User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 6:30:11 PM EDT
The D-EVO was stupid expensive and not fully developed as a concept... but oh what a concept it was!
It seems like this is the solution to the ongoing LPVO vs dot/magnifier vs. ACOG with RMR etc. issue. The idea that you can, without moving or changing ANYTHING, just look down slightly and get a 6x magnified optic or look up slightly and get an aimpoint/eotech/etc is awesome. Why hasn't a company taken this concept and run with it? If the D-EVO was ruggedized, had a better eyebox and was $600-$1500, and had a great (ACSS) reticle, it would absolutely be the bee's knees. Combine an optic like the D-EVO with an aimpoint T2 and you've got a super lightweight, super capable package.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 6:41:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Just consider, for instance, an ACOG mounted well below the line of sight with an angled-up lens, and an RMR or delta point on top. So that the RMR was straight down the line of sight (like at the height of a lower 1/3 cowitness dot) and the acog was below the normal line of sight with a lens angled up for you to see (like the D-EVO). That'd be perfect.
The only issue I can think of is that you'd have to side-mount your PEQ and light, and you'd have to use something like the MBUS PRO offset irons to keep BUIS out of the way of your magnified optic. It's a really intriguing concept though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 8:29:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Leupold has always fumbled prism optics. They're often expensive, not daylight bright, heavy, and surprisingly have a history of using low quality glass. They're everything Leupold isn't.
Leupold thinks they just have to make a prism sight to be successful, not a good one. Same case with the D-EVO. Great concept, terrible execution. Right now China is the leading innovator for prism optics (lighter than ACOG's, better eye boxes, and daylight illumination). Once the US catches up, someone might be able to make something like the D-EVO that actually works well. I'd bet money it will be Sig instead of Leupold or Trijicon though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 8:38:59 PM EDT
[#3]
$1500 by the time you get a decent MRD and the D-EVO... which is basically just a heavier and bulkier ACOG in function.
At that point, just get the ACOG and MRD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 8:46:47 PM EDT
[#4]
I thought it was an awesome concept. Unfortunately I shoot almost nose to charge handle. This means I’d have to mount it half way onto the hand guard to get the eye relief correct.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 9:02:23 PM EDT
[#5]
I didn't understand why they made it offset. Why not make it a low profile optic that you mount your choosen red dot on top of.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 9:44:03 PM EDT
[#6]
I love the concept of having 6x and 1x views that you can rapidly swtch between, and I was pretty intrigued when this optic came up...but after considering the total package, it just doesn't turn out to be very practical.
It would have been better if they made a mounting point on the top for RMR or other micro RDS. Leupold D-Evo + Leupold LCO * Combined weight of 23.5 oz * Combined cost of $2,650 * Red dot must be located further forward of the D-Evo, which reduces the size of the eyebox * 6x optic is not great optical quality, and has funky offset BDC What I prefer instead: Leupold 2-7x28, which I usually leave at 7x, with RMR on a 45 degree offset * Combined weight of 8.5oz for Leupold + 3 oz for mount + 1 oz for RMR + 1.3 oz mount = 13.8 oz (40% lighter) * Combined cost of about $750 (not that price matters) * Red dot can be located closer to eye giving a nice large eyebox * High quality 7x glass, and magnification is even adjustable * Having the RMR on a 45 degree mount enables me (as a right handed shooter) to aim around the left side of cover, which I can't do using a vertical optic * The speed of switching between 1x and 7x is still extremely fast (like 0.01 seconds vs 0.001 seconds with D-Evo vs 2 seconds for LPVO) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 9:55:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Doesn't the new Vortex 5x prism have a RMR type micro red dot mount on top? Seems fairly comparable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 10:09:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Why hasn't a company taken this concept and run with it? Answer: 1) Companies often look at other comparable products to judge whether the market is worth it. Leupold priced it too high, so it didn't sell. If it didn't sell, then no reason to copy/improve. 2) Intellectual property (maybe?). It's basically a horizontal periscope, but my guess is they had some way to tie it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 10:45:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't understand why they made it offset. Why not make it a low profile optic that you mount your choosen red dot on top of. You can't get the red dot low enough doing that. I don't know if you looked at the pictures, but you'd never be able to get the same dual view sight picture even by using an MOS system on top of the sight (the new Vortex 5x gives you a direct mill for the Venom, IIRC). The offset makes sense from that perspective. Whether you could somehow extend out the front end structure and then put in some sort of super low MOS or direct mill, I don't know... I assume Leupold went with the offset for a reason. (There's also the matter of vertical sight adjustment impinging on the view as well.) I've got a DEVO+Razor setup, along with a Razor Gen3 LPVO, a Burris 1.5-8x DFP w/ offset Razor, and a pretty nice Romeo6+Juliet4 setup, amongst some other less distinguished setups. They all have pluses and minuses. The big minuses with the D-EVO are the offset getting in the way of left side barricade shooting, a somewhat finicky eyebox, and some real training/practice time to actually get used to using it. It is unlike anything else, and you need to put in some time figuring it out and making it instinctive. But then again, it also gives you the best of both worlds - a 6x prism with an unlimited eye relief red dot, and it's much lighter weight than almost every 1-6x LPVO setup once you include the mounts. Now, where I think time may have passed the D-EVO by is with the new 10x erector ratio LPVOs. The difference between 6x and 8x isn't a big deal; the difference between 6x and 10x is significant, and I'm unaware of a prism optic with > 6x magnification. It does make me wonder if the D-EVO concept can really compete with high-end LPVOs in the long-run given that. On the other hand, as a competitor/replacement to RDS magnifiers, I think it's a little more suitable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 10:56:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love the concept of having 6x and 1x views that you can rapidly swtch between, and I was pretty intrigued when this optic came up...but after considering the total package, it just doesn't turn out to be very practical. It would have been better if they made a mounting point on the top for RMR or other micro RDS. Leupold D-Evo + Leupold LCO * Combined weight of 23.5 oz * Combined cost of $2,650 * Red dot must be located further forward of the D-Evo, which reduces the size of the eyebox * 6x optic is not great optical quality, and has funky offset BDC What I prefer instead: Leupold 2-7x28, which I usually leave at 7x, with RMR on a 45 degree offset * Combined weight of 8.5oz for Leupold + 3 oz for mount + 1 oz for RMR + 1.3 oz mount = 13.8 oz (40% lighter) * Combined cost of about $750 (not that price matters) * Red dot can be located closer to eye giving a nice large eyebox * High quality 7x glass, and magnification is even adjustable * Having the RMR on a 45 degree mount enables me (as a right handed shooter) to aim around the left side of cover, which I can't do using a vertical optic * The speed of switching between 1x and 7x is still extremely fast (like 0.01 seconds vs 0.001 seconds with D-Evo vs 2 seconds for LPVO) I've got some problems with this comparison: 1. The D-EVO only weighs 13.8oz with a mount. Apples to apples would be to use the same reflex optic, at which point they're within a couple oz of each other. Incidentally, the old Leupy 2-7x28 is no longer available; the VX-Freedom 2-7x33 weighs 11.1oz. Did I mention how the Leupold 2-7x also has a completely trash reticle selection that makes it totally unsuited for long-range shooting (400yd+) without dialing? 2. The glass on the D-EVO is excellent. I don't know where the "D-EVO glass is bad" nonsense came from, but it's simply untrue. Is it as good as my Razor Gen3? No. Is it as bad as my Burris XTR II 1.5-8x? No. 3. Shooting off-axis is absolutely NOT a freebie. Your comp no longer works, you lose some handling, shooting through ports starts getting really weird, your rifle is off balance, and so on. 4. Eyebox is irrelevant on red dots. Shoot both eyes open. If you're referring to "perception of bigger window", I would strongly argue that starting with the red dot in your FOV is always going to be the winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 11:04:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Because it's Leupold.
If it's not another generic SFP duplex, it'll be insanely priced and/or have questionable issues that keep it from selling. Anything that accidentally gets made that isn't SFP, duplex and well priced will be discontinued a year after introduction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 11:06:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't the new Vortex 5x prism have a RMR type micro red dot mount on top? Seems fairly comparable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2021 11:09:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because it's Leupold. If it's not another generic SFP duplex, it'll be insanely priced and/or have questionable issues that keep it from selling. Anything that accidentally gets made that isn't SFP, duplex and well priced will be discontinued a year after introduction.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 4:51:11 AM EDT
[#14]
It definitely caught on. Go try to find this stuff in stock. You'll have to look.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 7:41:00 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It definitely caught on. Go try to find this stuff in stock. You'll have to look. Not the same thing, although still not a bad idea per se. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 10:42:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've got some problems with this comparison: 1. The D-EVO only weighs 13.8oz with a mount. Apples to apples would be to use the same reflex optic, at which point they're within a couple oz of each other. Quote HistoryQuoted: I've got some problems with this comparison: 1. The D-EVO only weighs 13.8oz with a mount. Apples to apples would be to use the same reflex optic, at which point they're within a couple oz of each other. More like 3 oz, but that's not exactly apples to apples either though because if you mount a red dot forward of the D-evo, it needs to have larger glass to occupy the same FOV as a red dot that's situated farther back. An RMR up close on a 45 degree offset mount offers excellent FOV comparable to a larger red dot that is forward mounted. Incidentally, the old Leupy 2-7x28 is no longer available; the VX-Freedom 2-7x33 weighs 11.1oz. Yes it's discontinued, although that did not stop me from finding a used one earlier this year. There's also a 3-9x33 that's 8.8 oz and several other options under 10 oz. Did I mention how the Leupold 2-7x also has a completely trash reticle selection that makes it totally unsuited for long-range shooting (400yd+) without dialing? It's true the reticle sucks, but for my purposes an intelligent MBPR zero solves this problem. There's a SWFA 2.5-10x32 ultralight with mildot reticle at 9.5 oz that others could use. I tried it but prefer the Leupold. 3. Shooting off-axis is absolutely NOT a freebie. Your comp no longer works, you lose some handling, shooting through ports starts getting really weird, your rifle is off balance, and so on. This hasn't been my experience. I find that it is actually feels more natural, less wrist strain, and the benefit of being able to shoot around left handed corners easily is a huge tactical benefit especially for a non ambi shooter. True that comp axis is off, but recoil still mitigated and it's really only CQB where you're shooting this way. 4. Eyebox is irrelevant on red dots. Shoot both eyes open. If you're referring to "perception of bigger window", I would strongly argue that starting with the red dot in your FOV is always going to be the winner. By eyebox, i'm just referring to how much freedom you have to move your head around without losing the dot. The further away the red dot is from your eye, the more sensitive eye placement becomes. Put an RMR on a handgun and there is very little forgiveness. Put the same RMR 2" from your eye, and it's impossible to not see the dot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 1:01:48 PM EDT
[#17]
MPBR is not gonna get you first round hits at 500. The Leupold 2-7's reticle is flat-out a deal breaker from that perspective.
My experience has been that, using a Razor RDS, I've literally never had a problem finding the dot with a cheek weld that would be usable for the DEVO in the first place. I strongly disagree about the rifle being more comfortable when tilted at 45 degrees, but that's admittedly user perception. What I think is harder to argue against is the compensator pushing your muzzle at the wrong angle for follow-up shots (albeit I concur recoil mitigation would be broadly similar). IMHO, that is a real deal-breaker for me, but YMMV. I suppose the best way to prove this one way or the other is to mount one optic normally and put another of the same type offset, and then put it on a timer to see which way is faster. I feel fairly confident that "normally" is going to win by a measurable margin, especially if you include rapid-fire tests in there, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 2:02:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What I prefer instead: Leupold 2-7x28, which I usually leave at 7x, with RMR on a 45 degree offset * Combined weight of 8.5oz for Leupold + 3 oz for mount + 1 oz for RMR + 1.3 oz mount = 13.8 oz (40% lighter) This sounds good as far as what's currently available. What model of leupold 2-7 is that light? And what mount is that light? Pics would be awesome. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 2:08:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats different its like a piggyback RMR. the concept behind the D-EVO was to have the red dot at the standard height most people have RDS at and the magnified prism scope "looks around" the base of the RDS so to speak. It also seemed to have both optics in your eyeballs FOV at the same time. So no need to move gun or checked just change eye focus to switch optics and bang bang. Exactly. The key point of the concept was to have both optics in your eyeballs FOV at the same time -- so unlike a piggyback or offset dot, you don't have to move your head at all, and unlike a flip-to-side magnifier or LPVO, you don't have to reach up and move anything. Like this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 2:11:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It definitely caught on. Go try to find this stuff in stock. You'll have to look. https://www.unitytactical.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FAST-Micro-Mount-SL5.jpg What exactly is this setup? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 3:22:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MPBR is not gonna get you first round hits at 500. The Leupold 2-7's reticle is flat-out a deal breaker from that perspective. My experience has been that, using a Razor RDS, I've literally never had a problem finding the dot with a cheek weld that would be usable for the DEVO in the first place. I strongly disagree about the rifle being more comfortable when tilted at 45 degrees, but that's admittedly user perception. What I think is harder to argue against is the compensator pushing your muzzle at the wrong angle for follow-up shots (albeit I concur recoil mitigation would be broadly similar). IMHO, that is a real deal-breaker for me, but YMMV. I suppose the best way to prove this one way or the other is to mount one optic normally and put another of the same type offset, and then put it on a timer to see which way is faster. I feel fairly confident that "normally" is going to win by a measurable margin, especially if you include rapid-fire tests in there, but I could be wrong. Guys like Josh Froelich used to also time the muzzle brake at 45 degrees to avoid this issue. I don't think he does anymore though, dunno why. I've had an LCO for years and hate rds magnifiers so I've been curious about the D-EVO since forever. So many mixed reactions down through the years keep me from trying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 3:23:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What exactly is this setup? Unity FAST riser dot mount and flip-to-center (FTC) magnifier mount. It's for getting the dot and magnifier way up there for heads-up/NVG shooting (think 2.26" height). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 6:14:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This sounds good as far as what's currently available. What model of leupold 2-7 is that light? And what mount is that light? Pics would be awesome. Thanks. Leupold 2-7x28   Total weight: 4 lbs 12 oz This rifle is designed for lightweight, post-societal EDC |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 7:08:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MPBR is not gonna get you first round hits at 500. The Leupold 2-7's reticle is flat-out a deal breaker from that perspective. Quote HistoryQuoted: MPBR is not gonna get you first round hits at 500. The Leupold 2-7's reticle is flat-out a deal breaker from that perspective. You do you. For a couple more ounces you can step up to a scope with better reticle, I didn't need that and preferrrd to keep weight low. If you live in the desert or open plains then i can understand how that may be a deal breaker for you but in the terrain i frequent, i'm unlikely to ever see a target more than 200 yards let alone want to engage it. I strongly disagree about the rifle being more comfortable when tilted at 45 degrees, but that's admittedly user perception. For shooting around left side of cover as a RH shooter? Have you tried it? so much easier on a 45.. What I think is harder to argue against is the compensator pushing your muzzle at the wrong angle for follow-up shots (albeit I concur recoil mitigation would be broadly similar). IMHO, that is a real deal-breaker for me, but YMMV. If you were using a compensator that ejects gas upwards to combat muzzle rise this concern would be valid but does not really apply to designs that symmetrically eject gas to either side in order to reduce overall recoil. I'm using an EFAB on this gun. I suppose the best way to prove this one way or the other is to mount one optic normally and put another of the same type offset, and then put it on a timer to see which way is faster. I feel fairly confident that "normally" is going to win by a measurable margin, especially if you include rapid-fire tests in there, but I could be wrong. Yes, put yourself on a timer and make sure to include shooting around both left and right sides of cover without stopping the clock . I was skeptical too until I tried it, now i'm sold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 7:21:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you were using a compensator that ejects gas upwards to combat muzzle rise this concern would be valid but does not really apply to designs that symmetrically eject gas to either side in order to reduce overall recoil. I'm using an EFAB on this gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: If you were using a compensator that ejects gas upwards to combat muzzle rise this concern would be valid but does not really apply to designs that symmetrically eject gas to either side in order to reduce overall recoil. I'm using an EFAB on this gun. Shooting the gas upwards (and not as much downwards) to reduce muzzle rise is the definition of a compensator. You are describing a muzzle brake. I don't need a brake on 5.56 gun, I need a comp. (Well, preferably both, but mostly a comp.) Yes, put yourself on a timer and make sure to include shooting around both left and right sides of cover without stopping the clock . I was skeptical too until I tried it, now i'm sold. Hopefully by the end of the summer. Not sure why the D-EVO setup would be any worse at using the reflex sight around cover, the DEVO is never gonna get close enough to the cover to touch it. (Also, I should reiterate that I put myself on a timer plenty, and own a couple rifles with offset reflex sights.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 7:37:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: The D-EVO was stupid expensive and not fully developed as a concept... but oh what a concept it was! It seems like this is the solution to the ongoing LPVO vs dot/magnifier vs. ACOG with RMR etc. issue. The idea that you can, without moving or changing ANYTHING, just look down slightly and get a 6x magnified optic or look up slightly and get an aimpoint/eotech/etc is awesome. Why hasn't a company taken this concept and run with it? If the D-EVO was ruggedized, had a better eyebox and was $600-$1500, and had a great (ACSS) reticle, it would absolutely be the bee's knees. Combine an optic like the D-EVO with an aimpoint T2 and you've got a super lightweight, super capable package. https://loungecdn.luckygunner.com/lounge/media/Leupold-DEVO-reticle.jpg https://loungecdn.luckygunner.com/lounge/media/Leupold-DEVO-4.jpg That’s what I’m wondering. Something like the D-evo should have put the compromise of a sight like the LPVO out of its misery. A Jack of all trades, master of none. Heavy(most of them), and so bad at 1x everyone from tier one guys to civilians regularly add an offset dot. More money, more weight. More batteries. LPVO’s suck. Sorry. They do. Any type of sight like the D-evo, with some more development, would kick the fuck out of LPVO’s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 8:49:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shooting the gas upwards (and not as much downwards) to reduce muzzle rise is the definition of a compensator. You are describing a muzzle brake. I don't need a brake on 5.56 gun, I need a comp. (Well, preferably both, but mostly a comp.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Shooting the gas upwards (and not as much downwards) to reduce muzzle rise is the definition of a compensator. You are describing a muzzle brake. I don't need a brake on 5.56 gun, I need a comp. (Well, preferably both, but mostly a comp.) I'm aware of the difference between the two different muzzle devices, but the terms have come to be used interchangeably. For example the M4-72 compensator is a brake by your definition. Guns don't inherently have muzzle rise at all, muzzle rise only occurs due to holding the gun a certain way that causes the linear recoil force to be directed upward . The problem with trying to counteract muzzle rise using a compensator is that the compensated force must be tuned exactly to the loss being fired and the way you are holding it, and if hens differently, it could over or under compensate. Muzzle brakes attack the root of the problem by actually reducing the recoil, which simultaneously eliminates muzzle rise and is not sensitive to ammo or the way the gun is held, and can never result in over compensation. Therefore muzzle brakes are a strictly superior technology to compensators. Hopefully by the end of the summer. Not sure why the D-EVO setup would be any worse at using the reflex sight around cover, i wasn't talking about the d-evo specifically. just saying If you are right handed and trying to shoot around the left side of cover, and your weapon sights are located on the top rail, then you either need to step out and expose yourself or switch to your offhand. But if your sighting device is on a 45 degree offset, then you can easily aim around either the left or right side of cover without exposing your body or switching to off hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 8:55:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s what I’m wondering. Something like the D-evo should have put the compromise of a sight like the LPVO out of its misery. A Jack of all trades, master of none. Heavy(most of them), and so bad at 1x everyone from tier one guys to civilians regularly add an offset dot. More money, more weight. More batteries. LPVO’s suck. Sorry. They do. Any type of sight like the D-evo, with some more development, would kick the fuck out of LPVO’s. If the DEVO were a little lighter, a lot cheaper, and had a mounting plate on the top for micro RDS, it would have been wildly popular..but still wouldn't compete with LPVO. Why not? Because 3gun rules only allow 1 optic, and non pro shooters largely want to copy what the pro shooters are using... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 10:31:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s what I’m wondering. Something like the D-evo should have put the compromise of a sight like the LPVO out of its misery. A Jack of all trades, master of none. Heavy(most of them), and so bad at 1x everyone from tier one guys to civilians regularly add an offset dot. More money, more weight. More batteries. LPVO’s suck. Sorry. They do. Any type of sight like the D-evo, with some more development, would kick the fuck out of LPVO’s. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 10:53:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Imagine if, instead of being offset to one side like a periscope, it just was a low-mounted 6x magnified scope with an upward-angled occular lens (keeping the D-Evo's way of angling the view up to the shooter from lower than the line of sight). Then, mount a micro red dot on top (or an in-between -- something like the SRO).
You'd have the same sight picture as the advertised EVO, same capabilities, and no offset scope to one side. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 11:19:11 PM EDT
[#31]
You know that the concept is possible because spotting scopes are often angled just like that. If the 6x optic itself were lowww to the rail, the actual viewing lens could be tilted up toward you. If it had a decent eyebox, a clear 6x fixed-power scope with a mil-dot reticle would be PERFECT with a mounting point on top for an RMR or a Deltapoint.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 11:21:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You'd have the same sight picture as the advertised EVO, same capabilities, and no offset scope to one side. You wouldn't have the same sight picture, though. The body of the reflex sight would still be between the D-EVO eyepiece and the window of the reflex sight. It's really hard to communicate just how much the posted pictures are exactly real life with the D-EVO. Getting that reflex sight down as low as it can go is a key requirement to making the D-EVO work as intended, so that you have that nearly seamless transition between the D-EVO view and the reflex sight window. That said, I do agree certain aspect of the D-EVO design would aid in making certain prism sights less annoying to use with a top-mounted reflex sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2021 11:53:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine if, instead of being offset to one side like a periscope, it just was a low-mounted 6x magnified scope with an upward-angled occular lens (keeping the D-Evo's way of angling the view up to the shooter from lower than the line of sight). Then, mount a micro red dot on top (or an in-between -- something like the SRO). You'd have the same sight picture as the advertised EVO, same capabilities, and no offset scope to one side. https://i.imgur.com/fml5E2h.png This is exactly what it should have been, under/over, not hanging off the side like a magnifier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 12:41:35 AM EDT
[#34]
I guess I don't see why it's such a big deal to just piggyback a red dot onto a prism. Standalone red dots are now being mounted at the same heights as piggy backs for better heads up shooting and nvg comparability.
So if you're gonna have a 2.21 heigh red dot why not put a prism under it |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 2:14:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I'm wondering. Something like the D-evo should have put the compromise of a sight like the LPVO out of its misery. A Jack of all trades, master of none. Heavy(most of them), and so bad at 1x everyone from tier one guys to civilians regularly add an offset dot. More money, more weight. More batteries. LPVO's suck. Sorry. They do. Any type of sight like the D-evo, with some more development, would kick the fuck out of LPVO's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 3:04:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imagine if, instead of being offset to one side like a periscope, it just was a low-mounted 6x magnified scope with an upward-angled occular lens (keeping the D-Evo's way of angling the view up to the shooter from lower than the line of sight). Then, mount a micro red dot on top (or an in-between -- something like the SRO). You'd have the same sight picture as the advertised EVO, same capabilities, and no offset scope to one side. https://i.imgur.com/fml5E2h.png Thank you for the diagram. It makes total sense now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 3:18:10 AM EDT
[#37]
Probably because the market situation isn’t conducive to a radical development. By that I mean, why make a major R&D investment on a risky future payoff when improvements to existing designs sell like hotcakes?
I think it’s a very cool concept and I’d like to have one if it was Acog reliable. But I don’t think we’ll see it until things calm down and they start hitting the wall on improvements to current designs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 12:00:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've got some problems with this comparison: 1. The D-EVO only weighs 13.8oz with a mount. Apples to apples would be to use the same reflex optic, at which point they're within a couple oz of each other. Incidentally, the old Leupy 2-7x28 is no longer available; the VX-Freedom 2-7x33 weighs 11.1oz. Did I mention how the Leupold 2-7x also has a completely trash reticle selection that makes it totally unsuited for long-range shooting (400yd+) without dialing? 2. The glass on the D-EVO is excellent. I don't know where the "D-EVO glass is bad" nonsense came from, but it's simply untrue. Is it as good as my Razor Gen3? No. Is it as bad as my Burris XTR II 1.5-8x? No. 3. Shooting off-axis is absolutely NOT a freebie. Your comp no longer works, you lose some handling, shooting through ports starts getting really weird, your rifle is off balance, and so on. 4. Eyebox is irrelevant on red dots. Shoot both eyes open. If you're referring to "perception of bigger window", I would strongly argue that starting with the red dot in your FOV is always going to be the winner. I wouldn't say it's bad glass so low quality was poor wording, but next to the HD glass of LPVO's in it's price range, it's not that good. Leupold throws HD glass around like it's free, so I think for the price it was surprising Leupold didn't upgrade it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 1:26:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably because the market situation isn’t conducive to a radical development. By that I mean, why make a major R&D investment on a risky future payoff when improvements to existing designs sell like hotcakes? I think it’s a very cool concept and I’d like to have one if it was Acog reliable. But I don’t think we’ll see it until things calm down and they start hitting the wall on improvements to current designs. Good points |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2021 4:42:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wouldn't say it's bad glass so low quality was poor wording, but next to the HD glass of LPVO's in it's price range, it's not that good. Leupold throws HD glass around like it's free, so I think for the price it was surprising Leupold didn't upgrade it. To be fair, I got mine used for $600, so I was not expecting ACOG or Razor levels of glass quality. I just remember taking it out for zeroing and being relatively impressed when I looked out through it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
