Well that's what the rep at Shot said. I wouldn't call it useful ranging as it's drop lines are 10" wide at distance and ranging 10" wide object with a 6x scope is not what I would call a precision operation or one with a high probability of success. Looked like about 10" wide at distance drop lines to me at Shot though so I don't have much reason to doubt the rep. I could change the rating in the table to no on the range estimation but than I would have to change it for all scopes that have a poor system and that's darn near all of them isn't it. I'm going to stand by my call but your call on the ranging of the Swarovski being better is a fair enough judgement.

I guess it is "possible" to range with, but it isn't easy. a math genius could probably do it, I wouldn't know where to start.

the widths of the hashes are:
1st one down: 2.865 MOA wide
2nd one down: 2.15 MOA wide
3rd one down: 1.7 MOA wide
4th one down: 1.435 MOA wide

a bit more info here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_277/226139__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Ranging_with_the_RAZOR_HDII_.html&page=1#i1880619

the swarovski BRT is easier to range with as the substentions are in equidistant spaced in 1 mil.

but I wish it had some if the RAZOR HDII's features

Well that is very interesting. Not 10" at distance but rather about 8.6". I remember that size from some research I once did on average human proportions. It's the size of a head. Doesn't change the practical difficulties with trying to range with the system but interesting nevertheless. I will go back and change the shot report to reflect the better information.

Thanks for the heads up,
Jim

Jim - after reviewing your reviews and other research, I think I've narrowed down my choices of optics for my new FN Scar 17s to the following but I have some questions before plunking down $1-1.5 grand which I am hoping you can help me with.

-Vortex 1-6x Razor HD Gen II

-Leopold 1-6x VX-6 Multigun

-SWFA SS HD 1-6x24 Tactical

First, have you had a chance to get familiar with the Leopold Multigun...I believe you did a review of the Mark VI scope but I haven't seen any reviews of the VX-6 multigun that has the fire dot illuminated reticle.  Also, have you had a chance to get familiar with the SWFA SS HD 1-6x scope?  The specification information on the SWFA is hard to locate so I'm not sure what bells and whistles it has.  Lastly, what do you think will give me the most bang for my bucks.

The most important requirements are the following besides accuracy and clarity of optics are:
-true 1-6x variable power (1-8x would be great but too expensive for me)
-rugged build for hard use
-CQC ease of use

Thanks for your input.

I have a SS 1-6x, what information would you like?  

I have also had some trigger time one the VX-6 Multigun. I have no practical experience on the Vortex, but have looked through one. My initial impression was positive if it and I felt the glass was a touch better than the other 2.

The Multigun is a lot of scope for the money and is well made. The illumination is great but the ranging characteristics leave a little to be desired for me personally.

The SS is far from my favorite and I'll be selling it soon. The thing is heavy, and I'm not particularly fond of the reticule. It's built well and the glass is clear. The adjustments are nice and the caps are a nice option, though I wish they were smaller. They get hung up on other rifles when trying to put the rifle in a rack at a 3-gun match. The reticule gets cluttered by design at 3-5 power but on 1x and 6x it's great. Overall it's a nice optic, but I got some trigger time on a Leupold MK6 and I'm sold. All 3 you listed are great, but due to ease of getting one and features, I'd probably get the Multigun out of those choices.

The VX-6 Multigun optic review is on the top of page 22. You have presumably found the Vortex 1-6x Shot report in the middle of pg 24. I have no hands on experience with the SWFA HD 1-6x. Others have intimated to me that it may be based on the same optical platform as the GRSC 1-6x and Bushnell 1-6.5x. This is speculation since all three are scopes whose manufacture is subcontracted and the identity of the maker as well as the actual optical design contracted is not information that has been made available to me in most cases. I expect that this speculation is pretty good though even if not totally accurate. You may read the reviews or shot reports on those optics to get a good ideal of what to expect from the SWFA with the exception that the GRSC has an excellent reticle whereas the SWFA has, instead, an excellent warranty.

So the Mk6 is in your future?

Main question on the SWFA SS scope is whether the scope can be used for CQC on 1x power.  I would prefer the Leopuld Multigun or even the Leopuld 1-6x VX-6 with firedot but I'm a little concerned about the distortion that Jim refers to at 1x when using it with two eyes open CQC situations.  Also, the SWFA SS seems like a pig compared to Leopuld.  I think it weighs 22 oz?  Seems to defeat the purpose of having a light weight battle rifle (i.e. SCAR 17) by utting almost 1.5 pounds of scope on it.
'

BigJimFish - any way you can put the table you have on page one into excel format for download? I'd like to have it in a table that I can then sort on other things like weight, length, cost, etc...

I was able to get some trigger time on the MK6. I'm sold on it!  The Vortex is nice too and would be my second choice.

The SS on 1x is ok for CQC. I found the reticule very fast on 1x. But it's a bit heavy.  

Here are a couple images thru the Bushnell Tactical 1-8.5x. The first photo is at 1x. The second is at 2x. The rest are 8.5x.

1x at 9 brightness


Here is 2x at 9 brightness.


Here is 8.5x at 9 brightness.


Here is 8.5x at 5 brightness.




I'm glad to have FFP for mixed distances on same stage. I don't like having a different tick mark for each zoom factor.
Sometimes I forget to change to right zoom to line up the right vertical hold.

Bubinga2 - Thanks for the pics.  The Bushnell looks interesting but I don't have a clue as to how good of a product bushnell makes.  Can you let us know what you think of the build quality and your thoughts on generally if its a good bang for your buck variable power scope?

Thanks.

I'm still checking it out. I have a match this weekend, weather permitting, and will get more time with it. As far as bang for the buck... I think anything in this price range is crazy. USO, S&B, NF, Bush.... I think its crazy and I'm crazy, but having fun being crazy.

Actually the glass is better than my Leupold Mark 4 which it replaced. It's brighter and sharper. I saw my 223 hole at 200 yds and splashes on steel at 400 yds.  I think FFP helps a lot for the longer shots. It's easier to hold for wind and elevation without worry about what zoom it's set to.

I thought the Bushnell Elite series was pretty good for the money when I had it.  I've used the 4200 series for a while and it's been really reliable on holding zero at ranges over 500+.  Sold mine to fund another project, but I did like it.

The Weaver Tactical 1x5 is actually 9.5 inches long. The specs listed here say 10.3.  Great work with the research on this page , very helpful.

Really a very big thank you, especially to BigJimFish, but to the others who have written here, too.

An absolute great write-up, thanks a lot for sharing this!



But after all, for me there is a question left behind, which I can´t answer or don´t understand.

Why have all this scopes, which could (and were) used for service or duty DMR, such small front lences with 20-24mm?

In fact that means, that all of them have a con against other scopes with bigger front lenses in low light conditions.
So this "duty" - scopes are suboptimal, when dusk approaches.

Is there a reason for this or is there an advantage, that I don´t understand?


Begging for advice.

Good question! The answer to that one is related to the size of the dark-adjusted iris in the human eye.  If the exit pupil is already larger than your iris at night, extra objective diameter wont make things any brighter at all.  

The front lens only has to be 'big enough'.  Extra diameter (and exit pupil) doesnt help beyond a point.  Looking at the minimum exit pupil on most low power optics, youll find they're big enough to fill the iris with light.  FWIW, older eyes have smaller iris apertures at night than younger eyes, so its possible a young kid would benefit a little from a slightly larger objective.

This is also why most 3-9 scopes are 40mm and not 50mm or larger.  It simply doesnt help any beyond a point.

I cant remember if a larger objective makes the eyebox any more forgiving.  IIRC it doesnt, but I'd have to do some research to be sure.

If this has been mentioned before, I apologize for missing it, but:

Is there any chance of seeing someone's review of the Trijicon VCOG when it becomes available?

Thank you sir, I appreciate the response.

I´m curiously waiting for your results.

I am happy to update you all that I think that the scheduling is now in good order for the 1-8x reviews. Scheduling scope companies is like herding cats except that the cats are sometimes not sure if they exist and when they will be produced. The Bushnell 1-8.5x is currently in transit. They are also sending me the exciting 1 mile fusion ARC binos to play with at the same time. Leupold (Mark 8 and 6), USO, and March now have firm dates and will be reviewed together with the Bushnell in Mid July.  The Trijicon VCOG will also be reviewed at some point this summer. I expect that I will still have the Leupold and USO on hand at that time but the timing of all this is still speculative.

As for S&B, S&B is one of those cats I mentioned. I have one last ditch request in with S&B but the probability is that they will not be in the review because they are still not in production on the 1-8x and likely won't be this year. I still have an S&B 1-8x review planned but, regretfully, it will not likely be with the other 1-8x optics.

Just in case it has not been said yet

Thanks for all the time you have put into this it is really great.

Glad I can be of service.


The scopes are starting to trickle in.

Here is a teaser pic from day one of testing. Since that time all but one set of tests has been completed. I am hoping that the first review will be done in two weeks with one review to be posted each week until they are all done.

wow! Thats some high priced glass to review!

Awesome!

Several of those optics are on my Short List.  Looking forward to the reviews prior to making a purchase decision.

can you list which ones you've received so far ?

 

I don't entirely understand why, but it's due to inherent design limitations of high-erector ratio scopes with a true 1x bottom magnification.  With a 1x scope, it apparently gets very difficult to (usefully) increase the objective size much beyond 24mm.  One optics engineer suggested that you could probably design a good 1-8x50 scope, but it'd likely end up something like 20 inches long and weigh 4 pounds, and its performance advantage over a current top of the line small-objective scope like the March 1-10x26 (which is 10.5" long, 20 oz) might not be that dramatic.

If we may take requests, can you do the optisan prestige first please? There are only 1-2 detailed reviews on this that I can find online.

First, thanks for all the research and time! I do have one request though. When you take 1X pictures, could you by chance take them so that we can see the object outside of, and through the scope? Something like a fence post from 10 yards or so would be perfect to illustrate true low end magnification and edge distortion.

Great work!

Looking forward to the reviews.

Is there a link to a google doc or excel version of the chart?  Something similar would work as I just can't copy/ paste the text.  I'd like to get this into excel so I can use the sort and filter features to make comparing a handful of choices easier.  

Thanks in advance!!

I'm afraid this one will be a while yet. I expect it will probably be last. It is not really part of this set of reviews. I will elaborate in the future. I am doing the reviews in the order the products must be returned. I think the order will be: March, followed by the Bushnell, the Leupold CQBSS, U.S. Optics, Leupold MK6. At some point the Trijicon VCOG may show up. If this is the case it will be set alongside the MK 6 for evaluation. That is, if time allows for all of this. I have many projects in the air at the moment.



PM me an e-mail address to send the file to. It is Excel.

Review of March- F 1-8x24mm Illuminated Riflescope.

By BigJimFish

Aug 28, 2013

Table of Contents:
- Background
- Unboxing and Physical Description
- Reticle Description, Explanation, and Testing
- Comparative Optical Evaluation
- Illumination Evaluation
- Speed Testing and Exit Pupil Testing
- Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion
- Summary and Conclusion

Background:

March, the house brand of DEON Optical Design Corp. is far less well known as a manufacturer than each of the other markers to which it will be compared in this review. The parent company, DEON, does at least as much design work for other makers as it does actual manufacture for its own March label. Despite having a small market share, woeful website, and being sold through only one distributor in the U.S. (Kelbly's), March has a large product line and has gained great market penetration in the Benchrest market. Over the past few years, March has been making forays into the tactical market by offering front focal plane scopes with matched turrets and reticles. The results of these forays have been somewhat mixed, in my opinion. The features desired in a tactical scope differ greatly from those of a Benchrest scope, especially as regards eyebox, reticles, adjustments, and magnification ratios. That is to say, most all the features desired are different. Nevertheless, I have noticed a constant trend toward better feature choices. This is well illustrated by this ffp 1-8x as compared against the 2fp March 1-10x I reviewed a few years ago.

Unboxing and Physical Description:

It seems that companies are split about 50/50 as to whether they send reviewers new-in-box products or whether to send a few scopes around to everybody in turn. Kelbly's, the sole U.S. distributor of March products and also really the only U.S. contact for them, does the latter. Being as I only live 1 1/2 hours from Kelbly's and they have a very nice and non-crowded range on which I could do testing, I just drove over and picked up the scope. Their range is far better than the one I usually test on and I was able to get a great deal of testing done very quickly with these superior facilities.

What I found in the box Ian gave me for testing was a scope marked SN X001, no manual, some packing, and strange little slip-on leather scope caps. I expect that the X001 means 'prototype one' and that no manual existed at the time of the production of this optic. Without a manual, I suppose I will have to be content telling myself not to shoot myself or others. How ever will I get along?


March-F 1-8x24mm in Kelbly rings, box, and odd leather scope caps

Physically, this March shares much in common with others I have used. It is small, at 10.16" long and 30mm in diameter, and light, at 19.5oz. The machining on all parts is excellent and the feel of all things that turn or click is that you would want. I have only two complaints at the outset. First, I hate American style diopters. They turn and turn and the adjustment is so fine you are just never sure if things are getting better or worse until they are quite a long way off and then you have to go back the other way and suffer the same fate. Though the length of the testing, I fiddled and futzed with the diopter and, in the end, I'm still not sure I ever had it optimized. The second complaint I have is the illumination control. March has done an excellent job managing to integrate this into the parallax knob (yes, it has a parallax knob), but the button is unshielded and requires virtually no force to actuate. This thing will get accidentally turned on all the time. I am not sure if it has an auto-off function or not.

Reticle Description, Close Quarters Performance, Explanation, and Ranging:


March-F 1-8x24mm focused on a tree line at 100yards

The March-F 1-8x24mm that I tested was equipped with the FMC-1 reticle. It consists of three main parts. At 3:00, 6:00 and 9:00 are thick tapering arrows that extend to the edges of the field of view at all powers. These appear to be a feature designed for low light, and close quarters use. They are large enough to make themselves obvious. In the middle of the reticle, a 3mil diameter circle is present for close quarters use. This circle, and everything in it, are the only illuminated portions of the reticle. Lastly, crosshairs display mil hashes on all but the 12:00 extension for ranging and holds. All in all, the reticle departs little from a typical mil hash design and is intended to be used as such. Ranging is done by counting the mils and running the equations in the manner of most long range scopes. Drop is primarily intended to be done via the elevation adjustment as on most precision rifle scopes, though you could also hold using the mil hash marks for guidance. Wind can be done via holds or adjustments, though I am quite sure the dial for drop and hold for wind method would be preferred by most. In short, it is a long range scope reticle with a circle and thick posts added. Not surprisingly, when measured on a test target, the reticle mil marks were the correct size.

Comparative Optical Evaluation:

It has always been somewhat difficult to compare the optics of March scopes to those of other makers. The reason for this is that, while most makers strive to make the user's experience comfortable with a large eyebox; March cranks the magnification ratio up - user experience be damned. I was happy to see that, in this iteration, some balance has been achieved. The scope is more forgiving than past examples and I found it of at least average comfort compared with the other 1-8x offerings. Furthermore, March is the sole maker to have a 1-8x offering with an adjustable parallax. At most distances this greatly improves the user experience vis-à-vis not having one, as this allows both the reticle and the target to be in focus at the same time.

As for the clarity, the March trailed only the Leupold CQBSS in this area. And that only slightly. It took me a while to decide this and I am still obsessing a little as it can be hard to tease apart the effects of a more comfortable eye box and warmer color from the simple ability to resolve. In any case, the March was obviously better than both the Bushnell and USO offerings. The color rendition of the March appeared, on balance, the most true to reality, with the Leupold tinting the image a bit warmer and greener and the USO tinting it a bit cooler. The clarity of the March was excellent edge to edge and only a slight pincushion distortion was noticed at 8x. The overall experience was quite good.


March-F 1-8x24mm and comparison optics focused on a tree line at 100yards

Illumination Evaluation:

Prices for the 1-8x24mm March are  $2,100 without illumination and a disproportionately higher $2,720 with illumination. My advice:  skip the illumination. To say that the illumination is not daytime bright is misleading. The illumination is not daytime visible at all. I am embarrassed to say that initially I thought it might be broken or the battery had died. I changed the battery to no avail. Since I was at Kelbly's doing the testing at the time, I walked in and asked how to turn the illumination on thinking maybe I'm just a fool or perhaps there is some special ritual or sacrifice that I need to perform. Jim Kelbly looked at me like I was an idiot when I asked. It's the big button on the side of the parallax. All I could think was how embarrassing for the both of us. It turns out you can see the illumination indoors. As you can see in the photo at 8x, the circle and inner 6mils are lit.


March- F 1-8x24mm and comparison optics at 1x and maximum illumination. Target at 25 yards.

Now you would think that given the illumination never gets bright enough for daytime use, it probably has a great night vision setting. I do not believe this is the case. The illumination has four brightness settings that are cycled though using the one button and all are visible indoors under normal lighting. Most of the night vision settings I have observed in optics are not. For this reason, I expect the March illumination is ironically probably a bit too bright for optimal night vision system use. What you are left with is a system that is really only useful for low light use without a night vision system. You are also left with only 3mils illuminated in each direction for drop and wind holds or ranging. It just isn't an illumination system that is really very good at anything.  


- Speed Testing and Discussion of Contributing Factors:


All of the scopes to be compared in the speed testing

Over the course of the last couple of reviews I have had the opportunity to evaluate, in cooperation with eight or nine different testers, some fourteen different optics with a 1x setting engaging close quarters targets. For this I use an air-soft AR and pie pans - I'm not made of money. It's a lot of fun and you can go though thousands of rounds for the cost of a fast-food dinner. What I have found after doing all of this testing is that what counts for close quarters is not exactly what you would expect. Here is my summary of the major factors and what part they play:

1) The Optical Design:  Having a distortion free, flat field of view at 1x is, by far, the most important factor to speed. Pincushion distortion, barrel distortion, or curvature to field throws off your ability to merge the data coming in from your left and right eye into a single image. The result is slow and a little disorienting. This disorienting effect is not noticeable when you are focused on a stationary target, but as you move across the field of fire, having the objects viewed through the optic bend as the field of view moves across them is very hard to deal with. At 1x the March does pretty well with regards to flatness of field of view. It is not perfect, but it is not problematic either.

2) The Reticle:  The reticle is a little more subjective. Not every tester has always agreed. However, in general, an open field of view, with a few thick objects in just the center is the most desirable. Crosshairs are generally disliked. The testers were split on the arrow-shaped March crosshairs at 1x. A few shooters liked the feel and a few thought the thick elements were distracting. I'll admit to being in the latter camp. I did not find the reticle a fast design.

3) The Illumination:  It may come as a surprise given optics makers' quest for daytime bright illumination, but it comes in a bit down the list. To be sure, having a daytime bright dot can eclipse reticle design in importance to speed if the reticle is thin and therefore not distracting, but it will not make up for a bulky distracting reticle. Reticle design and illumination can be seen as working together to determine speed, but, in my experience, the reticle is the bigger part of this pair. During the speed testing, we used the March without illumination, or maybe it was with illumination, you never can tell. Illumination did not add to its speed.

4) Eyebox:  It should come as no surprise that having more freedom of motion while still getting a picture is good for speed. What I have found though is that, within reason, this factor plays less a part than you might think. It is true a tiny eyebox can make an optic slow, but most scopes have enough leeway that it is not a big factor. The March has one of the smaller eyeboxes in this test group. This was mentioned by at least one tester. However, when compared to March 1-10x I have previously tested, it is still quite generous. Improvement has been made and March is no longer an outlier, but it is not the class leader either.

All told, the March-F 1-8x24mm was not one of the faster scopes in the test group. It landed somewhere in the bottom third depending on the shooter's relative like or dislike of the reticle and sensitivity to eyebox size. I think the best way to look at the March 1x speed results is to remember that it is a long range scope that can be used up-close, not a close range scope stretched to extended distances. As you will see by the conclusion of this review, this is the best long range scope in the test. It is not the best close quarters one.


Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:

This optic is equipped with 10mils per turn, .1mil per click, non-locking, uncapped turrets that are quite low profile compared to most competing designs. The Windage turret is labeled up to 5L and 5R from 0 and features no stop. The elevation turret features a unique zero stop that is engaged by turning a coin in the slot in the middle of the turret until it stops. Therefore, you can run the turret in either zero stop or no zero stop mode. It is a very easy feature to set or engage, easier than setting the zero itself. This involves three tiny set screws and is performed the same way on the windage and elevation turret. This is a common method, though I don't expect I will ever find it elegant. The feel of both turrets is excellent, both in regards to force required to turn and the feel of the clicks. I will also mention here that the March-F 1-8x24mm has a side-mounted parallax adjustment integrated with the illumination. It focuses from 10meters out and March is the only scope tested to have this feature that is nearly ubiquitous in long range optics and virtually unheard of in close quarters optics.

For the adjustment testing of the March as well as the other scopes being reviewed this year, I made up a new target shown below. I spend a good deal of time shooting at my local 100-yard range with scopes that are adjusted in mils. It annoyed me that I could not find a target made on a mils-at-100yards grid. I therefore made one and furthermore, made it have six bulls so that I can shoot a box and power change test on the same target. The grid on the pictured target is .1mil at 100yards. I will make the PDF of this target available just as soon as I can figure out a way to get the CAD program to make a PDF of the correct size. (It seems to be able to print out the correct size but the PDF is not right. I will have to use some printer plug-in.)

A box test checks for the adjustments' accuracy in magnitude and independence in direction. To perform this 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 with the last group landing back atop the first. 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 scope's adjustments. As performed on this target, all of the groups should have the same position relative to the exes. The March passed this test with no difficulty. This is not surprising given March's reputation for flawless adjustments.

In a power change test, the rifle is fired at two different targets with one being shot at maximum magnification and the other at minimum. The targets are then compared to make sure that the scope does not shift with regard to point of aim when the power is changed. Some shift will be expected with a second focal plane scope, but a front focal plane scope, such as this one, should exhibit no shift. The March exhibits no shift.


March-F 1-8x24mm box and power change tests

Summary and Conclusion:

There are really two ways to look at a 1-8x scope. You can view it as a close quarters scope that has some extra magnification, or as long range scope that can be up-close in a pinch. Most makers have slanted their optical designs toward the former interpretation. March, by including a parallax focus, zero stop 10mil turrets, and a close to traditional mil hash reticle, has provided all the essentials of a long range optic. Its shortcomings (lack of daytime visible illumination, smallish eyebox, and reticle lacking central attention grabbing features) only effect the secondary, close quarters, function of the optic. The areas that the March excels in (parallax focus, clarity, and adjustments) are of paramount importance to its primary long range function. Add to that the relative light weight of this optic, at 19.5oz, and small size, at 30mm and 10.16" long,  and you have a compelling package. March, until now  a niche product of the Benchrest community, is beginning to produce products with appeal to a variety of more practically focused disciplines. This 1-8x scope is light years ahead of the former 1-10x and represents the best 1-8x available for long range shooting.

Here is Your Pros and Cons Breakdown:

Pros:
Side focus 10m on out parallax
Excellent clarity
Excellent adjustments in both feel and function
Light weight at 19.5 oz
Small at 10.16" long and 30mm
Excellent long range function
Attractive appearance
March has a good reputation for reliability

Cons:
Illumination is too dim for daytime visibility and lacks good night vision settings
That poor illumination costs you $620
Eyebox is smaller than most similar optics
Has aggravating American style diopter
Slower for close quarters than many similar optics
Short 5-year warranty period


March-F 1-8x24mm mounted in Kelbly rings on a SCAR 16s

Great review on a scope I had a lot if interest in!

That was a Great Review for this March 1-8x scope.  Lots of information and very detailed analysis of features and function.

I'm surprised by how small & light the March is for a 1-8x scope.  And I'm also very disappointed to read that the illumination is so poor.

I believe the March has two different illumination modules available.  One is high intensity the other is low intensity.  Sounds like you had the low intensity.

Review of Bushnell Elite Tactical SMRS 1-8.5x 24 mm Illuminated Rifle Scope.

Les (Jim) Fischer
BigJimFish

Sept 21, 2013

Table of Contents:
- Background
- Unboxing and Physical Description
- Reticle Description, Explanation, and Testing
- Comparative Optical Evaluation
- Illumination Evaluation
- Speed Testing and Exit Pupil Testing
- Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion
- Summary and Conclusion

Background:

Bushnell has a history that strikes me as more like that of a 21st century optics corporation than its 1948 founding would suggest. I say this because most of the recently founded optical companies I know of are importers of products made overseas. Bushnell is also one of these, but they started doing it back in 1948. It is notable that container shipping, a technology that now forms the backbone of international trade, had not yet been invented in 1948:  Bushnell was ahead of its time.
What it means to think about an optics company that is an importer and a brand, rather than a manufacturer, is that different product lines often come from different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and are therefore no more comparable with each other than products produced by entirely different makers, because that is, in fact, what they are. Of course, which OEM is used for which product or product line is not information made publicly available, so it can be difficult to make general statements of any kind.
With that being said, I will proceed to make general statements about the Elite Tactical line. It has generally been well received. The features have been up to date with current market trends. Matching 10 mils per rev locking turrets, compelling reticles, zero stops, and other features are in demand; and Bushnell has delivered them on many products in this line. On top of that, the clarity and durability of scopes in this line have also proven to be good. If these optics come from the OEM that I think they do; this is not surprising. That Japanese OEM dominates the $1,000 - $2,000 price range and its products rarely rub anyone the wrong way. With that in mind, I went into this review expecting a well designed scope with no obvious optics problems. I was a little curious about the $2,150 price tag though. It is well above what I expect to see from either Bushnell or that particular OEM.

Unboxing and Physical Description:

The demo that I received from Bushnell was a bit sparse when it came to extras. I have to admit, I expect some caps, or at least a lens rag with a $2,000 optic. All that came in the Bushnell box was a thin stack of owner's papers. This despite that fact that that box was quite cavernous, even for the substantially sized SMRS 1-8.5.x.


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x with giant almost empty box

The Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5x is a stocky, knobby affair. It has large, heavy adjustment knobs that still look big even on the 34mm tube. The result of this combination is that, at 25.9 oz, it is very close to the heaviest optic in the class. The only two heavier, the IOR Eliminator and Kruger DTS, are unusual optics with features that necessarily add weight. The Bushnell is just plain heavy and I don't think it had to be. It does not need a 34mm tube, as a 30 mm would provide more adjustment than anyone could need and the objective in the 34 mm is the same size as is common in 30 mm optics. I also can't help but think those adjustments could be shrunk down a bit. Smaller 10 mils per turn adjustments do exist. At the very least, these big honkers should include a zero stop. They are locking but do not have a zero stop.

I believe that many of these design choices were made, not to enhance function, but to provide a muscular appearance. In the end, though, I don't think that this is one of the finer looking optics I have seen. I can identify some of the aesthetic reasons for this. The scope lacks a flare in the tube at the objective, as many other scopes have, to prevent mounting rings over top the objective. That always adds something. It also has a very extruded looking power ring that appears low end. I'm not sure these features add up to the overall impression though. It looks kind of plain and bulky to me - like the image Volvo paid so much to not succeed in ridding itself of.

The mount used throughout this review is a prototype of Bobro's new 34mm Cantilevered Precision Optic mount. Bobro was good enough to supply me with one so that I would be able to mount all the 1-8x optics I had on hand for this review simultaneously. I took the opportunity to review the mount as well.

Reticle Description, Close Quarters Performance, Explanation, and Ranging:


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x focused on a tree line at 100 yards

Reticles aren't everything; but it can be easy to forget that - for good reason. They are pretty important, though. Having designed a few of these myself at this point, I understand the difficulty in balancing simplicity of use and up-close speed with accuracy, speed, and versatility for ranging, drop compensation, and drift compensation. It is also nice to have a small precise primary aiming point for doing load development and accuracy testing.

Bushnell's BTR-2 places substantial focus on speed. At 1x it takes up very little of the field of view. This is generally good, although the large central circular feature is just a bit smaller or thinner than I would have chosen. It is almost there, but, as you will see, in close quarters testing most reviewers thought it a little on the inconspicuous side. The reticle primarily ranges using a vertical mil scale graduated in .5mil increments and labeled. Well enough, it is almost always better to range vertical objects than horizontal ones owing the orientation of most things to gravity. The increment size chosen for the scale and the labeling markings of the scale  are well executed and also proved to be the correct size on the calibration target. The markings on the horizontal crosshairs are less easily deciphered. It turns out that the height of the hashes on the horizontal markings forms a stadia ranging section for ranging objects of 10" height between 100 and 800 meters. I expect this is meant for the 10" plates common in Three Gun, though human heads aren't too far off that size. It has been my experience that objects of this small size are very difficult to range with anywhere near the accuracy needed for that ranging to be useful. So, while I am generally a fan of stadia systems for their speed, I don't think this one will deliver enough accuracy to be useful. So far as I can tell, the markings on this horizontal crosshairs are not all at exactly 1mil increments. No mention is made of the horizontal distances in the manual. It mentions that these markings may be used for windage holds. However, they did not measure out to be each equal to a mil in my testing, so I have my doubts about the usefulness for this purpose. This is a  disappointment, as it diminishes the value of the giant 10 mils per turn elevation turret. I expect that, for most shooters, windage will need to be dialed instead of held. All in all, I think it is a marginal reticle. I am happy to see that some thought went into the design instead of just throwing a mil-dot at the thing, but I believe it came up short in a lot of areas.

Comparative Optical Evaluation:

The Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5x's optical performance was, in many ways, exactly what I expected. That is to say, I expected no major optical problems such as heavy distortion or curvature of field, but I also didn't expect it to boast the clarity of many of its competitors. With regard to sharpness, it was not as sharp as the Leupold MK8 or MK6, the March, or the USO. However, the USO displayed distortion, curvature of field, and a small field of view such that the Bushnell was easily preferable. The coloration of the Bushnell was on the warm side, similar to that of the Leupolds. Given the price differences between the scopes in this lineup, I did not feel the optical performance of the Bushnell was either exceptional or lacking. It seemed about right.


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x and comparison optics focused on a tree line at 100 yards

Illumination Evaluation:

Bushnell appears to use convention reflected illumination in this optic. They have elected to light the central dot and semicircle but not any part of the scale; so you will not be ranging or holding based on these in low light. It is clear to me that they really gave it their all when it comes to cranking that technology as bright as they could get it. Despite that effort, while daytime visible, this illumination is not daytime bright. Users doing close quarters testing did not find it any faster to use the illumination than not to. While I have no doubt this illumination, especially coupled with the nice small semicircle, will speed things up in low light; it does not achieve a red dot feel.


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x and comparison optics at 1x and maximum illumination. Target at 25 yards.

Speed Testing and Discussion of Contributing Factors:


All of the scopes to be compared in the speed testing

Over the course of the last couple of reviews, I have had the opportunity to evaluate, in cooperation with eight or nine different testers, some 14 different optics, with a 1x setting, engaging close quarters targets. For this I use an air-soft AR and pie pans:  I'm not made of money. It's a lot of fun and you can go though thousands of rounds for the cost of fast food dinner. What I have found after doing all of this testing is that what counts for close quarters is not exactly what you would expect. Here is my summary of the major factors and what part they play:

1) Optical Design:  Having a distortion free, flat field of view at 1x is, by far, the most important factor to speed. Pincushion distortion, barrel distortion, or curvature to field throws off your ability to merge the data coming in from your left and right eye into a single image. The result is slow and a little disorienting. This disorienting effect is not noticeable when you are focused on a stationary target, but as you move across the field of fire, having the objects viewed through the optic bend as the field of view moves across them is very hard to deal with. At 1x the Bushnell did pretty well with regards to flatness of field of view. It is not perfect, but it is not problematic either.

2) Reticle:  The reticle is a little more subjective. Not every tester has always agreed. However, in general, an open field of view with a few thick objects in just the center is the desired combination. Crosshairs are generally disliked. Had the semicircle in the Bushnell been a little bit thicker, larger, or been brightly lit; it would have had an excellent reticle. As it stands, the testers frequently lost track of the circle amidst the background. I think the function was probably still preferable to big, thick, distracting crosshairs, but was in no way optimal.

3) Illumination:  It may come as a surprise given optics makers' quest for daytime bright illumination, but it comes in a bit down the list. To be sure, having a daytime bright dot can eclipse reticle design in importance to speed if the reticle is thin and therefore not distracting, but it will not make up for a bulky distracting reticle. Reticle design and illumination can be seen as working together to determine speed, but, in my experience, the reticle is the bigger part of this pair. During the daytime testing, the Bushnell was run with and without illumination with basically no difference in results. It was visible, but the reticle wasn't bright; it just looked red in color. The illumination was certainly effective as the day wore into dusk, but was not effective in full sun.

4) Eyebox:  It should come as no surprise that having more freedom of motion while still getting a picture is good for speed. However, what I have found is that, within reason, this factor plays less a part than you might think. It is true a tiny eyebox can make an optic slow, but most scopes have enough leeway that it is not a big factor. No tester found the eyebox of the Bushnell to be unduly restrictive. It was not tops in this area, but also did not display any problems.

The Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5x generally placed on the lower half of the lineup near the middle in terms of speed. It scored better with more experienced shooters who had less problem losing the reticle (or more likely simply weren't focused on it) than it did with less experienced marksmen.


Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:

This optic is equipped with 10 mils per turn, .1 mil per click, locking, uncapped turrets. They are bigger and bulkier than those on most long range scopes. The locking feature is a simple pull up to unlock, pull down to lock system and the zero adjusts by removing the coin slotted fastener in the top. There is no zero stop. The clicks feel good and, given the distance between them, are easy to count.

For the adjustment testing of Bushnell as well as the other scopes being reviewed this year, I made up a new target shown below. I spend a good deal of time shooting at my local 100-yard range with scopes that are adjusted in mils. It annoyed me that I could not find a target made on a mils at 100 yards grid. I therefore made one and furthermore, made it have six bulls so that I can shoot a box and power change test on the same target. The grid on the pictured target is .1 mil at 100 yards. I will make the PDF of this target available just as soon as I can figure out a way to get the CAD program to make a PDF of the correct size. (It seems to be able to print out the correct size, but the PDF is not right. I will have to use some printer plug in.)

A box test checks for the accuracy in magnitude and independence in direction of the adjustments. To perform this 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 with the last group landing back atop the first. 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 scope's adjustments. As performed on this target, all of the groups should have the same position relative to the exes. The Bushnell passed this test with no difficulty.

In a power change test, the rifle is fired at two different targets with one being shot at maximum magnification and the other at minimum. The targets are then compared to make sure that the scope does not shift with regard to point of aim when the power is changed. Some shift will be expected with a second focal plane scope, but a front focal plane scope, such as this one, should exhibit no shift. The Bushnell exhibits no shift.


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x box and power change tests

Summary and Conclusion:

Had some different decisions been made in the marketing department with regard to size and weight, and had the reticle gone though just a bit more development, it is likely that I would find this scope a good choice at its price point. The underlying optical design is solid and the mechanicals check out. As is, I have a hard time getting past the unwarranted mass, uninspiring reticle, and perfunctory looks.


Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:

Pros:
Clarity commensurate with price
No optical aberrations of significant degree
Good adjustment feel and perfect function
Excellent warranty and Bushnell even allows customers to return a product they try out and don't like

Cons:
24.9 oz is too heavy
Illumination is not daytime bright
Reticle is lackluster
In the lower half of comparison optics for close quarters speed
Perfunctory looks


Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5.x Mounted in the new Bobro 34mm drop forward two lever mount (to be reviewed shortly) on a SCAR 16s

Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm with TMR Reticle  
This thread was quite useful for me in purchasing the right low power scope. Here is my small contribution. I tried out about 8 different models in person and ended up going with the Leupold Mark 6 1-6. It is not perfect either, but it was the closest compromise I could make out of all the $500-2000 models.

I could not find any Leupold TMR reticle pictures, so here it is. So far I am happy with it. I went with TMR rather than CMR reticle, so I can use my handloads and also move the scope to other rifles without making the drop compensation mark not relevant.

I like it at 1X as it is big enough to use it as a red dot (I think it is like 6-8 MOA dot), and when set at 6x, small enough to be precise.

I set the light at 5 out of 7, and it bleeds a bit at that intensity. Setting at 3 would eliminate it. The day was overcast late in the afternoon/early evening, so I did not need a lot of red LED intensity. It is daylight bright.

1X - Leupold Mark 6 1-6 TMR

WP_20131012_005 by Johnny_Boy_Photo, on Flickr

6X - Leupold Mark 6 1-6 TMR

WP_20131012_008 by Johnny_Boy_Photo, on Flickr

I am looking for an ultra lightweight optic that meets this thread's criteria. I bought  Ed Verdugo's GRSC 1-4x Combat Scope years ago and barely used it. All of my custom AR builds weigh in at less than six lbs with out optics. To see all my painstaking work get "ruined" by a heavy scope didn't sit well with me. I am getting close to sixty now and find a heavier gun really bothers me after a long day of run and gun. Give me one of my ultra lightweight set ups and I can much easier keep up with the younger gunners.

So far, my best compromise has been the Weaver 1-3X20mm scope with a throw lever from MGM Switchview. Oddly enough, the same lever is the one that fits the other scope I was looking at, the equally light but almost double the price Leupold VX-2 1-4x20mm scope.Both the Weaver and the Leupold weigh in a svelte 8.5 and 9 ounces respectively. Add in a decent mount and you are still approaching the one pound mark. I "cheat" though and drill out the mounts to lighten them too. So, the end package still retains a zero, but is very, very light

Some of the illuminated 1-4x and 1-6x times are like boat anchors with a Larue or Boboro QD mount.

I do miss not having an illuminated reticle I love my Weaver and will likely never sell it. It does great for daylight drills and competition. I do shoot in tactical evening classes where I need to revert to a red dot with a swing away 3x magnifier. I would rather have a dedicated ultra lightweight illuminated 1-4x. I would settle for a 1-3x illuminated. I dont think anyone makes one. Here is a link to a Weaver 1-3X owner who just like me would love to have his scope in  a light illuminated version.  
http://www.opticstalk.com/custom-heavy-reticle-for-weaver-13x20-v3-scope_topic11306.html

I dont need a 1-6x. I would be very happy with an ultra lightweight illuminated 1-3 or 4x tactical/combat scope. I don't know anyone that makes one. Do any members know? What is currently the lightest illuminated 1-4x out there? Someday, via technology, I will probably find what I want be be too old to enjoy it! I am hoping to find something that will fit the bill in the mean time.  I could deal with a 10 ounce scope. Believe me, at my age, every ounce matters when you add it to my AR's. This is why I love my builds so much. One of them is a precision 18"  fluted 416R SS barreled wonder that goes 5.4lbs with no optic or mag. These guns are such a pleasure to field. I just want to find an illuminated combat scope that I can be comfortable with weight wise.

If you do not need QD, you might consider rings as they should be lighter. Also, the Alamo Four Star mounts seem lighter as well. Night Force makes the ultralight unimount that I would recommend as one of the lightest you'll find. Bobro mounts are built like tanks but are heavy, and the LaRue mounts are good but not the lightest.

A decent set of rings will hold the optic in place and reduce weight. I believe that US Optics has a "uni" ring or single ring designed to mount an optic. It may weigh less than a set of rings but I'm not sure.

Good luck, I appreciate a nice light build.

Great reviews so far BigJimFish.

Really looking forward to the rest.

Review of the Leupold Mark 8 CQBSS 1.1-8x.x24mm with Horus H-27D Reticle



Table of Contents:
- Background
- Unboxing and Physical Description
- Reticle
- Comparative Optical Evaluation
- Illumination Evaluation
- Speed Testing and Exit Pupil Testing
- Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion
- Summary and Conclusion

Background:

Leupold is a rare thing in corporate America:  it is exactly what it seems. It is a fifth generation American company which manufactures most of its products in America; clearly marks those it does not manufacture as different from those it does; and is still owned by the family rather than by some nebulous New York investment firm. I suspect that this state of affairs may have something to do with the long term success of the company. Name recognition and trust go a long way. Leupold even seemed to be having success at a time that I found its products less than compelling and my personal stock of them dwindled from four scopes to none.

It is no secret that throughout the last ten or fifteen years Leupold had been losing favor with the tactical community and was commonly maligned on the forums. Lack of compelling reticles, mismatched knobs with reticles, a relative lack of FFP offerings, and insufficient erector rations were common complaints. I'm not sure what was going on inside Leupold during that time, but everything changed in 2010 with the introduction of a separate tactical division within the company that appears to have been given significant autonomy.

The changes made in the three years since the tactical division was formed have been more substantive than in the ten years previous. Three entirely new optic lines (the Mark 6, Mark 8, and AR lines) have been launched and the existing Mark 4 line has been significantly updated. Many of these new products did not just address the matter of updating the features to match competitors’ existing offerings, but were innovative in their own right. Leupold has introduced a new illumination technology, a magnificent easily interchangeable BDC knob system, and some easy and innovative locking adjustment knob designs. Three years is a very quick timetable during which to update a product line from obsolescence to class-leading, but Leupold clearly has some scope designs in these new product lines that are just that. I have seen some evidence that the changes wrought by Leupold tactical seem to be waking up the rest of the company as well.

Unboxing and Physical Description:

I think that Leupold’s packaging must be handled by the marketing division. Not only is it attractive, but you actually feel special when you open it. Everything is in its own nice and neat custom cutout in the foam, even the battery. The extras included with the CQBSS are quite substantial. You don't just get manuals and a lousy decal, but also a sunshade (not honeycomb sadly) and a set of gorgeous Alumina flip-up lens covers that are obviously the best in the business. You pay your money for the CQBSS, but you do get to feel special for it.


Leupold CQBSS Unboxing

The optic itself is very attractive. Though it is large at 23.2oz, 34mm, and 11.75" long; it is nicely proportioned. The flared objective, squeeze locking adjustments, and fully knurled whole ocular power ring combine with the proportions to make for a handsome look. Just as with the Bushnell SMRS, the Leupold CQBSS is a 34mm main tube optic and I question the design choice here as well. 24mm objectives fit easily in 30mm tubes especially when there will be a flared section over the objective anyway. The reason optics makers started to go to 34mm tubes in high power scopes was to get more elevation travel. Because of the design differences between low power and high power scopes, this is not often necessary in low power optics and it usually adds weight to the scope and the mount. It may have been possible to save a few ounces on the CQBSS design by going with 30mm. It may also be the case that most of that weight went towards adding strength and durability to the design. The CQBSS certainly looks the part and Leupold does not have a reputation for breakage. I would be surprised if this does not prove to be one of the most durable problem-free optics in the class.

The CQBSS, a descendant of the now aged CQ/T, shares the design feature of using the full ocular as the power ring and it is knurled for this purpose. I am not a big fan of the cattails so popular with competition shooters today. They fit the bill well in a competition, but if you also have to carry the rifle around for hunting or as a function of your employment, these levers quickly annoy as they tend to stick out a good bit and catch on everything. Having a whole ocular power ring is an alternative to this. Adjustment is quick and easy as you have four inches of tube to grab yet there is no lever to stick out and snag. The only downside is that the flip cap also rotates and therefore is difficult to position. It is also notable that the ocular on the CQBSS sports a quick 180 degrees from 1x to 8x and has a locking euro diopter that is extremely low profile and perfectly effective.

Leupold was good enough to include a 34mm Mark 8 mount with the scope for review. This is the mount pictured throughout. The mount is simple and perfectly serviceable. Its only notable feature is the $380 price tag which is, in my opinion, wrong by at least half, or rather, double.

Reticle:


Leupold CQBSS with Horus H-27D reticle at 8x focused on a tree line at 100 yards

The CQBSS is offered with two different reticle choices. These are the M-TMR and Horus H27D . The M-TMR has a basic mil-hash center section that is illuminated with a stadia section in each of the lower quadrants. It is very much a long range type reticle in design:  fitting well into the common habit of ranging using the mil-hashes, dialing for drop, and holding on the main crosshairs for wind. The stadia section is just a little bonus should quick range finding be needed. On the M-TMR, only the center mil-hash is illuminated for close quarters use and this section is rather thin.

For the purpose of the review, I went with the H-27D reticle. I chose this for a variety of reasons. First off, at an $800 price premium it has a lot to justify. Horus has always been very proud of their reticle designs, but this one must be twice as good as most of the others judging by the price. Secondly, I have never had an extended opportunity to use a Horus-based scope and wanted to give the concept a try. Lastly, the H-27D sports a thicker circular illuminated center feature that looks a lot faster for close quarters use to me than the illuminated center section of the M-TMR.

I expect that most folks are familiar with the Horus concept, but, for those who are not, I will lay it out. It is really not very complicated. People have long held for windage and sometimes for drop using the markings on the crosshairs of a mil-dot or similar reticle. Horus simply adds a bunch of thin crosshairs below the primary one so that more markings exist to help the shooter hold with more accuracy. The idea is that after zeroing the scope, you don't have to use the adjustments at all because a full grid exists on the reticle. In the case of this H-27D Horus variant, the hashes are in .2-mil increments on all but the primary crosshairs and the one 1 mil above or below the primary. These markings all tested to be accurate. I believe that the sections of the reticle immediately around the circle were left with only markings every full mil in order to keep the circular close quarters aiming feature clean, but the side effect is that the most common method for distance compensation, dialing drop and holding wind, is negatively impacted by the relative dearth of markings on the primary horizontal axis.

A great deal has been written about the Horus concept as a primary drop and distance compensation method and much of this conventional wisdom appears to me to be true. Depending on the shooter’s concentration, both the detractors and proponents of Horus can be right about getting lost in the plethora of markings on the reticle. It is certainly possible to get lost and end up lining things up on the wrong line. The lines are clearly marked though and, with proper concentration, this can be avoided. With regards to speed adjusting for drop and wind, the Horus systems dispensing with the adjustments can certainly add speed. These Leupold zero stop turrets are very fast, and well marked though. The speed gained is not much, if anything. The last and most important complaint against the Horus in use is that it works against a clean background, but that against something dark or complex, like a tree line, the complex mesh cannot be made out. This was my experience as well. The mesh of the reticle simply blends into a complex background and it becomes alternately difficult or impossible to use the concept as intended.

Whether the H-27D or M-TMR is a better reticle overall in the CQBSS might be an interesting question. Ironically, it is the thick and large central circle that is the most compelling feature of the H-27D and not any part that might be identified as Horus-e. The lack of wind hold marks more precise than 1-mil increments on the main axis and lack of illumination of any scale part for low light long range use are major strikes against the H-27D and in favor of the M-TMR for distance use. I wager any slight speed edge gained in ranging and distance compensation by the Horus system under good conditions as fairly minor given the excellent elevation knob on this optic. I judge that the reader will find this debate less than compelling given the $800 price difference between the Horus and M-TMR variants. While it is unclear which reticle is better, it is quite clear what the cost difference ought to be.

Comparative Optical Evaluation:

The CQBSS was the 1-8x scope whose optics, at high power, I preferred to all others. The image tints towards the warm side of the spectrum with greens and yellows really popping. I think this made the image appear a bit brighter than other optics though I doubt that in actuality a significant difference in transmission was present. The field of view is the largest at 8x and this combined with the more-forgiving-than-most eyebox made for a comfortable viewing experience. Clarity on the CQBSS is edge to edge and distortion is minimal. Resolution at high power was also the best I tested. At the end of the day, though, it really comes down to the fact that this scope just felt the most comfortable to be behind. Many 1-8x scopes feel like they are right on the edge of optical design because they aren't very forgiving or because they actually have significant optical problems. This scope might be on the cutting edge, but it feels more polished than others. You wouldn't think that they are really pushing the bounds of what can be done while looking though it. They make it look easy with this one.


Leupold CQBSS and comparison optics at maximum magnification focused on a tree line at 100 yards

Illumination Evaluation:

Many of you are familiar with the three common illumination technologies used in optics. These are:  reflected, fiber, and beam splitter.

Most higher power optics use reflected illumination. In this scheme, light of the chosen color is directed forward in the opposite direction as light coming from the target. Some of this light reflects off of the reticle lines which, despite appearing black to the user when not illuminated, are, in fact, quite white, containing a great deal of titanium dioxide. This reflected light is the reticle’s illumination. The downsides to this technology are that, being as most of the light produced simply exits out the front of the optic, it is not battery efficient, cannot be made daytime bright, and can be seen by potential enemies down range. The upside is that it is inexpensive to make and you can illuminate any portion of the reticle chosen.

Fiber, which is probably most famously used in the Trijicon sights with BAC, is a transmission mechanism that can be used in conjunction with a battery powered source or to concentrate ambient light. With this technology, the fiber line is either run behind the reticle or it may actually be the reticle. At the end of the fiber line, usually the center of the reticle, the line is snipped and the severed end is aimed back at the user. The result is that the user sees a brightly illuminated figure in the shape of the end of the line. Thus, simple geometric shapes or dots can easily be made with fiber line but illumination of complex reticle elements is not possible. The illumination provided from fiber is typically very bright, battery efficient, and leaves no down range signature. Fiber technology is also not very expensive or technically challenging. I have never seen fiber technology used in a FFP scope, so this is probably either difficult or not possible.

Beam splitter illumination is the most expensive and difficult to manufacture technology. This technology is commonly used in the simple red dot sights that exist, but it can be adapted to magnified optics with some difficulty. With this illumination technology the illuminated figure, in all extant designs a dot, is merely projected between the user and the reticle by means of a mirror and is not any part of the reticle itself. In fact, the projected figure is projected at infinity and does not focus with the rest of the optical design. In theory, this illuminated projection could be any design, but in practice a dot has always been used since it is both easy and what is usually desired anyway. Lining up the projected element with the rest of the reticle is a challenge for this technology and makes the cost quite high. Despite this and other difficult and costly trade offs, beam splitter technology offers some compensatory enticements. These are that it can be used in a FFP optic, it is daytime bright, it is battery efficient, it has no down range signature, and it can be easily paired with reflected illumination technology in a scope with dual mode illumination, such as the S&B Short Dot.

Rather than use one of these existing technologies for the CQBSS, Leupold designed a fourth technology. I will call it ‘directed reflected’ because, so far as I can tell, that is how it works. It appears to me that this technology involves directing light forward from the rear of the optic and reflecting it off of the portions of the reticle with reflective dope in the same manner as conventional reflected illumination. The difference is that the reflection is much more intense (easily daytime bright), but that the intensity of the illumination varies greatly depending on how close the user’s eye is to the center of the eyebox. I am not sure exactly how this boost in brightness over conventional reflected illumination has been accomplished. My gut says that perhaps a diode-based laser is used for the illumination source and that this accounts not only for the increased intensity, but also for the sensitive viewing window. That is just a guess though. In any case, the effect is that if the user’s head moves around very much at all, the illumination appears to flicker with your head movement. Users varied in their degree of annoyance with the perceived flicker but all noticed it and found it some degree of undesirable.

The illumination controls on the CQBSS are analog knob type. The knob has eight intensity settings with an off setting in between. Settings exist suitable for daytime bright dot style illumination as well as for nighttime use and night vision use. On the CQBSS with Horus reticle only the center circular feature is lit, making ranging or hold-over in low light a no-go. With the M-TMR  the central mil section is illuminated, enhancing long range use in low light. However, the section lit in the M-TMR has much thinner line widths and may not be perceived by some as daytime bright.


Leupold CQBSS with Horus H-27D reticle and comparison optics at 1x and maximum illumination. Target at 25 yards.

Speed Testing and Discussion of Contributing Factors:


All of the scopes to be compared in the speed testing

Over the course of the last couple of reviews, I have had the opportunity to evaluate, in cooperation with eight or nine different testers, some fourteen different optics, with a 1x setting, engaging close quarters targets. For this I use an air-soft AR and pie pans:  I'm not made of money. It's a lot of fun and you can go though thousands of rounds for the cost of fast food dinner. What I have found after doing all of this testing is that what counts for close quarters is not exactly what you would expect. Here is my summary of the major factors and what part they play:

1) Optical Design:  Having a distortion free, flat field of view at 1x is, by far, the most important factor to speed. Pincushion distortion, barrel distortion, or curvature to field throws off your ability to merge the data coming in from your left and right eyes into a single image. The result is slow and a little disorienting. This disorienting effect is not noticeable when you are focused on a stationary target, but as you move across the field of fire, having the objects viewed through the optic bend as the field of view moves across them is very hard to deal with. At 1x the CQBSS was one of the best optics, and probably the best 1-8x,  as regards to flatness of field of view. It is not perfect, but it is not problematic either and given the technical challenges of its large power range, it is quite impressive.

2) Reticle:  The reticle is a little more subjective. Not every tester has always agreed. However, in general, an open field of view with a few thick objects in just the center is the desired combination. Crosshairs are generally disliked. This Horus reticle is one of the few I have seen that does a proper job of making the fine aiming and ranging elements sufficiently fine that they are not noticed when doing close quarters drills. The result is a very open field of view. It is a very good design for close quarters speed, provided the illumination is used.

3) Illumination:  It may come as a surprise given optics makers' quest for daytime bright illumination, but it comes in a bit down the list. To be sure, having a daytime bright dot can eclipse reticle design in importance to speed if the reticle is thin and therefore not distracting, but it will not make up for a bulky distracting reticle. Reticle design and illumination can be seen as working together to determine speed, but, in my experience, the reticle is the bigger part of this pair. Horus did a good job of pairing reticle design with illumination for speed in this optic. The thin reticle and open field of view paired quite well with the daytime bright tiny circle illuminated at the center. The arrangement is very fast.

4) Eyebox:  It should come as no surprise that having more freedom of motion while still getting a picture is good for speed. However, what I have found is that, within reason, this factor plays less a part than you might think. It is true a tiny eyebox can make an optic slow, but most scopes have enough leeway that it is not a big factor. The CQBSS felt like it had one of the larger eyeboxes at 1x in a 1-8x scope. It was certainly sufficient, though it is still not near the size of those in many of the lesser magnification range optics.

The Leupold CQBSS was found by most users to be the fastest of the 1-8x scopes and finished in the upper half of all optics in the comparison. The major complaints were the flickering perceived in the illumination and the relatively restricted eyebox. The major features were the open and flat field of view, the bright dot style illumination, and the bright crisp optics.

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:

The CQBSS features Leupold’s new pinch and turn adjustments. These lock when not being squeezed and are 10-mil single turn with zero stop knobs and audible and tactile clicks. In the case of the elevation knob, this is 10 mils from the zero to the stop. In the case of the windage, it is 5 mils each way to the stop from zero. The elevation knob also has the ability to accept BDC marked dials. The H-27D reticle version I used comes with a M118LR dial, but other dials can be ordered stock or customized. While I would not call the knobs small, they do seem compact relative to the feature set and, with the pinch to turn feature, you really wouldn't want them smaller. The adjustments feel great and labeling of the BDC is clear and also includes the mils from zero. These are great adjustments for long range shooting. I am a fan. The only thing that would make them better is if you didn't have to use a hex wrench to set the zero.


Leupold Pinch and Turn Adjustments on the CQBSS

For the adjustment testing of the CQBSS and other scopes being reviewed this year, I made up a new target shown below. I spend a good deal of time shooting at my local 100-yard range with scopes that are adjusted in mils. It annoyed me that I could not find a target made on a mils at 100 yards grid. I therefore made one and furthermore, made it have six bulls so that I can shoot a box and power change test on the same target. The grid on the pictured target is .1 mil at 100 yards. I will make the PDF of this target available just as soon as I can figure out a way to get the CAD program to make a PDF of the correct size. (It seems to be able to print out the correct size, but the PDF is not right. I will have to use some printer plug in.)

A box test checks for the accuracy in magnitude and independence in direction of the adjustments. To perform this 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 with the last group landing back atop the first. 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 scope's adjustments. As performed on this target, all of the groups should have the same position relative to the exes. The Leupold passed this test with no difficulty. Furthermore, the test was a joy to shoot. Most of the scopes tested have very bulky reticles with thick center sections that obscure a great deal of the target at 8x. The center of this reticle was nice and fine.

In a power change test, the rifle is fired at two different targets with one being shot at maximum magnification and the other at minimum. The targets are then compared to make sure that the scope does not shift with regard to point of aim when the power is changed. Some shift is expected with a second focal plane scope, but a front focal plane scope, such as this one, should exhibit no shift. The Leupold exhibits no shift.


Leupold CQBSS box and power change tests

Summary and Conclusion:

On balance, the CQBSS just edged out the March as my favorite 1-8x scope. I found the glass utterly gorgeous,  the scope was easily the fastest 1-8x for close quarters use, the adjustments are excellent, and the whole package looks handsome. Most importantly, there is no area in which this scope really fails. Even the aspects of the design I would improve (such as the illumination system, the reticle design, and the weight) are not failures:  they are just, to my mind, sub-optimal. All of the other 1-8x scopes had some aspect in which they simply failed. Therefore, the question you have to ask yourself with the CQBSS is not whether it is the best 1-8x option, but, rather, whether it is worth the price of admission. The answer will depend on your budget and what particular performance aspects are most important to you. One thing’s for sure:  I'll certainly miss this Leupold when I send it back. I'm sure I'll have some more come in to play with though. Leupold post formation of the tactical division has my attention.

Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:

Pros:
The optics are unparalleled
Two meaningful reticle choices
The adjustments are excellent
The illumination is daytime bright
180 degree turn full ocular power ring with nice locking diopter
Handsome appearance
Comes stacked with extras such as the Alumina caps
Leupold’s excellent warranty and reputation


Cons:
Expensive
Illumination appears to flicker with head movement
Various limitations and trade offs with each of the reticles
No adjustable parallax
Heavy



Leupold CQBSS 1-8x the Mark 8 drop forward 34mm mount on a SCAR 16s

Updates:


At this point I have only the Leupold Mark 6 1-6x and U.S. Optics SR-8C left to go in this current batch. At one time I was planning to add the Trijicon VCOG to the group (particularly to put it beside the Mark 6) but time has ticked by without those being ready to go and I think, at this point in the year, it will just have to wait for next year. Little time is left in this shooting season and I still have a lot of other things on my plate. I'll talk to them and some other folks at SHOT about next years stuff.

Speaking of SHOT show 2014, this time around I'm not just getting my normal press pass but also a special morning at the range pass for Monday. Expect some photos from the range and possibly a little video. I'm really a writer at heart and not a videographer so don't expect the sort of professional quality stuff in that department that you get from the writing. I hear that range day is crowded, chaotic, and hard to accomplish much at so who knows what that's going to look like.

As for next years reviews. I expect that you can count on the VCOG right off the bat. I also expect that there will be at least one set of laser rangefinding binoculars. Beyond that, expect more long range optics and less close quarters stuff. Expect a broader focus to include other shooting related product including rifles. It is at least somewhat likely that I will review Kelbly's tactical offerings. I have come to write for a number of sights in addition to AR15.com including SnipersHide and this larger number of venues has allowed for a broader focus.

Really looking forward to the mk6 review! Pretty sure that is the optic I want, but would like to see what you think before I pull out the credit card. Great write ups!

Review of the Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm with 5.56 CMR-W Reticle

Table of Contents:
- Background (Shared with CQBSS Review)
- Unboxing and Physical Description
- Reticle
- Comparative Optical Evaluation
- Illumination Evaluation (Shared with CQBSS Review)
- Speed Testing and Exit Pupil Testing
- Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion
- Summary and Conclusion

Background (Shared with CQBSS Review):

Leupold is a rare thing in corporate America:  it is exactly what it seems. It is a fifth generation American company which manufactures most of its products in America; clearly marks those products it does not manufacture as different from those it does; and is still owned by the family rather than by some nebulous New York investment firm. I suspect that this state of affairs may have something to do with the long term success of the company. Name recognition and trust go a long way. Leupold even seemed to be having success at a time when I found its products less than compelling and my personal stock of them dwindled from four scopes to none.

It is no secret that throughout the last ten or fifteen years Leupold had been losing favor with the tactical community and was commonly maligned on the forums. Lack of compelling reticles, mismatched knobs and reticles, a relative lack of FFP offerings, and insufficient erector rations were common complaints. I'm not sure what was going on inside Leupold during that time, but everything changed in 2010 with the introduction of a separate tactical division within the company that appears to have been given significant autonomy.

The changes made in the three years since the tactical division was formed have been more substantive than in the ten years previous. Three entirely new optic lines (the Mark 6, Mark 8, and AR lines) have been launched and the existing Mark 4 line has been significantly updated. Many of these new products did not just address the matter of updating the features to match competitors’ existing offerings, but were innovative in their own right. Leupold has introduced a new illumination technology, a magnificent easily interchangeable BDC knob system, and some easy and innovative locking adjustment knob designs. Three years is a very quick timetable during which to update a product line from obsolescence to class-leading, but Leupold clearly has some scope designs in these new product lines which are just that. I have seen some evidence that the changes wrought by Leupold tactical seem to be waking up the rest of the company as well.

Unboxing and Physical Description:

I probably shouldn't have opened the CQBSS first, but I couldn't help myself. After that, the Mark 6 was a little bit of a come down. It still had the foam with nice cut outs for everything, but gone were the Alumina flip-up lens covers and in their place were stock Butler Creek covers that strangely sported Butler Creek logos instead of Leupold logos. Though these are a fine inclusion with most optics, I felt a little less special than I had when opening up the CQBSS.



Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm unboxing

Maybe I am being unfair to the lens caps:  it might be the styling of the optic that caught my eye first. It does not have the attractive form of the CQBSS. The knurling on the adjustments and power ring consists of straight lines of spacing that make it look extruded. It isn't actually extruded, other elements of the design preclude this, but it looks that way, and that, coupled with the 34mm tube lacking a flare at the objective end, give a very perfunctory appearance. The caps don't help the look when you put them on, as caps rarely do. The Mark 6 does not have the fully rotating ocular of the CQBSS, though it is still large with plenty of purchase and only a 180 degree throw.

Unfitness for the runway aside, upon picking up the optic, an advantage of the Mark 6 over its big brother immediately becomes apparent to the user. It is light. It may be 34mm, a strange size considering the diminutive 20mm objective, but it is not overweight. It is actually one of the lighter 1-6x options and light is good. In addition to this point in its favor, the Mark 6 sports the same low profile locking euro style diopter as the CQBSS:  an excellent design. The last thing to mention about the appearance of the Mark 6 is the strange battery door design. Virtually every scope I have used has a threaded lid with an o-ring on the battery compartment. Most of these are actually interchangeable because the threading, size, and o-ring are the same. I don't know if the Mark 6 designers were trying not to include a lid that was detachable and could be lost or if they just wanted to be different, but this design has a little hinged door with a latch and the o-ring deep inside. It is a marvelous little piece of over-engineering. In the end, I am not sure it accomplishes anything, but it has a great deal of intricate precise machining and design work to it.

Leupold was good enough to include a 34mm Mark 6 integral mounting system with the scope for review. This is a great help to me as I never have enough mounts to fit all the optics. In function, this mount is exactly like the Mark 8 version. It is a simple, basic, cantilevered, aluminum unit mount. Functional but not really notable. The only differences of consequence seem to be that the Mark 8 is slightly lighter and has inserts for the cap screws to thread in. Despite this, here is an entirely different mount design that occupies a different SKU and that someone had to completely design and subsequently manufacture. I really don't understand the duplication. They are just not that different. In any case, this one runs a more reasonable but still a little high $225 compared to the Mark 8's crazy $380.


Reticle:


Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm with CMR-W 5.56 reticle at 6x focused on a tree line at 100 yards

Just as with the CQBSS, the Mark 6 is offered with a few different reticle choices and these choices are meaningful. The choices are the TMR-D and the CMR-W 5.56 or 7.62. The TMR-D is probably about what you expect it to be. It is a classic mil-hash reticle with .5 mil ticks and labels every 5 mils. It also has an illuminated circle broken into four quadrants in the center.

The CMR-W offerings are a bit more complicated. You probably guessed that the 5.56 and 7.62 designations refer to 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO. The subtensions on these reticles are based on their respective ballistics. The look and function is very close to identical and Leupold actually uses the same stock image, of the 7.62 variant, for both reticles on the website despite the fact that the 7.62 goes out to 1,200 meters whereas the 5.56 only goes to 900. The CMR-W reticles each illuminate only a small central horseshoe.

Each of these CMR-W reticles offers more modes of ranging and drop compensation than the TMR-D. They have a mil scale on the horizontal axis and a small separate vertical mil scale for ranging using mils, but they also feature the chest bracket range finding made popular by Trijicon with its ACOG line of optics. Drop and wind compensation can be made using a caliber specific Christmas tree. The vertical of this tree is denominated in hundreds of meters and the horizontal in 5 mph wind increments. With this combination of mil and caliber specific features as well as a decent set of adjustment knobs, the user is offered a lot of quality choices with regards to determining range and compensating for it. The reticle does not seem overly busy at 1x because, due to the ffp nature of the design and the high power range, they are barely noticeable; leaving only the bright illuminated horseshoe which appears much like a dot. Despite a few tweaks I might make here or there, this is a very functional reticle design with the user given a great deal of choice with regard to method of distance and drop compensation and therefore a great deal of adaptability to the situation.


Comparative Optical Evaluation:

Going into the optical evaluation, I wasn't really sure what to expect from the Mark 6. It is much lighter than the CQBSS but, given the difference in power range, the price seemed to indicate similar quality glass. That proved to be the case with regard to the excellent resolution, though differences in the color rendition rendered the feel a little different. The CQBSS had a very warm pallet that was significantly skewed to greens and yellows. This was also true of the Mark 6, though to a much lesser degree:  it was closer to neutral color. I'll admit to liking a warm pallet. Bird watchers might consider this a failing on my part, but I don't care. The warm hues make the world seem brighter and more pleasant. That is probably a strange sentiment to express when looking through a combat optic.

For some reason the 1x eyebox of the Mark 6 actually felt a little smaller than the Mark 8. Given the power range difference, this seemed odd. Certainly, the exit pupil numbers do not indicate this, as I measured 1x CQBSS exit pupil at 9.14mm and the Mark 6 at 11.06mm. Impressions can be tricky and I will chalk this one up to unaccountability. In any case, the eyebox was still larger than most and did not present any problem. Its field of view is larger at 1x than its big brother, though I would still qualify this as being in the average range.

Similar to its big brother, the Mark 6 optical design left me with the impression that it was well tested and polished, so to speak:  edge to edge clear with little distortion. Most importantly, at 1x it has a remarkably flat field of view, allowing the user excellent two eyes open operation.


Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm with CMR-W 5.56 and comparison optics at maximum magnification focused on test target at 25 yards.

Illumination Evaluation:

Many of you are familiar with the three common illumination technologies used in optics. These are:  reflected, fiber, and beam splitter.

Most higher power optics use reflected illumination. In this scheme, light of the chosen color is directed forward in the opposite direction as light coming from the target. Some of this light reflects off of the reticle lines which, despite appearing black to the user when not illuminated, are, in fact, quite white, containing a great deal of titanium dioxide. This reflected light is the reticle’s illumination. The downsides to this technology are that, being as most of the light produced simply exits out the front of the optic, it is not battery efficient, cannot be made daytime bright, and can be seen by potential enemies down range. The upside is that it is inexpensive to make and you can illuminate any portion of the reticle chosen.

Fiber, which is probably most famously used in the Trijicon sights with BAC, is a transmission mechanism that can be used in conjunction with a battery powered source or to concentrate ambient light. With this technology, the fiber line is either run behind the reticle or it may actually be the reticle. At the end of the fiber line, usually the center of the reticle, the line is snipped and the severed end is aimed back at the user. The result is that the user sees a brightly illuminated figure in the shape of the end of the line. Thus, simple geometric shapes or dots can easily be made with fiber line but illumination of complex reticle elements is not possible. The illumination provided from fiber is typically very bright, battery efficient, and leaves no down range signature. Fiber technology is also not very expensive or technically challenging. I have never seen fiber technology used in a FFP scope, so this is probably either difficult or not possible.

Beam splitter illumination is the most expensive and difficult to manufacture technology. This technology is commonly used in the simple red dot sights that exist, but it can be adapted to magnified optics with some difficulty. With this illumination technology the illuminated figure, in all extant designs a dot, is merely projected between the user and the reticle by means of a mirror and is not any part of the reticle itself. In fact, the projected figure is projected at infinity and does not focus with the rest of the optical design. In theory, this illuminated projection could be any design, but in practice a dot has always been used since it is both easy and what is usually desired anyway. Lining up the projected element with the rest of the reticle is a challenge for this technology and makes the cost quite high. Despite this and other difficult and costly trade offs, beam splitter technology offers some compensatory enticements. These are that it can be used in a FFP optic, it is daytime bright, it is battery efficient, it has no down range signature, and it can be easily paired with reflected illumination technology in a scope with dual mode illumination, such as the S&B Short Dot.

Rather than use one of these existing technologies for the Mark 6 1-6x20mm, Leupold designed a fourth technology. I will call it ‘directed reflected’ because, so far as I can tell, that is how it works. It appears to me that this technology involves directing light forward from the rear of the optic and reflecting it off of the portions of the reticle with reflective dope in the same manner as conventional reflected illumination. The difference is that the reflection is much more intense (easily daytime bright), but that the intensity of the illumination varies greatly depending on how close the user’s eye is to the center of the eyebox. I am not sure exactly how this boost in brightness over conventional reflected illumination has been accomplished. My gut says that perhaps a diode-based laser is used for the illumination source and that this accounts not only for the increased intensity, but also for the sensitive viewing window. That is just a guess though. In any case, the effect is that if the user’s head moves around very much at all, the illumination appears to flicker with your head movement. Users varied in their degree of annoyance with the perceived flicker but all noticed it and found it some degree of undesirable.

The illumination controls on the Mark 6 1-6x20mm are analog knob type. The knob has seven intensity settings with an 'off' setting in between. Settings exist suitable for daytime bright dot style illumination as well as for nighttime use and night vision use. On the Mark 6 1-6x20mm with CMR-W reticle, only the center horseshoe feature is lit. This makes ranging or hold-over in low light a no-go. With the M-TMR the central mil section is illuminated, enhancing long range use in low light. This circular feature only illumination is also the case with the TMR-D reticle variant.


Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm with CMR-W 5.56 reticle and comparison optics at 1x and maximum illumination. Target at 25 yards.

Speed Testing and Discussion of Contributing Factors:


All of the scopes to be compared in the speed testing

Over the course of the last couple of reviews, I have had the opportunity to evaluate, in cooperation with eight or nine different testers, some fourteen different optics, with a 1x setting, engaging close quarters targets. For this I use an air-soft AR and pie pans:  I'm not made of money. It's a lot of fun and you can go though thousands of rounds for the cost of fast food dinner. What I have found after doing all of this testing is that what counts for close quarters is not exactly what you would expect. Here is my summary of the major factors and what part they play:

1) Optical Design:  Having a distortion free, flat field of view at 1x is, by far, the most important factor to speed. Pincushion distortion, barrel distortion, or curvature to field throws off your ability to merge the data coming in from your left and right eyes into a single image. The result is slow and a little disorienting. This disorienting effect is not noticeable when you are focused on a stationary target, but as you move across the field of fire, having the objects viewed through the optic bend as the field of view moves across them is very hard to deal with. At 1x the Mark 6 was one of the best optics. It was one step above the CQBSS with regard to flatness of field of view. It was probably as good as any true optic can be in this regard.

2) Reticle:  The reticle is a little more subjective. Not every tester has always agreed. However, in general, an open field of view with a few thick objects in just the center is the desired combination. Crosshairs are generally disliked. The CMR-W reticle that I had in my Mark 6 1-6x20mm might appear fairly busy at 6x, but turned down to 1x the center appears clean. It does have thick posts at the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions, but the specific thickness and arrangement of these items seemed to somehow render them more innocuous than I would have suspected. This may have had something to do with the illumination. In any case, it worked.

3) Illumination:  It may come as a surprise given optics makers' quest for daytime bright illumination, but it comes in a bit down the list. To be sure, having a daytime bright dot can eclipse reticle design in importance to speed if the reticle is thin and therefore not distracting, but it will not make up for a bulky distracting reticle. Reticle design and illumination can be seen as working together to determine speed, but, in my experience, the reticle is the bigger part of this pair. The center horseshoe is small and brightly lit though the illumination does display the aforementioned flickering effect as the user's head moves.

4) Eyebox:  It should come as no surprise that having more freedom of motion while still getting a picture is good for speed. However, what I have found is that, within reason, this factor plays less a part than you might think. It is true a tiny eyebox can make an optic slow, but most scopes have enough leeway that it is not a big factor. The eyebox on the Mark 6 was serviceable. I think the illumination flicker effect makes it appear smaller than it actually is. Most folks disagreed with me and found it larger than that on the CQBSS. My thought was that the eyebox felt a little smaller but that the flicker effect on the Mark 6 was less critical than that on the CQBSS and therefore made it feel larger.

All factors combined, the Mark 6 finished just above the CQBSS near the top of all the optics in the comparison. I was the only tester to have these reversed. The major complaints were the flickering perceived in the illumination and the relatively restricted eyebox. The major desired features were the open and flat field of view, the bright dot style illumination, and the bright crisp optics. I will also mention here that because of the combination of field of view and eye relief, the Mark 6 has very little distance between the edge of the image and the edge of the optic relative the viewing eye. The best way to describe this is that it is like a television with not much bezel, edge to edge picture. This design aspect was noticed by several users and aided in merging the right and left eye images which, in turn, makes the optic faster.


Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:

Leupold calls the turrets on the Mark 6 1-6x20mm M6C1 'adjustments'. These are locking, 10 mil, single turn, .2 mil per click, zero stop adjustments that are also low profile. Just by my saying those things you can understand that these have a good deal to recommend them. They do a lot of everything in a small package. I will talk about their foibles next as they are not the unmitigated pleasure to use that those on the CQBSS are, but I don't want you to let any of this wipe your mind of the fact that these are very small turrets that do all of those things. That is quite an achievement, though it did not come without some cost to user experience. Just because your iPhone is not as good for watching movies as a big screen does not mean you take the big screen with you every day in case you get bored and want to watch Netflix.

The first compromise I noticed with these turrets is the feel. (Okay, first I noticed they were kind of ugly, but I don't think you can blame that on the small design.) These turrets have a mushy feel to them though they are nevertheless quite stiff and therefore dig in a bit when you turn them. Not surprisingly, this mushy feel is not augmented with audible clicks:  they are tactile only. The stiff feel is probably not the major factor contributing to their digging into you when adjusted. Rather, the little button that unlocks them is probably the bigger factor. This button is only on one side and it is kind of slick, causing everything else you grip with to have to make up the difference. It also can be hard to find with gloves. If you are behind the optic and can't see the button, you just have to try gripping in a few different positions before you get lucky. You probably guessed that with such small adjustments, the zero stop and zero set simultaneously with a hex wrench. This is indeed the case. Other systems for accomplishing these settings invariably take up substantially more room. Lastly, the adjustments are marked both in mils and in BDC specific drops. Only one of these BDC drops is marked as such. The others are just labeled 4, 5, 6, etc. Although on a different line they are easy to confuse with the mils that are also labeled 4, 5, 6, etc., room existed for more markings of the BDC numbers and should have been utilized. All of these caveats aside, the Mark 6 has excellent adjustments because they do all of the things you want them to. The fact that they are uncomfortable is just not a big deal because they are so small and yet so functional.



Close up of the M6C1 adjustments and intricate battery door of the Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm

For the adjustment testing of the Mark 6 1-6x 20mm and other scopes being reviewed this year, I made up a new target shown below. I spend a good deal of time shooting at my local 100-yard range with scopes that are adjusted in mils. It annoyed me that I could not find a target made on a mils at 100 yards grid. I therefore made one and furthermore, made it have six bulls so that I can shoot a box and power change test on the same target. The grid on the pictured target is .1 mil at 100 yards. I will make the PDF of this target available just as soon as I can figure out a way to get the CAD program to make a PDF of the correct size. (It seems to be able to print out the correct size, but the PDF is not right. I will have to use some printer plug in.)

A box test checks for the accuracy in magnitude and independence in direction of the adjustments. To perform this 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 with the last group landing back atop the first. 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 scope's adjustments. As performed on this target, all of the groups should have the same position relative to the exes. The Leupold passed this test with no difficulty.

In a power change test, the rifle is fired at two different targets with one being shot at maximum magnification and the other at minimum. The targets are then compared to make sure that the scope does not shift with regard to point of aim when the power is changed. Some shift is expected with a second focal plane scope, but a front focal plane scope, such as this one, should exhibit no shift. The Leupold exhibits no shift.


Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm box and power change tests

Summary and Conclusion:

In the lead up to the release of the Mark 6 1-6x20mm, many folks, myself included, expected it to be based on the same optical design as the VX-6 1-6x24mm. Having reviewed that optic last year, I can attest that that is not the case. Not only is the glass better in the Mark 6, but it also does not display the barrel distortion that was the biggest problem with the VX-6 design. This is a better optical platform and was chosen by at least one reviewer in my testing as his favorite close quarters optic.

I see the Mark 6 1-6x20mm as the successor to the Mark 4 CQ/T. That optic, which is still produced though I am talking about it as if it is not, was one of the first scopes in the variable low power scope revolution and one of the most innovative. This optic continues that tradition by increasing the power range, improving the reticle design, bettering the glass and optical design, adding a daytime bright feature similar in function to a dot, and adding very small but very high function adjustments. It is true that a few of the CQ/T's features (the AA battery, integrated mount, and fully rotating ocular) have been changed but, with the exception of the AA battery, these were not universally loved. On balance, it is quite an upgrade.

The two sticking points for the Mark 6 1-6x20mm are the illumination which, similarly to the CQBSS, appears to the user to flicker as the user's head moves and the price. This scope can regularly be found at a street price of $2k. This contrasts greatly with the price the CQ/T first was when it was released:  my CQ/T cost me $630 new. Even with inflation, this is a much more expensive optic. Certainly the glass is much better and the design updated, but $2k is a lot. I can't help but think that, given the existence of the CQBSS in Leupold's product line, it might have made sense to use glass one notch down in the Mark 6 1-6x20mm and put it at a $1,500 price point. This is really more a criticism of the design of the product line than of the optic itself, though. The Mark 6 uses top shelf glass and is priced accordingly.



Here is Your Pro and Con Breakdown:

Pros:
The optics are first tier
Two meaningful reticle types, one with a combination of both mil and caliber specific features
The adjustments are small and feature-rich
The illumination is daytime bright
180 degree turn power ring ample purchase and a nice locking diopter
Very lightweight
One of the fastest optics in the class at close quarters
Leupold’s excellent warranty and reputation


Cons:
Illumination appears to flicker with head movement
Expensive
Unattractive appearance
The adjustments are uncomfortable to operate



Leupold Mark 6 1-6x20mm in the Mark 6 cantilevered 34mm mount on a SCAR 16s

Jim I just got the US Optics SR8C but with a different reticle. Its a Mil Scale reticle with BDC for the heavy 223 bullets. I am very impressed with this scope and the reticle.

Do you remember what the BDC reticle is called? It was not available at the time they sent the review scope out to me and has not yet been added to the website but I would like to mention it in my review which will be posted next week.

Its my reticle that i designed. Its called R W F. Its the best of both types of reticles
It has a mil reticle so you can dial if you choose to. And also BDC out to 800 yds with wind hold over for 2.5,5 & 10mph
When the reticle is at 1 power the reticle almost disappears leaving the bright red dot like an aimpoint scope without any lines to obscure your sight for fast shooting.  
When you crank up to 8x the reticle shows up nice and clear for those long shots
I have a few scopes left for sale with my reticle. I had to buy 10 scopes to get my reticle built. If you know anyone interested its $2300 shipped and they are brand new in box.
Thanks
Ron