Considering a Leupold VX-5HD 1-5x24mm Duplex Reticle. Making that the top end of my price range, am I missing a better option? New to LPVO so any advice/experience appreciated.

The Vortex Viper PST Gen2 1-6x would be a better option for the money. From somewhere like DSG Arms, it comes in cheaper than the cheapest showroom demo un-illuminated VX5HD that I could find. If you were planning to budget for the illuminated version, you could probably get a Sig Tango6T (notice the T) for similar cost on BDU.

Why: An optic like the Viper is going to be more useful for the ways in which an LPVO is usually used on a carbine. It has a good eye box, daylight bright dot, reference marks in its reticle, and decent glass. Look at the LPVOs competitive shooters, special forces operators, LEOs, etc., are using. Many of them use the Vortex Razor, in fact. That's a clue. The Viper is estimated to be about 80ish% of what a Razor is, for half the price. The only distinct negative is weight, which can be mitigated a bit by a lightweight quality mount (and I also recommend the 1.93" height). I bought the Steiner when it could be had for $445. These days, I would go with the Viper instead.

I'd say 1.93 is on the high side. 1.49 or 38mm / even 30mm mount will actually get you a cheek weld vs a chin weld. The new trend is to grab the highest mount off the shelf. With red dots, it works. Not so with scopes with specific eye relief. Close your eyes and shoulder your rig. Open your eyes. That's where you're scope should be in 99% of the time It won't be two inches above the top rail.

Edit: add. The closer your scope is to bore the better and flatter trajectory and MPBR. Think of it this way. If the bore is 10 feet underneath scope. Obviously POA, POI Is going to look like a rainbow.

Alot of options out there. If you can swing a razor get one. Lot of people dumping them cheap because the new 1-10 coming out soon. Even second hand vortex are g2g because if their warranty.

Leupold is normally subpar vs the competition ( nightforce, vortex, kahles, Swarovski)

It's higher but definitely not a "chin weld," which can be verified if you see anyone using the taller 1.93. Not even my Huey with Unity riser requires a "chin weld." It's more akin to using a lower 1/3rd red dot mount versus co-witness height, and most would probably find it to be a more natural and comfortable position in any position but prolonged prone. If you plan to spend the vast majority of your shooting time on your belly, perhaps the lower mounts make more sense.

ETA: I didn't get to the below comments on my first read through.
This is clearly misleading, at best, to anyone that has actually used a decent LPVO (like the Viper) properly mounted in a 1.93 mount. The eye relief is not affected by a slightly higher position. The "eye box" is a bit more forgiving than you might imagine. The whole point is to make using the optic an easier experience.

The difference isn't in feet, it's less than a half inch in most cases. If this trajectory difference matters, you're talking about a different sport than those using LPVOs.

I'd bring the gun up to your eyes not your head down to the scope. Idk maybe others have longer necks?

Some good discussions here

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?207517-1-93-quot-Height-mounts-why-all-the-excitement-Where-did-they-come-from

Looks like 1.93 came from getting over a peq. Ehh

I do. It's still nicer with the optic a touch higher, and for the same height to the eyes, the stock can be a little lower and more firmly planted for better recoil control when applicable. The 1.93 did originate from clearing a PEQ on 1x, but it so happens to have other advantages. There are even 2"+ heights offered now, but even I feel that might be a bit much for prone or even some barricade or unconventional shooting positions.

As much as I love to buy American made I’d skip that Leupold.

Last week I snagged a Burris XTR2 1-5 for about $380 from natchezss.

There is no better lpvo on the market for that price. Plus they have a great warranty just like vortex.

I grabbed an   XTR2 1-5 a couple of months ago.  They are clearing them out for the new 1-8s.  The XTR is a great optic.

I got a used one a lot cheaper than that recently.

For me, a Leupold VX5HD 1-5x24 is made by only a few things...

1. For an LE patrol rifle in Texas your max magnification is 5x.

2. The Firedot illumination system is the longest lasting, most reliable and sharpest aiming point for any daytime bright LPVO.

3. The locking BDC turret version is good for precision holds on your self defense load.

Without the illumination, its just nice glass and really lightweight for a lot of money. Vortex might be a better option for the money, especially if you you wont use the BDC elevation and weight is not as big a deal.

As far as scope height for a defensive carbine?

1. You should not stand straight up shooting a scope like it is an Olympic target shooting stage... unless that is what you are doing.

2. If you need to get your head lower in a standing position, just square up more and lean forward a bit at the waist, in a more aggressive stance... suddenly you have the optic at the right height.

1.42" to 1.44" will be absoloute cowitness height.

1.5" is a hair under lower 1/3 cowitness.

1.93" is a "no witness height" and will create a totally black non view in the optic if you shoot prone or put your cheek on the stock.

OP, I didn't intend to sway this thread into a discussion on optic mount height, but I think it does speak to important fundamental differences in how people intend to use an LPVO on a carbine. This intent can affect which LPVO you ultimately choose. That Burris above does seem like a good value overall, but I would check to see if those turrets can be locked in place or covered in any way and consider the importance of that.

The intent I'm approaching this from is that the LPVO should essentially be like a red dot with a huge occular lens that can offer a bit of magnification, identification, and precision when needed. Others may approach them as a more precision-oriented instrument to be used from a fixed position, like a "DMR" or "sniper lite" type use. You can see the design intent differences between optics like a Leupold Mk 6 and a Vortex Razor.

Anyway, that's why I feel a need to respond to this:

Agreed you shouldn't be fully upright in an Olympic target stance (generally speaking). That stance isn't required to use a taller mount. I have been instructed by a retired green beret (assaulter, specifically), a Marine, and a 75th Ranger. All advocate for a fighting stance that, specifically, keeps you mobile and fast. These qualities would be most relevant to a civilian in a defensive situation. A hyper-aggressive stance, leaning forward or being the "tactical turtle," does not facilitate this (though it might be appropriate in certain situations). The closer the range, the faster you need to be. The whole point of using a different/taller height is to make it easier and faster to get your sight picture, with the least amount of bodily adjustment necessary.

This was probably brought up because I described the 1.93 as "more akin" to a 1/3rd co-witness height. Technically, that isn't entirely correct as shown here. However, the ocular lens of an LPVO is much larger than an LED red dot, and you should never be trying to co-witness irons or anything else through one anyway. It was more of an analogy to illustrate that 1.93 isn't radically higher, it's just better for certain things if you have a choice between heights.

The more important thing I want to correct is that 1.93 will NOT totally black out your view in prone. That's simply wrong. I just got out my carbine with an empty mag and went prone to try and find out why someone would believe that (assuming they have ever even tried a 1.93 or higher mount, which is doubtful). In the prone, it's quite natural to get a full sight picture. I'm about 5'10", pretty normal proportions. It's not much of a strain on my neck, either. I can see how it would be a little more comfortable to drop my head a little lower if I had to stay in that position for a prolonged period of time.

If I thought I would do most of my shooting on my belly (or sitting at a bench), then a more precision-oriented optic in a lower mount and on a longer gun would make more sense. Different tools, different jobs.

1.54" is absolute cowitness

1.70" is lower 1/3rd

1.93" works fine for prone, I have an 11.5" with a 2.04" mount that I shoot prone on occasion with no difficulty.  For a dedicated precision gun, I would go lower, but for a do-all gun, 1.70" or higher is very usable.

Furthermore, regarding body position. Being more heads up and in an athletic stance with neutral neck position (such as with a higher mount):

1. Gives you better situational awareness.
2. Allows more rapid lateral target transitions.
3. Allows more rapid movement, whether lateral or forwards or backwards.
4. Allows your hard rifle plates to actually do their job and better protect you from incoming (assuming you're wearing plates, which is why the squared up stance became popular to begin with)
5. Will definitely not get you 'kilt in da streetz'

Higher mounts are the future. You should try them.

Don't get a duplex reticle.   Get something with, preferably BDC but MRAD would be ok, that will allow you to have holdover points at longer distances.

Razor 1-6 is excellent.  PST Gen2 is good.  Steiner P4Xi is good.  Burris RT6 or XTR2 are good.

I think your numbers are a little off.  While every mount/sight manufacturer don't use exact specs for absolute co-witness and lower 1/3rd, they're definitely not as high as you referenced.  Irons are supposed to be 1.41" over the top rail.  Most absolute co-witness mounts put you in that range.  I see most lower 1/3rd in the 1.5-1.65" range.

I personally like mine in the 1.5" range.  Have a friend who uses a 1.93 and I just couldn't get along with it......I like a deep cheek weld.  Felt like my head was way too high and it was uncomfortable, could not get a repeatable cheek weld (I'm sure I could after much practice with it).  It's all personal preference...…

As for the OP, I have the VX6-HD 1-6x w/ BDC.  Love the reticle and the weight is the main factor I just cannot get rid of it (would love a 1-10 razor but just cannot justify the extra cost and weight).  You can get them used for more the half off the MSRP on the EE.  The PST 2 is an excellent optic for much less if that fits your budget better.

If you can find a BURRIS RT-6 for a deal I would consider it.
Been running one on a 3-gun AR and I am very satisfied.

If you put your cheek hard on the stock you lose sight picture on a 1.93" height. Its physics. Sure, you levitate your head. I dont do that. You need a reference point to eliminate parallax.

If you choose to stand erect and call my technique "tactical turtle" we will just agree to disagree. My hand to hand stance is also more forward leaning and chin down. It is my "athletic stance" which may be different from yours. I am a LE firearms instructor and see lots of people who prefer a more upright stance in my field. I do not. Use what works for you. My cousin uses a traditional upright boxing stance as a pro boxer. I argue all the time he would be better off leaning forward, chin down, eyes up, shoulders slightly shrugged and slightly rolled forward which provides better passive defense. It takes more energy, yes, but dont sit in that position 100% of tbe time. It does not work for passive NV which requires an upright stance. In gunfighting a more aggressive stance (slightly aggressive only) facilitates recoil mitigation, provides a consistent head position to optic, gives a more flat stock surface to shoot from, etc. I dont lean enough forward or shrug shoulders enough to not see over my shoulders, limit pans, slow shot transitions. etc. It is a mild difference. I also have the plate at an angle forward to make it less of a spall hazard, increased the relative plate thickness from incoming fire, etc. I dont shoot based off plates or no plates and attempt to present more plate to target. IMO you should do everything the same in armor or no armor. Sure, dont shoot olympic or weaver, but slight changes to a square stance are not a horrible thing.  In a new shooter, excessive head side lean from too much optic height is a common issue. The solution is to rotate the head to the gun side slightly and lean forward. The rest fixes itself.

My point is you MUST float your cheek on a 1.93" height. It is really not a big deal standing, but prone, with a solid cheek weld, you see black till you lift off the stock. Just try prone and lay your head fully on the stock. You won't see the reticle till you lift your cheek. Unless you are Native American with really big low cheekbones relative to eye.

Many of the guys who I see using the 1.93 mounts are using an adjustable cheek riser.  Like on a Tac-Mod stock.

Shoulders down, hands up, head up.

Scrunch down like that is a good way to get knocked out.

I say get something cheap to figure out what you want to do before you go dropping coin.  I know the saying, buy once cry once, but I think that's an excuse for people to spend too much money on stuff.

Buying a cheap optic to figure out whether you want to buy a nice optic is .

There are some great optics in the 400-700 dollar range right now.  Don't buy some chinesium special for $120 and put any kind of validity in how it performs.

If you really want to get a vibe for different LPVOs, go spectate at a 3-gun match.   Ask a bunch of people if you can look through their scopes.  Nobody will tell you no.

VX5 huh? It’d work, but it’s not what I’d pick. In that price range I’d rather have a P4Xi and save some money, or a PSTII. There’s a lot of room for subjectivity these days so it’s probably just as important to find what ‘works for you’, since at the end of the day anything in the mid-tier price and above ‘works’.

Also, optic height is subjective too. I like standard cowitness height. But that’s what works best for me. These days it’s trendy to go super high. That started off for NV, but I think that caught on as the Gucci way to do it, and now people that fancy themselves speedshooters like it as well.

I know that sounds condescending to tall mounts, but the point is they feel it works best for them, I feel standard height works best for me, and you’ll have to figure out what works best for you. What I, or they, like won’t help a lot with that.

Now it's clear what was getting lost in translation. When I use my cheek bone to align myself to the stock, and not the usual part of my cheek, I am not looking through the optic at all. When I lock myself in that position, my face is so low, I'm not sure if a 1.5ish" height would be much more useful without straining.

Fair enough, I think these discussions are worthwhile and relevant when considering complex optics. I didn't mean to be dismissive towards you personally with the "tactical turtle." There is definitely a gray area between the turtle and the Olympic shooter (or passive NV shooter), and you've explained why and the many factors that can be involved.

I felt I got my money's worth from my first carbine class when Drew (ex-SF) showed me the finer points of recoil control and being more consistent with rapid strings of fire. Most everyone was using red dots and mount height was never mentioned once that I recall, but the same nuances taught there lead to preferring a taller optic. I never was a rifle shooter before getting into ARs so I never established habits from more "traditional" rifle doctrine. Mike Glover (incidentally another SF guy) has a YouTube video illustrating this difference as well. I can see how consistency with types of armor is something else to consider in this calculus of matching the gear to the mission.

Anyway, I do agree to disagree, there is a lot of personal preference involved, just wanted to flesh my reasoning out a little more and connect some dots as I see them.

+1

The "good" optics are fairly well established per price point. Buying anything cheaper to give the concept a fair shake is basically just adding the cost of the cheap optic to the worthwhile one you really want.

Quite the opposite. Sticking your chin out to get tagged and lacking any passive defense at all in your posture or striking techniques is a great way to get knocked out. I have had my nose broken 3 times, but never been knocked out. To me, you might as well turn your knuckles backwards with that ancient dogma. But we are way off topic, so I will stop there.