Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Leupold Mark 6 gtg?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    394
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

    I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    883
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr McSimon View Post
    With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

    I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?
    Typically lpvo’s are ran at 1x and then maxed out for distance shots. In other words, most folks arent using anything between the lowest and highest mag setting and thus FFP is not needed. FFP in these small scopes negatively effects the FOV and eyebox, same thing for higher mag levels. 4-6x is plenty of top end out to 6-700yds. Cramming 8x in there has more of a negative effect than positive, you are sacrificing 1x performance to gain a negligible/unnecessary amount of top end.

    It depends how you are going to use it most and what distances/type of shooting. Lpvo’s shine with (in theory) red dot like performance at 1x with the ability to zoom in with usable reticle for distance. If you plan on doing a lot of range estimation and shooting longer range/precision, than sure FFP is an important feature. You’ll probably want a higher mag level as well and probably should be looking at a traditional precision optic.

    As far as mils vs moa it preference really. Moa allow for slightly more precise adjustments (.25” vs mils .36”) but its really negligible. To me mils are faster to work with and I prefer them. Here is one of the better articles on the subject: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/0...ve-comparison/ . BUT, I disagree with the author on range estimation with mils. I think inches and still use mil with no issue. Yeah a calculator is needed but it’s likely needed for dividing target size by moa reading as well. Not to mention its a simple formula on both moa/mil.
    Last edited by sidewaysil80; 05-20-18 at 06:56.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr McSimon View Post
    With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

    I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?
    I think the the post above kind of summed it up on SFP or FFP. FFP are nice because you can get a decent 1x dot with few distractions and a detailed 6x, but there are tradeoffs- FFP seems to be harder to illuminate well and is more finicky with the illum visibility in the eye box.

    SFP are often more coarse on 1x but are more usable without illumination, and are often brighter.

    On the Kahles, unless you are tied to the SM1, think about the G4b or even better the new reticle that looks like swaro's BRT-I. Both use center dots that are much brighter than the illuminated portion of the SM1 and also give you some wind holds, which are good to have. SM1 is still a nice reticle, however, and still quite fast/usable with no illum on at all.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    161
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    I had a chance to handle a Kahles with the SM1 reticle yesterday and the FoV and eye box seemed definitely impressive, but I ordered the Nightforce NX8 this morning.

    My decision was mostly because I really wanted the 8x and FFP. I can deal with the tighter eye box on 8x, but at 1x it is still fine for me when actually mounted to a rifle.

    I didn't really like the Kahles SM1 reticle much in person, as I found the outside circle a little distracting and the mil markings a little difficult to track since they aren't numbered. It seemed plenty bright, but I'm not a fan of the 4 hour shutoff feature or the brightness adjustment knob.

    I was also a little shocked that the Kahles only has a 10 year warranty. I feel like a $2000 optic should come with a lifetime warranty and I seem to have really bad luck breaking stuff so I want something that will last forever.



    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    883
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    What are you using it for mostly?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    161
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sidewaysil80 View Post
    What are you using it for mostly?
    This one will be focused more on mid to longer range stuff. I have a few other rifles with red dots or SFP LPVOs for closer stuff.

    If this was my only rifle and I needed it to really excel up close but still be able to reach out a little I would have probably gone with the Kahles.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    161
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    I forgot to mention that the NX8 ended up being almost $300 cheaper. Considering this rifle is pretty much just a toy and the NX8 was almost double what I originally budgeted for the optic, spending a little less was nice too.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    883
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    I’m shooting a 2-Gun match this weekend and will use my buddies NX8. I have enough time behind one via drills/plinking but I’m going to run one on the clock to either upset or reaffirm my initial thoughts.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Good read, I've wanted to try the NX8 and fully expect sacrifices in a tiny 1-8 FFP.

    Illum flicker on higher mags would not bother me, as on 8x I'd be locked into the eyebox tighter and the illum also would not be a critical. If it's as good or better than the Mark 6 on 1x, I'd be fine with it.

    Still can't go wrong with the K16...the new 3GR reticle looks about perfect for a GP rifle. The SM1 is also excellent but does not have wind holds.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    394
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Just a quick update. I ended up ditching the Mark 6 as an option, in fact FFP all together, in favor of a Kahles with an SM1 reticle. I missed the one on the EE a few weeks ago, but picked up a show demo for $1700. This reticle will be a good excuse to learn how to use mils properly, and so far I'm impressed with the eyebox and glass, but I haven't mounted it yet.

    I'm kicking myself for missing the Geissele sale over Memorial Day Weekend too, so now I'm shopping some more. QD is ok, but not a requirement. What are opinions on the right mount for this nice scope? I can't really afford Spuhr after splurging on the scope, so Geissele at full price? LaRue? Nightforce? Lighter is better, links are appreciated.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •