Quoted:
IDK, I threw a 1-8 strike eagle I got on sale, put like 20-30 rounds on it to zero and find a load the gun liked, and then went straight to a match and had no issues?

Cheap, had a lot of desirable features, got the job done and netted me some pretty OK stuff at the prize table?

Quoted:
I like the RT6 for under $400.  The Steiner is an under $600 optic.
You can find a RT6 for $285-295.  Not made in China.
The P4xi gets under $500 very occasionally since the last price increase.

The RT6 is the optic to beat in its price range.  The Steiner price increase back a year or two ago made the Steiner leas of a bargain.  Clear glass, but more competition at the higher price.

Quoted:

Burris comes up a lot - what's the diff between all their $500 or less offerings? According to the "Master List"

LVPO Master List

There is the Fullfield, MTAC, RT-6, and XTR II

Thanks!

Quoted:
Not sure about the Fullfield but all of the other ones you mention are made in Philippines.

Mtacs- are older designs and were popular in 3 gun in 1-4x before 1-6x was really big. They mostly utilized a big circle reticle with little dots on the inside of the circle with holdovers out to 600 yards I think. They recently added a horseshoe reticle with stadia holdovers.
RT6- the newest of the ones you mentioned. It's designed to be a budget optic and for the price point the glass is said to be great. I believe it was meant to compete with the PA 1-6, and Vortex Strike  Eagle. And other Chinese optics around that price point.
XTR II- this is a pretty big upgrade over the other two. Daylight bright reticle, highly regarded and great phillipines glass. Heavier at 21.5 oz this used to be their primo LPVO until they came out with the XTR III 1-8s. Since they are kind of an outdated optic, lots of places have been discounting them for $400-500 instead of the $750 they originally sold for. Great value at the price. I would say the Xtr II is the duty grade option of the ones listed.

FWIW I dont have actual user experience with any of them just have shopped for LPVOs and have watched/read reviews on all that I mentioned.

Quoted:

Burris comes up a lot - what's the diff between all their $500 or less offerings? According to the "Master List"

LVPO Master List

There is the Fullfield, MTAC, RT-6, and XTR II

Thanks!

Quoted:
I'm looking to replace my PA 2.5 prism. Right now the major contender is the KISS reticle 1-6 by PA. I really like anything I have seen by them.

This is on a 14.5 AR

Anything else I should be thinking about?

Quoted:
IDK, I threw a 1-8 strike eagle I got on sale, put like 20-30 rounds on it to zero and find a load the gun liked, and then went straight to a match and had no issues?

Cheap, had a lot of desirable features, got the job done and netted me some pretty OK stuff at the prize table?

Quoted:
Burris xtr ii is in the price range as well and has daylight visible illumination.

Quoted:

This and it’s not even close, especially if comparing to the aforementioned PA optic.

Quoted:

The XTR II line is Japanse glass with assembly in Philippines or Japan depending on the model.
3 months ago you had a selection of clearance XTR II in the $450+ range. Now the selection is poor mostly less desirable combinations.

Quoted:

Glass quality trumps magnification.

Quoted:

Which LPVOs, in your view, have that oil painting look?

BTW, I have a Trijicon 1-4x Accupower.

Quoted:

Actually Id give the burris RT-6 the nod over the steiner due to price and otherwise similar glass IMO and I have both... and the PA raptor acss, Vortex strike eagle, and the swampfox lvpo 1-6x. Curious to try the new swampfox 1-10 offering.

Quoted:

We are hoping to launch tomorrow.

@theHULK9281 the factory we own is in Shanghai, but owned and run by Americans.

However, one of the main things we intend to do in the next three years is absolutely tip the entire "China glass is shit, Asia Optical glass from Manila is better, Japan glass from Light Optical Works is best" conventional wisdom. That's what everyone thinks and with most of the products available right now it's generally true. But times are changing, fast. And I've learned a lot more than I will ever be able to say publicly about where parts are really sourced from.

Also, there's a whole different conversation to be had about quality of glass vs. ease of use. I have a personal theory that most American shooters don't really know how to judge glass quality. What they judge is target resolution and how easy it is for them to take an accurate shot.

If you look through a Hensoldt Z-24 scope from 40 years ago, they have amazing glass quality in them, it's German glass, German manufacture. They are still an $800 scope when you can find them. But if you've ever tried to run drills with one of these things, they have a 6 degree field of view and a 6mm exit pupil. They are awful. It's like trying to look through a drinking straw, they are terribly slow and picky and you'll be fighting to get a correct sight picture the whole time. You pretty much have to be shooting from a supported position like the bench or prone to have any success with them at all.

If you ran that scope on the same rifle in back to back drills vs. even a Strike Eagle, the Strike Eagle would whip it's ass. You get the flexibility of a LPVO, you get an illuminated reticle, you get a wider field of view, you can shoot fast with both eyes open up close and yet be more precise at a distance. A Strike Eagle is, in terms of ease of use, a far superior optic to the 4x Hensoldt. Nobody who looks through both optics is going to say "yeah but the Z-24 has 17% less chromatic aberration." They are going to want the one that helps them get rounds on target faster and more accurately.

Our glass is good, but it isn't the best. If you really want that 17% less chromatic aberration, get the Nightforce ATACR, it's great, I highly recommend it. What makes Arrowhead a step up is the the optical engineering, the mathematics of the shape of the lenses and how they are positioned relative to each other, is absolutely state of the art. Whether the guy who flipped the glass polishing machinery to "ON" in the morning spoke Japanese or Chinese doesn't matter nearly as much as it did five years ago, in my opinion.

Quoted:
Translation:  it’s Chinese.  No offense, Mike.  It might possibly be good Chinese, but it’s still Chinese.

Quoted:

No, it's not. Chinese magnified optics have  not established a track record of durability or performance in difficult conditions. Maybe they will someday, but they haven't yet. Most people who buy Chinese scopes don't push them hard. Most people who push their scopes hard don't buy Chinese.

Compared to quality riflescopes, iPhones are disposable. I have to call DJI tomorrow because my son's drone already failed. I've had four or five PA dots fail on me.

Quoted:
There is plenty of pictures of Vortex Strike Eagles in use with SF guys who cant afford a nice 1-6x. A member here even wrote an article about non issue optics complete with pics of them in use.

Quoted:
Can you direct me to that article?

Quoted:

Here's the article. Here's a quote: "During my last tour, we had one guy run a Strike Eagle 1-6x. I've also seen mid-ranged priced Primary Arms and Burris scopes in the field. If they had the option between a Strike Eagles and Razors being given out, I'm sure they'd all opt for Razors." I have never seen anyone other than this author imply that U.S. special forces regularly use Chinese LPVOs. When you look at his exact language, it's quite limited.

The pictures in the article show a VCOG, a Nightforce, two Viper PSTs (Phillipines manufacturing), and a Strike Eagle (Chinese). The Strike Eagle is being used by a "SF operator" "downrange" "conducting training," whatever that stuff means.

The author's real point is that the extra 2-4x given by 1-6x and 1-8x LPVOs is enough of an advantage over issued 4x optics in Afghanistan  that a few people will use even Chinese  LPVOs if they have to.

Quoted:
There's more pics out there too. They do require a bit of searching. I remember having seen a pic of what was said to be a guys 1-8x Strike Eagle in Syria, on a personally owned upper receiver. IIRC. I am by no means advocating that the Chinese special $300 LVPOs are the epitome of durability, I'm just saying if a dude bought one and is in the Green Berets and it survived a tour of duty it's probably not made of glass like some of the posters in here have implied. There was also a mercenary in Syria that posted a bunch of pics and or videos to youtube  I think it was actually Facebook with a Strike Eagle on his AK.

ETA: that member was Stukas87 he used the VCOG and an offset RMR.

Quoted:
The two examples of people using the Strike Eagle in combat are definitely a plus in its favor.

Most comparisons say the glass is better too.

Still think I would like the KISS reticule more, I wish Vortex had some options.

Quoted:

I can show you pictures of guys in combat in boxers and flip-flops, it doesn't mean that this is good, just better than being barefoot.

Quoted:

I can show you pictures of guys in combat in boxers and flip-flops, it doesn't mean that this is good, just better than being barefoot.

Quoted:

Outrageously poor analogy.  Did those guys look at a bunch of options and then make the conscious decision to go into combat that way?
The "brown bag for a week and buy the step up" suggestions are boring the fuck out of me.  I have regular money that I put in to this shit. I know how much of price difference there is between optics and know most of the reasons why they are there and what you get for them.  But money is a finite thing in most everyone's life.

A Steiner P4Xi would cost about twice as much money to put on my rifle as the optics I started this thread to discuss.  Does it offer double the durability and capability?  Do you have experience or examples to show that?  Is that more important than the case of Lake City I could practice with for that money?  If I started a thread on it, how many people are going to bust in with "save for another month and buy this $1200 optic."  If someone was asking about a BSA red dot I'd be the first person to bust in telling the person to keep their irons.  But that isn't the difference in these optics.

I appreciate the people that have pointed to the various resources and given the personal experience with what we are discussing.

Quoted:

OP you should get whatever this guy tells you to get.

Quoted:

Outrageously poor analogy.  Did those guys look at a bunch of options and then make the conscious decision to go into combat that way?

Quoted:

Good grief

Quoted:

Point out the part where I am wrong, exactly.

Quoted:

Never said you were wrong, just a little overzealous.

No worries though.

Quoted:

Point out the part where I am wrong, exactly.

Quoted:

For some reason it seems to bother you like you're on some kind of a crusade to save his life?

Quoted:

Well, your post is mostly an attempt to build a straw man. Your E4 argument suggests you didn't even look at the guys using the Strike Eagle.

Quoted:

I've read it.  It is an interesting anecdote.

An E4 typically has enough time in to have made some really dumb decisions, including the common ones I highlighted.  He's a military everyman and universal example.

Think the elite unit uberwarriors are more knowledgeable?  While they are on average, there are still plenty of them that lube their rifles with WD-40.  Would you do that if I write an article about it?

On the other hand, my little brother is running around Afghanistan right now with a broken Aimpoint.  He'd be thrilled to be able to use working Strike Eagle.  I'd have sent him any optic he wanted already if he was permitted to use it.  More military wisdom.