<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

I have updated the table to include the new scopes released for shot show. I have also called and e-mailed around and fleshed out the specifications of many of the scopes that were already in the table. If a spec, other than battery, is missing from the table it is because the scope is either so new no one knows or the company will not respond to queries. Here are a few notes on the table updates:

- Regarding the GRSC scope: As I mentioned in my review the scope in the table is the new Korean version. I still don't know its field of view or exit pupil. Neither does Ed. Hopefully he will find this out from the manufacturer. If not, I may, at some point find these variables out myself since I have the scope on hand.

- The scope referred to as the Meopta Tactical K-dot is their new k-dot scope that was released at shot show this year with surprisingly little fanfare. I should know the specifications on it within a few weeks. These are just exiting the prototype phase and are supposed to be available for your consumption in March. I have spoken with some folks at Meopta and it is likely I will have reviewed one by then. This new K-dot will have some type of BDC reticle though I don't yet have any idea what it will look like. The new K-dot is also a few inches shorter than the old offering.

- Thanks to SWFA for the spec sheet on the CQBSS (except for price, I obtained that elsewhere.) These are specs on the prototype and may not reflect the final production specs. Here's to hoping the production scope has an exit pupil wider than 8mm and costs less than $3400.

- I have decided not to make any calls or e-mails  to find out the battery types and illumination duration of any scopes on the list. The reason for this is that all I seem to get from companies regarding illumination duration is BS. Sure your CR2032 based scope lasts 3000 hours when pigs can fly.

Was it made for the ACR?

ETA:  I can't believe they would price it that expensive...well, yeah I can.  I just wish a maker would put out a true 1-6x with some quality thats not 2k.  Looks like the Burris XTR is gonna be it for me...Yeah, I'm pretty much whining...

Just got the new S&B tech specs. They have been added to the table. I also have some PDF's of their release material which I attempt to convert to images. I will post these pics to another thread and link them here as this is not really a thread for press releases. The word from the S&B rep is that these will be available mid year. I will have posted a review by that time though it may be a while so don't hold you breath. These are prototype right now. I have no idea the price but I'm sure it will be more than $3k given the prices of the other short dot scopes.



Your wish may not be that far off. I know of one being designed though its probably well over a year out. I have high hopes but that is true of every new optic and few deliver.

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

Well, I just bought a DMS-1 and have shot it a few times so far.    I thought I liked it, but after reading this whole thread, I might as well throw it against the wall and start over.  

I guess I'll wait to see what optic is considered the best buy with out costing more than $1000

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

i'm not sure - but the new viper pst 1x-4x is second focal plane right?

Yes.  Which is fine in my book....not sure why anyone would want a FFP reticle in a 1-4 variable anyway - but I learn something new everyday.... so if there's a legitimate reason, I'm open to hear it.  Ranging maybe?  Even so....I'd imagine that 4X would still be preferred.

I believe the Razor is FFP, but has a different reticle design.  

For reference, here's the 4 different reticle options currently offered by Vortex.  The first two are with the Viper PST, the second two are with the Razor HD.  I'm preo-ordered through SWFA for the MOA version of the Viper PST.

What I don't know is whether the Viper PST options are scaled correctly in these renditions....

Viper PST MOA:

Viper PST MRAD:

Razor HD EBR556:

Razor HD CQMR-1:

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

yeah - i guess even with the FFP 1-4x they have ya range at 4x anyways because otherwise the cross-hair/cqb whatever is a dot anyways.
i guess maybe it's more worth the ranging on higher power scopes.

Yeah that's my assumption too - I could certainly see the benefits of having a FFP on a higher power variable.

probably apples to oranges but i'm kinda interested to hear about the GRSC CRS scope. I know burris and vortex with have better clarity in glass but $200 - 300 less in price for something that really is only 4x anyways. Not sure if alot of people range out to 700yds with a 4x and a .223. But who knows, that's probably me being ignorant and not that good of a shot.

Nikon has a new 1-4

Their rep swears by and at me that it's a true 1X

I'll know shortly

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

you'd be surprised what good glass does for you at even 1000yrds.

My PSL has the standard 4x LPS 4x6° TIP2 optic.    It's was made by IOR back in the 70's.    The clarity and crispness of the optic allows the shooter to see things that I normally wouldn't with a poor quality optic.   I was seriously thinking of going with a current IOR for my AR specifically because of my experience with that optic; that is, until the review of the pitbul here.

Hi Hokie,

When you do the math on the two PST reticles, it appears that they are scaled correctly.  This is one reason I am leaning to the MRAD version, bigger donut at 1x for 3-gun.

-Ed

that was my assumption, but I'm glad you clarified.  I'm running out of questions Sam...lol....I promise!

ohh my! good find on the Nikon - i always thought the nikon's were pretty clear, my friend has an older nikon with the duplex x-hairs. I can't seem to find a pic of the new "Point Blank" reticle though!? i'd really like to see it. I believe i've seen the other ones. I'm surprised they don't have the new reticle pic on the nikon website. At least a preview!

Hi Sam & Hokie,

Follow my math

MOA donut thickness: (22-18)/2=2 MOA
MRAD donut thichness: (6.5-5)/2=.75 MRAD

1 MOA=1.05"@100 yards
2 MOA=2.1" This is the thickness of the donut on the MOA version at 100 yards
1 MRAD=3.6" @100 yards
.75 MRAD=2.7" This is the thicknes of the donut on the MRAD version at 100 yards

MOA donut outside diameter=23.1" @100 yards
MOA donut inside diameter=18.9" @100 yards
MRAD donut outside diameter=23.4 @100 yards
MRAD donut inside diameter=18" @100 yards

So the donuts are about the same outside size but the MRAD is 28.6% thicker.

-Ed

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

Ah...gotcha now Ed.  I'm following what you're saying.  Makes sense.

MRAD:



From Vortex's website...a better rendition of the scale between the two reticles.  Probably hard to tell when the reticle is illuminated, but I suppose one could see a 25% difference in thickness if you were looking for it.

MOA

MRAD

I'm somewhat disappointed that it's not got some illumination in it

but at least they are trying

SWFA,
So Is it as true 1x?  Have you actually handled one yet?
BTW I called your shop yesterday looking for a true 1x and the sales person did not tell me about this scope.  I discovered it on my own after calling NIKON, who also swore to me that it a true 1x.

I was looking to use this scope on my rimfire conversion but Nikon will not re set the parallax to 50 yards for me, no custom work like Leupold. (But leupold does not make a true 1x.)


Now I am off to learn mopre about parallax and how much of a problem it would be to use this NIKON, parallax set at 100yds, with a .22 upper at ranges of 25 and 50 yds.
If anyone can help please chime in.

Parallax set at 100yrds is going to be a very bad thing on a rimfire.    Even at 50yrds it can be a problem for shots at 25yrds.     A .22 is a precision round for me.   My 10yr old shoots the heads of his army men with his 10/22, at 25yrds.   With out an adjustable objective on his scope, that would not be an easy thing to do.....almost imposible.    At 50yrds, you can get away with it on a .22, as several of my rimfires fixed objective scopes do, but adjustable objective or something like an Aimpoint or eotech with no parallax at all, works best.

Hi Sam,

I think I got a little to analytical on the donut size!

You are probably right that the difference will be negligble actual looking through the scopes, but to be sure I will need to verify this with my own eyes. So please ship me ASAP one of each model and I will report back my findings.

-Ed

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

any reticle pics on that nikon m-223 yet? I have yet to find any

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

Great thread!  I just wish these 1-4x optics were shorter: 9" and 10" scopes are too damn long when you're so used to an Aimpoint.

Here's some info on the new Meopta Tactical K-Dot 1-4x22mm scope:

• total length shortened by almost 3 inches


• Improved reticle with holdover for 300-, 400- and
  500-meter ranges.
  
  


• Tethered turret caps
  
  


• Not sure this is new:  daylight visible reticle
  illumination, 7 levels of adjustments, illumination turnoff between each setting
  
  


• The MSRP is
  same as the older K-Dot models at $800.

Premier
Reticles, Schmidt & Bender and Leupold all introduced 1-8x illuminated-dot reticle scopes at SHOT.  (The MSRP for the S&B is supposedly going to be only $2,100 - due to technological advancements in the
manufacturing process. Sounds too good to be true.)



(thanks to tacticalgunfan.com for the info)

<Off-topic posts removed - Z>

What about the Kruger scopes?



DTS™ 1-8x40 Tactical Sight

Designed for complex combat situations, this U.S.-made sight is actually two scopes in one compact package. For close combat situations, the sight is a high-resolution 1 MOA dot with a 60 MOA circle reflex sight. A flip of a lever transforms it into a 2-8x40 sniper scope with Mil-dot reticle. All adjustments can be quickly made while looking through the sight, so there is on need to lose sight of a target.

http://www.krugeroptical.com/ko-tactical-scopes-next.asp

I'll buy that in a heartbeat if it's as good as they say. Basically a eotech and a 1-8 scope for a grand. I wonder when it will be available.



 

I can't put into a few words how important this thread has been to me.
I tried to put all this information together on my own and make a purchase I wouldn't cry about later.
And then I found this link. I'm still going to cry, but only once. Choices are down to a few,
but because of the contributors to this topic, it will be an informed decision. Thanks to all!!

Color me skeptical about it, but I really hope its as good as they say.  That would be the perfect predator hunting scope!  Hell, that would be great for a large number of applications!

BigJimFish
GREAT work... I have been reading about scopes for a year and this is hands down the best compilation of scope information, w/ no less a chart... Also, you bring up some very good points missed by others I have read... Anyhow, 2 questions...
1)  I have a good optics background as I used to do research w/ lasers year ago, but I do not understand your comment indicating that 1.1x is really THE true 1x or having zero optical magnification... Could you explain...
2)  FOV is a big deal for me in looking for a scope and have always read that 1x w/ 2 eyes open is a situation where parallax does not exist, yet you seem to contradict my understanding... Could you explain...

Thanks, John

I shall do my best.

Regarding the 1.1x vs 1x distinction. I first heard this years ago from Leupold regarding the CQ/T which is a 1.1-3x scope that is said to provide 1.0-2.9x actual magnification. It was Leupold's argument that an optic that appears to be 1x (presumably) based on the thin lens equations will, in practice, provide a slightly undersized image. To provide an image that appears in practice to be unmagnified therefore requires lenses that yield 1.1x magnification when thin lens equations are used. S&B, Leupold, and Premier reticles amongst others seem to agree and therefore label their scopes 1.1-(n) power (presumably) according to these equations. Having used 1.1-(n) power scopes I can attest that they indeed appear to be unmagnified in practice. That being said, I have also used so called 1-(n) power scopes and observed them to appear to be unmagnified in practice. This leads me to the following conjecture: Some scope companies label according to the perceived magnification of the piece and some label according to the thin lens equations used in the construction of the scope.

It is my further conjecture that the reason the 1.1x vs 1x controversy exists finds its origins in the actual physics of the thin lens equations themselves. Thin lens equations are a set of simplified equations for calculating the magnification of optics based on the focal lengths of the lenses involved. In order to do this more easily albeit less precisely one important shortcut is taken. That shortcut is that the thickness of the lens is essentially assumed to be zero. Obviously this is not accurate. From this approximation springs mild errors in the calculated magnifications just as from the actual thickness of the lens springs errors in the image produced such as chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, and coma.

These are my conjectures based on my knowledge of optics and experiences. I could be well off. Suffice it to say though that in practice if a reputable scope manufacturer labels their product at 1.1x or as 1x with the intention of this product being used for both eyes open close quarters use it will probably work fine.

Now on to Parallax error. This one is a bit simpler an involves less conjecture on my part. All true optics can only have the reticle and the image in the same plane at one distance at a time. At all other distances the reticle will appear in front of or behind the target. Fortunately our eyes and brains are pretty flexible devices. They compensate allowing the reticle to appear clear and focused at the target over a pretty large range of distances. This is especially true the lower the magnification an optic has. For this reason most 1-4x scopes are permanently focused at 100 yards instead of adjustable like a high power sniper scope. At 100 yards most 1-4x scopes will exhibit no parallax and be totally focused. At all other distances they will have parallax error with severity depending on how far off the center of the sight line your eye moves and how far removed from 100 yards the target is. Opening a second eye does not have any effect on where the reticle appears on the target since you are only physically seeing the reticle with one eye anyway. It is the process of your brain merging the two images produced by your two eyes into one that makes it seem as if you can see the reticle with both.

A note about parallax in general. It has been said that red dot sights are parallax free at all distances instead of just at one as with a magnified optic. While in theory it may be possible to achieve this in reality most red dot sights do exhibit measurable parallax error. Furthermore, let us mention some other practical reasons that the point of aim might be different from the point of impact. Here are the candidates...

1) Parallax error
2) Offset of sight line from bore line
3) Bullet drop due to gravity
4) Bullet drift due to wind
5) Bullet spread due to inherent inaccuracy in the rifle
6) Bullet spread due to inherent inaccuracy in the cartridge

It is my conjecture that at close ranges offset of the sight line from the bore line is of a much greater impact than parallax error. Furthermore, with speed being the primary goal at these ranges and the target tending to be quite large parallax should not be the biggest concern. At longer ranges I should hope the user gains a better shooting position and therefore less eye position deviation from the center line of the scope. Also, at longer ranges those bottom 4 variables especially drop and wind start to really dominate the aiming error argument. With the proper reticle a 1-4x scope can help you with drop and wind. A red dot does not offer this benefit. Of course this is mute since the red dot is unmagnified and therefore not useful at longer range anyway. As a side note, slapping a magnifier on a red dot removes the theoretical possibility of having a parallax free sight so don't expect to boost your red dot and escape parallax. The best solution for parallax.... An adjustable cheek piece stock to keep your eye where it should be.

I hope this has been helpful. I know these optical concepts can be difficult. Despite college education in the sciences I still don't know as much as I would like to.

I recently received the data on the new k-dot from the Meopta rep. The table has been updated with this data. It appears that the new tactical k-dot has a few changes in addition to the reticle and the removal of long integral sunshade but that its optics are still quite similar to the existing k-dot as most have conjectured they would be.

Availability of this scope has been pushed back from March to sometime June - July. The reason for this is high demand among NATO military units is being filled prior to civilian distribution. I will have one to review when they become available to civilians.

In addition to the data, I was also able to acquire a reticle drawing. It is a bit crude but sufficient to satisfy my curiosity.The reticle is designed for a 100 yard zero. The chevron aiming points represent 300, 400, and 500 yard aim points. There does not appear to be ranging functionality to the reticle. The drop is based on 5.56mm ballistics but I do not know which cartridge or the specific numbers they used. Anyhow, here's the reticle, enjoy.

Oh my GOSH!!!!!!  I'm about to pull my hair out trying to decide.  

I'm going to shoot my first 3-gun match on the 21st and I want a 1-4x.  Problem is I can't decide whether to buy a $800-ish scope and risk not liking the one I buy, or to buy a $200-ish scope, shoot it for a few matches, and look at everyone else's nicer scopes in order to see which I like best.  

I'm leaning toward the $200-ish side, but now I'm stuck......again.

Millet DMS?- not great glass, heavy, but has illum and donut style reticle.
Weaver V3?- Better glass, basic reticle, no illum.
Nikon M223?- Even better glass, pretty good reticle (point blank) but no illum.

What I'm stuck on is this;
1. Is illum more important than clearer glass?
2. Is a "dot" style reticle more important than a plex?

If I knew those answers, I could make a decision.  I'm leaning towards the weaver just because of the cost; knowing that I will buy a Meopta/Trijicon/US Optic or something in a few months.

For your first match, I'd recommend that you shoot what you have to learn what you'll end up needing. You will change your 3-gun setup as you grow, learn and mature into the sport.
Having said that, the Weaver 3X is popular since it's low cost and will do everything you need it to do as a beginner. Illumination is important but you're just starting out and it'll be the least of your worries.