Your prayers were answered.
DSG Arms just sent out an email listing the Leupold VX6 1-6 "Multigun" which has the SPR Firedot reticle installed.  And its only $950.  Actually says "Multigun" on the side of the scope.

Now if only they could do it without the flashy gold bling and bright white lettering....

Maybe I'm asking for too much. ;)

Nope your not, the bright multigun writing is Over the top.

Review of the Nikon M-223 1-4x scope with Point Blank Reticle.

By Les (Jim) Fischer (BigJimFish on AR15.com and SnipersHide)
July 2, 2012

I was a bit surprised when Nikon decided to send me this M-223 along with the Premier 8x20mm binoculars I had asked to review. I did a Shot show report on this optic and was less than kind. I didn't expect they would be keen to have me write about it again. Shot show reports are cursory, though, and hands-on evaluations include more in-depth assessment of the optics, as well as testing of the adjustments, close quarters speed, and a number of other aspects of performance. Nikon was banking on the strength of their optics performance to offset some of my initial impressions. It turns out to be a good bet. While I haven't changed my mind regarding many of the misguided features of this scope, it does perform solidly.

Here is the Nikon M-223 mounted on my 16" AR:



Due to Nikon's long loan time for reviews, it has been present for and included in the lineup of two sets of scope reviews.

The first lineup, from top to bottom:  

Leupold CQ/T
GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x
US Optics SN-3 3.2-17x
Nikon M-223 1-4x
Elcan Specter DR 1/4x
GRSC Korean-made 1-4x (prototype)
Leupold VX-6 1-6x



The second and more price appropriate lineup, from top to bottom:

Nikon M-223 1-4x
GRSC Korean-made 1-4x (prototype)
GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x
Firefield 1-6x24



Table of contents:
-Background
-Physical description
-Reticle description, explanation, and testing
-Comparative optical evaluation
-Exit pupil and eyebox discussion
-Illumination subjective and comparative evaluation
-Mechanical testing
-Comment on adjustments
-Close quarters testing
-Summary

Background:  Nikon is a very big fish in the small pool of sport optics. It is probably well over twice the size of the next largest optics company, provided its camera and semiconductor divisions are not ignored. This gives Nikon an economy of scale that is unrivaled, but also adds the liability of a slow moving bureaucracy filled with many people who have little to no knowledge of needs of the specific markets for which products are intended. This scope is a perfect product of these realities. It is optically and mechanically very good, better than its competitors at its price, but the lack of understanding regarding of the needs of an AR optic is also present. It has sniper knobs, a poor and bulky reticle, and a lack of illumination.

Physical Description:  The M-223 is long and slender with incongruously bulky exposed adjustments. Much of this length is not actually part of the optic, but rather a defacto sunshade consisting of roughly two inches of main tube extending beyond the objective lens. This may explain some of the optic's excellent anti-glare performance. The machining and fit of the M-223 is generally very good, though the power change ring has a finish that does not match the rest of the optic and looks rather cheap and cast. At 13.93oz, the M-223 is one of the lightest scopes in the table, which will be approved of by the weight conscious. Included in the box with the scope along with the requisite paperwork are flip up scope capes. They are not Butler Creek, but are of good quality and should hold up. They are certainly preferred to the scope bra many makers include. A mount is not included with the M-223, though SWFA does sell a kit for an extra $40 that includes a Burris P.E.P.R. mount. This is a good value and you are not missing anything skipping the M-223 mount. It is functional and of reasonable quality, but it has a slow and less than elegant multi-piece base and would not be my choice at its $80-$100 price point. In my testing I am constantly moving scopes about and the M-223 mount, with its multi-piece rail attachment, does not win any points with me.

The M-223 in mount with box:



Reticle: The reticle is a disaster. Imagine your standard duplex reticle, but shrink the thin section in the center to half the normal size and then put a big dot right in the middle to defeat the purpose of having the thin section in the duplex by obscuring the aiming point. The thinking behind the reticle seems to have been to make it big and thick so that you can't lose it. Perhaps this has something to do with the lack of an illumination feature and low light use, but more likely the designer just thought that big and thick was easier to see and therefore faster. The thinking is not correct. Large, thick reticles are not faster at close quarters. My CQB testing has been unequivocal on this point. Thick duplex reticles are consistently ranked among the slowest. The fact is that it does not seem to be the reticle, but rather the target that is more important to see. All that reticle just covers the target up. I should also mention at this point that the duplex reticle in the M-223 is of little help in ranging and drop compensation. Most, though not all, AR reticles make some effort towards these ends. While I am not convinced that a ranging reticle is essential for an AR optic or even desirable in all cases, I am quite certain that to justify the giant, sniper rifle styled, exposed adjustments present on the M-223, you must have one.

An image of the "Point Blank" reticle in the M-223 at 4x. The target is at 50 yds:




Comparative Optical Evaluation:  The Nikon M-223 performs better optically than most scopes at its price point. With regards to clarity, it is much closer to the $1025 Japanese GRSC 1-6x that is manufactured by, and therefore representative of, the many Light Optics made scopes in this price range than it is to the $350 Korean made GRSC 1-4x. I wonder how its optics would compare to the $500 Vortex Viper PST scopes. I no longer have one to compare it to, but I suspect that this might be a fair fight. In addition to good clarity, the Nikon is also very good at handling stray light and difficult lighting situations. Even when held at the most problematic angles to the sun, it is quite useable; unaffected even. Perhaps this ability stems from the unusual integrated sunshade composed of the last two inches or so of the main tube. Field of view of the M-223 is less than exceptional. It is comparable to the Japanese GRSC, on the low end of average. Nikon's great experience designing optics shows in the M-223:  it outperforms its price bracket.

Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 1x:



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 4x:



Exit Pupil and Eyebox Discussion: I have recently had to re-evaluate my take on eyebox and Exit Pupil. The exit pupil is the size of the disc of light at the point at which it is focused for your eye. Assuming you are using this scope for close quarters work and you are moving about:  your head will not be completely stationary regardless of how good your cheek weld is. A larger exit pupil will allow you to keep view of the object through the scope despite your movement, though it is notable that due to parallax error, the reticle will not be exactly where it should be when your head is far off center. People refer to the range through which your eye can move about and still get a good image as the "eyebox". As you can see below, the Nikon M-223 has a mammoth exit pupil and, therefore, a mammoth eyebox. Conversely, the Specter DR has a very small exit pupil. It is so much smaller that the area of the Nikon exit pupil is almost 4.5 times that of the Elcan. It has been my thinking in the past that a larger exit pupil would translate into vastly more forgiving head positioning during use and therefore greater speed when movement is involved. In my practice though, neither the cost of an optic, nor its speed when tested at close quarters has correlated well with exit pupil.  This could have something do with the unmeasured axial component of eyebox, but I am not overly convinced of that. While I have noticed some greater forgiveness in eye position in the larger exit pupil scopes, it does not seem to be of much importance unless compared with scopes that are unusually constricted. It seems that as your head naturally centers itself behind the optic it adjusts very rapidly to the demands of each optic. Provided those demands are not unreasonable, this process does not seem to be overly faster in a large exit pupil scope than a moderate one. Also, red dot type scopes, which do not have eyebox limitations, have not proven to have a significant advantage in speed throughout my testing relative to conventional scopes, though I have not tested several examples to determine brand differences at this time.

In summary,  the M-223 has a very generous exit pupil. This is to its credit, though I do not think that that credit is as large as I once did.

Exit pupil measurement setup:



Exit Pupil measurements of the scopes that I have tested arranged from largest to smallest:

Nikon M-223 1x, 16.7mm, 4x, 5.3mm
Firefield 1-6x ffp 1x, 16.2mm, 4x, 4.6mm
Viper PST 1x, 16mm 4x, 6.4mm
Razor HD 1x ,13.2mm 4x, 6.5mm
GRSC K 1x, 13.1mm 4x, 6.7mm
GRSCJ 1x, 11.2mm 6x, 4.6mm
Leupold VX-6 1x, 10.7mm, 6x, 4.4mm
Elcan Specter DR 1x, 8.0mm 4x, 7.4mm
Leupold CQ/T 1x, 9mm 3x 4.86mm


Illumination Subjective and Comparative Evaluation:  At this juncture I usually discuss the illumination system of the optic in question and compare it to that of its peers. Despite the lack of illumination capability in the M-223, I have elected to keep a small section here to remind the reader of the almost ubiquitous presence of illumination in optics competing with the M-223. I was surprised that, in designing an optic specifically for the AR platform, Nikon did not include illumination. I have chosen to include the M-223 in my table and to write a review of it despite this fact and it is the only optic that I have made that exception for. I do this because of its popularity and in deference to the largest riflescope company in the world.

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:  Power change and box tests are designed to test the accuracy, repeatability, and independent nature of a scope's adjustments. In the box test, the shooter aims at the same place when firing all shots, but moves the adjustments between groups such that a box is formed by the groups fired. The power change test is performed by firing a group at each end of the power range of the scope without moving the adjustments. Each group is fired at a different target and any shift in the position of the groups indicates a shift in the point of aim when the power is changed. Theoretically, front focal plane scopes will not show a shift in the groups while second focal plane scopes will. The magnitude of the shift will dependent of several factors, including how far from centered the adjustments of the scope are after being zeroed. In practice, almost all scopes I have tested have shown a shift in point of aim when the power is changed. These tests are done using a BKL adaptor on an Anschutz .22lr. This provides very small groups and therefore good resolution while maintaining minimal ammunition costs to yours truly.

M-223 box test:



M-223 power change test:



The Nikon M-223 box test is slightly different than ones I have done in the past. This time I started in the lower left corner instead of the upper left. I also moved the adjustments 4 inches at 25 yards (16 s-moa) instead of the typical 3 inches at 25 yards. I started at the bottom of the box because the scope had been adjusted far down from its center due to a mount with built-in MOA and I didn't want to run out of elevation travel. In any case, the box test was perfect. The adjustments are accurate and independent.

The power change test showed a shift in point of aim of 1-2" at 100 yards. Given that this is a second focal plane scope that, as I mentioned before, had its adjustments far from centered due to the angled base; I consider this an excellent result.

Comment on Adjustments: The adjustments on the M-223 are large and exposed. They protrude roughly .9" from the tube and are almost 1.3" in diameter. The 1/4 inches per hundred yards clicks are satisfyingly audible and tactile. Each knob offers 20 s-MOA per revolution and the zero can be reset by pulling up the knob which disengages it from the screw. You will be pleased to learn that the knob indexes properly at each hash mark and also can be set at any hash. This has recently been a problem on some brands' long range scopes. I mention long range optics because that is the kind of optic these adjustments belong on. They are well suited to a scope with ranging capability that requires drop compensation via the adjustments. This scope lacks these features. On the M-223, the knobs are just oversized and, being exposed, will be subject to accidental adjustment. One last thing to mention before leaving the adjustments is the sticker on the ocular housing of the M-223 that proudly proclaims "Precision AR Optic Ballistically Matched." As mentioned before, the reticle is a duplex and therefore not matched to any combination of rifle, cartridge, and load. Similarly, the adjustments do not bear any markings that could justify this assertion. I consider this sticker to be false advertising as the words "ballistically matched" do have meaning and this scope makes no attempt to fulfill that meaning.

Close Quarters Testing: This is a fairly new section in my reviews. I have received many requests for my opinion regarding which optics are the fastest at 1x. This has led me to start testing specifically to that end. The testing consists of a display of vital-sized targets between 10 and 25 yards away that are engaged from a variety of positions as quickly as possible. The targets are audibly reactive, making hit identification easy. It is not unlike some stages of three gun competitions except that, being as cheap as I am, I use an air-soft rifle. The air-soft also allows for targets that move since having someone downrange poses no safety hazard beyond welts. This course of fire was run though by several individuals of varying abilities in order to get as diverse a set of opinions as possible. In the future, I will be writing a composite article with generalized recommendations and guidelines for picking close quarters optics, but for now I will be focusing specifically on the M-223.

You might suspect that the lack of illumination in the M-223 slowed it down in the CQB testing, and this would be true if I had done the testing in low light. However, in full natural illumination very few of the scopes I have tested have illumination systems substantial enough to be useful. Most are run absent illumination and therefore the Nikon did not suffer a disadvantage. This is not to say that the M-223 performed:  it was one of the slower optics tested and generally not well liked by the individuals doing the testing. The primary problem is the reticle, which is bulky and gives the shooter the sensation of firing at the enemy from behind a thicket. In addition to this, some minor barrel distortion is noticeable at 1x. This was less severe than in the VX-6 tested earlier. In the M-223, the distortion seemed more to annoy the reviewers than to impede the ability of images captured by the users' off eye to synchronize with the eye behind the optic. I wonder though if eye strain would become problematic with extended use. All told, the M-223 was not a favorite for close quarters use in good lighting and would obviously be of little to no use in poor lighting.

The effect of barrel distortion on parallel lines:



Summary: The M-223 is a quality piece of glass with features chosen by a marketing department living in a city that doesn't allow you to own guns anyway. Ok, I don't really know that, but it might as well be true. The mechanics and optics are spot on, really solid. The features, though, are almost totally unattractive to me. While the performance in testing combined with my trust of and history with Nikon have convinced me that other scopes in Nikons lineup might be interesting depending on the application, I do not see this one as fitting the AR bill.



For those of you looking for the simple pro and con list, here you go:

Pros:
Optical clarity is excellent; above par at this price point
Handling of stray light is excellent
Generous exit pupil
Adjustments are accurate, independent, and repeatable
Adjustments have excellent feel and a zero indicator that resets easily and accurately
Lightweight
Excellent warranty from a longstanding industry leader

Cons:
No illumination
Reticle is not even a duplex. It fails to be precise at long ranges because of a large dot in the center portion
Adjustments are large, their features unnecessary given the limitations on their functionality imposed by the reticle design.
Slow at close quarters because of reticle design and slight barrel distortion
No significant ranging capability
Power change ring is a bit small and slippery

Review of Firefield 1-6x24mm front focal plane rifle scope with rings.

By Les (Jim) Fischer of opticsthoughts.com (BigJimFish on AR15.com and SnipersHide)
July 14, 2012

The Firefield 1-6x24 mounted to my 16" AR:



This little Firefield was one of my highlights at Shot this year and that was before they dropped the price from $215 to $180. At Shot it looked good for the $215 price. Now it looks even better at $180.

Keeping this in mind, I was quite pleased when one of the Sellmark media coordinators sent me an e-mail telling me that not only was one available for review, but that it was, in fact, already in route. I will admit that this is a very pleasant aspect of reviewing low cost optics. Often, with high-priced glass, scopes are sent around the country from reviewer to reviewer and the logistics of this can be difficult since your goal is usually to have several scopes of similar price range in your possession at one time to do germane comparisons. With less expensive stuff, they just send you one when you are ready and you can typically keep it for a good while as well. It is not hard to line things up under those conditions.

Of course, selection of low cost optics to review is trickier:  there are a lot to choose from, but most of them are not worth having, let alone buying. I do not care to spend my time and energy reviewing scopes that I know, having seen them at Shot, I will hate. If you ever wondered why most of my latest reviews have been, on balance, positive; it is because I picked stuff I liked to start with. If you want an old-fashioned Simon Cowell beatdown, you can check out the Shot show reports:  there are no shortage of optics I dislike.

Getting back on point. I used a smaller lineup of scopes for this review than I have in the past. I did not think it was particularly useful to the reader to trot out a bunch of $1k + scopes and compare them to one that sells for less than $200. The one exception to this is that Japanese GRSC 1-6x which I left in because it is the only other 1-6x I have. Therefore, the lineup of scopes that will be participating in this review is:

Nikon M-223 1-4x
GRSC Korean-made 1-4x
GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x
Firefield 1-6x24





Table of contents:
-Background
-Physical description
-Rings
-Reticle description, explanation, and testing
-Comparative optical evaluation
-Exit pupil and eyebox discussion
-Illumination evaluation
-Mechanical testing and turret discussion
-Some notes on durability
-Summary and conclusion

Background:

Sellmark is the distribution company for the Firefield brand as well as Yukon, Pulsar, and Sight Mark. At Shot, the Sellmark booth displayed all these brands at the same booth probably because, from the standpoint of an FFL dealer, all are the same in that they are purchased from Sellmark. Sellmark does not seem to differ from this point of view in that there is a great deal of overlap in price point, presumed manufacturer, and even product line between the brands. For that reason, my comments on this scope are not really transferable to any other Sellmark-branded product. For the record, I think that LIS optics out of China is the maker of the Firefield 1-6x24 as well as many of their other products.

Physical Description:

The Firefield comes with quite a few extras in the box. In addition to the scope you get a cleaning cloth, flip caps, rings, and a piece of paper with a few tech specs that calls itself a warranty card, but seems to be more of a stand in for a manual. Interestingly, it does not tell you not to shoot yourself or others. This is unusual since the sole purpose of most manuals these days seems to be to convey that rather obvious and therefore unnecessary information. Unfortunately, in my case, the rear scope cap seems to have split at some point in transit. This can be observed in the below image. Despite this split, it seems to be hanging on okay, though I am not sure if it will loosen up over time. The cause of this split appears to be that the rear cap was one size too small to start with:  the front one is not nearly so stretched. Hopefully somebody at Sellmark will notice this sizing problem and order the next batch of rear scope caps the correct size.

As with the example I saw at Shot, the machining on the Firefield I was sent looks very good. I feared the example at Shot could have been a one-off CNC-machined prototype. This does not seem to be the case as the production version looks excellent. Often, on inexpensive scopes, a very thick and textured paint has been applied to obscure poor machining. That does not seem to be the case here. The machining looks very good and the appearance of the paint is more reminiscent of mid-range Japanese scopes than anything else. As for the tactile first impressions, the magnification ring moves smoothly and with proper force, though the diopter moves a bit too easily. All in all, the scope looks better and comes with better accessories than you would expect for the price.

Firefield 1-6x24 with box and all accessories:


Rings:

I believe that it is a great virtue for an inexpensive scope to come with rings. This is especially true for scopes targeted at the AR market where you can be pretty sure they will be mounted to a 1913 rail. The simple fact is that including a set of extruded rings probably costs the maker a grand total of $5.00 but if you had to buy a mount yourself it would run you at least $50.00 for the same level system. All that extra packaging, advertising, tariffs, and shipping add up.

It should go without saying that the rings included with this Firefield are nothing like a Larue product. They are extruded, not CNC-machined, and they do not have inserts for the screws. That being said, they seem well-designed to achieve low cost while not failing. The aluminum is inexpensive, very soft, and therefore stretches a good deal as you tighten down the ring tops (I used 18 in/lbs.) However, they seem to be designed to accommodate this deformation as, under load, I observed just the right amount of space between the ring halves. Perhaps this plasticity also serves to somewhat mitigate the negative effects of rings that are not exactly round as extruded rings will never be all that close. The base of the rings are also well-designed. They use a big hex nut and cross bolt to tighten them to the rail. The cross bolt also serves to engage the rail slots and prevent sliding. I torqued the cross bolts to 30 in/lbs without failure. I would not suggest trying the 60 in/lbs some cross bolts suggest. I think the 30 is fine and at 60, I expect they would fail as the cross bolt is clearly not hardened. It is of note that the center line of the scope, when mounted in these rings, will be 1.12" above the top of the rail and not the more common 1.5". This fit me, but I have a very short distance between my cheek bone and my eye. I expect some long-faced British types might have a problem. All details aside, it is my judgment that I do not think these rings will fail under normal conditions and provided the user is careful during installation. That is really probably all you can look for from rings you paid practically nothing for, though I do wish they would have made the center line a little higher to accommodate a wider swath of shooters.

Reticle description, close quarters performance, explanation, and ranging:

Firefield reticle at 1x and 6x:



A few days ago a reader mentioned to me that he looked forward to reading my take on this Firefield reticle. Either he meant that or that he was dreading reading about it. Sarcasm is very hard to pick out in text. In either case, the subtext of the comment was that he was quite sure he was going to hear a great deal about the reticle from me. I found all of this encouraging as it means that I am unambiguously transmitting my message that reticles are not an afterthought, but rather one of the most important of all elements in scope design. Ranging, close quarters performance, and precision can be enhanced or ruined by reticle design choices.

The reticle in the Firefield is quite a familiar one. Not only is it a mil hash style reticle, but it is almost a dead ringer for the reticle in the S&B Short Dot. It differs slightly by not having the marks at .5 mil increments and by skeletonizing the 12 o'clock post, but the general idea is there and the style is unmistakable. Just as on the Short Dot, this reticle is wispy thin at 1x, features five mils of hashes in each direction, and skeletonizes the thick portions of the duplex. The most important difference between the two is the lack of daytime bright flash dot illumination in the Firefield. That does not turn out to be the huge failure I would have thought it to be back before I started CQB testing, though it is certainly not as effective as having the dot. It turns out that by copying S&B you get some of their advantages, even if you can't hang with them in illumination technology.

The most important of these advantages is the CQB performance. While originally I thought that bulky is fast because you need to see the reticle, the more I have tested the more I have come to the opposite opinion. Seeing the target clearly is more important than seeing the reticle. I think this is partially because, due to the design of refracting scopes, the primary aim point is always in the middle of the field of view anyway. I think it is also because that aim point does not move around relative to the field of view whereas the target sure does. The target is just a great deal harder to get a fix on than the reticle. While it would certainly not be ideal to have a scope with a reticle so light that you can't really pick it up, it seems to be much easier to error in the other direction. S&B probably figured this out ten or so years ago when they designed the Short Dot, though they never wrote an article to enlighten us about it. They probably should have since folks always complain about how light the reticle is and it is certainly not intuitively obvious that that is an advantage. The reasonably light skeletonized mil hash duplex in the Firefield combined with a nice flat field of view at 1x and an acceptable eyebox to yield a scope that performs in the top third for CQB speed:  pretty good for a scope that is the least expensive I have ever tested.

All is not totally rosy with the Firefield reticle, though. Crank it up to 6x and you will notice a few things for which a little explanation is helpful. You will notice that the reticle lines look sort of like long fat hairy caterpillars. A little explanation of the glass etching process is in order here. Reticles are not etched by mechanical abrasion, but rather with acid.  When etching with acid, a mask is first made with material removed in the places which are to correspond to the reticle. This mask is then applied to the glass and acid is allowed to eat the glass where the mask has been cut away. After washing the acid away, Titanium dioxide (also used as white pigment in paint) is applied to the etching and the whole thing buffed out. How fine a reticle can be is therefore limited by some combination of how small and precise the mask can be made, the characteristics of the glass / acid interaction, and, lastly, the yield percentage of good reticles you are willing to tolerate because the whole affair, like the process of manufacturing semiconductors, is subject to a great deal of unevenness. In a front focal plane scope, all of these limitations and interactions are literally magnified because the reticle is magnified as the power is dialed up. In a 1-6x scope the reticle, inconsistencies and all, will be magnified 6x. In a 1-8x it will be magnified 8x. Since acid eats in an uneven manner and tiny masks are hard to make, it is not hard to see how difficulties can arise. For these reasons, the reticle in the Firefield is thick, around 1.2moa, and has an appearance somewhat akin to a line drawn with a Sharpie that has bled a little. I have seen shades of this problem not just on this $180 scope, but also on ~$3000 March ffp scopes which have an 8x erector ratio. It is simply not easy to make reticles in high magnification ratio ffp scopes. All that being said, it is still difficult for a shooter to be precise with an optic that has a line thickness of 1.2moa.

The last thing to talk about concerning the reticle is its ranging capability. I was quite pleased to find, in my testing, that the mil sub-tensions in this reticle are the correct size. While this might seem basic and universal, many scopes have reticles that are not the size they purport to be. This one is sized correctly; a very helpful feature for ranging accurately. In the case of the Firefield, ranging, bullet drop, and windage hold will all be performed using the mil scale on the reticle. This is because, as you will learn later in this review, the adjustments are not 1/2moa as they claim to be. This is not an ideal situation in a mil type scope. Ranging with a mil scope always concedes speed at the outset because it requires calculation. What it lacks in brevity it seeks to make up in accuracy. Part of that accuracy is contingent on being able to dial the drop after finding the range. Holding over for drop is less accurate and it is easy for the shooter to get lost in all the similar looking dashes. This is especially true if multiple targets in the same area are to be engaged or if multiple shots are to be fired at the same target. Recoil between each shot can lead to you holding on the wrong dash. Since windage is usually held not dialed, it is also a disadvantage to be holding both windage and drop simultaneously since your aim point will be somewhere out where the scope has no markings and you will have to try to estimate your place from the markings to the side and above. Nitpicking aside, at the price range this Firefield retails at most scopes don't have any type of ranging reticle anyway, so I think, faults and all, it is ahead of the game.

Comparative Optical Evaluation:

The optics of the Firefield 1-6x24 are much like its physical appearance in that they are better than you would expect at their price point. I would like to point out a few challenging aspects of this scope's design before I discuss its performance. It is very short compared to almost any other scope in my table, 1-6x as opposed to the more common 1-4x, and front focal plane. All of these factors compound the difficulty of scope design. Despite these factors, the Firefield performed well.

More specifically, the resolution of the Firefield was better than the Korean GRSC, though less impressive than the Nikon. Its field of view is virtually identical to the Nikon. This is a middle-of-the-road field of view in general, but when you are one of the least expensive scopes available, being middle-of-the-road is never a bad thing. Chromatic aberration was more challenging for the Firefield. It demonstrates an easily seen green fringing at the interface of light and dark objects in the field of view. This was more dramatic than with other optics tested, though not by a huge amount.

Most difficult for the Firefield was the handling of stray light. This poses a problem for all optics to varying degrees and in varying situations. Bright light positioned at 10 to 20 degrees off of the line of sight of the optic was most problematic for the Firefield. This is a lighting circumstance that most optics find difficult. It can be encountered by shooters facing in the direction of the sun in the morning or evening when the sun is low to the horizon. I was less patient in my testing and simply pointed the scope at the appropriate angle to the sun at the time of day that I was out. that is why there are clouds, sky, and treetops in the demonstration photos below. You will see in these photos that at 1x you can get some greenish light artifacts. At 6x, partial whiteout of the field of view is noted and the reticle gains a frosted appearance. Do not be deceived by the appearance of the 6x photo. The sun is not within the field of view of the scope but rather quite a few degrees outside of it. It is a reflection of the sun off of the inside of the scope that causes that appearance. These photos do a good job of illustrating the extent to which stray light can be a problem to the Firefield in the absolute worst of circumstances. As problematic as that is, it could be much worse. Total whiteouts are not unheard of for some scopes in difficult lighting conditions. Even in the worst situation I could create, the Firefield was still useable.

The extent of stray light handling problems in the Firefield 1-6x24 at different magnifications with the sun positioned 10-20 degrees offset from the point of aim:



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at high magnification and maximum illumination:



Exit Pupil and Eyebox Discussion:

The exit pupil is the size of the disc of light at the point at which it is focused for your eye. Assuming you are using this scope for close quarters work and you are moving about:  your head will not be completely stationary regardless of how good your cheek weld is. A larger exit pupil will allow you to keep view of the object through the scope despite your movement, though it is notable that due to parallax error, the reticle will not be exactly where it should be when your head is far off center. People refer to the range through which your eye can move about and still get a good image as the "eyebox". A generous enough exit pupil is therefore a necessary ingredient for a scope to have a comfortable eyebox. The correlation between exit pupil and the perceived forgiveness of the eyebox is not total just as the correlation between a forgiving eyebox and the speed of an optic is not overwhelming. Nevertheless, exit pupil is a necessary component of both these aspects of an optic's performance.

The exit pupil of the Firefield measured out to be quite a bit larger than most. It is not surprising, therefore, that it had a comfortable eyebox in practice. Here are the values I have measured for exit pupils that I have personally tested on various scopes so far, in descending order of 1x exit pupil size:

Nikon M-223 1x, 16.7mm, 4x, 5.3mm
Firefield 1-6x ffp 1x, 16.2mm, 6x, 4.6mm
Viper PST 1x, 16mm 4x, 6.4mm
Razor HD 1x ,13.2mm 4x, 6.5mm
GRSC K 1x, 13.1mm 4x, 6.7mm
GRSCJ 1x, 11.2mm 6x, 4.6mm
Leupold VX-6 1x, 10.7mm, 6x, 4.4mm
Leupold CQ/T 1x, 9mm 3x 4.86mm
Elcan Specter DR 1x, 8.0mm 4x, 7.4mm

Illumination Evaluation:

1x illuminated compilation photo, all scopes set to maximum red illumination:



As you can see from the compilation photo, the Firefield does not have daytime bright illumination. Similarly, you can see that neither did the other scopes that I had as comparisons. They all appear to have unlit reticles. Because of this, I tacked on a couple of images taken for another review of the daytime bright Elcan Specter DR and Leupold VX-6 so that you can see what daytime bright illumination looks like through my camera. Daytime bright illumination is difficult for any conventional scope due to the way in which the illumination is reflected off the reticle. This is particularly difficult if the scope is first focal plane and has a fine reticle like the Firefield. The below photos are though the Firefield at night. Do not be put off by the bizarre distortion or fuzziness of the reticle. The reticle does not actually appear this way, but my camera is incapable of taking photos with so little light to work with.

Firefield 1-6x24 illumination at night, lowest setting:



As can be seen in these photos, the Firefield offers the user a choice of red or green illumination. In either case the whole of the reticle is illuminated rather than a single dot. This allows for ranging in low light. I am not really a fan of this dual scheme since it results in few brightness settings for each color. This is particularly pronounced on the Firefield. While it gets as bright as I expect it could given the limitations of a thin reticle and front focal plane, it doesn't back off much on the lower settings. The lowest setting is probably only half as luminous as the highest and as a consequence, the illumination can be quite overwhelming in truly low light.

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:

I think I will start with the good news. The Firefield owned the power change test. This test is performed by shooting a group at the highest power and then, on an adjacent target, shooting another group at the lowest power. In theory both groups show the same respective aim points. This is especially true for front focal plain scopes. Unlike those of second focal plain, front focal plane scopes should demonstrate no point of aim shift whatsoever. In practice they sometimes do though. As you can see in the scan, the Firefield was perfect. I was surprised and pleased.

Firefield 1-6x24 power change test:



Now for the bad news, those big exposed turrets are mostly decorative. In the box test, the shooter aims at the same place when firing all shots, but moves the adjustments between groups such that a box is formed by the groups fired. This box should be square and the corners (i.e. the groups) should be the correct distance from each other as dictated by the scale of the scopes adjustments. For me, test this means that all of the groups should have the same position relative to the black boxes. They do not. While the box formed rectangular, indicating that the adjustments are functioning independently, and the final group does land on top of the first, indication that the scope returns to zero, the groups do not have the same position relative to the black boxes. The cause of this is that the adjustment magnitudes are not the 1/2 moa they claim. They are also not the same as each other. The windage is significantly less than 1/2 moa and the elevation is more than 1/2 moa. This comes down to a meaning of approximately 1/2 moa for the adjustment magnitude. This is fine for zeroing a scope, but not for using the adjustments to compensate for drop and windage. I feel compelled to note here that neither the scope nor myself is responsible for the obesity of these groups. The latest brick of Fed 719 ammo I have been using is garbage. These were actually the best targets I could come up with. After shooting these with the Firefield, I also strapped on my 14x Zeiss just to be sure that it was not the scope. Things did not improve. Only when I switched ammo did things get better. Bad Federal - no soup for you.

Firefield 1-6x24 box test:



Before we leave the adjustments section, I would like to talk a little about the size, feel, and construction. Usually I do not take apart the adjustment knobs, but the elevation knob was loose on my scope when it arrived. It turned out that it was not the three zero-adjust screws that were loose, but rather a second set of three below. The knob is designed something like a Russian nesting doll. This is perhaps to facilitate the use of different possible knob styles with the some core mechanism. Though the knobs chosen look handsome, I would have preferred them to go with smaller covered ones. This is especially true since the adjustments are not the right magnitude and therefore not fit for use compensating for windage and drop. Zeroing-only adjustments, though not ideal when paired with a mil hash reticle, aren't the end of the world; but I wouldn't parade them around quite so prominently. Lastly, you might want to put an index mark on the saddle so the user will have something to line up the zero mark on the knob with.

Firefield adjustment knob construction:



Some Notes on Durability:

As most of my readers know, I don't do durability testing. The reason for this is cost. The way I figure it, to truly know if a scope will hold zero or not you have to expose it to thousands of cycles of recoil. Unless you have a custom-built machine like the one in Leopold's lab in Beaverton, that would involve a great deal of expensive ammo as well as a lot of wear on a firearm. Given that I do most of my mechanical testing using a .22lr bolt gun to save money, you can guess my opinion on all this cost.

On this scope review, I had an unusual circumstance allowing me to accomplish some recoil resistance testing without incurring unpleasant financial bruises. I was not the only one testing one of these scopes. In a land far, far away; a friend of mine had a second scope that he was playing with... with his full auto. What he found was that after 80 .308 rounds followed and 200 .223 rounds at full auto, his diopter doesn't seem to be working quite right. Now it seems that you can be focused at 6x or 1x, but not both at the same time. I expect this means that one of the locking collars on a lens loosened up, though he also concedes that it is possible that he simply did not notice the diopter problem before. Either way, I think it is probably ultimately a quality control problem rather than a design problem. It just seems to me more like a looseness than a brokenness, so I think is likely that few scopes will be so effected. Either that or Sellmark is crazy, because they are offering a lifetime warranty.

In addition to eschewing recoil testing, I have also refrained from dunking the scopes in water or dragging them behind automobiles. I suspect that you can guess why I don't drag them behind my truck, but I really never had a good reason for the other except that I didn't expect that I would have any failures anyway. That is not really a good reason.

With that in mind I set out to deep six the Firefield, but before I did the deed I thought it might be wise to make sure it was waterproof. The Firefield has a very specific and impressive sounding line in their literature about waterproofing. It says that the Firefield is IPX4 waterproof. That sounds like some special grade of waterproofing. Like maybe it is even resistant to the water that somehow gets through the Goretex in my waterproof boots. That must be special water and perhaps this scope is immune to even such assaults. That is not what IPX4 waterproof means. It has a very specific meaning and that is, "Water splashing against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effect." Perhaps this is a degree of waterproof in the technical sense, but in the common vernacular it is not. In the common vernacular 'waterproof' means IPX7 or 8; immersion proof to varying depths. So, I didn't dunk the scope, but I did learn all about ingress protection ratings.


Summary and Conclusion:

If you were expecting a totally clean bill of health for this scope and are now sitting here disappointed, I am sorry to disappoint you. Furthermore, I am not going to insult you by telling you that your expectations were totally unreasonable. A $180 scope is never going to match up with a $2,000 Elcan. Furthermore, the Elcan didn't get a totally clean bill of health anyway.  What you have with this scope is an optic that, for $180, manages to pack in a large 1-6x power range, compact size, and better-than-cost optical performance. It also far exceeds expectations in close quarters use. The only major downside may be durability, but this is somewhat offset by a non-transferable lifetime warranty to the original purchaser. While I am still not totally thrilled with the idea of budget optics, I think this Firefield represents a good value at $180:  it looks like its worth twice that.

Here is your Pro and Con Breakdown:

Pros:
Inexpensive
Large 1-6x power range
Compact footprint
Better than cost clarity
Significantly better than cost close quarters speed
Reticle is the correct size and capable of ranging using the mil system
Comes with acceptable rings
Comes with protective flip caps
Lifetime warranty to the original owner

Cons:
Adjustments are not the correct magnitude, exposed and a bit large, and have no index line for the zero
Reticle is too thick at 6x and looks uneven rather than crisp at the edges
The illumination is not daytime bright and also does not have low enough settings for use in very low light
Eyepiece cap is to small and therefore came broken
May have less than ideal QC

Jim:



Any plans on reviewing the new IOR Valdada 1.5-8 scopes? They have a new offering with .25moa knobs and daytime bright illuminated reticle. FYI. The Pitbull's illumination has also been upgraded to the same brightness.

I do not anticipate any more IOR reviews of any kind in the future with the possible exception of some possible Shot show mini reports. When I spoke to Val at Shot he was not comfortable with the idea of his 1-10x scopes occupying the same line up as 1-8x scopes from other makers as he believed the comparison of an 1-8x with a 1-10x unfair. This was quite the turn off for me as comparisons are always necessarily somewhat imperfect with regards to price or power range or other some other features. It is the responsibility of myself as well as my readers to exercise are judgement in writing and reading comparisons of products that are not totally comparable.

More generally, the distinct sense that I got from Val was that he did not particularly want me to review his products in general. Given that my review of the Pitbull a few years back was pretty negative, I am not surprised by this. It is possible that I may encounter folks in the Central Ohio area in the future with IOR products that will wish me to write up reviews but barring that I don't really expect to again have an IOR product on hand.

Well that is enough of a turnoff that I will not be considering them for future purchases.





 

Yes Id have to say there is indeed something wrong with your sights.

Yeah, I noticed that in a different post some time back where I had borrowed the same reticule diagram, and went back and changed the linked picture, guess I missed one.  

ETA:  Went back and edited the post with the diagram from Trijicon's website, hopefully they won't do me like that!  But you can go back and look at the original picture by clicking the link above.  

~Augee

Boy am I ever glad that I copied the original Trijicon photo and hosted it on my photo bucket instead of inserting the original post link. I do this to prevent dead photos from occurring when other folks delete things they think are no longer in use. I never considered that there might be more, shall we say disturbing, consequences to posting links to photos that you don't yourself host.

On an entirely separate note, I got my Shot show credentials a few weeks back so I'm getting all geared up for this years Shot blog. In another week or two I should have enough time with the slowing of work to update the table and get some prep work done in order to be as productive as possible at the show.

Did I miss the page where the POI between power changes review on the 1-4 SWFA, NXS and Accuboint TR24 was?? Search Fu is off today.

Thanks

I have never done hands on testing of any of these three optics and I do not believe any of the reviews, written by others, hosted here included a power change test.

Shot show is next week. I'll be doing a write up of the USO 1-8x, Leupold MK6 1-6x,  Vortex 1-6x, and Optisan 1-6x as well as what ever else I come across that strikes my fancy.

I find this very exciting.  I have seen the Vortex and the Leupold in person and was very impressed with both.  The glass on the Vortex is very nice and I felt the Leupold was an incredible optic as well.  I think the USO has a lot of promise and the Vortex is potentially a best buy in low powered variables right now.

Mr. BigJimFish,

Thanks a ton!

As I've posted in another thread, I have a new SWFA SS 1x4 that I really can't live with the "eye box" as it compares to my older Burris XTR-14. I'm trying to determine if the exit pupil of the SS is supposed to be so much different than the XTR, I can't seem to track down any exit pupil numbers from testing them, just some factory optimal numbers for the XTR. I'd be happy to setup my own test for the samples that I have, but without others to measure I won't know if I have a bad SS or its what I should expect.

Is the test as easy as shining a light down the tube and setting up a vertical surface at the recommended eye relief or find the point where the exit pupil is the largest and then measure that with my calipers?

Thanks again.

great right up thanks for the info.

can you do a comp of the Bushnell elite tact 1-6.5 in sfp and they have a new 1-8.5 as well that looks like the perfect 3gun/ all around.
thanks

If you bought a VX-6 before the "Multi-Gun" model as I did with the ILL Circle Dot you can have it changed.  I sent mine in to Leupold and had it changed to the SPR
like in the Mulit-Gun ( for lack of a better reticle from Leupold ) for $159.  They did my custom turret for free too.  

T

Try and do a write up on the Vortex 1-6 with the JM1 (?)  Jerry Miclulek reticle for 3 Gun!   I saw it in Vegas at Handgun Nationals but the red dot looked less bright
than on my VX-6.....???

T

I have the Vortex and the dot is definitely bright enough and usable enough as a red dot sight on 1X in the bright TX sun.






 

U.S. Optics SR-8 BigJimFish Shot Report 1/19/2013.

You may have noticed, as I have, that USO scopes have recently begun to be available through a variety of outlets and in a variety of standard configurations. You may also have noticed that ERGO parallax, which accounted for only 1 in 30 scopes sold, has been discontinued. What the folks at USO realized is that they were suffering a great amount of inefficiency in production for a very few unusual scope orders. What they have decided to do about it is to make a few standard scope models that they will stock for immediate delivery and which will be available though distributors at a lesser cost while keeping the true, full custom stuff available only directly thorough themselves at a higher cost. This will allow most customers a little price break as well as increasing production throughput without leaving those who want unusual features out in the cold. It will also cut down or eliminate wait time for most orders. We’ll see how it pans out over the next year or so, but I expect that it will be a change for the better.

It is also notable that USO has changed the name of virtually every scope they make. SN-3 will no longer refer to any one of eight optical systems. The new names, such as SR-8 for their new short range 1-8x will make a little more sense and only be used one to a chassis.

Speaking of the SR-8, which is what you wanted to know about anyway, a final production version of the daytime bright, red dot illuminated model was shown this year at the show. This is not the only model offered, but rather one of three to be initially rolled out. The SR-8 will be offered in S, C, and M configurations. The SR-8s has conventional, reflected off the reticle and not daytime bright, illumination and will cost $2k. The SR-8c has what amounts to red dot illumination that is daytime bright and runs $2,500, and, if I remember correctly, the SR-8m has both illuminations and runs $2650. In the future there is also a plan for a 34mm SR-8 that will feature an EREK elevation knob.

The SR-8c next to my reference GRSC 1-6x. Sorry for the slightly fuzzy pic.


What I had to play with at the show was the mid priced SR-8c red dot model and it was a great improvement over last year’s early prototype. Most obviously, it has daytime bright red dot illumination. Quite surprisingly, given that last year PR and S&B were showing finished prototypes with this technology, USO is actually the first 1-8x to come to market with this feature, as the Leupold CQBSS is not illuminated in this fashion. I was completely surprised by this as S&B has apparently been so bedeviled by this feature that their scope has been sitting on a shelf mocking them whereas USO just up and did it. Now, to be fair, what S&B has been saying to me is that they just can’t get the dot perfectly lined up in a reasonable amount of time and, on 8x, I did notice that the USO dot was just a tiny bit off. How tiny you ask, well do you notice it in the picture? Didn’t think so. Beyond that, the dot is really for 1x use and being a very tiny bit off at 8x is not a substantial functional problem, though it might annoy you. I have to admit, a little sheepishly, that I did not think that USO would be able to make a dot illuminated 1-8x work. They were dinking around with this dual focal plane stuff that just didn’t seem to make things much brighter and everybody was crying about how expensive the flash dot technology was to do and I thought USO, having never done it before, would not be able to get the job done. Well they did. It’s a dot and its bright.

At 1x with the illumination maxed out:


At 8x with the illumination maxed out:


As for the rest of the scope, I have some cheers and some jeers. We’ll start with the jeers so we can end on a good note. The field of view on the SR-8 is smaller than most at 83.25ft. It is true that other high ratio scopes are generally smaller in field of view than lower ratio scopes, but the Leupold and the March 1-8x scopes are substantially larger than the USO. I also found the USO to be darker than my comparison GRSC 1-6x at 1x. This is not typically the case when comparing high (USO) and mid ranged (GRSC) scopes as both price brackets transmit so much light that one really can’t tell a difference in most lighting conditions. The USO guys assured me that the light transmission is 85% on that optic so perhaps it has something to do with the specific wavelengths in the poorly lit ballroom but it was unquestionably darker in appearance to my eye.

On the good side, the resolution was easily better than my comparison GRSC. I also found the eyebox useable and I think the mini Christmas tree mil reticle offered will appeal to a great any folks who intend long range use. The clicks also felt very good. USO has a smooth but firm feel to their clicks that I find pleasing.

So all in all, a win, and at a price that will keep it competitive even when the S&B, which yes, is better, is released. I’m proud of USO for the quick study on flash dot type lighting.

As Shot show has just ended, and I am tired and will be in transit all of tomorrow. I will handle the March 1-8x, Vortex 1-6x and the Bushnell 1-8.5x in the coming weeks along with quite a lot of other optics that I have seen.

Thanks for reading,
Jim

Bushnell 1-8.5x24mm Elite Tactical Shot Show 2013 report by BigJimFish

Bushnell 1-8.5x24mm Elite Tactical scope:


As you can see from the photo, the Bushnell 1-8.5x24mm is a rather hefty looking affair. It sports a 34mm tube and big, knobby, adjustments. The adjustments do lock and provide 10 mils per rev, so perhaps they at least announce, if not quite justify, their purpose for their size. However, the big tube does not actually sport an objective any bigger than a 30mm tube (actually, it's 3mm smaller than that of the USO 1-8x) and nobody really thinks that a 30mm 1-8x scope would lack elevation range (Bushnell's 30mm 1-6.5x24mm has more than 40 mils).  In short, somebody in marketing thought that their new flagship AR scope ought to sport a big beefy 34mm instead of the more svelte 30. If your wondering, it weighs 23oz to the 1-6.5's 18.5oz, so having a big, knobby, tube is not without its costs, regardless of how you feel about size mattering. I can't help but feel that this scope could have made 20oz without loosing a sliver of functionality.

Bushnell 1-8.5x at 1x with maximum illumination:
Bushnell 1-8.5x24mm Shot Show 2013 report
1/21/2013
By Les (Jim) Fischer



Bushnell 1-8.5x at 8x with no illumination:


Bushnell is quite proud of the brightness of the illumination system in the new 1-8.5x. It does not use the beam splitter tech of the USO or S&B or a fiber system like the Leupold VX-6 or Vortex 1-6x, but it is nevertheless bright. The tech used appears to be of the conventional reflection off of the reticle variety and I am surprised how bright they managed to get it. It glares a bit (you can see the stray illumination in the 1x photo), giving you a feeling that they're pushing the limits like an engine running on nitrous, but I would definitely characterize it as daytime bright. I wonder how long the batteries will last, or, rather, not last. The illumination control is analog and has 9 brightness settings + 2 additional night vision settings. The reticle being illuminated is the same as that in last years 1-6.5x. They call it the BTR-2 and it is a horseshoe with a little mil scale below it.

The clarity of the new 1-8.5x is exactly the same as my GRSC reference scope, though its field of view is better than the GRSC. It's good clarity, though at the $2k price point, I expected the next step up in glass. Adding the extra 2.5x in magnification is nice, very nice, but this is a much higher priced optic. I thought last year that the 1-6.5x should have been less expensive and I am leaning that way on this one as well. $2k is really Shott glass territory with scopes like the USO 1-8x.

As for hands on looking about with this scope, I didn't notice any real problems. The eyebox seemed ok and the adjustments felt fine. I just went away feeling that the optic was designed by a marketing department to fit what they thought it ought to look like. I didn't feel that form followed function, but rather the other way around. That, and I thought it cost too much for a scope that does not have dot illumination or, I suspect, Shott glass.

Thank you Jim, the 1-8.5 was the scope I was anticipating this year. Looks like it missed the mark for me.  What was your impression of the Christmas tree reticule in the USO?

Is there a reticle in that 1-8.5 1x image?  I could be going crazy but I cant see it.

Me neither. I thought I was going insane. Now I know I have company.

I'm also hugely curious whether BigJimFish managed to get his hands on the Bushnell 1-4x24 Throw Down PCL scope. That looked like a lot of scope for the money, especially if the glass is good. What's the scoop, Jim?

The 1-8x USO that I had the chance to look at hat the C2 Mil instead of the Christmas tree CD Mil. If the literature is correct the only differences are a little more thickness to the CD's circle and the Christmas tree feature. I would go with the CD Mil for that extra feature. It doesn't look to me to be invasive and it would aid you greatly if you want to hold for drop and wind.



And now you see the advantage of dot type illumination with fiber or beam splitter technology. Really, the camera has done a dis-service to the Bushnell here. The reticle is much more noticeable in person. I would even say that it is daytime bright. However, the stray illumination seen in the photo on the edge of the field of view is just as present in person because this scope is really trying to do to much with an illumination system that is not suited for it.



I'm afraid that I did not notice this optic and it was not presented to me when I asked to see the new products for this year. Chalk it up to a lot of scopes in a little time. This one fell though the cracks I'm afraid.

Have there been any reviews on Mueller's 1-4x24 Speed Shot?

Not in this thread.  Google  Military Arms Channel on Youtube and he did a review and posted it here somewhere

March 1-8x24mm ffp 2013 Shot Show Report BigJimFish

Three years and nine days ago I wrote a review of the March 1-10x 2nd focal plane scope. It was only my third review, and the first that I ever did on a scope that I did not, myself, own. I would like to think that I have come a long way from that point. The question is, has March?

I think so. I know, that's not real satisfying. The big problem that the 1-10x had is that the eye box was really, really small and, ignoring the obvious problem comparing scopes across three years and 2,000 miles, this one seemed better. How much better? Well, it wasn't difficult to set up the photos through the scope on this one. With the 1-10x it took quite a lot of tries to get that one usable 10x photo that I posted and it was still just a little off center. The experience I had in using this one also did not seem to be hindered by constant unfriendly reminders that my head was off center. Now, to be fair, the 1-8x was nicely mounted in Kelbly's homemade tripod mounted scope comparator for Shot. So, I could be totally off base with this assessment. 'I think so' means just that. Given the data that I have, and my gut feelings on the matter, I think that the 1-8x is more usable than the 1-10x, and dramatically so.

Profile view of the March 1-8x24mm ffp:


With the important question of eye box at least addressed if not answered, lets look at some other features. Unlike the 1-10x, this one is ffp and has mil knobs and a mil reticle. This will no doubt appeal to the 70% of tactical shooters that prefer mil/mil setups and ffp. The FOV is generous, larger than my reference scope despite the greater power range of the March. Clarity is good, which would be expected on a March.  The illumination, which is operated by a push button on the parallax knob, is not very bright, however. This is even true given the consideration that it utilizes reflected illumination technology rather than fiber or beam splitter. Not for illuminated daytime use.

View though the March 1-8x24mm at 1x with maximum illumination:


View through the March 1-8x24mm at 8x with maximum illumination:


I think that the most interesting features of the 1-8x are not to be found in the primarily close quarters aspects of the scopes design such as illumination and eye box, though. I think that this scope is much better characterized as a long range optic that will do CQB than as a close range optic that will do for an occasional long shot. The March 1-8x24mm has two important features that are common in high end long range scopes but not in CQB scopes. These are a 10 mil per turn zero stop elevation turret, and a side focus (10yds on) parallax adjustment. Few other scopes in the 1-(n)x genre have these features, both of which are acknowledged to be, if not vital for long range precision shooting, at least tremendously helpful.

Prices for the 1-8x24mm March will be $2,100 without illumination and a disproportionately higher $2,720 with illumination. Like all March optics, they are available only through Kelbly's in the States. While I don't think that these match up well to the needs of the well heeled AR shooter who is looking to occasionally take a long shot with his .223, I think that those shooting M110 type AR-10's or SCAR heavies primarily long distances should take a look.  

I am curious why I haven't seen a good review of the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 series.  I have found plenty of "reviews" that seem more like marketing than a real review on them.

Waiting for a good review as well.  Looks like its a winner and i want one!!

Leupold at Shot Show 2013 MK 6 1-6

This year Leupold and Leupold Tactical decided to patch things up and leave the redheaded mistress out on her own. That is to say, that the Leupold and Leupold tactical booths were together and Redfield was all alone. I thought this made a bit more since and I'm not sure why they did it the other way last year but they did. The new arrangement combined with the lack of a posse of radical new Leupold tactical optics gave me a great deal more time to handle the optics this year. While it still wasn't perfect, it was certainly headway. I got some real quality time with the 1-6x20 Mk 6 and even a little with the 3-18x.

Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm next to the reference GRSC 1-6x:


First of all, as I suspected, the MK 6 1-6x20mm that Leupold showed this year was not exactly the same optic I saw last year.  I suspected this because the one I saw last year had some odd and easy to fix optical problems. These problems combined with the NDA and the long lead time before planned delivery made me think prototype, and so it apparently was. This year's MK 6 did not have issues; it looked excellent. The field of view is larger than the reference GRSC at both 6x and 1x. The Leupold does tunnel just a little near 1x, but I think that this is on purpose in order to flatten the field, or more precisely, cut off the curvy edges. Last year's prototype had part of the field of view blocked out by blacking out the edge of the reticle, but they hadn't gone quite wide enough and left a sliver of view outside of the intended limitation. That was the odd easy to fix optical problem. This year, no such issue. In my speed testing last year I found that the flatness of the field, or lack of barrel distortion, was one of the most vital elements when it comes to the speed of the optic. This Leupold at 1x may have the flattest field of view I have encountered in a scope. This is interesting because barrel distortion was the big problem that the Leupold VX-6 1-6x suffered from. In addition to having low barrel distortion, the glass in the MK 6 is very good. It is, and should be, better than the $1k reference GRSC.

I think that the features on the 1-6x will also be pleasing to many folks. It is ffp and utilizes a reticle with both stadia and scale (mil) ranging options as well as stadia drop and windage features. It also has knobs that are well suited for use in dialing dope. The elevation is low profile and exposed, but locks (only at zero) and is a single turn 10 mil knob with .2 mil increments. The windage also locks at zero and turns 5 mils each way with a stop. In short, the features of this optic allow it to be used fully in stadia mode with ranging based on shoulder widths and drop and windage held on cartridge specific lines or in scale mode with range calculated using the mil scale and drop dialed. You could also mix and match. The diopter on the MK6 is a locking euro style which is small and kind of hard to get a hold of, but certainly won't get bumped off its setting. The mag ring, as with Leopold's other close quarters scopes, is the whole eyepiece and can be easily gripped and turned.

Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm at 1x with maximum illumination:


Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm at 6x with maximum illumination:


This brings us to the illumination, which, I am a little dim on. Or, at least not certain that I will be happy with. The illumination system lights the small horseshoe and dot in the center of the reticle. It does this brighter than I would have expected, given that it appears to use reflected illumination technology. As you can see in the photo, the appearance of this configuration at 1x is very similar to that of an actual beam splitter type flash dot. The uncertainty that I have is:  will that be how it will appear outside on a sunny day and against a light background? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I would also like to know how long this scope will run on a battery. Beam splitter illumination and fiber illumination based optics can often run several days and reflected illumination scopes often do not make the first day. Lastly, while I'm piling on the illumination system, for some unknown reason Leupold decided that instead of using the simple threaded battery cap that everybody has always used, they would make the battery accessible by door. You can see that buggered up door in the profile picture of the scope. It is located in the normal place, on the side of the analogue illumination control knob, but, being a door, has a little button in the side for releasing it. On the demo I held, someone had jabbed at the button with a knife or screwdriver and pried and scraped at the door. The button appeared to be broken. This makes me wonder how well the system works. It would not be an easy design to use a door and still have the thing both seal water tight and also open easily. I think that Leupold may have been going for a system where nobody could lose the battery cap, but ended up with one where people have trouble getting at the battery at all.

I think that before we leave the MK 6 1-6x, it is worth mentioning that these are already in service overseas. Leupold participated in a fairly large Soldier Enhancement Program of troops currently in theater. I am sure that the troops appreciate their new MK 6 1-6x scopes as they far more capable than either red dot sights or fixed 4x ACOGs

Excellent review Jim!  This and the Vortex 1-6 are the two reviews I was awaiting before making a decision.  Daytime illumination is important to me.  And not sure I like the battery compartment on the Leupold.  Can't wait to read your Vortex HD review.  Nudge Nudge!  

Vortex 1-6x24mm Shot 2013 Report by BigJimFish

Last year, the Razor HD Gen II 1-6x24mm dropped just after the show. Unusual. I suspect that the timing was accidental and owing to some last minute problem in a plan that was cut too close to start with. The result is that this scope has been out and floating around for awhile now, and all I have heard are good things. I have been anxious to take a look myself.

Vortex Razor 1-6x24mm HD Gen II next to the GRSC 1-6x reference scope:


As you can see from the picture, the new Razor 1-6x is just about exactly the same size as the GRSC 1-6x. This is also very close to the same size as the Razor 1-4x was. Though the form is roughly the same, a few changes have been made with regard to the turrets and illumination control.  The new turrets are capped to avoid accidental bumps. They are low profile, but wide, and have 50moa per turn with 1/2moa click. Zero can be changed on these by removing one screw, pulling off the turret, and putting it back with the new alignment. The new illumination control is a locking, exposed, analog unit. You pull out to adjust and push in to lock. The weight of this new optic is a very surprising 25.2 oz. The reference GRSC is 18.6oz and the Razor 1-4x is 20.2oz. This new Razor weighs more than a Leupold CQBSS and lags behind only the IOR 1-10x Eliminator as the heaviest in the whole 1-(n)x class. I'm really not sure how so much poundage was packed into such a small package. It must be basically solid glass back to front.

Fortunately, all that glass is not being wasted. The Razor 1-6x is noticeably optically superior to the GRSC reference scope, which was virtually identical to the Razor 1-4x in my earlier testing. I had noticed that the OEM I believe both GRSC and Vortex use for these optics put out some scopes with another step up in glass this year and Vortex appears to be using this glass on the 1-6x. In addition to this greater clarity, the 1-6x also takes great steps in regards to field of view, adding more than 20 feet to the GRSC or older Razor 1-4x at 1x magnification. I suspect that the switch to 2fp from ffp facilitated this change.

The switch in focal plane was also accompanied by a switch in reticle type and illumination technology. Whereas the previous 1-4x reticle had a floating glass etched reticle and conventional shine forward reflect back illumination; this scope has no floating elements, I suspect that the reticle is wire, and it utilizes a fiber illumination system. For those who do not remember back to the Leupold VX-6 1-6x article, fiber illumination systems are, by nature, point only, are easily daytime bright, do not allow illumination to escape out of the front of the optic, and require the reticle to go all the way to the edge of the field of view to hide the fiber element. They are also very battery efficient.

Vortex Razor 1-6x24mm HD Gen II at 1x with maximum illumination:


Vortex Razor 1-6x24mm HD Gen II at 6x with maximum illumination:


Speaking of the reticle, the Razor 1-6x is currently only available in one reticle choice. This reticle, called the JM-1, was designed by Jerry Miculek for three-gun use. It features drop lines at 300, 400, 500, and 600 yards from a 200 yard zero. The drops are calibrated for Jerry's 60gr V-Max load. Each drop line is about width of 8.6" at the appropriate distance at 6x. It is a sparse reticle that I think will be very popular with three-gunners, but is of limited usefulness for other purposes.

This brings us to my summary of the Razor 1-6x. I think that the specificity of the reticle is a good model for the scope as a whole. It is designed to be very appealing to a competitive three-gunner. The glass is good and has an excellent field of view. The illumination is point only, but daytime bright. The reticle is uncluttered, but has a few drop and ranging features that are very specific to three-gun use. Lastly, the weight, which is well beyond the norm, will not really adversely effect the user in a three-gun match. With a street price of $1.4k, this scope comes in at more than $1,000 less than the Swarovski Z6i that is so popular with three-gunners. I believe it is an excellent choice for the competitive three-gunner, but that the weight and reticle limit its appeal to a more general audience.

A most excellent review Jim!  Thank you so much.  How would this Vortex compare to the daytime illumination to the Leupold 1-6 you recently reviewed?  And if I may ask how comparable is the glass for each?  I thank you much for this comprehensive thread.

I would very much like to see a head to head comparison to the MK6, Razor HD II, SS, and Bushnell 1-6x scopes.

The Vortex, with its fiber illumination system, is as bright as you will ever want it. The Leupold VX-6 uses the same tech and has the same results. The Leupold Mk6 does not use this tech and, though it appeared daytime bright at the show I am not certain how that will translate into actual outdoor use. I expect that I will be doing a full testing this mid year with the 1-8x scopes and I will have a definite answer at that time.

As for the glass, I am confident in saying that the Vortex is both clearer and flatter than the VX-6. It is a better optical platform and will be faster. Both the Vortex 1-6x and Mk6 struck me as having very excellent glass and I have no idea which is better.



This will probably not happen for lack of time, and admittedly, interest, on my part. I have a pretty good idea from my Shot reports about the Razor HD II and Bushnell 1-6x and don't really have any questions that need to be answered. The Bushnell is basically the exact same optical platform as a GRSC with an inferior reticle, higher price, and better warranty. The Razor is a generation better and, if you are a 3 gunner, or can get by the weight and specific reticle, is quite excellent. I will be reviewing the Mk6 with the 1-8x scopes since it is really priced more like them anyway and this should answer any questions about illumination. As for the SS, I really don't know. My guess is that it utilizes the same optical platform of the GRSC and the Bushnell 1-6x because this is an off the shelf light optics platform but that is a guess pure and simple. I have not had one to look at myself. Perhaps at some point I will look into that.

Thanks again Jim!  Much appreciated.  To me the Vortex is the best option.  I can be certain of the daytime illumination.  The optical aspect, clarity, and flatness are superb.  And I love the reticle.  The weight is no issue to me and the price is right.

I'm glad that you posted this info, as this is the first I've seen it explained nicely anywhere:

I am too, as it puts the scope in the do not want category. The MK6 has my full attention right now though.

BJF thanks for the info about the others too, that's info I didn't have. I will likely sell my SS when it comes in in favor of the MK6.

Thanks again for all the excellent work you put into this report BigJimFish.

Have you had a chance to check out the SWFA SS 1-6x HD?  And if so, how does it compare to the Razor HD and Leupold Mark6?

I too just want to say thanks as well, I find this thread to be exceptionally interesting.

This may happen. I now have a video camera and some software capable of simple video editing. I may try some videos out this spring. There are some instructional films I would like to do as well as video review summaries. I don't have any background in film though so I'm going to be making it up as I go along.

On a different note, believe it or not the 1-8x showdown is actually now scheduled to happen after only 3 years of postponement. I should be getting the scopes at the end of July which means I should have it all written up in mid August. I have spoken with the reps and secured the following optics: USO SR-8 1-8x, Leupold MK8 1-8x and MK6 1-6, Bushnell 1-8.5x, March FFP 1-8x, and, if it is completed in time, the S&B 1-8x. I will also have the GRSC 1-6x and Elcan Specter DR 1/4x on hand as comparisons.

Behold, The table has been updated to reflect Shot 2013 releases and the Shot reports I wrote about them. I have also gone through and updated all the prices and positions in the table. I have not only posted the table here but also updated it on the first post of the thread. You may notice a new color on the table. Optics in gray have been discontinued. Rather than remove reference to the optics altogether I did this so that folks shopping the used market can still benefit from those reviews.

Nice BigJimFish!  Your making it too easy.  Look forward at you looking at more scopes.

Wow tons of great information in here. Why does there have to be so many of these scopes! I am looking for a 1-4x or 1-6x for a general purpose 14.5" midlength rifle. Probably shooting paper/clays from 100-300 yards maximum. Since its 14.5" id also like this to be my HD rifle and just leave the power on 1x for that. Looking for illumination as well whether its battery powered or tritium.

Looking to keep the cost below $800 w/ a LaRue QD mount. What would be the best scope for this? Really thinking the Burris XTR fits the bill.

You could get a Vortex Viper HS 1-4, Viper PST 1-4 or a Viper PST 2.5-10x44. If you're not looking for a FFP reticle, the 2.5-10x44 is a hell of a scope and a killer deal at $600. Vortex usually compares to scopes 1 price range up. I'm thinking of getting a PST 2.5-10x32 which has an FFP reticle. It runs $799 and is comparable to a $1600 Nightforce NXS compact, but the NF doesn't have a FFP reticle.
If you want a 1x, Check out the Leupold VX6 1-6. It's a little above your budget, but a nice scope. Bushnell and Burris also have some nice 1-4/1-6 ish scopes around $500 I think.
 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/605837_UPDATE__Mueller_speed_shot_1_4x_30mm___half_review___.html

ordered a leupold mark 6 1-6 w the TMR reticle today.  



Thanks for this thread, i researched and thought for months before I bought.  

Jim, you mentioned the Razor HDII's JM-1 reticle has ranging capability but I'm positive it doesn't, I even asked in the Vortex forum.  So positive I went back to swarovski's 1-6 BRT-I