Today's review is the Vortex Razor HD 1-4x. If memory serves, this scope debuted at the 2010 Shot show and released near the end of that same year. At a street price of $1200, the Razor sits at the high end of the 1-4x price structure as well as the high end of the Vortex product line. With six scopes on hand today, we should get a pretty good idea of how it stacks up and if its worth dropping a stack of cash on one.

Here is the Razor mounted on my 16" AR:



Here is the lineup of scopes that were used as references for the Razor this review. From left to right:  Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x44mm, Leupold CQ/T, Vortex Viper PST 1-4x, Vortex Razor HD 1-4x, GRSC Korean-made 1-4x (mine was a prototype), GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x Prototype.




Table of contents:
-Background
-Physical description
-Reticle description, explanation, and testing
-Comparative optical evaluation
-Exit pupil and eye box discussion
-Illumination subjective and comparative evaluation
-Mechanical testing and turret discussion
-Summary

Background:  (The majority of this information was taken from an ArrowTrade article posted in the vortex industry forum by Sam.) Vortex is a family business in the truest sense of the term. It was founded by Dan Hamilton as a result of the optics experience and frustration he gained operating a Wild Birds Unlimited franchise and is now run by him and several of his sons. As many small business owners have found out, it is often necessary to do it yourself if you want it done right. This was the principle behind the founding of Vortex. Dan was unsatisfied with the optics options available to him to sell at his Wild Birds Unlimited store and, after unsuccessfully trying to enact change in the industry from the outside, decided to wade in himself. Vortex optics originally made optics of primary interest to birdwatchers, such as binoculars and spotting scopes. However, they have continued to expand their product line and now also produce hunting and tactical scopes of interest to the ARF community. Though Vortex does not currently have manufacturing facilities, they do have facilities for designing and repairing their optics stateside. This allows them to offer far wider price range of optics than most companies because their optics are produced in several different countries. All of their optics, regardless of price, come with the best warranty in the business. Unless you are truly new to the world of optics you have doubtless heard many stories from individuals duly impressed with the warranty service Vortex offers.

Physical Description:  The Razor is a refined looking piece of kit. Precision machining and attention to detail are evident throughout the hands-on inspection.  The turrets, variable rheostat, power ring, and euro-style diopter all turn smoothly and with the amount of resistance you would expect. Similarly, the clicks are clean and tactile. Little features, such as fiber optic indicator bars, a threaded honeycomb sunshade, and flip-up protective caps, are unexpected bonuses. The overall impression I get when inspecting the scope is one of quality. I applaud their decision to go with a slightly nickel-tinted off-black color instead of the normal black. This scope looks very nice.

Reticle (refer to the pic below while reading the description):  A well designed reticle is the most important and also most overlooked feature of a rifle scope. The mission of the 1-(n) power class of scopes is to offer the highest first-shot-hit probability possible out to the full range of the 5.56mm cartridge while also being as close as possible to the speed of a red dot at close quarters. This is not easy to do. To really be good at this, a reticle must be able to range and compensate for drop without the use of calculations. The reticle must also have its elements arranged in such a way that it is visible and fast when used at 1x by an operator who is in motion. The Razor HD comes in two reticles. The CQMR-1 reticle is a minimalist design that really has no ranging or bullet drop functionality, but may prove popular with the 3-gun crowd who generally prefer such design. I will be reviewing the second reticle offering, known as the EBR-556. As the name suggests, this reticle was designed for use with the 5.56mm cartridge. Interestingly, Vortex has gone with the M193 instead of the M855 (although really, in practice, the sub-tensions are good enough to use with either). For ranging Vortex uses the common Acog-styled shoulder bracketing ladder style that many are familiar with and which has become a rather well accepted standard at this point. Variations on this theme are now evident in most of the rapid ranging style scopes on the market. Vortex has further enhanced their reticle with the addition of windage bars for 500 yards onward. 300 and 400 yard windage features are discussed in the manual, but evidently didn't work out well with the CQB and close-ranging circles in the final design specs of the scope as the features in the reticle pointed to with those references are not where they should be for windage purposes and, furthermore, could not be. Speaking of the CQB and close-ranging features, a broken set of concentric circles fulfills the 19" shoulder bracket ranging function at close range as well as serving as the primary close quarters combat rapid aiming feature. As I always do, I tested how true to the specs the reticle actually is in practice and found it to be spot on with the exception of the 300 and 400 yard windages (which aren't wrong so much as clearly the design was recently changed and the manual forgotten.) I found this refreshing as most often reticles are not the size in practice that they purport to be.

An image of the Vortex EBR-556 reticle at 4x and the ranging target made to test the accuracy of the reticle elements:



In practice, I have found the vortex reticle to be excellent at mid- to long-range. It is generally fine and precise; making aiming easy at distance. It also incorporates a windage guide which I think is helpful when making estimates. The numbers Vortex uses are also very similar to what I have calculated myself as well as those seen from reputable sources, so I have confidence in them. At close quarters though, all those thin elements are not as fast as they could be and the illumination, though helpful, is not enough. I very often lost this reticle when scanning and came to the conclusion that it is not my pick reticle for close quarters. Even as I now sit at my computer looking at pictures through the scope, it is sometimes hard to pick out just where the aimpoint of the vortex reticle is at 1x. While certainly not the worst CQB reticle I have seen, the EBR-556 is much better suited for midrange shooting than for close quarters use.

An image of the Vortex EBR-556 reticle at 1x and the ranging target made to test the accuracy of the reticle elements. Note how light and difficult it is to see:




Comparative Optical Evaluation:  It is often said regarding optics that you get what you pay for. I think that with regards to clarity, this is probably not a bad axiom. The Razor is an expensive scope and it performs like one. In my lineup of scopes it proved to be clearer than the Leupold CQT, Vortex Viper PST, and the GRSC 1-4x. It also appeared clearer than the GRSC 1-6x at 1x, though at 4x it seemed like pretty much a toss-up. You very much get what you expect to get with this scope in regards to optical clarity. I also did not notice any problematic optical aberrations on the Razor. The chromatic aberration was low and I didn't notice any fisheye or curvature of field effect. This brings me to a discussion of field of view (FOV). The easiest way to eliminate a fisheye look in the scope is to simply limit your field of view. The Japanese are well known in optical circles for doing this. When stacked up against comparable European optics, they often have 10% less FOV. Now on a high-powered sniper scope, this is really inexcusable since often at the ranges you are looking to, you really can only see anything through the scope. A little blurriness or distortion on the edges of the image is better than not being able to see that part of the image at all. However, we are looking at a 1-4x that is designed to be used by an operator in motion. Often, blurriness or distortion near the edge of the image can make it difficult for the user to seamlessly merge the images that he is getting from both eyes. For example, many users report that the Leupold CQ/T feels like looking through a straw to them. Given that its FOV is clearly the largest in this roundup, another factor must be at play. Unlike most other scopes in this lineup, the CQ/T does show some noticeable curvature of field near the edges. This occurs in parts of the image the other scopes don't even show. That blurriness causes significant trouble for some users. The moral of the story is that a flat clear field of view at 1x is probably more important than a large one since you really have your off eye to handle the peripheral vision. Please pay particular attention to the soccer goal in the 1x photo for a field of view comparison. In the 4x photo, the fence on the right side and far tree on the left are good benchmarks. All of these photos were taken in relatively low light (evening) to enhance optical differences in the scopes. The target is 50-yards away and is calibrated to the GRSC and EBR-556 reticles at that range. Scopes were not mounted on a rifle, which is why the soccer players don't look worried.

Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 1x:



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 4x (CQT is at 3x):



Exit Pupil and Eyebox Discussion:  First, lets discuss the exit pupil. The exit pupil is the size of the disc of light at the point at which it is focused for your eye. Assuming you are using this scope for close quarters work and you are moving about, your head will not be completely stationary regardless of how good your cheek weld is. A larger exit pupil will allow you to keep view of the object through the scope despite your movement, though it is notable that due to parallax error the reticle will not be exactly where it should be when your head is far off center. People refer to range through which your eye can move about and still get a good image as the "eyebox". Obviously, exit pupil is a very important specification on 1-(n) power scopes. Mathematically, the largest an exit pupil can be is the diameter of the objective lens / the magnification. I have noticed a trend for scope manufactures and optics websites to simply list the results of this mathematical formula as their exit pupil. Roughly half of the scopes in the table have this and dollars to donuts, it is incorrect on every one of them. For its part Vortex does not list an exit pupil in any of its documentation though several third party websites to have it incorrectly listed as 24mm. Exit pupil can be roughly tested by placing a brightly illuminated object at some distance from the optic and measuring the disc of light transmitted through the scope at its smallest point. Below is a photo of my measurement setup.

Exit pupil measurement set up:



What I found measuring exit pupil corresponded well to my experiences testing the scopes by bobbing my head around a bit. These hands-on experiences did not correspond at all to manufacturers reported values. I am somewhat left with a quandary as I have only been able to take measurements of the exit pupil of scopes that I have and these measurements are far from precise. I will have to decide whether to replace the values in the table at the front with my better measured numbers or leave the manufacturers' reported numbers. In either case, be aware that numbers in the table at the front that look too good to be true probably are. Here are the numbers I measured for the scopes in today's lineup, in order of 1x exit pupil size:

Viper PST 1x, 16mm 4x, 6.4mm
Razor HD 1x ,13.2mm 4x, 6.5mm
GRSC K 1x, 13.1mm 4x, 6.7mm
GRSCJ 1x, 11.2mm 6x, 4.6mm
Leupold CQ/T 1x, 9mm 3x 4.86mm



Illumination Subjective and Comparative Evaluation:  If the Razor HD has a weakness, it is illumination. At 4x it finishes in the middle of the pack, but at 1x it is the dimmest of the bunch. This is not surprising since it has a couple factors squarely against it. First off, it is a front focal plane scope. With this design, the reticle is set further forward in the body and the illumination has more pieces of glass to travel through. More importantly, though, the reticle stays the same size relative to the target at all magnifications. This means that it appears really small to the user at 1x. This small profile is just hard to illuminate sufficiently. Once you take into account the Razors fine reticle elements, it is not surprising that it is very difficult to see any illumination on a bright day at 1x. The below photo is a compilation of all the scopes in the lineup with fresh batteries at maximum illumination when set to 1x on a bright Ohio Spring day. It is difficult to see the Razor's fine reticle against the fence backdrop and impossible to tell it is illuminated.

1x illuminated compilation photo:



The illumination woes did not end for the Razor there. Whilst doing the power switch test on an indoor range, I utilized the illumination to attempt to see the target better. What you see in the photo below is that in this situation you get a lot of internal reflection of the illumination within the scope, resulting in a red haze. Despite this, the illumination was still really too dim to light up the very fine reticle enough for my taste given the light-colored background. Though I shot the CQB targets illuminated, I opted against illumination for the more precise power change test target.

Indoor range max illumination at 1x:



It is also notable that the illumination momentarily blinks off during recoil even with a .22lr cartridge. This was despite the battery cap being well tightened using a screwdriver. A screwdriver is necessary to change the battery in this scope unless you have vice grips for hands. All in all, the illumination was not a strong point of the Razor.

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:  Those who have read my reviews know by now that few scopes pass unscathed through the adjustment and power change testing. Though most folks assume that their 1/2 MOA or 1/4 MOA adjustments are accurate, they are sorely mistaken. That is not the case with the Razor. The adjustments are spot on. They are independent, accurate, and it returns to zero fine. Furthermore, there was no noticeable shift in point of aim when the power was adjusted between 1x and 4x. I believe that this is the first scope to score a perfect on mechanicals. This is especially notable given the fact that the barrel is starting to break-in nicely on the Spike's .22lr upper that I use for this testing. The tighter groups allow me much more precision in my measurements.

Vortex Razor box test:



Vortex Razor power change test:



Though the adjustments are mechanically perfect, I am still not completely thrilled with them. As you can see from the photographs, the Razor sports giant, uncapped, weighty, 1/4 MOA sniper turrets with hex wrench-requiring adjustable zero. This scope weights in on the heavier side of the 1-4x bunch at 20.2oz and sports a reticle that is effective for bullet drop and ranging purposes. I simply do not see a need for these giant, heavy, sniper-style turrets. I would have much preferred a lower profile capped unit. I also find the zero adjustment that requires the use of three set screws cumbersome and slow to operate.

Summary:  The Vortex Razor HD 1-4x is a scope with few surprises. It has excellent fit, finish, and feel. Its adjustments are accurate, it switches power without a point of aim change, and it has excellent optical clarity. Few scopes that I have tested, and I suspect few scopes overall, are mechanically or optically its equal. Where the scope falters a bit is with regards to illumination that is insufficient, glares a bit, and blinks on recoil. Users might also find that on 1x the fine lines and FFP nature of the EBR-556 reticle make it slower than many similar scopes. At the $1000 dollar price point, it is difficult to say whether any scope is the "best" scope. Individuals' needs and desires vary greatly and there is no shortage of scopes to cater to those individual whims. The Razor HD is a generally solid performer that will certainly find folks whose needs it well aligns with.



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

Pros:
Optical clarity is excellent
Optics show low chromatic aberration and curvature of field
Fit and finish are excellent
Adjustments are accurate
Reticle is accurate
Power change does not cause POI shift
Reticle ranges quickly and accurately and compensates for drop and windage
Scope comes with nice extras such as flip up caps and a very nice screw on honeycomb sun shade
Best warranty in the business

Cons:
Illumination is insufficient, blinks on recoil, and can suffer internal reflection.
Reticle is difficult to see and slower than many competing designs at 1x
On the heavier side for 1-4x designs
On the more expensive end for 1-4x designs
Field of view is on the small side for 1-4x designs

Very nicely done- I am quite impressed with the amount of time and detail you've put into reviewing the various scopes, let alone publishing the writing and pics.  I would have had a much more difficult time with making an optic purchase decision without this thread, so thank you for that.

Question / request, will you be reviewing any of the 1-8x offerings side by side, such as the Valdada Tactical CQB 1-8, S&B Short Dot 1-8, Premier Reticles 1-8, and the Leupold CQBSS 1-8?

Thank you, The reviews have grown to take more and more time as I have added test after test to the battery. I am glad to hear that they are helpful and appreciated. Lately I have been thinking of doing some freelance work in writing to supplement my income. I consider the work I put in to these reviews as worthwhile despite not being paid for them as I gain something of a writing portfolio as a result. Between the reviews I have written and the many contributions of other individuals we have created a resource far more useful than any current gun publication. I think this reflects both on the quality of the ARF community and the lack of much effort on the part of most print publications. The internet is becoming a far more powerful factor in peoples purchasing decisions than print or even hands on experience with the product in retail establishments.



A good question about the 1-8x scopes. The Premier and S&B scopes were first introduced at Shot 2010 along with the Leupold CQBSS a year and change ago now. They were originally both slated to launch Q2 of 2010. They were both delayed several times and ultimately both companies decided to significantly redesign their optics. This is not really surprising since 1-8x scopes are particularly hard to design. If you take a look back at my review of the March 1-10x scope you can see the issues that very high power range scopes have difficulty overcoming. I have been in contact with both S&B and PR throughout the year or so since they first debuted the 1-8x scopes and if I remember correctly both are planning early Q2 launches this year. I will be reviewing both when that happens and both companies have expressed interest in a side by side showdown. That is the current plan. As for the Leupold, I have never heard anything from Leupold and they really don't have much in the way of ties to the ARF community or any of the other online shooting communities I frequent. Evidently their marketing strategy does not include forums. Suffice it to say that I think their marketing strategy and community relations strategy are outdated to say the least. I think that Leupold misses a lot of opportunities and gets chewed up far more than their scopes actually deserve because of their decisions with regard to these avenues. I would be interested to review the CQBSS as well as the new CQ/T with the CM-R2 reticle. I was happy to see them finally add this reticle as an update to the very dated CQ/T scope. The IOR Valdada is 1.5x on the low end which is why it is not included in the table. Many folks, myself included, find it hard to use 1.5x scopes while moving and with both eyes open (though I suppose it would be harder moving with one eye closed.) This thread simply does not address any scopes that do not have a 1x low end though many folks are quite pleased with optics of this class.

Hope that answers your questions. I am about halfway through the write up for the GRSC 1-6x and 1/3rd of the way though the Vortex Viper PST. I should have one of them knocked out by the end of the week and perhaps the other over the weekend. A also need to clean up the table a bit and update it with some new models released at shot before my business picks up for the summer. So much to do, so little time.

TAG

Thanks for the kindly response. I too agree the internet and in particular, good forums are invaluable in researching products. You get a "ground level view" from several types of perspectives, most importantly from those who have taken the time to post helpful info - good or bad - without benefit of monetary gain.   I'm surprised at Leupold, but hey that is how big businesses get sometimes. To big and slow for their own good. With a $4k price tag on their CQBSS, you'd think in this economy they would be looking hard for all the press they can get ;p

I will have my Valdata this week and will post my consumer-level impressions. Although it is 1.5 on the low end, I've come across many very positive things about it's use in CQ. Guess I'm about to find out 1st hand. One writeup in particular caught my attention here on the AR15.com site: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=512475

IMHO, since this optic is billed as a CQB/LR variscope among others, it should be included and tested with closest comparables in the list as none of them seem to be true 1x anyway (bit of a misnomer?). If for nothing else, to inform on it's strong and weak points when used 'as advertised'. Again, JMHO..    I'm really looking forward to your run through of the upcoming GRSC 1-6 - Hope it turns out to be all that and more.

I am happy to present my review of the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x. I know a lot of folks have been waiting for this one. At $500 street price, this scope falls into a price range that most people can afford and it features the best warranty in the business. Inexplicably, this scope also has very little competition at its price point. For whatever reason, few scopes fall between $350 and $750. If memory serves, this scope debuted at the 2010 Shot Show and released near the end of that same year. With six scopes on hand today, we should get a pretty good idea of how it stacks up and if it's worth dropping a stack of cash on one.

Here is the Viper mounted on my 16" AR:



Here is the lineup of scopes that were used as references for the Viper in this review. From left to right:  Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x44mm, Leupold CQ/T, Vortex Viper PST 1-4x, Vortex Razor HD 1-4x, GRSC Korean-made 1-4x (mine was a prototype), GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x Prototype.




Table of contents:
-Background
-Physical description
-Reticle description, explanation, and testing
-Comparative optical evaluation
-Exit pupil and eye box discussion
-Illumination subjective and comparative evaluation
-Mechanical testing and turret discussion
-Summary

Background: (The majority of this information was taken from an ArrowTrade article posted in the Vortex industry forum by Sam). Vortex is a family business in the truest sense of the term. It was founded by Dan Hamilton as a result of the optics experience and frustration he gained operating a Wild Birds Unlimited franchise and is now run by him and several of his sons. As many small business owners have found out, it is often necessary to do it yourself if you want it done right. This was the principle behind the founding of Vortex. Dan was unsatisfied with the optics options available to him to sell at his Wild Birds Unlimited store and, after unsuccessfully trying to enact change in the industry from the outside, decided to wade in himself. Vortex Optics originally made optics of primary interest to birdwatchers, such as binoculars and spotting scopes. However, they have continued to expand their product line and now also produce hunting and tactical scopes of interest to the ARF community. Though Vortex does not currently have manufacturing facilities, they do have facilities for designing and repairing their optics stateside. This allows them to offer a far wider price range of optics than most companies because their optics are produced in several different countries. All of their optics, regardless of price, come with the best warranty in the business. Unless you are truly new to the world of optics, you have doubtless heard many stories from individuals duly impressed with the warranty service Vortex offers.

Physical Description: The Viper is shorter and considerably lighter than its big brother the Razor. It also has an appearance more in line with what seems to be considered 'tacticool'. The lines are more ridged, the turrets protrude more, and it is flat black. It also has the wart style illumination rheostat attached to the eyepiece. The machining looks good on the Viper and the Vortex name is featured prominently more or less everywhere. The turrets, variable rheostat, power ring, and euro-style diopter all turn smoothly and with the amount of resistance you would expect. Similarly, the clicks are clean and tactile. To be perfectly honest, the turrets actually feel considerably better than those of the Razor and since they also include adjustable zero stop shims, they have more features as well. I remember several months ago Vortex delayed the release of the Viper to rework the turrets because they were unsatisfied. Mission accomplished. My only complaint about the appearance of the Viper is the labeling on the power selector ring. Setting is marked, but with reticle multiplier and the magnification. Though it might be convenient to note that at 3x the reticle is 1.3 times the normal size, I think it's more confusing than it's worth. Like the Razor, the Viper comes equipped with little fiber optic indicators for the magnification and elevation turret. They don't really seem to light up much, but in the case of the elevation knob, you can feel where the fiber is with your finger and I find that helps you confirm that the scope is set to your zero when it is dark.

Reticle (refer to the pic below while reading the description):  The Viper comes in either an MOA or Mil ladder style reticle bracketed with a broken circle to aid with close quarters functionality. Turrets are always matched to the reticle. The Viper I have is the MOA version and has hash marks every two MOA and labels every ten MOA. Obviously, since this scope is 2nd focal plane, the reticle is best used for ranging at 4x. As most of you know, I prefer rapid ranging reticle designs such as the GRSC, the Vortex EBR-556, or the Trijicon TA-31F for 1-4x scopes. I think the Mil and MOA ladders have their place beyond, say, 600 yards, but I don't think they are of much use for a 1-4x. That being said, lots of folks seem to like them and buy them so for those folks, the two options Vortex offers are probably very appealing, especially with matching turrets. I tested the reticle accuracy on a calibrated target and it is roughly 7.5% too large. As I have mentioned before, reticles being improperly sized is a very common occurrence. Nevertheless, given how perfectly spot-on the Razor's reticle was, I re-measured the markings on the target as well as the distance to the target to make sure. It is unfortunate that the reticle is off by a measurable amount. Though I suppose since you are going to bust out your calculator, Mildot Master, or your awesome mental math prowess to do some calculations while you range; this will be just one more set of numbers to punch. I also tested the reticle for close quarters use. Because it is 2fp, the reticle is still very easy to see at 1x. This is good as I had the tendency to lose the reticle on the Razor when scanning with the scope. The Viper does not have this problem. I found the broken circle less effective for me than I expected, though. I thought that the pieces of the circle would more or less coalesce into a whole and draw my eye into the middle when scanning with the scope at 1x. I was surprised to find myself often focusing on the upper left portion of the circle instead of the middle, however. I did not predict this happening and I am surprised. I wonder if others will have similar experiences or if they will be drawn to the center as designed. In any case, the close quarters aspect of the reticle was a bit of a mixed bag for me. There was definitely enough of it to keep from losing it, but I found myself focusing on the wrong part. I am taking this scope out tomorrow with some buddies, so I will take a little survey to find out if I am unusual in this regard.

An image of the Vortex Viper MOA reticle 4x:




An image of the Vortex Viper MOA reticle 1x:




Comparative Optical Evaluation:  The Viper was one of the middle-priced optics in my lineup and clarity-wise it finished in the middle of the pack. It was always clearer than the GRSC K and never as clear as the Razor or the GRSC J. In bright light, the Leupold CQ/T bested it, but on an overcast day it was better than the Leupold. Due to the very small objective lens of the CQ/T, its performance varies dramatically depending on lighting. Though the price of the Viper as well as its performance were middle of the pack, I don't think that really does it justice. It was a lot clearer than the GRSC K and only a little less clear than the Razor and GRSC J. Both of these scopes double or more than double the Vipers price. The optical performance of the Viper really was very impressive at its price point. Optical aberrations such as curvature of field or excessive chromatic aberration were also not a problem with the Viper. As for the field of view, the Viper and Razor are amazingly close in this regard and the total spread between all the scopes, excluding the CQ/T, is really quite small. For what it's worth, the field of view was slightly smaller than the GRSC K, bigger than the Razor, and bigger still than the GRSC J. My compilation photo below is very good for judging the field of view of the scope in the lineup. Please pay particular attention to the soccer goal in the 1x photo for a field of view comparison. In the 4x photo, the fence on the right side and far tree on the left are good benchmarks. All of these photos were taken in relatively low light (evening) to enhance optical differences in the scopes. The target is 50 yards away and is calibrated to the GRSC and EBR-556 reticles at that range. Scopes were not mounted on a rifle, which is why the soccer players don't look worried.


Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 1x:



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 4x (CQT is at 3x):



Exit Pupil and Eyebox Discussion:  First, lets discuss the exit pupil. The exit pupil is the size of the disc of light at the point at which it is focused for your eye. Assuming you are using this scope for close quarters work and you are moving about, your head will not be completely stationary regardless of how good your cheek weld is. A larger exit pupil will allow you to keep view of the object through the scope despite your movement, though it is notable that due to parallax error the reticle will not be exactly where it should be when your head is far off center. People refer to range through which your eye can move about and still get a good image as the "eyebox". Obviously, exit pupil is a very important specification on 1-(n) power scopes. Mathematically, the largest an exit pupil can be is the diameter of the objective lens / the magnification. I have noticed a trend for scope manufactures and optics websites to simply list the results of this mathematical formula as their exit pupil. Roughly half of the scopes in the table have this and dollars to donuts, it is incorrect on every one of them. For its part, Vortex does not list an exit pupil in any of its documentation, although several third party websites do have it incorrectly listed as 24mm. Exit pupil can be roughly tested by placing a brightly illuminated object at some distance from the optic and measuring the disc of light transmitted through the scope at its smallest point. Below is a photo of my measurement setup.

Exit pupil measurement setup:



What I found measuring exit pupil corresponded well to my experiences testing the scopes by bobbing my head around a bit. These hands-on experiences did not correspond to many of the exit pupil listings I have found for scopes. I am somewhat left with a quandary, as I have only been able to take measurements of the exit pupil of scopes that I have and these measurements are far from precise. I will have to decide whether to replace the values in the table at the front with my better measured numbers or leave the manufacturers' reported numbers. In either case, be aware that numbers in the table at the front that look too good to be true probably are. Despite not having the exit pupil reported in the product literature, the Viper has the largest measured exit pupil in the lineup.  Here are the numbers I measured for today's scopes, in order of 1x exit pupil size:

Viper PST 1x, 16mm 4x, 6.4mm
Razor HD 1x ,13.2mm 4x, 6.5mm
GRSC K 1x, 13.1mm 4x, 6.7mm
GRSCJ 1x, 11.2mm 6x, 4.6mm
Leupold CQ/T 1x, 9mm 3x 4.86mm



Illumination Subjective and Comparative Evaluation:  The Viper is one of only two scopes in the lineup today to be 2nd focal plane. The other is the Leupold CQ/T and it uses only a 1.5V battery instead of a 3V like the Viper. It was not surprising for me to find that at 1x the Viper is the brightest scope in the lineup. In addition to being 2nd focal plane and having a 3V battery, the Viper's reticle also has ample reflecting surface for illumination in the form of the broken circle portion of the reticle. All that being said, whether you will find it (or, more generally, any 1-(n) power scope) to be daytime bright is another matter. No 1-(n) power scope that I have ever tested is even near as bright as a holographic sight, though this one is the brightest I have tested thus far. The photo below is a compilation of all the scopes in the lineup with fresh batteries at maximum illumination when set to 1x on a bright Ohio Spring day. I hope that this helps your determination of illumination brightness. At some point I should try to find an Aimpoint or Eotech owner locally to add one of those to my compilation photo for testing.

1x illuminated compilation photo:



As for the illumination controls, the Viper has a 10-position rheostat with off positions between each illumination attached to the eyepiece. It looks like the first 5 settings are night vision only, as they are not visible to me at any time. The next 5 seem to be quite sufficient to account for different ambient brightness. Unlike the Razor, the battery cap on the Viper is knurled a little bit, though I was still unable to fully tighten it barehanded.

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:  In order to test the mechanical properties of a scope such as the accuracy, repeatability, and independence of the adjustments; I will be performing a box test and a power change test. These tests will be done using my Lothar Walther barreled Spike's .22lr upper. This gives me the data desired without the time and expense of making up match .223 hand loads. In the first target you will see a simple box test. Since the time I began these reviews a few years ago, a lot of rounds have gone down the pipe of the Spike's .22lr and it is starting to break in. The groups are tightening up nicely. For those of you not familiar with box tests, a box test is performed in the following manner.  Zero the scope and shoot the first group. For the second group, you move your adjustments a specified distance to the right (24 clicks for 1/2 MOA adjustments on this target), but you still aim at the original point. For the next group, you move the adjustments the same distance down, but again shoot at the original aim point. You then adjust back left to shoot and finally back up for the final group. The result should be a square box on the target with the last group on top of the first. This test will determine not only if your scope properly returns to zero, but also if its adjustments (right/left and up/down) operate independently of each other (i.e. adjusting left does not also adjust slightly down or up). I also used this test to asses whether the adjustments were moving the point of aim the amount that they claimed to be (i.e. 1/4 MOA adjustments move the point of aim 1/4 MOA and not 3/8 or some other amount).

The target below was fired at 25 yards with the scope set to 4x. The point of aim for all groups is marked. Since the target and the adjustments are MOA, I have set it up so that each group should have the same relation to its respective black box on the target as all the others.



I am quite happy with this box test. The adjustments are independent, accurate, and return to zero. The fine elements in the center of the target also made the groups a pleasure to shoot. No complaints.

This next target is a power adjustment target. On the target each group represents a group fired at one of the two power extremes of the scope. No changes are made to the scope's adjustments when firing these groups. Each group is fired using the upper left corner of the respective boxes as the point of aim. An ideally performing scope should show the same relative position of the center of each group to its target box. A scope whose point of impact shifts when the power is changed will show a corresponding shift in the group relative to the aim point.



The only scope to ever pass this power change test totally unscathed was the Vortex Razor. Here you can see that the Viper showed a shift of probably 1/2 inch or 2 MOA. While no shift is ideal, virtually all scopes fail to accomplish this. The Viper's numbers are not unusual or out of the realm of acceptable. The bottom line is that if you are looking to be precise at distance, you should use your scope on the power setting that you zeroed with, which should be 4x.

Generally I prefer capped low profile turrets on a 1-4x scope, but generally I also prefer rapid ranging reticles. Since the Vipers come in only Mil or MOA ladder reticles, it probably fits that they have these big sniper style turrets. After all, you will likely be using them to compensate for drop and windage. Quite surprisingly, the Viper's turrets are better than those of its big brother the Razor in just about every way. The turrets on the Viper feel great. They are smoother than those of the Razor and have more definite feeling clicks. They are also 1/2 MOA instead of 1/4th. 1/2 is simply a better increment in a 1-4x scope. Lastly, the Viper comes with a set of little shims for setting up a zero stop if yon are so inclined. These are really very nice sniper styled turrets. I wish I had them on my Zeiss 4.5-14x.

Summary:  I am impressed with this offering from the folks at Vortex. Though I disagree with the principle of a sniper style reticle and matching turrets on a 1-4x, Vortex executes them well. Furthermore, I am happy to see an MOA / MOA option in addition to the Mil / Mil option. The quality of manufacture of this scope is evident and better than one would expect at this price point. I suspect a great many people will find this scope very much to their liking.

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

Pros:
Optical clarity better than would be expected at $500
Optics show low chromatic aberration and curvature of field
Fit and finish are excellent
Adjustments are accurate, feel fabulous, and even have an adjustable zero stop if you're into that sort of thing
Illumination is brighter than most 1-4x scopes
On the light and small side of the 1-4x class
MOA and Mil options available both with matching controls
Good price point
Best warranty in the business

Cons:
I disagree with the 1-4x sniper scope concept
The broken circle did not totally agree with me at 1x
Reticle is too large for its markings by 7.5%

Review of the Japanese GRSC 1-6x scope from GRSC and Norden Performance

By Les (Jim) Fischer (BigJimFish on AR15.com and Snipershide)
March 29, 2011
Updated June 10, 2012

Today in the mail I received the most recent gen prototype of Ed Verdugo's GRSC 1-6x combat rifle scope. I also received the Vortex Viper PST 1-4x. With six test scopes on hand, this should be a heck of a shootout. In the interest of full disclosure, it is important to note that I am reviewing a prototype of Ed's scope here and not a final production version. While it is mostly the same as the production version is slated to be, this prototype has not undergone the full lens multi-coating process and therefore the production version should be optically better. It is my understanding that in all other ways the production version will be the same.

Here is the GRSC 1-6x prototype on my 16" AR:



The following are the lineup of scopes that were used as references for the GRSC 1-6x in this review. From left to right:  Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x44mm, Leupold CQ/T, Vortex Viper PST 1-4x, Vortex Razor HD 1-4x, GRSC Korean-made 1-4x (mine was a prototype), GRSC Japanese-made 1-6x Prototype.



Table of contents:
-Background
-Physical description
-Reticle description, explanation, and testing
-Comparative optical evaluation
-Exit pupil and eye box discussion
-Illumination subjective and comparative evaluation
-Mechanical testing and turret discussion
-Close quarters testing
-Summary

Background: A few words about Ed and how this scope came to exist before we get to brass tacks. Ed is a former Special Forces soldier who, since leaving the armed forces and becoming a fireman, has dedicated much of his hobby time to improving our war-fighters’ gear. No doubt you have seen (and probably used) one of the many receiver endplate sling attachment points he invented. You have probably also used a sling that borrows at least a few of his innovations in that department. A few years ago, Ed became interested in improving our troops’ sighting systems. He designed, and has subsequently improved upon, a combat reticle. He has since attempted to have that reticle included in a combat-worthy scope, with varying degrees of success. At least six scopes on the review table at the beginning of this thread have all or part of Ed’s reticle design in them. This particular scope is one that not only has Ed’s reticle, but also is manufactured for and sold through Ed at GRSC. He has put much of his own treasure on the line to bring such a scope to pass. For a guy with seven kids and an ex-wife, that cannot have been easy. It is notable that this is the third scope Ed has had manufactured using his reticle. Originally there was an unsatisfactory Chinese GRSC scope made by Millet for Ed. Next came a Korean-manufactured 1-4x scope that many of you have or have seen. That scope I reviewed a year or so ago and has been in production for some time since. Ed will continue to produce the 1-4x even after this 1-6x is released. Ed's 1-4x Korean is in the review line up today (referred to as the GRSC K) so I will have the ability to compare the two. This will allow folks of different budget constraints to be able to afford a scope with Ed's excellent reticle. Today's 1-6x is of Japanese manufacture (It will be referred to as the GRSC J.) And yes, for those of you who follow the behind-the-scenes hush-hush world of who made what for whom in Japan, it is that manufacturer you are probably thinking of who makes many of the high-end Japanese scopes for several different companies. So, when you ask is this comparable to "X" brand I have been looking at that is also Japanese-made, it's pretty likely that it was made in the same factory.

Physical Description: The scope I have before me is a very no frills machine. It is flat black and devoid of any stylistic influences. The overall impression I get when handling it is of mass and simplicity. This despite the fact that the scope would not even be particularly heavy for a 1-4x let alone a 1-6x and does not lack any of the controls of its competitors.  All the controls move smoothly and click when theyre supposed to. The power ring, euro-style diopter, and illumination move with the amount of force I have grown accustomed to expecting. The turrets move with significantly less force than expected. It is a good thing they are capped. Speaking of that, Ed informs me that the production versions are expected to have spare batteries under the cap as the 1-4x did. I still love the battery cap idea. So simple and so genius.

Since you are not likely to find lots of pics of this scope on the web yet, here is a close-up with the turret cap off:



Reticle Description, Explanation, and Testing: As is noted in many of my other reviews, few 1-(n) power optics have a reticle that realistically offers a high speed and high hit probability over that full range of engagement distances. A 5.56mm assault rifle is a very effective close quarters tool, but is also effective out to a full 800 yards. This is provided the user knows how far the target is and where to point the gun. Many optics use close quarters reticles like circle dots that are fast up close, but limited to an effective range of 400 yards or less. Other optics use mil dot type reticles that are not particularly fast up close or at range. Though capable of very precise estimation of the range of targets, mil dots require mathematical calculations to accomplish this. They further require the user to adjust the turrets to compensate for range and drop once the calculations have been made. Though this might be a serviceable, if laborious, procedure when engaging targets that are unaware of the user’s presence, it is not a viable option when the targets have already engaged the user. No one is going to pull out his calculator in a firefight. Where mil dot type scopes really shine is at range estimation out beyond 600 yards using multiple objects for ranging in order to get a very precise distance. It takes a long time to accomplish this, but it can be done with great precision with a mil dot.

The reticle in this GRSC scope is not a long range sniper scope reticle. It is one of the few reticles designed to accommodate both close quarters and mid-range engagements and is well-suited for the 1-(n) power scope class. It has features for snap shooting, ranging, bullet drop, windage, and moving target leads. Allow me to walk you though the functions so that you will understand how it works. Please refer to the close up image of the reticle (below) while reading this section. I promise it is not that complicated and is well worth understanding. The large central horseshoe that surrounds the 100-yard zero point has an inside diameter of 10 MOA. This corresponds to the size of a human head at 100 yards and serves to range that distance. The horseshoe is a massive 4 MOA thick. This is so that when dialed down to 1x, it will appear as a dot for close quarters combat. This scope is front focal plane so as you decrease power, the reticle appears progressively smaller to the user. Ideally, this dot would be illuminated brightly enough to be used in daylight. Below the 100-yard zero you will see a series of dashed lines and circles labeled 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Each circle has an inside diameter of 10 inches at the yardage it corresponds to; with line 4 being 400 yards and so on. Aiming points and ranging circles exist for 10 as well as 300 – 800 yards. These aiming points are based on the bullet drop of an M855 cartridge fired from a 14.5” barreled M4. You will also notice that at each 100-yard increment from 400 yards on, there is a dashed line. Each dash and each gap are equal to 10 inches at the corresponding range. This allows you not only to range larger objects, but also to compensate for windage and moving target leads. Since our number system is base 10, it is particularly easy to count the correct amount of dashes from center to account for windage or target lead. By now you have noticed that almost every feature in the scope is based on 10 inches at the appropriate range. For this reason, I like to refer to this reticle as Ed’s ‘base 10 reticle’. There are also a few other less relevant features on the scope that you may be wondering about. The dots to the right and left of the horseshoe are, in fact, mil dots. They are mostly there to level the scope during mounting and to ensure level hold of the rifle. There are also dots down the vertical centerline of the scope between 100-yard drop increments. They are to aid you when firing at targets substantially between ranges and are not positioned at any particularly important division points.

The view through the GRSC J scope at 6x with maximum illumination. The calibrated target is at 50 yards:



The view through the GRSC J scope at 1x with maximum illumination. Not how the big thick horseshoe you saw at 6x is now essentially a dot with all finer scope elements unnoticeable. This is the goal of Ed's reticle. To essentially dial down to a red dot scope at 1x.



For the assessment of this unique reticle I have made up a special target. On it I have placed properly sized circles and correctly spaced drop lines to assess how true to the specs the reticle’s features actually are. Since this scope is designed to have bullet drop, windage, and moving target lead compensated for with the reticle instead of with the adjustments, it is vital that the reticle dimensions are to spec. At this point, I have already compared the GRSC’s spec drop numbers to several references for the M855 cartridge and I am confident that if the reticle dimensions are in reality as they are on paper, this reticle will be an excellent design with regards to both bullet drop and ranging. In testing this reticle, I found it to be slightly different in size than the previous GRSC K 1-4x scope. The bullet drops and linear items on the reticle are exactly to spec on both reticles. However, on the new GRSC J scope, the circles are about 5% larger than on the GRSC K. This allows a little halo of open space between the circles on the test target and those in the reticle. Now the circles on the reticles are supposed to be for sizing folks' heads at range. Given that heads do not come in standard 10" sizes, 5% one way or the other is probably not a real deal breaker. I'm still going to mention it, though, since I like things neat and tidy and would prefer they all subtended 10" at range. I also mention it because like many other folks, I have the good fortune not to have to shoot at folks' heads. Instead I shoot at pieces of paper that are often nicely marked in inches. Having circles of exactly 10 inches at range was quite convenient for me when ranging targets with lines every inch.

Comparative Optical Evaluation:  As I set up the scopes on my patio table for the optical evaluation, the difficulties in creating a 1-6x scope were very much on my mind. I remembered back to last year when I reviewed the March Tactical 1-10x scope. It had a very limited exit pupil and a great deal of difficulty with curvature of field at 10x. Clearly, sacrifices had to be made in the optical design to enable such a giant power range. With both S&B and Premier reticles undergoing a redesign of their 1-8x scopes because they were unsatisfied with their initial designs, I wondered how this GRSC would handle the challenges of increasing the power multiplier to greater than 4x. On the whole, I am very pleased. Clarity wise, the GRSC J came in a very close second to the Vortex Razor. At 4x the scopes were indistinguishable and at 1x, I think the Razor had a slight edge. Given that the GRSC J that I have is a prototype without the final lens coatings, I was amazed. Perhaps in the final production version it will even best the Razor. It is also notable that since the GRSC J goes up to 6x, I was able to compare it to my Zeiss Conquest with both at 6x. The GRSC was significantly clearer, though at 6x it begins to show a little curvature of field and chromatic aberration. Neither of these effects is noticeable at 4x. The field of view of the GRSC J is very close to that of the two Vortex entries. Not outstanding by any stretch, but since all appear very flat and clear at 1x, perhaps it is worth the sacrifice. All in all I am very impressed with the GRSC 1-6x's optics. Given the greater challenge inherent with the greater power range, I would have expected to sacrifice more than a slight bit of field of view. Below are some compilation photos that may help you evaluate the relative field of view and clarity of the scopes in today's lineup. Please pay particular attention to the soccer goal in the 1x photo for a field of view comparison. In the 4x photo, the fence on the right side and far tree on the left are good benchmarks. All of these photos were taken in relatively low light (evening) to enhance optical differences in the scopes. The target is 50 yards away and is calibrated to the GRSC and EBR-556 reticles at that range. Scopes were not mounted on a rifle, which is why the soccer players don't look worried.

Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 1x:



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 4x (CQT is at 3x):



Scope compilation photo with scopes set at 6x:



Exit Pupil and Eyebox Discussion:  First, lets discuss the exit pupil. The exit pupil is the size of the disc of light at the point at which it is focused for your eye. Assuming you are using this scope for close quarters work and you are moving about, your head will not be completely stationary regardless of how good your cheek weld is. A larger exit pupil will allow you to keep view of the object through the scope despite your movement, though it is notable that due to parallax error, the reticle will be exactly where it should be when your head is far off center. People refer to range through which your eye can move about and still get a good image as the "eyebox". Obviously, exit pupil is a very important specification on 1-(n) power scopes. If my experience with the March Tactical 1-10x is any indication, exit pupil is also one of the most difficult statistics to preserve in a scope design when increasing the power range. Mathematically, the largest an exit pupil can be is the diameter of the objective lens / the magnification. I have noticed a trend for scope manufactures to simply list the results of this mathematical formula as their exit pupil. Roughly half of the makers in the table do this and dollars to donuts, they are all lying. Exit pupil can be roughly tested by placing a brightly illuminated object at some distance from the optic and measuring the disc of light transmitted through the scope at its smallest point. Below is a photo of my measurement setup.

Exit pupil measurement setup:



What I found measuring exit pupil corresponded well to my experiences testing the scopes by bobbing my head around a bit. Below are my measured exit pupil values.

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

With regards to the GRSC J, the values I measured were pretty much identical to the ones published by the folks at GRSC.  These values are also a good deal better than I expected. Despite its greater power range, the GRSC 1-6x does not have the smallest 1x exit pupil in the lineup. Furthermore, it is really not very far off from the GRSC K or the Vortex Razor. Despite being a 1-6x, its exit pupil is not outside the range one would expect from a 1-4x. This is a considerable and perhaps surprising win in the close quarters department for this scope.


Illumination Subjective and Comparative Evaluation:  It is no secret that illumination that is not "daytime bright" has been one of the banes of the 1-(n) power scope class. It is challenging to light the reticle in a true optic (i.e. not a red dot) brightly enough to be viewed in the daytime sunlight. Often, the reticles of 1-n power scopes simply appear black in bright sunlight. The problem of lighting has been doubly problematic for 1st focal plane scopes for two reasons. Firstly, the reticle is farther forward in the scope body requiring the light to travel further and through more lenses to reach the eye. Secondly, the reticle appears smaller to the user as the power is decreased. Since the illumination brightness is most important at 1x, this is very problematic. Whether the GRSC 1-6x will appear daytime bright to your liking is not really a question I can answer for you. What I can tell you is that on full go it is easily the brightest scope in this lineup at 6x and probably second to the 2nd focal plane Vortex Viper at 1x. This is quite the feat since I find it bright enough for illuminated daytime use, though as many will note, it is nowhere near as bright as an Eotech. I am reviewing this scope on what can only be considered an ideal shooting day. Little wind, sunny, cloudless, but not overwhelmingly bright (it is Ohio in springtime), and cool enough that mirage is non-existent. How bright this scope will appear in the blazing sun of a desert in Iraq with the sand reflecting so much sun it doubles the already impressive ambient brightness is beyond my ability to test. I wouldn't bet on the illumination being visible in those conditions though.

1x illuminated compilation photo:



The illumination in this scope is accomplished with an 11-position rheostat on the left side of the saddle opposite the windage. The rheostat has an off position between each on. My only complaint about the setup is that access to the CR2032 battery cannot be considered tool-less. The battery cap is not knurled and I cannot turn it open barehanded.  

Mechanical Testing and Turret Discussion:  In order to test the mechanical properties of a scope such as the accuracy, repeatability, and independence of the adjustments; I will be performing a box test and a power change test. These tests will be done using my Lothar Walther barreled Spike's .22lr upper. This gives me the data desired without the time and expense of making up match .223 hand loads. In the first target, you will see a simple box test. For those of you not familiar with box tests, a box test is performed in the following manner. Zero the scope and shoot the first group. For the second group, you move your adjustments a specified distance to the right (I chose 24 clicks because that is what I use for 1/2 MOA and .1 mil is closer to that than 1/4 MOA), but you still aim at the original point. For the next group, you move the adjustments the same distance down, but again shoot at the original aim point. You then adjust back left to shoot and finally back up for the final group. The result should be a square box on the target with the last group on top of the first. This test will determine not only if your scope properly returns to zero,  but also if its adjustments (right/left and up/down) operate independently of each other (i.e. adjusting left does not also adjust slightly down or up). I also used this test to asses whether the adjustments were moving the point of aim the amount that they claimed to be (i.e. 1/4 MOA adjustments move the point of aim 1/4 MOA and not 3/8 or some other amount).

The target below was fired at 25 yards with the scope set to 6x. The point of aim for all groups is marked. Since the adjustments for this scope are in mils and my target in inches, there is no relation between the boxes and where the groups should pattern.



After shooting this box test, I was obligated to break out the calculator and scale to find out if what I was seeing was actually correct. I am happy to report that not only are the adjustments independent and repeatable, but they are also accurate .1 mil adjustments. I need to make up a target calibrated for mils at yardage. A strange combination that only an American could need.

This next target is a power adjustment target. On the target, each group represents a group fired at one of the two power extremes of the scope. No changes are made to the scope's adjustments when firing these groups. Each group is fired using the upper left corner of the respective boxes as the point of aim. A properly performing scope should show the same relative position of the center of each group to its target box. A scope whose point of impact shifts when the power is changed will show a corresponding shift in the group relative to the aim point.



The only scope to ever pass this power change test totally unscathed was the Vortex Razor. The GRSC 1-6x comes pretty close though. It shows a point of aim shift of about 1/3rd of an inch at 25 yards. This is better than average for the scopes I have tested and probably not problematic given that zeroing and all precise shooting is done at high power. A shift of around 1.3 MOA when switching to 1x for close quarters is probably not a big problem.

Lets talk turrets. Once before, I remember saying that I thought that the best turrets possible on a 1-(n) power scope would be the ones that are misplaced on my Zeiss Conquest. They are small, tool-less, capped, and pop up for setting the zero without tools. I have a new favorite. The turrets on the GRSC J are also capped, tool-less, and pop up for setting zero without tools. They exceed the Zeiss in that they are very smooth to use and are well-labeled with increments. Though they are a little larger and heavier than the Zeiss, they are still smaller and lighter than most of the exposed sniper style turrets you see proliferating on many 1-4x scopes. Although I admit to wishing these turrets were 1/2 MOA and not .1 mil; it is not really very important, as compensation for windage and bullet drop are accomplished with the reticle on this scope.

Close quarters testing: The GRSC 1-6x was part of my very first formal close quarters testing exercise. I have received many requests for my opinion regarding which optics are the fastest at 1x. This led me to start testing specifically to that end. The testing consists of a display of vital-sized targets between 10 and 25 yards away that are engaged from a variety of positions as quickly as possible. The targets are audibly reactive, making hit identification easy. It is not unlike some stages of three gun competitions except that, being as cheap as I am, I use an airsoft. The airsoft also allows for targets that move since having someone down range poses no safety hazard beyond welts. This course of fire was run though by several individuals of varying abilities in order to get as diverse a set of opinions as possible. In the future, I will be writing a composite article with generalized recommendations and guidelines for picking close quarters optics, but for now I will be focusing more specifically on the GRSC.

A photo during close quarters testing with a very ugly hat:


The specific scopes used as references in evaluating the GRSC's close quarters performance were:  a Leupold VX-6 1-6x, Leupold CQ/T, Elcan Specter DR 1/4x, Nikon M-223, and a cheap Simmons red dot. Individual opinions of and performance with each optic varied. This was especially true of the red dot, which rated as high as second for one reviewer but which was last for many. Testers were less split on the GRSC. It took home first place in the overall voting and never scored less than the middle of the pack. I, personally, had it ranked second behind the Elcan.

The best aspect of the GRSC for close quarters is the reticle. GRSC takes full advantage of the capabilities of glass etched reticle technology. It eschews all legacy elements such as crosshairs which were once necessary with wire technology but now are often used for the sole reason that they have been used in the past and are familiar. Instead, most of the field of view of the GRSC is clear at 1x. All the reticle elements are clustered into the center. This allows for an uncommonly good view and unobstructed view of the field of fire when moving the rifle quickly. It also aids in a natural and seamless meshing of the images recorded by your right and left eye. All of the testers preferred the GRSC reticle to all others for use at close quarters.

As mentioned in the optics section, the GRSC offers not only good clarity, but also, a very flat field of view at 1x. Our close quarters testing reveled this to be of paramount importance for fast 1x use. Scopes with a great deal of distortion at 1x did not allow for good two eye synchronization and were therefore slow. The GRSC allowed for very good synchronization and did not appear to suffer greatly from its small field of view at 1x. Part of the benefit of being able to use both eyes is a greatly enhanced field of view anyway.

I have mentioned before, in the illumination section, the GRSC, while bright for its class and focal plane, is not daytime bright. This became especially apparent in close quarters testing. Most of the testers preferred to use it with no illumination at all because the stark black was faster than a somewhat illuminated reticle. We were tough on this scope in our testing, pitting it against several optics that featured daytime bright dot style illumination. These were the Leupold VX-6 1-6x, the Elcan Specter DR, and a Simmons red dot. I expected that the GRSC would trail these because of the difference in illumination schemes. That was not the case. It turned out that a daytime bright red dot is not as important as a good flat field at 1x that allows for proper two eye synchronization, an uncluttered reticle, and a centered reticle (red dots reticles are typically not at the center of the field of view.) The GRSC, without illumination, was easily preferable these daytime bright illuminated optics with the sometimes exception of the Elcan, which enjoyed many of the same advantages at the GRSC.


Summary: The GRSC 1-6x has exceeded my expectations. It's optics are of comparable quality to the Vortex Razor HD, Leupold VX-6, or Bushnell Elite Tactical. Its mechanicals are solid and reticle is still the best in the business for this class of optic. Furthermore, despite the lack of daytime bright illumination, the GRSC was still scored top marks in the close quarters testing being preferred to all other options by most of the testers involved. I expect that, should the scope prove as durable as it appears, it will be well-received by the .mil guys overseas. I am sure Ed is very proud. The short, 2 year, warranty period, low illumination, and relatively small 6x field of view are the only down sides to this excellent optic.


Here is your pro and con list:

Pros:
- Best close to mid range reticle in the business. Fast at 1x, but ranges quickly and compensates well for drop at mid-range
-Larger 1-6x power range
- One of the fastest in class at close quarters
- Optical clarity is excellent
- Optics show low chromatic aberration and curvature of field at low power
- Fit and finish are excellent
- Adjustments are accurate independent and repeatable
- Reticle linear elements are accurate
- Weight and stats are not outside of the range of 1-4x scopes, yet it is 1-6x
- Great turrets. Small and capped but also tool-less with user-adjustable zero
- Illumination is significantly better than one would expect in this class
- Battery storage under adjustment caps

Cons:
- Illumination not daytime bright
- Small field of view
- Slight POA shift with power change
- Short 2 year warranty
- Circular reticle elements are a bit larger than they should be
- Battery compartment is not tool-less

The table at the beginning of the thread should be updated in a few days I am almost done with the changes.

Nicely done reviews, thank you. Ed's 1-6x looks extremely promising, I hope it does come to production as expected.

I like the thought of the Kruger a lot, and I'd be inclined to buy it if there was a price listed for it ANYPLACE on their web site.  I downloaded their catalog thinking, hey it's a catalog there will be an order form or something listing their prices.  NOTHING!  Guess it must be free, there is no price listed.   I saw the price of a grand tossed about, but I can't find it anywhere.  If it's true to the marketing hype I might pay that.  Looks very nice.  Oh well, I guess the choice is back to the ACOG. :-)

I wrote Kruger a while back (last year when they first released some information on this 1 / 2-8x scope.) I never heard anything from them and so really didn't have anything to put in the table. Perhaps I should contact them again this year since I noticed the new pics of the prototypes floating around the web differ greatly from the ones two years ago.


Good news regarding the 1-8x scope reviews. Not only will I have an S&B as well as the Premier reticles but I also just spoke to the Leupold tactical marketing rep and the CQBSS will be represented. Hows that? All three budget busting super scopes side by side by side. I will be comparing them to each other as well as to the GRSC 1-6x I was so impressed with a couple months ago. For additional references I will also be adding in a 3.2-17x USO Sn-3 sniper scope to the mix as well as the Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x and, of course, the ever present Leupold CQ/T. Speaking of the CQ/T, I will be reviewing the new CQ/T with the CM-R2 reticle as well. Given that my CQ/T is approaching 10 years old I am interested to see if improvements to the glass, coatings, or illumination have been made in the intervening time. Having written Leupold myself a few times with the goal of getting a bullet drop / rapid ranging reticle into the CQ/T I am very pleased that this has been accomplished.

On a side note, for those who don't know near the beginning of last year Leupold formed a new tactical division with dedicated, separate, engineering, project management, and marketing people. I was hopeful at this development since it seemed that Leupold's tactical products had lacked much in the way of innovation for some time. Furthermore, I had never been able to get a hold of anyone at Leupold to arrange reviews or to express my opinions about their lack of direction. This year Leupold introduced the HAMR, a long overdue new reticle for the CQ/T and released the CQBSS. All this in addition to various other tweaks in the tactical portfolio. With a smaller, smarter, more experienced team perhaps they have righted the ship. I, for one was impressed at how easily I was able to get through to the correct individual in order to set up a review.

Did you ever get a chance to review the SWFA SS 1-4x24? I looked through the post and couldn't find it. I could have missed it though.

I have never seen one of the SWFA SS scopes in person. Hokie seems quite taken by them and has written a great deal concerning them. I have been trying to goad him into compiling his musings into a comprehensive review. At some point if I have a spare few hours I may just do it myself as I have done with many other reviews. I'm actually a bit surprised that no one, Hokie or otherwise, has yet posted an SWFA review to this thread. There seems to be no shortage of them about. In any case I have not personally written about the SWFA though I certainly wouldn't be apposed to it. You mentioned in your question that you looked through the whole post. Remember that in the table at the beginning I have indexed the page numbers of the best posts pertaining to each scope. Though the index is almost never completely up to date it will keep you from having to search through all the pages since it can only be out of date concerning the last few.

Speaking of out of date. I need to update the table to include some upcoming and recent new scopes including the IOR 1-10x, the Steiner 1-4x, the chimera that Kruger is making, and perhaps others.

The correct weight for the Burris 1-4x Tac30 is 13oz (verified on my own electronic scale), not the 17oz listed on the chart.
Tomac

Don't spend any time on the SWFA 1x4. Everything that could have been said is in the review thread started by Hokie. While it had promise, it has issues. For the illumination flickering under fire and sometimes not working due to the design of the battery chamber, SWFA offered a foam donut as a fix to attempt to hold the battery in place (which will work only for a short while till the foam breaks down). For a scope in the $800 range, this is a joke.









Any plans for reviewing the Swarovski Z6i series?

I spoke with SWFA recenlty about the SS 1-4X illumination issues.  According to them, the illumination issue has been fixed on the new models.  Below is what they told me.

"The first shipment used a different circuit board and spring retention system that was missing a foam washer in the battery lid, we sent washers to all that received one with out and installed washers on our existing inventory which was a handful of both T reticle models.  The current production does not use the foam washer and uses a secondary spring on the actual board opposite the spring in the battery lid, this applies pressure on both sides of the battery".

I ordered one and will give it a go.  Other than the initial illumination issue, I have heard nothing but good about them.

Swarovski has not expressed any interest in this to me. It seems unlikely at this time that I will be reviewing this scope. However, several reviews by others are to be found on this thread.

Speaking of reviews. I spoke with IOR Valdada today about their upcoming 1-10x. It is looking like a September release on this optic. This is ideal since it will allow me to review it along side of the Leupold CQBSS, S&B 1-8x and Premier Reticles V8. This set of reviews should take place in October. This is the current best guess for the release date of the Premier Reticles at which point all of the scopes in question will be available (the S&B will be released in Aug.) I am looking forward to it. Until then I will just keep updating the table and I may write a proper and exhaustive section on Stadiametric range finding vs. Mil-dot. I have been kicking that around for a while now.

Hokie's SWFA SS 1-4x reviews

The following will be an assemblage with some redaction (mostly pics) of reviews of the SWFA scope written by Hokie on Snipers hide. In this excellent review he talks not only about the SS but also about the Leatherwood CMR, Nightforce NXS 1-4 Mildot, Trijicon TR24 German #4, Vortex PST 1-4, Vortex Razor HD 1-4, and S&B 1.1-4 Short Dot. All of these scopes are present for the test and the resulting information is very useful.


Links to the original, full posts are as follows.

First SS review

SS compared to other scopes

Here is the first review by Hokie:

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this forum but thought I'd jump in and say hello. I find subject matter here takes up the majority of my interests! I'm not a professional operator and don't proclaim to know it all. That said I do have a lot of time behind a host of occulars and have formed some educated opinions. As an ice breaker, I thought I'd share a review I just finished with the new HD line of Super Sniper scopes by SWFA.

Enjoy!

"Technology is not evolving anymore, technology IS evolution!”

I was very enthusiastic to write this review. I’ve long been a clap-happy fan of practical optics, versatile carbines, and industry savvy. When SWFA announced the creation of a Super Sniper line of low power variable optics – I was immediately intrigued. Why? For one – SWFA stocks, handles, and sells virtually every optic commercially available. By trade SWFA has a finger on the pulse of the optics industry. They know what works, what doesn’t, what sells, and what the end user wants in a comprehensive scope for the AR platform.

SWFA ventured to assess, design, manufacture, and drop such an investment into the mosh pit of competing heavy duty optics. This maneuver is a true testament to their confidence over the Super Sniper line of products. That’s definitely worth noting and inspires some legitimate curiosity as to what makes this scope worth your while. This review is intended to help satisfy that craving. It will also share my personal observations with regards to how this scope compares to others in its class. Lord knows I’ve tried many an optic over the years. So many incredible options, each with its own set of pros and cons. For each scope I’ve tried, I’ve also found a reason to get rid of it. There was always a technical compromise that prevented the low power variable from serving in the capacity of a general purpose optic. By "general purpose" I mean that which is best suited to hit typical silhouettes with no specific range limitations.

Before I get too far into this…let me come right out and state that from my perspective the SWFA Super Sniper 1-4 HD is the long overdue culmination of several proven and popular scope designs. They’ve taken the best mojo from other capable scopes placed them all into one. If you are in the market for a high quality do-it-all optic and mount combo under $1,000 for your AR15 – read on.

My range time (aka free time) has been very limited this month. Consequently to date I have only fired 200 rounds of M855 behind this scope to establish a 50/200 yard zero and feel out the basics of what the Super Sniper offers. To really dig into the details of its long range accuracy potential past 200 yards I’ll reference a great field review by contributor I have a great deal of respect for:



What SWFA has essentially done here is create an exceptionally rugged and high quality 1-4X variable that caters to the standard 50 / 200 yard zero yet offers unparalleled advantages when dialing out to the limits of one’s abilities. A great deal of innovation went into its design.

For my review I elected the model with the CQB circle and capped turrets. SWFA also offers this model with an open MIL crosshair and uncapped turrets. My shooting efforts with the 5.56 cartridge rarely exceed 200 yards, so for my perceived shooting venues I wanted a zero that I could set and forget. In the event I want to move to a bipod in the prone position and exercise my carbine’s accuracy potential beyond typical ranges – I could…and with great ease. The way I see it, extended shots past 200 yards are the exception and not the norm. If the opposite were true one would likely opt for a different caliber and / or higher powered scope. To be able to cap the turrets all together is a great benefit.

When stacking up the important components of a low power variable optic – a short list of must haves come to mind:

1) Durability
2) Glass
3) Reticle Design
4) Turrets
5) Eye Relief and Exit Pupil
6) Weight
7) Illumination Potential
8) Battery Power
9) Customer Service
10) Affordability

These factors all contribute to a scope’s worthiness over a firearm. Those who have spent enough time behind an occular can certainly appreciate how very important such details are. The Super Sniper 1-4 HD capitalizes on each of those factors by incorporating the best resolutions available. To elaborate:

Its components are very Spartan and robust. In my view it stands shoulder to shoulder with the level of quality standardized by Nightforce. Rated -50 to 130 degrees Fahrenheit, weather proof, etc – it’d serve under any condition one would consider shooting in. Such parameters should be a given for any scope labeled “HD.” Turret caps are well secured. Occular adjustments lock up tight. The rheostat knob is well seated by threads and gaskets. It rotates with a positive feel with off settings between illumination levels, inspired by Leupold’s MR/T perhaps. The magnification dial rotates from 1X to 4X with a 180 degree rotation. I can do this with two deliberate wrist moves. Keep the cat tails…you won’t need it. The body has a hard matte black finish. In hand, to me, this scope feels very rugged. It appears to be on par with Nightforce and S&B. In short – it’s definitely heavy duty. No issues here. To speculate further would be unsubstantiated. I don’t plan on using mine to pound roofing nails in order to make a point!

Glass quality is superb. The sight picture is crystal clear from edge to edge and boasts a generous FOV regardless of magnification level. Light transmission is incredible. I have no means to gauge it but it's akin to looking through a clean glass window. The view contains three high contrasting black posts that taper into the SS’s simple and efficient CQB circle. Reminiscent of the Nightforce FC-2 the circle truly dominates your sight alignment by naturally drawing your eye to the center. Inside the circle is an innovative FFP Mil / Mil crosshair. At 1X magnification the crosshairs becomes a ghosted center point which perfectly compliments the speed and accuracy potential of the reticle when shooting with both eyes open. Crank it up to 4X for incredible clarity and a precise aiming point. The circle is large enough to center on a silhouette but small enough to stay out of the way at higher magnification. The dimensions are right where they need to be. In a way, the Super Sniper gives you two reticles to work from – one at 1X, and the other at 4X.

At 4X the tapered posts and circle become the backdrop for what may be the SS’s most unique aspect compared to other scopes in its class. Whereas many low power variables cater to venues >50 yards or <200, the SS’s reticle successfully bridged the gap and gives the shooter the absolute best aiming system regardless of range. Finally! The reticle is simple and effective. You don’t lose it in the FOV nor does it get overwhelming.

The Mil / Mil crosshairs provide a universally accepted and consistent means of correcting and calculating elevation and windage. SWFA deserves a lot of credit for going this way as it transcends specific bullet drop calibrations and stadia based on certain cartridges, loads, etc. Many scopes like the Burris XTR do this and I find it limits the scope’s potential and muddies its simple usability. Even with bullet drop compensation it's typically load specific and is influenced by so many other variables. ACOG's pull it off. Not sure who else does....with great success. I like the template the mil system offers with regards to customizing your specific firearm and ammo. With a 0.10 Mil adjustment – it certainly delivers flexibility to the shooter. On the capped model the turrets lift up for calibration and are pressed down once corrected. From there you dial accordingly and accurately. Again, shooting that far isn’t (in my view) the norm for a 5.56 carbine so the added effort of removing a turret cap for adjustment and ranging are duly warranted. Of course the the same could apply to a 7.62 rifle. The ability to utilize the same reticle for CQB, typical shooting venues below 200 yards, and long range shooting is in my view the most powerful advantage of the Super Sniper 1-4 HD. Even without messing with the turrets, one could range their respective cartridge(s) to the horizontal stadia for holdovers. Options are good!

How about that illumination! The circle and crosshairs are daylight visible. SWFA told me they went as bright as technology would allow. I can attest…the illumination is certainly all that and more. With the reticle’s surface area illuminated….you get a circular visual very similar to looking through a Swarovski 1-6. The SS is bright enough to allow for some blooming as well, seen as “spillover” from behind the black posts. Additionally, it’s worth noting that even without the illumination – the glass quality and black reticle is crisp and contrasts incredibly well on its own. Illumination, while important and favored amongst many – isn’t entirely necessary. For myself, a large portion of the year is blanketed with snow and a black reticle is actually preferred. I’m also of a fan of the rheostat’s orientation on the scope. Similar to Nightforce, the knob is on the side of the scope but retains the same on/off layout as Leupold’s MR/T. Not 100% sure on the battery life yet – I’ll update when I learn more or do the experiment myself. More information about the illumination can be found by perusing this thread: Optics Talk Review of the Super Sniper 1-4 HD

So how does the Super Sniper stack up to other optics in the mid-range price bracket of $600-$1200? I personally think this is the most comprehensive optic ever made available for the AR15 platform. Mind you, as certain aspects of optics mean more to others – your own preferences may vary. For example, if you don’t shoot past 200 yards, a Nightforce FC-2 or NP-1 would suit you well. Same could be said for the daylight bright Meopta K-Dot or the battery free Trijicon Accupoint. If you find yourself shooting 50+ yards then the MR/T, XTR, IOR, NF, etc should be on your short list. There are so many optics to choose from. Let the venue drive your selection though. If weight really matters then no low power variable will suit your comfort level and you should look at the ever popular Aimpoint with a QD magnifier or an ACOG like the incredible Trijicon TA33. If cost matters then you may wish to check out the Vortex PST which hosts a ton of features around $500. There is a lot of great options out there and I don't mean to discredit any of them. There are pros and cons to each optic and they all provide something that the other doesn't.

To that end, if you want the best of everything and the worst of none – then you should feel very confident in selecting a Super Sniper 1-4X24 HD. In all my years shooting AR’s, “nothing comes close” to the value offered in this scope. It is extremely rugged, very clear, ultra bright, easy to use, and will serve your AR15 well regardless of range. As with the rest of the new Super Sniper HD line of products – it’s a safe assumption to classify these low power variables as workhorses. I really like mine and fully intend to keep it. In my view it’s the best 1-4 scope it its class and worth every penny at $799. These aren't the tried and true fixed magnification scopes of years past. This round of Super Snipers have evolved substantially. Hope this review helps.

The second review by Hokie with the comparisons to and discussions regarding the Leatherwood CMR, Nightforce NXS 1-4 Mildot, Trijicon TR24 German #4, Vortex PST 1-4, Vortex Razor HD 1-4, and S&B 1.1-4 Short Dot.

Leatherwood CMR:

1x

4x


I don’t feel like writing too much on this one. The value is primarily with its cost. It’s made in China. Unmistakably feels less quality compared to some of the other optics in the line up. Most of my hesitation lies with the fit and finish. Pretty sure it wouldn’t take much to mar the coating on this optic. The reticle is overly complicated in my opinion. The illumination is green and isn’t consistently bright across the horseshoe. Not daytime visible. Worth it? For an affordable entry level “tactical” scope under $300? Absolutely. As for how the CMR compares to the SS, it really doesn’t on any level. It’s a fraction of the SS at a fraction of the price. Still, I think the CMR has its place although for the money I’d probably want a reputable traditional scope over a budget tactical option. That’s just me though. YMMV.

Trijicon Accupoint TR24-3G:

1x

4x


Who doesn’t have some love for the Accupoint? It’s a great scope, great glass, with great incorporation of fiber optics to boast constant illumination regardless of ambient light. I will say that should one want a TR24, the triangle version is the only way to roll. At 1X, where reticle design matters most…the TR24’s primary advantage is its fiber optic. Otherwise, the scope has no substantial mojo over other scopes on the market. The triangle, mind you, is truly an incredible option for daytime shooting below 200/300 yards. Some use it well out to 400. Beyond point blank range, the reticle usefulness nosedives unless you know the range and want to mess with the turrets. Some do some don’t. Once the night falls, I don’t think the tritium does much for you outside of adding some contrast to the reticle. Once you touch off a weapon light – the reticle goes black. Manual illumination matters and Trijicon doesn’t employ the technology. Whereas the TR24 is certainly daytime savvy, the SS is night and daytime savvy. Where its daylight illumination level (setting #11) may not gleam like the Accupoint, the black reticle jumps right out and contrasts extremely well. At night, the SS is the obvious choice. Compared to the TR24, the SS has equal or better glass. The TR24 is a great choice, but I think the SS is a better option in a general 1X-4X. It’s simply more versatile. On an AR15, I feel the TR24 isn’t the 24/7 optic everyone wants it to be. I feel the SS is. No disrespect to the Accupoint though. I love that optic. I have a 3-9 on my deer rifle. That fiber optic reticle is such a bonus for a deer hunter.

With those three options out of the way, we can concentrate on some better optics that are worth a deeper evaluation and comparison to the SS 1-4 HD. I believe the following five scopes all machine their tubes from solid bar stock 6061-T6 aircraft-grade aluminum alloy. So let’s assume construction is on par. All adjustments and moving components on the following optics are also comparable and do not offer a real advantage over the other. Not that I can tell anyway. There may be some stark differences internally – but everything works as advertised. The real differences between the following are in the glass quality and reticle design.

Nightforce NXS 1-4 NXS Compact Mil Dot:

1x

4x


Nightforce Optics has a well known reputation for heavy duty construction. No argument here. It’s a compact rugged option, for certain. I’m also convinced there’s a reason they don’t call themselves Dayforce Optics. The hollowed out reticles are damn near invisible for practical ranges that justify 1X-4X variable scopes. Frankly, the NXS 1-4 Mil Dot sucks at 1X. Up close, I really like the FC-2 option for daytime use as its design clearly inspired the SS. Even so, the FC-2 doesn’t offer much in the way of precise aiming past the 5.56 cartridge’s point blank range. I went with the Mil Dot here to compare against the SS’s FFP reticle. At 4X, the NF offers absolutely no discernable advantage over the SS. In fact, I find the NF’s reticle to bleed/bloom while illuminated. I also find the SS to have better glass, comparatively. The glass quality of the NXS is great, but not SS great. The SS is exceptionally crisp and bright. That bump in clarity makes the SS’s crosshairs really sharp. The SS has horizontal stadia as opposed to mil dots. I like that myself. By my account the SS blows the NXS Mil Dot away at 1X and outperforms it at 4X. Comparing it to the FC-2 version at 1X, the SS is comparable but blows it away at 4X. Construction wise, I couldn’t tell which optic appears stronger. They’re both very robust optics. Overall I’m of the opinion the SS is a better scope than the NF, regardless of what reticle the NF is wearing. Considering the SS lists at $800 vs. $1100+/-…the decision is an easy one.


Vortex PST 1-4X24:

1x

4x


I’d have to say that comparing the SS to the Vortex PST and Razor was the cornerstone of my enthusiasm on this follow up review. Everyone’s looking to save a few bucks and get the best value in an optic. With a $300 price difference, the PST is rockn’ and rollin’ through the industry. With the PST in hand I can understand why. It’s a nice scope for $500. That said, there are some aspects of the PST that highlight some key disadvantages if one is to compare it to the SS.

First, the glass quality. Between the two the differences are noticeable. If one is to take the two and look through them back to back – it’s very evident that the SS is a brighter and crisper experience. Does this matter? At extended ranges it sure does.

Second, the reticle. The PST hit the market with a SFP reticle design that allows the shooter some boldness at 1X and some precision at 4X. The SFP of course stays the same size through the magnification whereas the FFP grows and shrinks. It is with the reticle comparison that I draw my primary bias for the SS. At 1X the PST’s broken circle and lack of horizontal and vertical posts focus your attention at 1X on the 4 black quadrants. Not many scopes even approach the PST/SS’ CQB intentions with their reticle…so to that end the PST is a winner. Compared to the SS however, the PST grossly falls short with regards to speed. I also don't understand why Vortex felt compelled to etch the reticle's name into the glass. Is it there to remind the shooter in the event he forgets?

Third, the illumination. Brightness is on par with each other. However, simply stated the SS’ reticle has more real estate – and to that end is brighter. The red is almost neon. Both reticles are daylight “practical” and will light up against most backgrounds. Both rheostats will last at full brightness for a healthy work day, patrol, coyote hunt, or stroll through the local zombie park. All said and done if the illumination went dead…you’d better hope you had the best bold black reticle design on the market. Pictures speak a thousand words:

Vortex illumination

SS illumination


The turrets and calibration of the PST are nice. It has .2 mrad adjustments as opposed to the SS’ .1 adjustment. Big deal? On a 1X-4X variable...not really, but I'd make the case that more precision potential is a good thing.. The rest of the comparisons are worth noting, but aren’t deal breakers. I like the Spartan simplicity of the SS’ construction over the PST. Less is more as far as I’m concerned. PST added some bells n’ whistles that I feel are neat, but not necessary for a rugged knock around AR scope. I also like how the SS has a deep 5/8” objective over the glass as a protective measure and sunshade. I like the infinite adjustability of the ocular. Takes a spell to get it right, but once you do – it’s amazing. The PST is faster to adjust, admittedly. The PST has no locking mechanism either, which is a detriment IMHO. All said and done, I won’t knock the PST because it’s a great option at $500. Still, comparatively…the SS is a better scope with better glass, better construction, and a much better reticle. Worth $300 more? Yes. The SS is in a different, and higher, tier than the PST.


Vortex Razor 1-4 HD:

1x

4x


In my opinion the Vortex Razor is the only Vortex optic that can truly be compared to the level of quality and finish I think is now owned by the SS 1-4 HD. This review will be brief. The glass quality rivals that of the SS in terms of noticeable brightness and impressive clarity. The construction of the Razor itself is also nice. Same bells and whistles as the PST, but more refined. The turrets are fatter than the SS and PST, and are real tight to the point where it’s a bitch to manipulate. Not a problem leaning over the gun but concentrating on a target at 4X will shift your FOV significantly. The Razor also has ¼ MOA adjustments, which I don’t personally care for.

As for the reticle, there is no comparison…as there’s nothing to compare! The EBR-556 confuses me. It’s invisible at 1X and too clustered for my liking at 4X. I think the Vortex had some great intentions with the EBR-556, but it’s lost on me. If one wanted a precision reticle in a 1X-4X scope, they should have kept it SFP and beefed up the horizontal and vertical stadia. Its too late though as SS beat them to the punch with their crosshair reticle option.

Even with the Razor’s level of quality which rivals the SS more so than the PST, I’d rather have a PST than a Razor. Still, I’d much rather have a SS than either!

Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4 Short Dot:

1x

4x


I have to admit, I was anticipating being blown away by the $2,000+ tactical superiority of the coveted S&B 1.1X-4X Short Dot. I’m not, at all. While the S&B boasts some significant advantages with its illumination and innovative turret construction, I find it grossly lacking in terms of glass quality and reticle design. I might get hung out to dry on this one by the general public, but having had the opportunity to mess around with the S&B – I don’t want one.

The turrets are cool though in that you lift them up to turn them. They’re on a spring system which automatically locks them into place. It has ½ MOA adjustments…which again, I don’t care for. Otherwise the construction is all that it should be. The S&B is certainly heavier than the other options too.

With all the smoke & mirrors out of the way, what you pay for in the Short Dot is daytime illumination akin to an Aimpoint. This particular aspect intrigued me so I spent some time with it. Stacked up to an Aimpoint H-1 at its highest setting, the S&B’s max brightness was one illumination below it. The SS’ illumination was one brightness setting below that.

What’s that mean? It means the H-1 and S&B are daylight visible. The H-1 has an edge though with that extra setting which gets you a visible red dot in the event you’re aiming directly into the sun. The S&B is daylight visible under every venue. I’d like to think that bright sun beaten snow at high noon on a cloudless day is about as bright a background one could encounter. The SS blackens out under these circumstances but the bold reticle takes over and delivers a better contrasting design than the H-1 and S&B. For what it’s worth, I’d rather have a black reticle on bright backgrounds instead of experimenting with what will and what won’t wash out.

I also noticed that at 1X magnification, the S&B’s reticle is essentially useless without the red dot. It’s too fine a FFP crosshair with a hollow frame to be of any practical use. You need the dot which means you need the battery. Not sure I like that dependency. Beyond the 1X issues, the glass quality is bluish and dull. I find the quality of glass compared to the SS to be … well, horrible. The crosshair thickness at 4X seems to lack the level of precision the SS has as well.

S&B and H-1 at full brightness:



So, in summary – the SS 1-4 HD has construction, glass, and reticle advantages that set it far ahead of every low power variable optic I’ve had the pleasure of evaluating. At $800, the scope is not only a superior scope, but it’s a great bargain. The SS doesn’t have to compete with any scope on the market. Other scopes have to compete with the SS.

For me…I have a 14.5” carbine with an Aimpoint, and a 16” with a SS 1-4 HD. It’s all I want and all I need. With its unique FFP reticle design, high quality glass, and rugged design, it does everything the shooter could want. After perusing AR15.com for over 10 years, I’ve read and contributed to threads and endless discussion on what would constitute the perfect 1X-4X scope for the AR. Heck at one time a true 1X magnification level was a pipe dream! But here are in 2011…and SWFA hit the nail on the head with the introduction of the SS line of HD optics. It’s evolution in motion. I truly feel this scope is the best representation of over 10 years of industry feedback.

Hope this helps. If I missed anything or didn’t touch on a particular aspect, I apologize! Thanks for taking the time to read.

The S&B's reticle is designed to almost disappear at 1x to more emulate a true red dot and was not intended to be used at 1x. Of course unlike the SWFA, with the S&B no foam donuts are used to attempt to keep batteries from losing connectivity, something not found in other $800+ scopes, just in cheap, airsoft grade scopes.



The SWFA compares favorably to scopes in the $500 to $800 range. Had they made the circle reticle at 1x come down to 10moa or less , it would have been better.



Just as the Vortex Razor or PST will never make it on a miltary weapon in use by the armed forces, neither will the SWFA product. There is a reason the S&B's are deployed bu our forces worldwide.



bigjimfish: Where were the POI maginification change tests for the SWFA?

I did not write the above review. That is why it does not include the typical tests and format that I use. I copied it and posted it here because it is informative and well done. The review was written by Hokie on Snipers Hide. He also frequently posts here but I don't think he has posted the same stuff on both sites.

On a different note:
I have updated the table on page 1 to add the following scopes:
Hawke endurance 30 1-4x24mm
Steiner 1-4x
USO SN-4s dual focal plane
Bushnell Elite 6500 1-6.5x
IOR 1-10x26mm
and the Kruger 1,2-8x

Most of these were debuted at SHOT this year and have not been released yet. Several have prices marked in the table with a question mark beside. These are simply my wild ass guesses as to what they will come out at. The USO scope has not even been officially announced yet but can be seen in the video CSTactical made of their tour of the USO factory. I am not sure how optically different it is from the current SN-4s other than having reticle elements in both focal planes. Despite the lack of formal announcement USO is already accepting orders on this optic.

Video of CSTactical USO tour

Just an FYI: The battery thing has been fixed by SWFA now, no more foam donut thingy.  And question:  How would the circle being 10 moa or less improve the design?  I'm just asking as I'm looking big time at this particular scope, but not locked in yet.  I'm also looking at the GRSC, but still doing more research in general.  Thanks.

I just got my SS 1-4X (donut reticle) and put a couple hundred rounds through it this last Thursday.  I did a 50 yard zero, which was quick and simple.   I really noticed no shift in point of impact going from 1 to 4X (only shot out to 100 yrds due to range limitations).  The scope funtioned very well and was quite fast on 1X for CQB applications.  I was able to work it remarkably quick from 10 to 50 yards making head shots on 1X.  The glass is very nice.  I do wish it went one click higher on the illumination.  It was a very bright day and it was "daylight practicable"  The reticle went to a dark red in the bright sun.  I had no problems with illum flicker.

Anyway, my scope is one of the newer versisons and does not use a foam washer.  That has been fixed on the new versions.  I agree I think the issue should have been caught in QC to begin with, but it is fixed now, so you don't need to keep getting all hung up about it.  If you look above, I posted what they did to fix the problem on the new models and it is not a foam washer.  It is far from a "cheap airsoft grade scope".

Moderators:  Could we make this threat a Sticky?

Congratz on the SWFA.  I love mine.  Try dialing it up ~5.5 mil (i.e 55 mrad) for close range shots.  Thats like a 20m zero for me, and it makes the local IDPA carbine matches a snap.  Remember to use your focus adjustment on the eyebell, getting that set correctly for close/long range seems to make a world of difference to me.

The circle is plenty fast for close range (I get a lot of 'oh, thats easy!' from people who check it out.)  I can see how one might prefer it a tad bit smaller, but that wouldn't work as well for 4x (its FFP remember).  I like it better than nearly every other 1x reticle I've seen.  SWFA coolade tastes good.

This one's done about 5 or 6 carbine matches and one 3-gun with good results. Illumination still works, but I do have to fiddle with the battery/spring every 500 rounds or so.  LOVE the turret, general construction, and glass.  

Every scope is a compromise of eye relief, fov, eyebox, and its interesting to see where the various 1-4 optics land.  Doesn't magnification, eyepeice diameter, and eye relief determine the eyebox of a scope?

Hi guys, sorry I didn't chime in earlier. I ordered another SS. Here are close ups of the new rheostat design. The issue was, as stated, a contact issue. Regardless of remedy - the matter is addressed, which is a good thing.

The new version also knocked off the intermediate posts at 3, 6, and 9. Not necessary but does open up the FOV on 4x. In the end, I still feel the SS competes with scopes within $500 on either side of $1,000. It's that good. If you want a battery dependent $2,000 low power variable that is tried and true via Uncle Sam himself - go get the S&B, definitely. It's an incredible option, as is well known by most everyone.

I will state that I don't see where (yet, as I don't shoot past 300 yards very often) how the outer most hashes would assist the shooter, but it does add to the ghosted crosshair at 1x..which is more important to me. The donut could also be tighter, but would also reduce your FOV at 4x.  At 1x you center the donut over the target and pull the trigger. It doesn't have a screaming center point but the NF FC-2 inspired donut works as one would expect. It's simple, bold, and doesn't require a battery to work. So in the end I like the design. It's a great blend of the best features out there and keeps your wallet from bleeding out. Not sure about most of you but cost does matter. Does to me anyway. I'm not a professional soldier either. Just a working stiff with a hard on for solid kit. If you need something specific like daytime illumination under every venue...look elsewhere, such as the Meopta or TR24. If you want a fine crosshair check out the NF or a Vortex.

Still, if you want versatility where illumination is a supplement not a requirement...you should at a minimum look through a SS. In the end, there a lot of great choices out there. Good luck!

Great thread by the way! Very comprehensive and practical in it's delivery. I have a few threads o'er the SS on a few forums. I think the Arfcom version is the comprehensive one. I'm typing from my phone, which is a pain in the ass. When I get some free time in front of the desktop I'll update my review thread as well. Glad it's at least referenced here. Some real good info in here.

Cheers!

H

The updated SS reticle
4X


2X

Another Mainer! I'm not alone up here?! Nice reticle shots. What is your impression of the SS vs?

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to use it on my ACR. I sent the mount off to be Cerakoted. I did notice at 4X cheek weld is highly critical.
Other than that, I'm very happy with it.

 

Did you only compare the scopes in daylight or did you do any tests in low light?

Like Tomac said earlier in this thread, the BURRIS TAC30 only weighs 13 ounces.  
With my Butler Creek flip covers AND a cat-tail, it weighs 14.15 ounces on a digital postal scale.
 
When I emailed Ryan Williams from Burris Optics today, he responded via an email, "That's a typo."
If you'd like to confirm the weight with him, reference this thread, and email him at:  [email protected]

The price is also off, unless your listing MSRP (which maybe you're doing for all scopes).  
The TAC30 in matte black is generally priced $259 to $299.  
The only version I've seen listed for $339 is the Flat Dark Earth color, but it's not like I've looked everywhere.  Maybe put $259-$339.

Please correct at least the weight on the front page so that people can get a more accurate view of this scope––not only is it a lot cheaper, with a better field of view, it weighs less than most any of the others.

NOTE:  While I don't have a Burris XTR to weigh, I was told they ALSO are only just over 13 ounces.  Can someone weigh theirs?  (Or maybe ask Ryan from Burris)

Here are some photos of 1x scopes side-by-side :




Actual reticle pictures

Any chance you could put a picture of the MTAC reticle side by side with the others? Also if you have a chance I would REALLY appreciate a picture of 1x view on both the Vortex PST and the MTAC so I can see what the distortion is like at 1x.

Does anyone have any experience with the Burris MTAC 1-4X24 Ballistic CQ 5.56 Reticle?

I see an image of the scope in Akula's post above but unless my brain is pulling a good one, I don't remember reading a review on this optic.

Cost listed at CTD is $399 so it appears within the average lower end cost of variable AR scopes.

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/lgprod/2-BU200437.jpg

Also the Weaver 1-5 is listed as $800 price, CTD has them for $637.22

Folks....can anyone chime in on the material used to tie down the caps on the Meopta? Looks complicated and unnecessary at first glance, sight unseen. But I'm always open for an education.

If anyone is interested in a review of the Meopta ZD 1-4x22 K-5.56 I posted one along with some pictures here:
http://www.recoilsports.com/2011/10/review-of-the-meopta-zd-1-4x22-part-i/

Here's a Meopta 1-4x22 ZD Review by CS Tactical:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-38IX2frOg

Is the new Leupold VX-6 scope line out with the German #4 reticule?  Anyone know if it's daylight visible?  


ETA:  And the new VX-R Patrol 1.25-4x?  That VXR looks nice.....if they'd combine the 2 it would be full of win!

There are a lot of new variable power optics out there. What I am looking for is something that allows for quick target acquisition in short distance, but also can be used to reach out towards the max range of the M4 platform. The variable power seems to fit the bill.  I have used all of the variants of Aimpoint, a few EOTechs, and even the MARs. I like those for 0-100 meters but anything beyond they are far less precise. I have tried them with magnifiers and find that they are still lacking, the added weight is also a disadvantage.  This is going to be used on my personal AR primarily(simply because I shoot it far more then my issued rifle), but it will also accompany me on future deployments. With that I have a few criteria in mind.

Durability: Simply put it can't be a piece of garbage that falls apart leaving me with back up irons as my primary option. I know from my own searching it seems that even the best variable options have some liabilities. It has to be rugged enough to take some abuse. Glass should be offset inside the tube a bit to give it some protection.

Zero: It MUST maintain zero. If I use it during a deployment I can't be rezeroing it constantly. I have to know that it is zeroed so I can trust it.

Magnification: Mostly looking in the 1-4 range. From what I have read going more than 3 times the base magnification can lead to some eye relief and exit pupil problems. I know that technology advances so I am open to a 1-6 if it is well made.

Reticle: There are so many types of reticles it is almost a daunting task to find one that you like. For these varibale power optics it seems that the two important factors are an optic that allows quick acquistion at 1x, and allows precision use at 4x. I am very familiar with Mils (thank you manual gunnery) and ranging and using a mil reticle is very easy to me. However a stedia system seems that it might be more apropriate for this use.

Min and Max range for use: Min use would be 0 meters. Max range would be 500-600 yards. Debatable, but at anything beyond that range the 5.56 does not have enough energy left to be reliable. This is allready pushing it. so 0-500/600

Illumination: I have always found that my eye is attracted to the reticle much more quickly and precisely if it is illuminated. this is mostly for the shorter range application in my opinion. So with this thinking the entire reticle does not need to be illuminated but only a smal portion of it should be. However, the illumination must be bright enough that it is able to be used during all conditions. It should also be variable to allow dialing up or down. Battery life is also an important factor. For a daily use optic I can't be changing the battery every day or every couple of days. No battery is paramount but that limits the selection substantialy. The unilluminated(is this a word?) reticle should also be visible enough to be used as a back up should the battery die.

Warranty: with the use that this Optic is going to get it must have a substantial warranty that will allow it to be repaired(hopefully the durablilty keeps this from being needed).



With all that in mind I think the most important criteria for this optic is Reliability. This is both the durability and the ability to hold zero. A broken optic or one that doesn't hold zero is nothing more than a paper weight.

Currently I am looking at the following:

SWFA SS 1-4 x24
Vortex Viper PST
GRSC CRS 1-4


The SWFA SS is at the high range for what I am looking to spend. The simple fact of the matter is the more I spend the less I am able to spend on Ammo which I see as just as important. I am not looking to build a safe queen. I want something I can take out and shoot, and shoot some more until I am extremely proficient. A 1-4 variable power is not going to be quite as forgiving as an Aimpoint or EOTECH so I need to get practice behind it.

Thoughts, recommendations are appreciated.

I'm tempted to try the Leupold VX-R 1.25-4x as my next scope. SWFA has them. Check out the
weight and length of it: Leupold VX-R.

They also make a version of the same scope without the externally adjustable turrets and it's about
$400.  They also make several different reticled models. Check out all the features it has, seems very nice.

ARKAR

This is exactly what I have been thinking. However, I may wait until shot. I was told they will release a 1-6x20mm MK6. I guess the MK 4 line up is getting an update, and the MK6 might be based on the VX-6 from my guesses.


ETA:  I was able to look through a VX-R Patrol 1.25-4x at the LaRue range day. That optic is awesome, I'd bet it goes up in price. That's a lot of scope for the money. I thought it was on par with a NF 1-4

Anybody evaluate the Nikon Nikon M-223 1-4x20 Rifle Scope, Point Blank Reticle, Matte
and the M332 mount?  Thanks...  Ron

The correct weight of the weaver tactical 1-5x24 is 14.46oz. It's listed at 27+oz almost everywhere on the internet. Must have been a typo from manufactures catalog.

I will be attending shot show next week and will be writing some show reports on the different optics present at the show. This will include the illusive 1-8x scopes, IOR's 1-10x, Leupold's new Mark 6 lineup, as well as many others.  I'll post some pics as well. I have also resolved to update the table at the beginning of the thread since I noticed today that, for example a Leupold CQ/T now goes for $1,100 and not $750. Many of the values have not been updated in the 3 years since I originally started this thread and an update is badly needed. I have been accumulating fixes such as the correct weights for several of the scopes involved. These will be changed at that time.

I received a Burris MTAC about 2 weeks ago.

I was weary about buying one because of the reticle, it seemed bulky and obtrusive.

And i am glad to say it is not.  I was able to compare the illumination to a TAC30, and the Tac30 does get a little brighter.  The MTAC has 10 brigtness settings,  I would say the TAC 30 goes to " 12" compared to the MTAC's 10.

The glass is better on the MTAC, no distortion around the edges.

From 0-about 10 yards, it does not seem like a true 1x, more like 1.1 or 1.2

once you look beyond 10 yards, I would say it is 1x

the reticle is the shit.  @ 100yards the center dot represents a 2.4" area.  I have only been able to shoot out to about 250 yards, but the drop points are spot on.

I have mine mounted in a PEPR mount.  Zeroing was simply 2 clicks down, and 2 clicks left.

Looking at pictures of the reticles and glass, i cannot justify spending an additional $300 for the SWFA kit.

I love my MTAC

Shot Show report day 1 : Or as much of day 1 as I can write before I fall off to sleep.

U.S. Optics. – Purely by coincidence I happened to walk into the exhibition hall on the second level because I was coming down from the press room on the 3rd floor. USO had a very well situated booth pretty much front and center if you happened to enter the show fro the door I did. I was excited to have the first booth in front of me be one of the stops on my list as I had not exactly planned out my path. I was also excited because a little birdie had told me, as well as many of you that USO would have a 1-8x prototype at the show. They did and I have some pics and impressions of that scope.
First, I want to note though, that this is an early gen prototype of the forthcoming USO 1-8x. It is not by any means finished. In fact, the second focal plane part of the dual focal plane illumination was not functional at all and the unique electronics module to run this illumination system does not yet exist. Still, I am pleased that USO had the confidence to show this device even in unfinished form. Some other folks were not so forthcoming with their upcoming products and will, as a result, leave me not much to write about. Without further ado, a few picks.

USO 1-8x prototype next to the GRSC 1-6 I brought as a reference scope


Pic through the USO showing the illuminated C2 reticle at 1x.


All in all I thought the USO looked surprisingly good for a first gen prototype that they were literally still working on yesterday. The exit pupil and field of view were quite small and will need improvement but the clarity was very good. I was pleased to see things coming along so quickly on this scope since, to my knowledge, it has not been in development for all that long. This scope has been dubbed the SN-8 1-8x and as you can imagine, is still a few months out.

Also at the show was the SN-4 1-4x dual focal plane and the SN-3 3.2-17x37mm T-pal low profile sniper scope designed for mounting on black rifles. Both of these have been seen here before. My impression of the 1-4 dfp is that the 2fp illumination is not really bright enough to justify the dual focal plane concept. I have a brighter opinion of the low profile sn-3 3.2-17x which seems like a nice, lower profile sniper scope option for the black rifle crowd. I am a fan of USO’s 3.2-17x scopes as I find them to be very comfortable optically with regards to exit pupil, focus and clarity.

That will have to be all for the blog for today as it is 7:00 am here and I am hungary and need to get moving. I also saw Nightforce, Elcan, Kahles, S&B, Leupold, and Steiner though and have much to say about some as well as little about others. I apologize for the brevity of this blog but it is all the time I have and I figured something is better than nothing.

-Les (Jim) Fischer

So, day two is in the books and I figured as long as we started with the USO 1-8x theme I might as well continue it with the S&B, the PR, and perhaps the March 1-10. I have not been around to the IOR booth yet so that will have to wait.

I was privileged to speak with one of the engineers at the S&B booth who has been designing the 1-8x over the last two and a half or so years and was able to ask her a few of the questions that have been plaguing my mind concerning costs, timetables, and illumination technologies.

The cost and delay issue are to some extent spawned from the same intrinsic design difficulties. As the erector ratio is increased from say 4x in a 1-4 power scope to 8x in a 1-8x scope, the tolerances in the mechanical parts do not decrease by a power of 2 but rather by a power of something on the order of 64. (She gave me the exact formulas but I couldn’t write fast enough and didn’t fully understand some of the terminology anyway.) The tolerances become so tight that simple elements such as the glass etched reticle itself become difficult to get right. This perhaps explains why some of the March reticles appear a bit uneven at their highest magnification. Adding a flash dot on top of this and getting it to show up in the right place at all magnification ranges adds another layer of difficulty. I did inquire as to the technical details on how a flash dot works, but these are secrets not to be shared with me, or you, by proxy.

So, lets add it all up shall we. A high erector ratio requiring exceptionally tight tolerances and complicated by a flash dot system coupled with the requirement to be durable and repairable as well as have a large and reasonably flat field of view and you get a better than three-year development time as well as a complete redesign of the optical system from both S&B and PR. For the record, I was incorrect in assuming that the latest 1-8x delays were due to simple production capacity limitations from the PSR contract. Rather, a few more tweaks have been made to the scope to make it easier to repair, less expensive to manufacture, and optically better. Oh, and there have been a few parts shortages from suppliers as well.

The bottom line is this:  S&B took a very long time to release this scope because it is intrinsically difficult to make and S&B has high standards for how good it must be to be released. Speaking of which, it’s not really released yet, but were not talking about it being a year out this time either. The design is done and it’s ready to enter production. The scope I pawed (for perhaps an uncomfortably long time from their standpoint) is identical to a production unit.

That brings me, via the barn to the house, to the actual optic in question. I have it pictured here next to my GRSC 1-6x scope for size comparison.



It looks…well, okay, it doesn’t really look very interesting. Kind of long and skinny and not really all that aesthetically pleasing; but it is pleasing in many other ways, I assure you. The knobs all feel good as does the power adjust and the diopter. The windage and elevation are locking but tool free knobs. They pull up to rotate and push down to lock, if memory serves. On the left side of the saddle is the illumination module, which has settings for the flash dot. It has plenty of brightness for daytime use. It also appears to have settings to illuminate the rest of the reticle but, to be honest, the reticle is very fine and it was fairly bright in the exhibition center so I couldn’t really make out the full reticle illumination.

Here is the flash dot at 1x:


Here is the flash dot at 8x:


As many have noted before:  the reticle is very fine. Without illumination it is difficult to pick up on a background with any texture. If there is a fault with this scope, that is it. For CQ/B it requires its batteries. As for the optical properties, they were excellent. It exceeded my (very good in its own right) reference scope in clarity as well as field of view. I was somewhat worried that the S&B’s fairly small exit pupil would prove problematic, and perhaps it will when subjected to some more in depth testing, but so far I have not seen this as a problem. The scope is very excellent indeed and I can’t wait to do a full review in a proper venue.

On to Premier. Yes, they do exist. Furthermore, they did have their 1-8x with them. I had heard it was scuttled, then maybe not, then…. who knows, right? Well, I guess whoever is now at the top of the food chain decided a mere two days ago that the 1-8 would be a go. They did not even have fliers printed. Despite this, they had several finished production spec scopes on hand. I confess to being astounded and amazed at all of this because, frankly, it is a very good scope and who wouldn’t want to release an excellent scope? So many people release crappy scopes. If you really want to scuttle a scope, go talk to the folks at the Counter Sniper booth and get them to scuttle one…. errr, all of theirs.

I confess to knowing more than I have let on here. It turns out that for the reasons mentioned in the discussion of 1-8x scopes in my S&B intro, these PR 1-8x scopes are very expensive and time consuming to make. They take twice as long to assemble as a sniper scope and that makes them cost a good bit more:  more to the tune of a $3,999 MSRP. That’s a lot of more. I expect that the hemming and hawing had mostly to do with the question of whether a short to medium range tactical scope could be sold at this price point. See, more speculation from me there, too. I just can’t help myself. Did you know that while food in Vegas is ridiculously expensive, the drinks are quite cheap?

How about some pics.
Here is the Premier at 1x with the flash dot active.


Here is the Premier at 8x with the mil dots illuminated.


Here is the Premier next to my GRSC 1-6x reference scope.


Here is one of the Premier guys holding the new beauty. He doesn’t look too happy, but I think that is more about having had to talk to me and Mike from CS Tactical than it is about the scope.


My impressions on the optic are really wholly positive. It had excellent clarity as well as field of view and even seemed to have a generous exit pupil. I am not exactly sure if I prefer its auto switching from full to dot illumination or S&B’s user switched illumination, but I do prefer its heavier reticle which is significantly more useful when not lit than the light S&B one. The turrets are of the nice PR full tactical variety and have the lever on the top for resetting zero. These additionally have a locking feature that works in similar fashion to the S&B version with the pulling up to adjust or pushing down to lock. Excellent turrets. Really, from what I can tell just pawing at it at Shot Show, it is an excellent scope over all. I look forward to a full review.

Now on to the other stuff. You want to know what is going on at PR and I will tell you what little I know. You will no doubt find this unsatisfying as, like any human, you want to know the intricate interpersonal details of whatever politics are involved. Either that or Hollywood has no idea what they are doing when it comes to television programming.

PR is getting new management. Chris has retired, as many of you know. It is my understanding that they have not been bought by Armament Technology (who is their distributor for civilian sales in the U.S. and has been for some time) or anyone else. Scopes are currently being made by the Optronica branch in Germany, which makes and assembles many of the scopes anyway. Warranty work is being handled both by Optronica in Germany and the U.S. facility. Plenty of scopes are available for purchase (though not the 1-8x which has a Aug-Sept delivery date). Bottom line:  a reorganization is going on in the U.S. side of the company.

Don’t expect too much of a post tomorrow. I have dinner and a show with the wife and I am back logged as it is.

Goodnight,
Les (Jim) Fischer