Are LPVOs too much scope for 16 inch ARs?I own a couple and for my one in need of optics I am toying with the idea of an ATACR but my gut feeling is you don’t need more than 4 power for 223...Never been in a firefight so I can’t comment on how actual usable 223 is out to distances in need of an 8 power if I’m being honest. You early gwot guys or ranger batt guys can chime in?
>>49197834Comprehensive analysis of conflicts the world over has yielded that most engagements occur within 400m. I've regularly and successfully engaged man-sized targets at 500m with an M16/acog. That said a 1-6 lpvo wouldn't be too much scope, and more magnification just means more precision.
>>49197834You could make a mk12 mod H clone but LPVOs are kind of heavy. I’ve never needed anything beyond my acog on a 5.56. Also unless you have a bdc matched to your round and velocity you need to know your dope. There’s a pretty big difference between the mountains of Afghanistan and the streets of suburbia. Unless you’re in Wyoming I don’t really see you needing an spr for anything but a comfy range rifle
>>49197859>>49197834>>49197895Thanks. OP here, I’m just leaning towards another acog and rmr setup.I ask for the combat vets experience cuz when I was in Afghanistan a couple years ago (fortunately) nothing was popping off.
>>49197834Do you shoot varmints sometimes? If yes, then they can be useful because the target is small. I don't know about combat but with 6x you can reasonable watch for splashes at 500 yards and walk rounds into an 8" plate or tag it on a first hit if you know your holds/get lucky. With 4x it would be difficult imo.I don't like how much heavier an lpvo plus good mount feels though. It makes an AR feel lopsided if you're trying to do something fast.
>>49197834People regularly put lvpo's on 11.5 rifles. Scope power isn't all about long distance shooting, sometimes you use it for Target ID, for shooting at something that's at incredibly small window(smaller than ipsc targets), or for making pin point accurate shots. If it bother you that much, you can just keep ur lvpo at 4 power at most times and crank it down or up as you see fit. >>49198006Acog is pretty outdated, even for military standards. Army is replacing their's with sig tang 6t's and Marines with Trijicon VCOG. Even the ngsw is using basically a computerized lvpo.
>>49198066I know they’re dated, but so are eotechs and x3s. But I still like both setups
>>49197834You're thinking about this all wrong Anon. It isn't about engagement distances, magnification, field of view, or any of the bullshit.Its about the price tag./k will approve anything from a red dot to 25X, as long as you spend the right amount. /k will disapprove anything that does not meet pricing threshold.
im completely retarded or slightly retarded to have my lpvo on my 11.5 and red dot w/ magnifier on my 16 inch?
>>49198346usually its the other way around, but whatever works for you man
>>49197834Its good because now you have the choice of taken the magnification out for target shooting or varmint hunting. Which is realistically what you're actually going to be doing with the gun.
>>49198287I mean I get that adage of optic matching the price of the gun at the very least. However, the night force is in my gut too much scope for an ar15. If it was a 308 or something that’d be different
Optics help greatly with target Identification. not just shooting them.
>>49197834LPVO is an excellent choice. Being able to swap between low/no magnification for close combat and moderate magnification for 100-400m makes them very versatile.
>>49197834Magnification never hurts, even if you only wind up using it for target identification or observation. For a general purpose "do-all" 5.56 rifle i like an 18" barrel, 77gr SMK, a variable optic, and a backup red dot. If you like redundancy maybe have irons too.
If you are a fad follower by all means go ahead and get an LPVO. If you have any hair on your balls and know the fundamentals of marksmanship then get iron sights.
>>49197834I've always seen it as the scope you choose when you need 1 gun to do everything you'd need a rifle to do. That is to say covering long and short range shooting in a heavy package that isn't as good as a lighter, purpose built close or medium range sight. I'm no vet, closest I've gotten is going on overnight hikes with my rifle and my NVGs, so take my input with a grain of salt but I think LPVOs are great if you're cheap and indecisive
>>49197834I shoot 2-gun and varmint hunt, not an op3r8tor in the slightest. Having an actual scope is nice for varmint hunting and having a red dot or eotech is nice for any type of action shooting. My favorite do-all combo is a 2.5-12x 18" barreled rifle with an offset dot. It's okay at everything but kinda heavy. DESU if I had a do-over I'd get a lighter profile 16" barrel. I have never scored better in a match or shot a coyote because of that extra 2 inches, but it's surely made me slower and caused fatigue.
>>49198287post your gun so we can call you poor
>>49199406I like the added velocity 18" gives, plus you can reliable have a rifle length gas system
>>49197834How far have you shot your AR?
>>49198346Do whatever you want, but personally I would have it switched
>>49198066>People regularly put lvpo's on 11.5 riflesYes, and it's just fine for the listed reasons.
>>49199419The internet never sees my funs. If I feel the need to have delusional spoiled bitch penis lickers insult me, I can just go post on some lady's fashion board on reddit, "Oh look I just bought these $50 shoes with daddy's credit card, I like them, they are so comfy". At least I will be interacting with real girls there.
>>49198066>you can just keep ur lvpo at 4 power at most timesIf you don't have something like a piggyback or offset micro red dot / reflex I would keep it at 1x unless you need to dial it up
>>49199485Very clean SBR, tripfag
>>49198594So guns have recently gone way up in price, does that mean an optic that was perfectly acceptable during last presidency is now "poorfag trash" ?
>>49199454Not further than 330yds
>>49199801I paid 2.2k before the panic.
>>49199786It should be, I hadn't even shot that upper when I took that pic back in September.
>>49197834Nah, with decent modern expanding/fragmenting ammo you can get alright performance out to 300m+. With a decent AR you can easily be 1.5 MOA at that distance, and considerably better with a gucci gun and hand loads. Its easier to hit a 5" target at 300m under 8x than it is under 4x. Side point but IMHO the only LPVOs that actually make sense are the 1-8s, 1-4 and 1-6 arent enough improvement over a RDS and magnifier to be worth the additional cost and relatively shit 1x performance
>>49198346Nah, the weight trade off is worth it
>>49199803Well, if you use good heavy ammo, you can hit really effectively out to probably 650 / 700 yards, but you need to be able to see / identify the target, for which a LPVO is very useful
>>49199966They're all very useful. 1x is really not bad with LPVO, even cheaper ones.
Bumpan for the after work crowd
>>49197834LPVOs are based no matter the firearm they're on
>>49199273Found the boomer.
Holy fuck. I just looked the price. Exactly what does Trijicon vcog have to justify that price over a vortex lpvo? Trijicon is chink glass, no?
>>49202965Vortex is trash bro
>>49202965Unlike vortex, a trijicon optic can survive 100 different marines beating it against an AAV as they get in and out of it. Or 100 soldiers getting in and out of a bradley. Its an optic made for someone who uses their gun for work.
>>49204060What makes Vortex trash?
>>49198594the primary platform for the NF atacr 1-8 is 14.5 and 10inch ar15's in 556. Not saying you need to emulate the military, but if you have multiple carbines I would have atleast 1 with an LPVO.
>>49199273what a retard, trying getting usable PID, at extended ranges with iron sights. And why slow yourself down.
>>49197834Would it be retarded to put an LVPO on a .454 casull?
For the longest time I thought LPVO's were stupid because I thought you had to re-zero every time you adjust your magnification
>>49204855I just wish FFP LPVO’s weren’t so expensive
>>49204953What's the difference
https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/vc18-c-2400003Do these work without a battery as well?
>>49205516SFP - the optic is only zero'ed in for one highest magnification. Though not way off, you'll still want to practice/compensate for distance at 1xFFP - the zero is good throughout the entire magnification range.
>>49199552Kek. I like you.
What’s a good LPVO for a SCAR-17S?
is the ATACR the best LPVO?I keep hearing about some brand called Kohls or kahls or whateverLaately I keep seeing people talk trash about the luepold mark 6
>>49202965vortex is chinese glass and chinese assembly for everything but the razor line. Trijicon, is all made in the USA, using japanese glass.The 1-8 vcog is cheaper than a NF atacr, or Kahles. But the big thing is it has an integrated mount and considering you will spend 200-300+ dollars on a mount for these its actually sort of the budget option. But ya trijicon wanted to make the acog of LPVO's and the USMC agrees.
>>49207918id get a 2-10 trijicon credo(used to be accupower)then a canty pistol dot.
>>49197834I went with the nx8 over the atacr just because I liked the size profile more, glass on the atacr was definitely better but the nx8 is such an amazing little scope It more than makes up for it.
>>49199485how are the Trij LPVOs?
>>49197834Lvl 20 Replenisher, it's not only fine but preferable. Just be aware of potential eye relief issues and have a dot or eotech available as an option>or fucking just have multiple guns/uppers set up differently
>>49204337Anything below the razor line is chinkshit low QC stuff. Razor is legit though and put through hard use by competitors and SF. Don't listen to idiots who say Trijicon makes unbreakable shit, they make good stuff don't get me wrong but you can google issues with their entire product line, like every mfg.
>>49202965Has widespread military service with marines, made from forged 7075 aluminum vs 6065 that everyone else uses, integrated mount, very clear glass, NV compatible, uses common AA batteries, 100% made in the US. For civilians, its definitely over priced. However so its the ATACR by nightforce but people stills buy them. Atacr is lighter than VCOG with a leap mount but VCOG in turn has a bigger FOV and better Eye relief.
>>49204953They aren't? Just don't buy huge brand names and you can easily get quality ones under $800. Acceptable budget ones are less than $400.
>>49211179I just picked up a japanese made riton 1-8 34mm for 500, shits street price is 1k, msrp1299. Best 500 I ever spent on an optic. Is the build quality as good as my eotech vudu 1-6 no, does it have as many features no, but it has more mag, and was almost half the price so its still a killer scope for the price.
>>49205552They All work without a battery. You just won't have illumination. The one that works of fiber optics is accupoint.https://www.trijicon.com/products/subcategory/trijicon-accupoint-riflescope
>>49202247Found the tranny.
Has anyone looked at the german precision optics LPVO's? Any good?
>>49214085Only like $1,000, there are more expensive options out there Anon. Not going to attract a boyfriend with that thing on your gun.
>>49210301Have had Credo and Accupower. Have to say both are super nice with good glass.
>>49197834people put fucking elcans that have 6X magnification on a 14.5 inch barrel
>>49205516>>49206210Kinda correct, but still wrong.SFP - The zero will not change, but the subtentions (hashmarks, mildots) are only accurate at max magnification - the reticle does not change based on magnificationFFP - You can use the subtensions for estimating distances and hold overs at any magnification, as the reticle will change size based on magnification.
>>49215874thanks for fixing my spaghetti.
>>49197834If you retain a reasonable lower end of magnification and don't impact your rifles weight/balance/form factor toot badly, I'm not sure you can have "too much" magnification.
>>49215874>but the subtentions (hashmarks, mildots) are only accurate at max magnificationthis is right but still wrongthey will be accurate and consistent at any magnification. the issue is you wont know the units unless you did a bunch of testing beforehand to clarify. with a ffp your 500 yard hashmark will be 500 at any magnificationwith a sfp your 500 measured at 6x would be a 300 at 3x im pulling these numbers out of my ass youd really have to test it out to figure out exacts. you can use a sfp just fine its just an additional level of mental math involved.
>>49214085They might have been until I saw their 1-8x weighs 27 fucking ounces. At that point just buy the vortex 1-10x on liberty optics.
Anyone have experience with the NX8 1-8?
>>49216143You are never going to use any of your hashmarks at anything except for max power.
>>49216283nah i use em at the lowest bottomed outno fucking clue on anything in between. i know 3 and i know 9
>>49197834There's no such thing as too much magnification practically speaking (disregarding weight, size, etc). The ability to PID even at 300 meters is made better with an 6-8x optic, or even being able to hit small targets at 100m is made easier by one. You will not be disappointed if you get an atacr and you will find your capabilities are better than someone stuck with a red dot+magnifier or something like an ACOG. I'd also recommend getting something like an RMR and either top mounting or offset mounting it alongside the ATACR. Also the useable distances of 5.56 is about 500m give or take, especially with a longer 16" barrel AR. I've even heard experienced guys say it's max effective range is out to 650-700m with the right ammunition, but that depends on how well of a shooter you are.
>>49216308You pay for more magnification in other characteristics. Weight, cost, low mag distortion etc. All things being equal more magnification at the top end is always better, but all things are not equal.
>>49216275I do, ask me all of your questions.
>>49216336How does it compare to ATACR glass? Is it noticeable?
>>49216336How do you like it compared to other LPVOs?Is the eyebox a problem? Does it feel durable? Do you have it mounted 1.93 or what?
Should I sel gen 3 for a vcog 1-8
>>49210301I have two of their Credos and an Accupower (not much difference between the two besides some minor tweaks and reticles) and they're very solid. Mind you they're not what I'd call fancy in the realm of LPVOs, so if you're used to offerings from Nigthforce and the like you'll find some things to gripe about, but for ~$900 they're quite fairly priced. My one real beef with the Credo/Accupower is that Trijicon apparently cannot manage true daylight brightness in their battery-powered LPVO lineup.
>>49218872Did you go 1-6x or 1-8x?
>>492197361-4 for my 11.5" and 1-6 for my 14.5", but if I ever get a tacticool 18" or 20" I'd be very much down for a 1-8.
>>49199552Goddamn man, you didn’t have to kill him
>>49217383It is most definitely worse than the ATACR glass, it has this strange chromatic aberration effect when looking at bright objects that gives them a purple halo/outline. I have played with the diopter quite a bit and it hasn't gone away but it doesn't happen at long range, only the closer distances. the illumination is better than the ATACR and I believe it has the most forgiving eye relief at 1x out of the Leupold mk6, ATACR, and razor gen 3. (I've compared them all side by side for about an hour before making my purchase.) >>49217523As stated above I picked it out of all the those other scopes because I felt it fit my needs the best. It is the best performing FFP lvpo at being a red dot substitute in my opinion, with the ability to crank up to 8x. The mk6 has an eyebox for the illumination inside of its eyebox. (i know that sounds strange but if you are behind the gun and shift your head left and right within the scope the illumination will disappear, though you do not exit the eyebox of the scope while doing so, the crosshair is still perfectly visible.) The eyebox is not a problem if you dont try to shoot under a car,weak side, at 8x. I found it perfectly useable on most of a vtac barricade only running into issues shooting weakside in unconventional positions because I personally do not train that enough. Cat has knocked it off my nightstand twice and scope retained zero after confirming at the range, I have no question the scope is durable.Yeah, its running an an ADM 1.93 QD mount. I will never use another mount height for red dots or lpvos, ergo benefits of this height are just too good to give up.
>>49197895>Unless you’re in Wyoming I don’t really see you needing an spr for anything but a comfy range rifleI dunno. Streets are fucking long, if you wind up posted up overlooking a street for some reason that magnification will definitely come in handy, even if only for target ID'ing
>>49208587>kahlskahles? They make really good long range optics, but I don't know their other models.
>>49199273go to bed grampa
>>49198066I have several ACOGs and a LPVO (trijicon credo 1-6x)ACOG is not outdated because the field of view on those fuckers is still the best. Simple, works day and night no need to fuck with anything or adjust anything or replace anything. Now for precision shooting, the LPVO's extra magnification and reticle come in handy. Try both out and see what you prefer. I only use the LPVO for my precision AR that is already heavy, and ACOG for everything else.
>>49197834No. Honestly I have a 3-9 on my 20" and I want more scope, if for no other reason than even at 9X it's hard as fuck to see a .22 caliber hole on a piece of paper at 100y
>>49223453how do you rate eye relief between two?
>>49223469Uhh... Well with the ACOG it's not a problem. It has a good 1-2" of space, but having your nose to the charging handle as you should it's never a problem. It's more of a problem with the LPVO. At the higher magnification there can be a lot of shadobox if you're not in the right spot, and that right spot is less forgiving than the ACOG unfortunately.Even at 4x power the LPVO is less forgiving than the ACOG and has much less FOV.The 4x ACOG is just so damn good. One look through one in person and you'll know why.>picrel
>>49223539Thanks, that helped a lot.
>>49223548Can confirm on all accounts. The 4x on the ACOG is godly. I actually have my 4x ACOG on my 16” AR rather than my 1-8x which is on my 14.5 because I’m more likely to use the LPVO on 1x.
>>49199552defensive little poorfag confirmed
>>49221678is the ATACR glass 1000 dollar better though?I may be leaning towards the NX8 after hearing your comparisons, especially against the MK6
>>49224951If glass quality is paramount to your needs, do not even think about how much more it will cost, just buy the ATACR. They are two fundamentally different scopes ( nx8 for 556 carbines, with the ATACR for .308 semi auto precision guns.) I personally have no issues with the quality on the NX8, but there may be some who do have issues. In my opinion the real reason the ATACR is an extra 1k is because they want to entice you to buy the better reticle. If the NX8 had the same mill grid reticle the ATACR had it would shit on everything else on the market in terms of features and weight.
>>49225075It’s funny because /arg/ absolutely hates the NX8 and arfcom throws a fit when someone mentions it
>>49197859When you're shooting a real men, they tend to not display themselves as man-sized targets. The actual target is much smaller if they're prone or behind cover
>>49225075>They are two fundamentally different scopes ( nx8 for 556 carbines, with the ATACR for .308 semi auto precision guns.)I didn't even know about this, but it definitely makes sense nowThanks for your input,
>>49225085I looked through about 30 or so review before finally seeing them in person and making a decision, for me my main requirement was weight and performance at 1x, the NX8 beat everything else out when looking at what I wanted out of it. The turbo niggers in /arg/ and arfcom just need to learn to temper the expectations when looking at optics and realize everything has a give and take.
>>49198287A cheap red dot is better than a cheap LPVO.
>>49216261You mean the vortex 1-6. FFP is the big gay.
>>49225335no? im talking about the German Precision Optics1-8, not a gen 1 razor lmao.
>>49225335oh, that went over my head. nah SFP is turbo queer and the gen 2 e razors have issues with the wire reticle detaching from inside the tube.
judging by this thread, it appears that ALL optics suck dick no matter what and basically choosing a scope is like choosing which dildo youre going to be anally raped with.
>>49197834Depends on your use case,as with all thingsArmy figured out that 70% of engagements happened within 300 meters in the mountains of AfghanistanIn more forested environments, that range was brought down to 175 to 200 yards, if not lower depending on the density of foliageIn cities and urban environments, 90% of engagements happened within 100 yardsIf you think you're going to LARP as a lone wulf snoiper, you're a fucking idiot, who wouldn't be able to afford quality enough glass to offset the shit disadvantages of running an LPVOIf you want one for 2 gun comp shooting, they're better than an ACOG of you spend ACOG money on one. Most guys I've seen running one use a 1-6. Anything more is for special carbine courses at longer ranges, where you need a accurate BDC.But since you're worried about ammunition, chances are you can neither afford a quality optic, nor the ammo that is usable out to such a range.Stick to your cheapshit just as good red dot
>>49225096While this is 100% True. You will still pin down the guy or hit him with the 10 shot.
>primary arms 1-6>vortex strike eagle >burris 1-6Whats the best "budget" lpvo? I want to try them out but don't feel like investing that much money into something I might not like.
Got black specks on my glass from the inside of the tube after 15 rounds of 7.62x39. Cheapo ncstar 1-6x. Doesn't interfere with performance, but the black pieces are annoying. Suggestions?
>>49227435Try one out in person before buying.
>>49225745yup. irons with binocs for pid are best. plus you cant go birdwatching with an lpvo
>>49228075Recommend good binoculars
Steiner Marine 7x50
>>49227435From the three its Burris, best glass quality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgK59ksK2Fs&ab_channel=C_DOES
>>49227435I bought a strike eagle + MI mount blindly for $300. Cant wait to sight it in on my also newly bought x95.
I got a 1 to 4xwish I had gotten a 1 to 6
>>49230120I really like my RT-6, only real complaint is it's definitely not daylight bright.
>>49227435Burris definitely, but none is a bad choice.I'd suggest getting the Burris package deal that comes with the cantilever mount and a FastFire III backup sight. You're getting the FF3 for cheap that way, like half price or less. The mount has regular ring top halves and top halves with a short section of picatinny so you can mount the FF3 on top as a backup sight, or leave it looking like normal rings.
>>49227997Call factory and see if they'll warranty it.>>49232888You're right about the illuminated reticle brightness in a full, bright sunny day, but on days like that I don't find I need the illuminated reticle. Just my 2 cents.