User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 4:25:23 PM EDT
Thinking about getting one for a DMR rifle setup for DMR competitions with shots out to 600 yards. Any reason not to go with this over other 2-10 scopes? I really like the Christmas tree reticle and zero stop as well as the useable reticle at 2.5x. Just want to hear about what downsides you guys can think of.
The only other scope I'm really interested in is the Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 2-10x32. I like the Vortex Viper line up and my 3-15 is amazing, but I really don't like how the 2-10 doesn't have a Christmas tree reticle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 4:34:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Seen that supersetca video on it?
 Apparently, The MPVO Is Cool Again |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 4:42:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Seen that supersetca video on it?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dOPK5kUexoI watched it and I liked what I saw, just wanted to hear more opinions on the optic. Youtube reviews are helpful, but it's only 1 person's view on a topic. I have lots of time to decide on getting one though since they're backordered right now. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 5:28:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KalmanPhilter]
[#3]
Brass Facts on YouTube has a single review and in a different vid compares it with a few others as “under $1000 SPR scopes”. Dark Lord of Optics is probably one of the better reviewers for rifle scopes but I didn’t check to see if he has looked at this model.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:12:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Primary Arms reticles confuse me. For a higher magnification scope, I wouldn't think you'd want that circle and chevron since from that video, they're huge at 10X. Since those are typically used for fast action up-close, you'd likely want something more crosshair based.
|
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:19:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Primary Arms reticles confuse me. For a higher magnification scope, I wouldn't think you'd want that circle and chevron since from that video, they're huge at 10X. Since those are typically used for fast action up-close, you'd likely want something more crosshair based. I agree. They are married to that damn chevron, and it makes a poor choice for a precision optic. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:36:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Revel1]
[#6]
Yeah I want this scope not for precision stuff. Mostly for fast target shooting for DMR competitions which occasionally have shots out to 600. Most of the shots are going to be at 200-400 range which is fine with my LPVO, but shooting targets gets hard at the 600 yard range.
If I want to do precision stuff I’ll just use my Vortex Viper 3-15. The chevron reticle does suck for precision stuff though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:42:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Downsides?
If you are competing with it and dialing alot, it is going to fail sooner than stuff from NF, ZCO, etc. The same goes for the PST. I compete in PRS and field matches, and also prefer Christmas tree reticles, my favorite being the Mil-XT for bolt guns and gassers. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:53:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Skg_Mre_Lght: Downsides? If you are competing with it and dialing alot, it is going to fail sooner than stuff from NF, ZCO, etc. The same goes for the PST. I compete in PRS and field matches, and also prefer Christmas tree reticles, my favorite being the Mil-XT for bolt guns and gassers. Which NF optic would you recommend for a 600 yard and in gasser? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 6:56:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Skg_Mre_Lght: Downsides? If you are competing with it and dialing alot, it is going to fail sooner than stuff from NF, ZCO, etc. The same goes for the PST. I compete in PRS and field matches, and also prefer Christmas tree reticles, my favorite being the Mil-XT for bolt guns and gassers. PA Supposedly has steel on steel for their turrets in their GLX optics. I wonder if they would hold up just as well? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 7:28:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Revel1: Which NF optic would you recommend for a 600 yard and in gasser? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 7:32:32 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gman556: PA Supposedly has steel on steel for their turrets in their GLX optics. I wonder if they would hold up just as well? I've had it happen to me with two different brands when I was starting out. Competitors aren't spending multiple thousands of dollars on a scope because our wives think they're sexy.  Everybody makes decent to good glass in today's market, the extra money goes into the internals. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 7:50:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Skg_Mre_Lght: I don't know, but if you compete long enough, you'll see many $1k scopes fail and lockup. I've had it happen to me with two different brands when I was starting out. Competitors aren't spending multiple thousands of dollars on a scope because our wives think they're sexy. Everybody makes decent to good glass in today's market, the extra money goes into the internals. If the likely failure point for these scopes will be in the turrets, it seems to me that any initial testing that you do through shooting a box test or tracking test won’t do you any good. You’d basically have to physically turn the turrets many, many (hundreds, thousands?) of times and they’ll eventually seize up. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 8:06:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: If the likely failure point for these scopes will be in the turrets, it seems to me that any initial testing that you do through shooting a box test or tracking test won't do you any good. You'd basically have to physically turn the turrets many, many (hundreds, thousands?) of times and they'll eventually seize up. Is that correct? Failure through use. For the casual shooter, probably not a big deal, but competitions beat their optics like rented mules. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 8:23:37 PM EDT
[#14]
I’ve been researching various 2/2.5-10x options and have narrowed it down to the PST2 and Mark 4HD. The Leupold is ~$60 more and weighs 5oz less. I may get one of each and return the one I don’t like.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 9:48:54 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 9:51:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: I’ve been researching various 2/2.5-10x options and have narrowed it down to the PST2 and Mark 4HD. The Leupold is ~$60 more and weighs 5oz less. I may get one of each and return the one I don’t like. It’s likely neither of those scopes will be reliable under hard use, just based on who manufactures them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 10:07:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Skg_Mre_Lght: Yessir. Failure through use. For the casual shooter, probably not a big deal, but competitions beat their optics like rented mules. I’m genuinely surprised that this would happen considering it’s steel on steel. That would take a lot of back and forth to wear that out, I’d imagine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 10:20:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: It’s likely neither of those scopes will be reliable under hard use, just based on who manufactures them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Originally Posted By Luny421: I’ve been researching various 2/2.5-10x options and have narrowed it down to the PST2 and Mark 4HD. The Leupold is ~$60 more and weighs 5oz less. I may get one of each and return the one I don’t like. It’s likely neither of those scopes will be reliable under hard use, just based on who manufactures them. Go on…. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/7/2024 6:35:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Revel1: Yeah I want this scope not for precision stuff. Mostly for fast target shooting for DMR competitions which occasionally have shots out to 600. Most of the shots are going to be at 200-400 range which is fine with my LPVO, but shooting targets gets hard at the 600 yard range. If I want to do precision stuff I’ll just use my Vortex Viper 3-15. The chevron reticle does suck for precision stuff though. I use this scope for run n gun competitions where shots out to 600 are pretty standard. This scope absolutely kicks ass for faster shooting but it does fall short when on a flat range trying to do precision work. If most of your shots will be 2-400, the reticle will be fine especially if you keep it at 6-8x. Some times it can be a little annoying in those 150 - 300 yard shots where the drop falls in the weird area below the chevron but it has never been an actual issue for me. Highly recommend this scope thought. |
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 6:41:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: Primary Arms reticles confuse me. For a higher magnification scope, I wouldn't think you'd want that circle and chevron since from that video, they're huge at 10X. Since those are typically used for fast action up-close, you'd likely want something more crosshair based. More companies need to get on the DFP wagon. I absolutely love the Burris CQ-Mil reticle. The horseshoe and dot are SFP, the mil stadia are FFP. Best of both worlds. So of course Burris dropped the reticle. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 9:19:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Advetised Field of view on the low end is smaller than most other 2.5x with 40mmish scopes. The back of the envelope calculation that DLO (or Ilya) taught me:
Max mag ÷ (low fov ÷ hi fov) = likely starts to tunnel mag 10x÷(35.8ft÷10ft)=2.79x Tells me why the low mag fov seems low, because there is some tunneling on the low end. I think you should look at your accuracy and PID requirement and then evaluate if you really need parallax adjustment or not. If you don't need it consider the Credo 2-10x36mm.  The Surprisingly Capable Optic | Trijicon Credo 2-10x36 Full disclaimer, I went with the NF NXS 2.5-10x42mm for durability. I kinda (20%ish) regret not going with the Credo. Now I'm saving for a March FX 1.5-15x42mm DFP |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 3/11/2024 8:08:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Originally Posted By Revel1: Thinking about getting one for a DMR rifle setup for DMR competitions with shots out to 600 yards. Any reason not to go with this over other 2-10 scopes? I really like the Christmas tree reticle and zero stop as well as the useable reticle at 2.5x. Just want to hear about what downsides you guys can think of. The only other scope I'm really interested in is the Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 2-10x32. I like the Vortex Viper line up and my 3-15 is amazing, but I really don't like how the 2-10 doesn't have a Christmas tree reticle. I have one, I really like it. The biggest gripe I have is the big outer ring/half circle of the reticle takes up alot of space when zoomed in. Which they'd just done away with it. I don't feel like that part of the reticle is at home on this kind of optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2024 8:54:23 AM EDT
[#23]
If you can pick one up used for around $500 I think it's the best buy for the money for a mpvo scope. I have a couple glx 2.5-10 and I like them for what they are. The reticle is very usable at low power.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/15/2024 1:20:13 PM EDT
[#24]
I have this scope. The donut and chevron is my least favorite part of it, but it is still a nice optic for what it is.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/17/2024 6:41:45 PM EDT
[#25]
I have one on a lightweight 16" rifle I used for run and gun matches, as I shoot a couple matches with targets out to 600. I like it. Pretty good glass for the money, BDC reticle is plenty accurate (for my purposes) and it's lightweight. I don't like the chevron, but PA seems to be married to it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2024 11:37:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By s4s4u: I agree. They are married to that damn chevron, and it makes a poor choice for a precision optic. I agree and that is why I haven’t bought one. Chevron has a place on low power optics but a scope with turrets for dialing is not it… if they did a simple crosshair with illum just in the center it would be a nice choice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2024 10:35:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VeritatisUnus: I agree and that is why I haven’t bought one. Chevron has a place on low power optics but a scope with turrets for dialing is not it… if they did a simple crosshair with illum just in the center it would be a nice choice. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VeritatisUnus: Originally Posted By s4s4u: I agree. They are married to that damn chevron, and it makes a poor choice for a precision optic. I agree and that is why I haven’t bought one. Chevron has a place on low power optics but a scope with turrets for dialing is not it… if they did a simple crosshair with illum just in the center it would be a nice choice. It’s not a new concept. The Russians have been using chevrons in reticles for 60+ years. The tip of the chevron is an infinitely smaller/more precise aiming point than a crosshair or dot. That seems to make it more appropriate for dialing than holding over. I get that some people don’t like them and that’s fine. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/19/2024 12:05:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PistoleroJesse]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: It’s not a new concept. The Russians have been using chevrons in reticles for 60+ years. The tip of the chevron is an infinitely smaller/more precise aiming point than a crosshair or dot. That seems to make it more appropriate for dialing than holding over. I get that some people don’t like them and that’s fine. I disagree. I think the chevron for zero hold and closer with hold overs for distance w/o dialing lend well to the chevron. It was the over emphasis of the horseshoe I didn't like. I think the ACSS® AURORA® MIL RETICLE (on their new SLx 5x micro prisim) with a capped windage(weight reduction) would fit this scope better.  But really the tunneling and weight were the compromises I didn't want to make to try this scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2024 12:14:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Luny421: The tip of the chevron is an infinitely smaller/more precise aiming point than a crosshair or dot. That seems to make it more appropriate for dialing than holding over. It's surprising to hear that a chevron is more precise than a dot or crosshair. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2024 2:01:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PacNW5: It's surprising to hear that a chevron is more precise than a dot or crosshair. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 11:01:04 PM EDT
[#31]
i don't understand why PA puts uncapped turrets on combat-oriented scopes with a million wind holds. the whole point of ACSS is that you don't dial.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2024 12:01:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Shackleford_R: i don't understand why PA puts uncapped turrets on combat-oriented scopes with a million wind holds. the whole point of ACSS is that you don't dial. For a big yeet, it could be nice to bring the target further up in the FOV by clicking. Windage could be capped as only M193-esque ammo would use more than 6 Mils on a blustery day. |
|
|
|
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.
