is wasted on useless 1x. 2-10x is more attractive to me, than 1-6x. That, and they are very heavy 1x rigs. But when I ran more 3'gun, the guys with LPVOs were always fucking with their zoom setting while the clock is running The guys with fixed power spent their time on-target, and were never frustrated by the zoom being at the wrong magnification after *Beep*. JMHo, but I think the ACOG 4x is too high and the AUG 3x version is pushing it for CQB. And I've never really mastered the side mount RDS vision. I like the concept, but never could really make ot work as smooth pr as seemless or well as I wanted. Probably my failing. To me, the 2.5X CQB was my favorite "just right" LPFO, with the Koala Of Death fast reticle. I like that so much, I went with the 2.5-10x GLX Griffin, which is the same reticle in a MPVO on longer range guns that need more magnification. Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/26/2024 11:52:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By phlegm: 1) I do not struggle to love LPVOs. https://i.ibb.co/NpxnHWf/unnamed.jpg B) LPVOs get a bad wrap when you try to force them to compete with something that works really well in one role. A red dot will excel in some things, and prisms in others (this is why you want both of them together). The LPVO shines when it is asked to be adaptable - and the shooter can adapt with it. Last) I don't see the point in worrying about what you don't like. If the ACOG is your thing, just go with it. Even so, the LPVO is the future until someone figures out how to make more adaptable prism sight. I am just trying to determine if I’m missing something or whatever. The LPVO concept is solid, and I was an earlier adopter (Trijicon TR21 then USO SN 4 then some Leupolds then Short Dot and so forth). The optics kept improving but the design concept still seems to be lacking compared to a fixed power prism coupled with a RDS. The post is a back check to make sure I’m not simply daft and completely misunderstanding how great / superior these are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 1:30:49 AM EDT
[#13]
Perhaps it would help if you worked backwards to the requirements rather than to start at the solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 1:46:22 AM EDT
[#14]
Everyone complains about the 4x ta31's eye relief despite the amazing fov and fawns over the 3x ta33's eye relief despite the limited fov.
But in my experience, the eye box i guess is how it's described (?) on the ta31 is huge! And moving my head back limits fov but the optic and reticle are still completely useable. So it seems to me like if you want a 4x ta33 with good eye relief that you can scoot forward to see a better fov, just mount the ta31 further forward. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 2:01:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: I personally don't like or run LPVO's. I don't like the weight and I don't like the tiny objective lens which limits light input. I like the KISS of a fixed low power, such as at 2-3x or so. I also don't care for 1x, as to me if I'm going to have variable glass - a portion of its span is wasted on useless 1x. 2-10x is more attractive to me, than 1-6x. That, and they are very heavy 1x rigs. But when I ran more 3'gun, the guys with LPVOs were always fucking with their zoom setting while the clock is running The guys with fixed power spent their time on-target, and were never frustrated by the zoom being at the wrong magnification after *Beep*. JMHo, but I think the ACOG 4x is too high and the AUG 3x version is pushing it for CQB. And I've never really mastered the side mount RDS vision. I like the concept, but never could really make ot work as smooth pr as seemless or well as I wanted. Probably my failing. To me, the 2.5X CQB was my favorite "just right" LPFO, with the Koala Of Death fast reticle. I like that so much, I went with the 2.5-10x GLX Griffin, which is the same reticle in a MPVO on longer range guns that need more magnification. Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Or even above the 50% line |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 2:05:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DevL: TA31 has poor performance in many lighting conditions. It can frequently be too bright or too dim. LPVO can give Aimpoint dot with a crosshair and adjustable illumination. You are immediately to a BDC that may not work well for you for distance. An LPVO can have adjustable elevation and custom BDC elevation turret for your EXACT rifle/optic/ammo/location. TA31 has the hardest battery swap in all of optics. A couple of 2032s will run a year on a good auto on/off LPVO. Battery desps are easy and cheap with no mail in your optic nonsense. At 1x, a good LPVO is not slower than a red dot in all but the most compromised positions. An LPVO is not slower than a red dot plus magnifier to swap magnification. A red dot over an ACOG has excessive height over bore and you must learn a second set of close range hold overs and unders. Offset red dot can't be used weak side. Lifting your head may be faster for you to aquire a red dot, but not being able to locate my sights via cheek to stock fit is slower and less instictive to me. The only ACOG I liked was the TA11. So any weight savings is minimal to none for ACOG plus dot at that point compared to my Leupold VX5HD. Is the TA11 more rugged/durable? Probably. But I chose the AR over the AK platform because the AR was better in every way BUT durability/reliability. I feel the same way for Leupold 1-5×24 CDS Firedot vs the TA11/RMR combo. It is better at 1x and better at high power too. Offset red dots can be used offhand. I tested it after having this argument with someone awhile back. There really wasn’t a scenario it wasn’t useable that I could find. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 2:06:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: I personally don't like or run LPVO's. I don't like the weight and I don't like the tiny objective lens which limits light input. I like the KISS of a fixed low power, such as at 2-3x or so. I also don't care for 1x, as to me if I'm going to have variable glass - a portion of its span is wasted on useless 1x. 2-10x is more attractive to me, than 1-6x. That, and they are very heavy 1x rigs. But when I ran more 3'gun, the guys with LPVOs were always fucking with their zoom setting while the clock is running The guys with fixed power spent their time on-target, and were never frustrated by the zoom being at the wrong magnification after *Beep*. JMHo, but I think the ACOG 4x is too high and the AUG 3x version is pushing it for CQB. And I've never really mastered the side mount RDS vision. I like the concept, but never could really make ot work as smooth pr as seemless or well as I wanted. Probably my failing. To me, the 2.5X CQB was my favorite "just right" LPFO, with the Koala Of Death fast reticle. I like that so much, I went with the 2.5-10x GLX Griffin, which is the same reticle in a MPVO on longer range guns that need more magnification. Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Correct. The matches here are designed and run by guys shooting LVPO. So the stages are commonly arranged in ways that benefit greatly from 6X or 8X magnification. An ACOG is a huge disadvantage in these matches. ACOG is a very well designed combat optic. It's optimized to engage, close with and destroy enemy from 100-300 meters. The matches I've done don't replicate fire and maneuver combat conditions whatsoever. Matches are still fun to shoot and good for maintaining basic weapons handling and marksmanship fundamentals. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 2:27:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jkees]
[#18]
The benefit of more magnification shines the most when you are not shooting at white targets in a field.
So if your use case is just that they do fine. If the use case is something else then some extra magnification even at closer ranges can help with target acquisition. I dont see the option of switching the zoom being a platform defining feature, but rather a byproduct of the design. IMO the real benefit is an optic that allows 1x or higher power with greater FOV than a smaller sight to allow for better reconnaissance and target acquisition at range. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 2:42:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Perhaps it would help if you worked backwards to the requirements rather than to start at the solutions. Bingo Do you need or benefit greatly from a more refined reticle, 6X or 8X? If so Night force. If not, ACOG/RMR. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 3:16:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: I personally don't like or run LPVO's. I don't like the weight and I don't like the tiny objective lens which limits light input. I like the KISS of a fixed low power, such as at 2-3x or so. I also don't care for 1x, as to me if I'm going to have variable glass - a portion of its span is wasted on useless 1x. 2-10x is more attractive to me, than 1-6x. That, and they are very heavy 1x rigs. But when I ran more 3'gun, the guys with LPVOs were always fucking with their zoom setting while the clock is running The guys with fixed power spent their time on-target, and were never frustrated by the zoom being at the wrong magnification after *Beep*. JMHo, but I think the ACOG 4x is too high and the AUG 3x version is pushing it for CQB. And I've never really mastered the side mount RDS vision. I like the concept, but never could really make ot work as smooth pr as seemless or well as I wanted. Probably my failing. To me, the 2.5X CQB was my favorite "just right" LPFO, with the Koala Of Death fast reticle. I like that so much, I went with the 2.5-10x GLX Griffin, which is the same reticle in a MPVO on longer range guns that need more magnification. Weird that you see lots of dudes winning matches with LPVOs and I can’t remember the last time I saw an ACOG in the top ten. Well yea - ACOGs magnification is too high for realistic 3-gun usage; as the bulk of those rounds are 10-25 yards level which is going to be a struggle with 4X is just too much for that. Some folks master the pairing with a red dot and will just transition to that, combined with the ACOG. I would not be one of those - I've never mastered that, and kind of find it distracting with the option of either a goofy cheek-weld that can't be good; or an angled offset where the entire left-hand of the engagement-field is now non-visible. I just could never get used to it. For me, I just settled on running a low power fixed, 2x to 2.5x. Sometimes 3x (Steyr AUG), but really, even 3X is a bit much for CQB. As to top shooters running LPVO - they probably do; the top shooters really practiced that is. The type of 3-gun matches I would go to are the more local "outlaw" matches, which IMHO simulates the more typical non-top-pro status field and usage. And to the non-pro/non-top 3-gun shooter, the extra complexity of the LPVO variable setting often slowed people down more than it helped, because they would screw with it. But you're right, the guys that showed in lycra with their names on their shirts, all did pretty good. This is a personal preference item though, to show OP he's not alone. LPVO is the dominant optic choice today and has some great features. They definitely serve lots of people really well as general use optic. Just never really was my own top choice is all. Now that I think about it, I may even have on one of my NM High Power rifles. Where it got dialed to 4X and never touched again. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 4:13:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Correct. The matches here are designed and run by guys shooting LVPO. So the stages are commonly arranged in ways that benefit greatly from 6X or 8X magnification. An ACOG is a huge disadvantage in these matches. ACOG is a very well designed combat optic. It's optimized to engage, close with and destroy enemy from 100-300 meters. The matches I've done don't replicate fire and maneuver combat conditions whatsoever. Matches are still fun to shoot and good for maintaining basic weapons handling and marksmanship fundamentals. What's the trick to making sure engagements with my enemy are only from 100-300? I'd rather have red-dot-like performance down the hall and across the lawn as well as incredibly superior PID & engagement capability >300 if it means giving up just a little bit of performance in the 100-300 range. Is an NX8/ATACR/Razor/Firedot as good as an actual Red Dot or EOtech at CQB? No... but it's close. Is an LPVO as good as an ACOG at 100-300m? No... but it's close. Is an LPVO as good as a 32-42+mm MPVO or HPVO at >300 yards? No... but it's close. 99.87% of civilian gun owners don't have air support. Don't have arty on speed dial. And don't operate on squads specialized assigned roles or supply chain logistics. So they choose an optic that gives the flexibility cover the most ranges as practicably effectively as possible. That's the mission. And the fact that 3-gun competitions (providing engagements from CQB to several hundred yards from in/around cover) are outright dominated by LPVOs and red dot equipped pistols is a pretty strong testament to that mission. ACOG is excellent for what it is; a tough conscript optic that gives excellent 100-300m engagement and can be serviceable in a CQB environment if that's all you got. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:25:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: battlemidget]
[#22]
I was in service back in the 90s, so I'm a carry handle/top optic guy all day. I think LPVOs are good for the trunk monkeys and 3gunners, but for ease of use out through 300y, I think irons with an optic on top is optimal.
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:31:23 AM EDT
[#23]
I don’t like LPVO either. They seem to be a jack of all trades, but a master of none. I’m really slow with them inside 100-200 yards compared to a reddot. Past that they just don’t seem as great as an optic with a larger objective size.
I’m trying a piggy back reddot on my lvpo right now and I have to put my chin on the stock to use it, which doesn’t feel very solid. I might change to a reddot and magnifier. |
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:38:34 AM EDT
[#24]
LPVOs are great for combat situations where you can walk the battlefield in advance and all your bad guys at different distances agree on the order they will engage you.
LPVOs are great for that type of warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:48:25 AM EDT
[#25]
It's ok not to like something.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:56:55 AM EDT
[#26]
There are better options at 1x than an LPVO. There are better options at 8x than an LPVO.
But the sacrifices to me (eyebox/weight) are easy to overcome and at least up close (where it matters), I see very little, if any, difference on a timer. The LPVO, in my direct experience, really compliments PID. As someone above mentioned, if all you’re doing is shooting at white targets, or all known combatants…sure. If you’re not in that type of environment, LPVOs have a nice built in advantage. If you don’t regularly practice presenting a rifle, I can see the eyebox being troublesome. But that’s a training issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 7:59:09 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoody2shoez: It's ok not to like something. Absolutely this. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 9:46:00 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GaryT1776: I am just trying to determine if I'm missing something or whatever. The LPVO concept is solid, and I was an earlier adopter (Trijicon TR21 then USO SN 4 then some Leupolds then Short Dot and so forth). The optics kept improving but the design concept still seems to be lacking compared to a fixed power prism coupled with a RDS. The post is a back check to make sure I'm not simply daft and completely misunderstanding how great / superior these are. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GaryT1776: Originally Posted By phlegm: 1) I do not struggle to love LPVOs. https://i.ibb.co/NpxnHWf/unnamed.jpg B) LPVOs get a bad wrap when you try to force them to compete with something that works really well in one role. A red dot will excel in some things, and prisms in others (this is why you want both of them together). The LPVO shines when it is asked to be adaptable - and the shooter can adapt with it. Last) I don't see the point in worrying about what you don't like. If the ACOG is your thing, just go with it. Even so, the LPVO is the future until someone figures out how to make more adaptable prism sight. I am just trying to determine if I'm missing something or whatever. The LPVO concept is solid, and I was an earlier adopter (Trijicon TR21 then USO SN 4 then some Leupolds then Short Dot and so forth). The optics kept improving but the design concept still seems to be lacking compared to a fixed power prism coupled with a RDS. The post is a back check to make sure I'm not simply daft and completely misunderstanding how great / superior these are. The thing that keeps me in favor of LPVOs is that they work on 1x, there's a great reason to use them on 2-3x, I can get magnification and FOV simultaneously on 5x, and I can zoom like no other low power optic on 8x. I think of it like shifting gears on a transmission: There is a balance of speed and power in each, but you do have to shift. The two things that make your combo a winner are simplicity and max FOV. If you want to point-and-click with your shooting, it will be great. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:08:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GaryT1776]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Perhaps it would help if you worked backwards to the requirements rather than to start at the solutions. Honest feedback - thank you. The requirements that lead me to this issue are: 1) I wanted a magnified optic for target ID and as an aid shooting over 100 yards. My first solution to this issue started in 1994 when I bought my first ACOG (I have owned ACOGs continually since then). When the TR21 hit the market I started supplementing my ACOGs with LPVOs. 2) I wanted a 1x RDS for 0 yards to 50 yards. I'm much "faster" with a true red-dot (Aimpoint) at these distances than with any ACOG or LPVO. 50 to 100 yards is the distance wherein I decide between 1x RDS and Mag based upon what I'm shooting at. 3) I wanted lightweight, robust, clear glass and as much battery life as possible. My three criteria point to the ACOG with RDS offset or piggyback, but theoretically a LPVO satisfies these in a single optic with single head position, et.al. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:15:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Bingo Do you need or benefit greatly from a more refined reticle, 6X or 8X? If so Night force. If not, ACOG/RMR. This is a great argument for a 1-8 NX8 or ATACR! My primary criticism of an ACOG are the reticles. I currently have the following reticles in various ACOGs: red Horseshoe Dot, green Horseshoe Dot, green Crosshair, red Chevron, red Triangle. I've owned several other reticles and amber (terrible). The crosshair is the "most precise" for me, but also the slowest and hardest to pick up quickly. My NX8 has a very usable (FC MOA) reticle for the distances I shoot a 5.56 with lower magnification. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:15:27 AM EDT
[#31]
If Elcan would make a 1-6 with a decent mount……
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:20:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GaryT1776]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: What's the trick to making sure engagements with my enemy are only from 100-300? I'd rather have red-dot-like performance down the hall and across the lawn as well as incredibly superior PID & engagement capability >300 if it means giving up just a little bit of performance in the 100-300 range. Is an NX8/ATACR/Razor/Firedot as good as an actual Red Dot or EOtech at CQB? No... but it's damn close. Is an LPVO as good as an ACOG at 100-300m? No... but it's close. Is an LPVO as good as a 32-42+mm MPVO or HPVO at >300 yards? No... but it's close. 99.87% of civilian gun owners don't have air support. Don't have arty on speed dial. And don't operate on squads specialized assigned roles or supply chain logistics. So they choose an optic that gives the flexibility cover the most ranges as practicably effectively as possible. That's the mission. And the fact that 3-gun competitions (providing engagements from CQB to several hundred yards from in/around cover) are outright dominated by LPVOs and red dot equipped pistols is a pretty strong testament to that mission. ACOG is excellent for what it is; a tough conscript optic that gives excellent 100-300m engagement and can be serviceable in a CQB environment if that's all you got. I have several Razor Gen 2 HD 1-6x and a NX8 F1 1-8. Neither are nearly as fast a true RDS (Aimpoint, EoTech) at the "down the hall" or "across the lawn" distances you've mentioned. Nothing is faster than a simple short tube / true 1x RDS at targets under about 50 yards (in my experience). I shoot 2 to 3 times a week at around 10,000-12,000 5.56 a year. Today, for example, I'm taking a Colt SOCOM with Aimpoint to the range for some 0-30 drills. I have a LMT MARS with Razor in the vehicle too. I'll run them side by side to see if I'm exaggerating the time-on-target difference from low ready. Someone mentioned "training issue" which I think may apply to me. I've been shooting ACOGs and "Reflex Style" sights for 30 years now. I've been shooting LPVO for 13-14 years. Based upon familiarity and comfort level I tend to grab an Aimpoint equipped or ACOG / RDS equipped carbine when heading out the door. I need to devote more time to LPVOs. Basically, when all of the other salmon are swimming up stream and you're headed down stream ... a smart fish will ask "why"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:22:58 AM EDT
[#33]
LPVO are great for 3 gun when you have maybe a few wide open close targets on one stage, and maybe a few occluded small targets at 200+ on another stage. or the same stage. At 1x it's as good as a dot, and at 4x it's as good and fast (to me) as an acog. Plus sometimes 2.45x magnification is damn near perfect for the need.
That plus most competitions only allow one optic, so a fixed + dot gets you into OPEN, which means you need a race shotgun and shit to be competitive. The world is OPEN class and that's why I have a red dot on my carry gun, iron sight shotgun, and LPVO + dot on my go-to rifle. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:23:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By phlegm: Very reasonable. It's good to hear that you at least have something that is satisfying and usable. That's better than feeling like there are no good options. The thing that keeps me in favor of LPVOs is that they work on 1x, there's a great reason to use them on 2-3x, I can get magnification and FOV simultaneously on 5x, and I can zoom like no other low power optic on 8x. I think of it like shifting gears on a transmission: There is a balance of speed and power in each, but you do have to shift. The two things that make your combo a winner are simplicity and max FOV. If you want to point-and-click with your shooting, it will be great. Thanks. I have a Razor equipped carbine in my vehicle today. I'm going to dail it back to 2x for some 50-100 yard range work to see what I think. Traditionally I've used LPVO like an Elcan. Its all (max mag) or nothing (1x). Actually using the middle ground might add some utility for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:27:09 AM EDT
[#35]
I really tried to love my TA31 but the offset RDS I didn't like, the eye relief on the ACOG and the fixed power. The FOV was great and the weight.
I went back LPVOs. I really like the Credo HX and Accupoint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:35:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HawkinsID: LPVOs are great for combat situations where you can walk the battlefield in advance and all your bad guys at different distances agree on the order they will engage you. LPVOs are great for that type of warfare. Better said than I did, but that's kind of been my own assessment. I'm not here to shit on other people choices, as a great many people are very happy with their LPVO and run them well. But as something I learned real fast with a multi-lense DSLR camera - if you have an adjustable system in a dynamic situation of unknown what next opportunity usage is - then whatever setting you have on it, will be the wrong one. With adjustible power glass, I've found that it is best practice to always leave it at the lowest setting for fast RFN deployment, and zoom up if need. In a LPVO that mean 2lb of clinky optics at 1x, that will take 1-3 seconds to adjust to anything further. If you always go to the 100 yard rifle range, or have prior knowledge of the course of fire in an open field action shoot, that's a non item. If you have a general use gun that might be 18yard, might be 230 yards - unknown, well you kind of have to bank on it being at the wrong setting. Tougher to run if it's an 18 yard and you still have 6x on the LPVO. But a fixed 2.5 power will do all that, and do it lighter, with no screwing around. That's my own assessment. I will say - IMHO, they never should have made the ACOG 4x That's just too much for an all-uses fixed power scope. And their keep-both-eyes-open directions sound good, but it isn't a practice people seem to really do. Steyr AUG started with 1.5 X fixed. Which kind of works, but IMHO is a bit light afield. And their 3x is just on the edge of too much for CQB. Ive made it work, but if you have 8 targets lined up at 15 yards in action shooting, its very easy to skip one at 3x. 2 or 2.5X tends to be just about right, for me and my usages. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:38:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GaryT1776]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Better said than I did, but that's kind of been my own assessment. I'm not here to shit on other people choices, as a great many people are very happy with their LPVO and run them well. But as something I learned real fast with a multi-lense DSLR camera - if you have an adjustable system in a dynamic situation of unknown what next opportunity usage is - then whatever setting you have on it, will be the wrong one. With adjustible power glass, I've found that it is best practice to always leave it at the lowest setting for fast RFN deployment, and zoom up if need. In a LPVO that mean 2lb of clinky optics at 1x, that will take 1-3 seconds to adjust to anything further. If you always go to the 100 yard rifle range, or have prior knowledge of the course of fire in an open field action shoot, that's a non item. If you have a general use gun that might be 18yard, might be 230 yards - unknown, well you kind of have to bank on it being at the wrong setting. Tougher to run if it's an 18 yard and you still have 6x on the LPVO. Bit a fixed 2.5 power will do all that, and do it lighter, with no screwing around. That's my own assessment. I will say - IMHO, they never should have made the ACOG 4x That's just too much for an all-uses fixed power scope. And their keep-both-eyes-open directions sound good, but it isn't a practice people seem to really do. I can make short range hits using the "Bindon Aiming Concept" but it is really awful. It is not fun, easy, or natural for me (or probably anyone else). Its worse than shooting a RDS with the front cap closed. In fact, a capped RDS is immensely easier to "super impose" than a fish-eyed ACOG. My favorite ACOG model is the TA11 but its huge compared to the TA31 (my second favorite). The 11's eyebox is very forgiving compared to the 31's and you're only giving up 0.5x magnification. TA11 FOV = 28.9 ft. @ 100 yds TA31 FOV = 36.8 ft. @ 100 yds (WINNER) TA11 EP = 0.39 in (WINNER) TA31 EP = 0.32 in TA11 Eye Relief = 2.4 in (WINNER) TA31 Eye Relief = 1.5 in Other things to consider, and further proof that everything is a trade off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 10:55:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Marksman14]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GaryT1776: I have several Razor Gen 2 HD 1-6x and a NX8 F1 1-8. Neither are nearly as fast a true RDS (Aimpoint, EoTech) at the "down the hall" or "across the lawn" distances you've mentioned. Nothing is faster than a simple short tube / true 1x RDS at targets under about 50 yards (in my experience). I shoot 2 to 3 times a week at around 10,000-12,000 5.56 a year. Today, for example, I'm taking a Colt SOCOM with Aimpoint to the range for some 0-30 drills. I have a LMT MARS with Razor in the vehicle too. I'll run them side by side to see if I'm exaggerating the time-on-target difference from low ready. Someone mentioned "training issue" which I think may apply to me. I've been shooting ACOGs and "Reflex Style" sights for 30 years now. I've been shooting LPVO for 13-14 years. Based upon familiarity and comfort level I tend to grab an Aimpoint equipped or ACOG / RDS equipped carbine when heading out the door. I need to devote more time to LPVOs. Basically, when all of the other salmon are swimming up stream and you're headed down stream ... a smart fish will ask "why"? I think a major issue is that people set them up differently than other rifles they own, because it’s a different optic. To me, a rifle with a LPVO is still prioritized for 1x. The most immediate threat (in theory) is the close one. The rifle stays at 1x unless I have time/cover/concealment with a stable platform. The ability to zoom is a secondary function, that while very valuable and useful, has do be done and used appropriately. Part of alleviating the “training issue” is thusly to set it up the same way I set up my RDS rifles. I know many shooters who run 1.93 or unity height RDS setups, then stick with 1.54 or 1.7 LPVO mounts. They then claim the setup is slower or they can’t consistently get behind the optic. I’d agree. Because your entire presentation of the rifle changed, because your head has to be positioned differently. I run everything I have in a Unity mount if equipped with a RDS or LPVO. The presentation is the same, thus the speed is remarkably similar. Is it less comfortable when proned out and using the 8x setting? Yep, but I’ve only had to do that a few times, and it was perfectly manageable. More often when playing with magnification, I’ve found myself braced in a kneeled or crouched position, and the height isn’t an issue there, because my upper body is still mostly upright. Consistency helps a tremendous amount, and set the rifle up for the priority work first. To me, that’s the close stuff. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:00:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GaryT1776]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marksman14: I think a major issue is that people set them up differently than other rifles they own, because it’s a different optic. To me, a rifle with a LPVO is still prioritized for 1x. The most immediate threat (in theory) is the close one. The rifle stays at 1x unless I have time/cover/concealment with a stable platform. The ability to zoom is a secondary function, that while very valuable and useful, has do be done and used appropriately. Part of alleviating the “training issue” is thusly to set it up the same way I set up my RDS rifles. I know many shooters who run 1.93 or unity height RDS setups, then stick with 1.54 or 1.7 LPVO mounts. They then claim the setup is slower or they can’t consistently get behind the optic. I’d agree. Because your entire presentation of the rifle changed, because your head has to be positioned differently. I run everything I have in a Unity mount if equipped with a RDS or LPVO. The presentation is the same, thus the speed is remarkably similar. Is it less comfortable when proned out and using the 8x setting? Yep, but I’ve only had to do that a few times, and it was perfectly manageable. More often when playing with magnification, I’ve found myself braced in a kneeled or crouched position, and the height isn’t an issue there. Consistency helps a tremendous amount, and set the rifle up for the priority work first. To me, that’s the close stuff. This is some really insightful feedback. Like you, my primary concern is contact-to-50 yards which means a 1x red dot. Interestingly, I just ordered a couple of ADM High Recon (1.93") mounts over the weekend because I've found that part of my time-on-target issue is getting down far enough on a 1.5" LPVO (while I run my RDS high). I watched my first hit speed improve when I went from absolute zero RDS to Lower 1/3 and again recently when I transitioned to 2.24 (I went skyscraper because I invested in new very high performance NODs). I don't spend a lot of time shooting prone so the 2.24 hasn't proven to be problematic. It'll be interesting to see if the 1.93" mounts change my opinion on LPVOs. If 1.93" LPVO mounts work I may switch all of my RDS to 1.93 to be consistent. This would mean I'd need to look into a KRAM 9.0 (0.342") riser for the ACOGs (add to the 1.535" LaRue mounts). |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:05:58 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By steviesterno16: LPVO are great for 3 gun when you have maybe a few wide open close targets on one stage, and maybe a few occluded small targets at 200+ on another stage. or the same stage. At 1x it's as good as a dot, and at 4x it's as good and fast (to me) as an acog. Plus sometimes 2.45x magnification is damn near perfect for the need. That plus most competitions only allow one optic, so a fixed + dot gets you into OPEN, which means you need a race shotgun and shit to be competitive. The world is OPEN class and that's why I have a red dot on my carry gun, iron sight shotgun, and LPVO + dot on my go-to rifle. Maybe I haven’t used the correct LPVOs, because everyone I’ve used has been so much worse than a reddot up close. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:06:54 AM EDT
[#41]
I'm having a hard time liking the ACOG/RDS combo, TA33 with piggy back RDS. I understand the advantages of the setup, which is why I got it, but a nice LPVO or RDS (with BDC) + 3x mag both seem to work better for me.
Part of that is the prioritization between 1x and zoomed in. I find the piggy back RDS more awkward to deal with than flipping a 3x mag in/out of view. The Razor 1-6 does everything well for me, the only real downside is weight. For run-n-gun stuff I don't care about the weight and therefore like the LPVO. If I was having to haul the rifle around a lot then the RDS + mag would be good since it is about the same weight as ACOG/RDS but you can take the mag off if you want. The RDS + mag is also a nice setup if you have multiple uppers since you can put RDS on them and just have 1 mag to share on a QD mount. Definitely a cheaper option than multiple ACOGs. I know there are QD ACOG mounts, but if the rifles are different configs/calibers then you would need to re-sight them. I'm debating spending more time with the ACOG/RDS setup or just selling it for more LPVO and RDS/mags. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:10:59 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bnc: I'm having a hard time liking the ACOG/RDS combo, TA33 with piggy back RDS. I understand the advantages of the setup, which is why I got it, but a nice LPVO or RDS (with BDC) + 3x mag both seem to work better for me. Part of that is the prioritization between 1x and zoomed in. I find the piggy back RDS more awkward to deal with than flipping a 3x mag in/out of view. The Razor 1-6 does everything well for me, the only real downside is weight. For run-n-gun stuff I don't care about the weight and therefore like the LPVO. If I was having to haul the rifle around a lot then the RDS + mag would be good since it is about the same weight as ACOG/RDS but you can take the mag off if you want. The RDS + mag is also a nice setup if you have multiple uppers since you can put RDS on them and just have 1 mag to share on a QD mount. Definitely a cheaper option than multiple ACOGs. I know there are QD ACOG mounts, but if the rifles are different configs/calibers then you would need to re-sight them. I'm debating spending more time with the ACOG/RDS setup or just selling it for more LPVO and RDS/mags. I've only had a couple of FTS magnifiers. When I ran EOTechs I had their 3x FTS, and it worked okay. However, I didn't like having it hang off the side near my charging handle. One of the advantages to an ACOG with offset is you can run the offset IN FRONT of the ACOG which places it out of the way. An ACOG with a RMR on top can be a little cramped. I've bumped my shooting glasses a number of times when practicing transitioning between a short eye relief TA31 and piggybacked RMR quickly (bumped under under recoil). |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:13:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: taboopineapple]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: What's the trick to making sure engagements with my enemy are only from 100-300? I'd rather have red-dot-like performance down the hall and across the lawn as well as incredibly superior PID & engagement capability >300 if it means giving up just a little bit of performance in the 100-300 range. Is an NX8/ATACR/Razor/Firedot as good as an actual Red Dot or EOtech at CQB? No... but it's damn close. Is an LPVO as good as an ACOG at 100-300m? No... but it's close. Is an LPVO as good as a 32-42+mm MPVO or HPVO at >300 yards? No... but it's close. 99.87% of civilian gun owners don't have air support. Don't have arty on speed dial. And don't operate on squads specialized assigned roles or supply chain logistics. So they choose an optic that gives the flexibility cover the most ranges as practicably effectively as possible. That's the mission. And the fact that 3-gun competitions (providing engagements from CQB to several hundred yards from in/around cover) are outright dominated by LPVOs and red dot equipped pistols is a pretty strong testament to that mission. ACOG is excellent for what it is; a tough conscript optic that gives excellent 100-300m engagement and can be serviceable in a CQB environment if that's all you got. I think this post pretty much nailed it, and while I won't argue against an acog/rmr as a lightweight SHTF optics setup, way too many people get caught up in the on paper stats of it that would be better served by an lpvo or a rds/magnifier. The Acog shines at 100-300yds for man sized targets, but I think the amount of people whose primary focus is this kind of shooting is pretty small and an LPVO performs almost to the same level for this kind of shootings and exceeds it for smaller targets, further distances, and closer distances so the weight tradeoff is going to be worth it for most civilians. People think they can slap on an rmr on top or canted and have a better 1x performance than an lpvo, but the chin weld and shooting canted aren't natural shooting positions and come with a good amount of downsides that make it less optimal than a decent 1x. Supersetca had a pretty good video comparing the chin weld rmr to an lpvo And this is talking about the TA31, once we start talking about the TA11 I really don't think it provides any compelling reason to go for it over an lpvo. It's not much lighter and has a small FOV, which are the 2 things that make a TA31 a good optic in 2024. Even with the side and fov tradeoff, the eye relief still isn't even anything to write home about |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:14:36 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TobyLazur: Maybe I haven’t used the correct LPVOs, because everyone I’ve used has been so much worse than a reddot up close. Very high quality (expensive) LPVO like a Razor Gen 2 HD has near true 1x and very good edge-to-edge clarity. This makes shooting them easier than a lot of lower end LPVOs with 1x stated but actual 1.05 to 1.1 yielding fish eye. If you have to move your head back and forth to get the dot on 1x ... the optic isn't truly 1x. My first LPVO was a 1.25-4x Trijicon TR21. It SUCKED at 1.25x. Early Leupolds claimed 1x but where not true to 1x. Again, some current "budget friendlier" options lack e-to-e clarity have have a tiny bit of mag at 1x making them slow and annoying. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:23:12 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GaryT1776: This is some really insightful feedback. Like you, my primary concern is contact-to-50 yards which means a 1x red dot. Interestingly, I just ordered a couple of ADM High Recon (1.93") mounts over the weekend because I've found that part of my time-on-target issue is getting down far enough on a 1.5" LPVO (while I run my RDS high). I watched my first hit speed improve when I went from absolute zero RDS to Lower 1/3 and again recently when I transitioned to 2.24 (I went skyscraper because I invested in new very high performance NODs). I don't spend a lot of time shooting prone so the 2.24 hasn't proven to be problematic. It'll be interesting to see if the 1.93" mounts change my opinion on LPVOs. If 1.93" LPVO mounts work I may switch all of my RDS to 1.93 to be consistent. This would mean I'd need to look into a KRAM 9.0 (0.342") riser for the ACOGs (add to the 1.535" LaRue mounts). I'll eat my hat the day I find the perfect optic setup that I just want to leave alone forever.
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:26:01 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GaryT1776: Very high quality (expensive) LPVO like a Razor Gen 2 HD has near true 1x and very good edge-to-edge clarity. This makes shooting them easier than a lot of lower end LPVOs with 1x stated but actual 1.05 to 1.1 yielding fish eye. If you have to move your head back and forth to get the dot on 1x ... the optic isn't truly 1x. My first LPVO was a 1.25-4x Trijicon TR21. It SUCKED at 1.25x. Early Leupolds claimed 1x but where not true to 1x. Again, some current "budget friendlier" options lack e-to-e clarity have have a tiny bit of mag at 1x making them slow and annoying. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:29:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GaryT1776]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bnc: I've used LPVOs at standard height and 1.93 and I hardly notice the difference good or bad. I don't have NODs (yet), so that is just using the scope normally. If the optic is on a rifle with an A2 front sight, which I still have a couple of, then I prefer 1.93 to get the irons more out of the way. Haven't tried a skyscraper since I don't have the need just yet. I'll eat my hat the day I find the perfect optic setup that I just want to leave alone forever. Yep, I won't be eating any hats soon. I remember replacing my SGW Stop Sign AR15A1 with a Colt SP1 Carbine (16" with A1 upper, slab-side lower and 2 position collapsible stock) in 1984 and thinking ... this is the pinnacle of firearms development ... I'm set for life  . Ten years later, in 1994, I drilled a hole in my Bushmaster M4A2's fixed carry handle to mount a 3x24 ACOG far enough back to be usable ... and thought ... THIS is the one to rule them all.  . Thirty years later, in 2024, I'm debating Aimpoint RDS vs Trijicon ACOG with RMR piggyback or T-1 offset vs $1200-2000 LVPO.  . Ten years from now, in 2034, I hope to be thinking ... geez I sure am glad I bought this Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt power range  .Honestly, I would not go 2.26" for NODs. 1.93" works fine and if I had it to do over again I wouldn't have went deep on 2.26 Unity FAST mounts. You may end up seeing a pile of them on the EE soon (if I like the 1.93 LPVO .. I'll start moving my RDS over to that height). |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 11:57:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bnc: I love the Razor Gen II, it is my go to setup for run-n-gun competition. It is a bit of a boat anchor, but it is a really nice boat anchor. I have astigmatism and the 0.5 MOA dot in the Razor is much better for me than the standard 2MOA that most RDS have. Out of all of the LPVOs I've owned, the Razor Gen 2 is my favorite (even over USO USA-Made and NF). Mine are the pre-E models which weigh something like 11 pounds 8.5 ounces, but everything about the optic exudes quality. Battery life sucks compared to even a $250 Holosun HS515, but optics are about trade offs. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 12:06:57 PM EDT
[#49]
For those who don't have the warm-fuzzies on LPVOs:
Stop aiming at unobscured targets under 25 yards. Just bracket the target inside the FOV. Try using it on 2x or 3x from 30-75 yards. It's pretty quick, and more precise than 1x for those A Zone hits we all love. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 2/27/2024 1:07:47 PM EDT
[#50]
I wonder how many of those who preach the ACOG or red dot could out shoot a proficient shooter with an LPVO on ANY course of fire….
I see a lot of “mine is better for 100-300” or “yeah but 3 gun shooters design stages for LPVOs.” What does that actually mean? I have shot in rifle matches. There are close targets, medium targets, targets 100-500 yards away. All sizes of targets. SOMEHOW most of the top shooters have settled on an LPVO. Just seems like an awful lot of purse swinging by shooters who really don’t have the ability to pass judgement. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
