View Full Version : $2k too much for beginner/LPV
I've been looking at all the options for LPV optics and the market is pretty flooded. A lot of options for both low budget and high end. I don't have any real time behind optics other than my Aimpoints, so I'm looking to dive into the LPV game.
I'm a hobbyist shooter looking to expand my skills. Possibly get into 3 gun comps. in the future, but more focused on additional training and learning how to use my rifle at greater distances beyond iron sights. I'm pretty proficient with my irons at a 100-150 yds, but my eyes are getting older and also dealing with astigmatism.
I would classify myself as a novice with magnified optics. I would have to train with someone who could teach me all the nuances of shooting with LPV optics. That being said, is it ridiculous to spend $1500-$2000 on a 1-4x, 1-6x LPV optic for someone just starting? Not really looking for recommendations for scopes as there's tons of info already, just wondering if I'm biting off more than I can chew.
Considering:
Trijicon Accupower 1-4x
NF NXS 1-4x
Vortex Razor HD 1-6x
Leupold Mk6
Swarovski Z61
If "daylight bright" lume is a consideration, scratch the NF.
What you intend to do with the scope will help determine which way to go.
What reticle do you think you want? There's a bunch of choices, some being better with precision at moderate range, some better at speed on coarser targets, etc.
The Steiner PX4i is around 600 bucks and a standout imo at that price point.
This 1X4 has daylight bright lume, making it fast on target, a reasonably fine plex and ranging reticle, making precision at distance do-able.
It is also one of the lightest LPVs I would consider.
It would be a decent 3 gun optic.
A 1X6 gives you greater versatility yet, with precision at distance.
To answer your question, no- I don't think it rediculous to spend 1.5 to 2K on your first LPV.
I just probably isn't necessary.
I'd suggest some trigger time behind some scopes you think might fit the bill if at all possible.
Jwknutson17
11-27-16, 14:21
A good 1-6 LPV needs almost no getting used to on 1x. If you can get repeatable cheek weld on the rifle, to me, it's almost as fast as an Eotech. If you have a decent eye relief on the optic. While it will never be quiet as fast/efficient inside 100 yards as your aimpoints, they do work extremely well. I've taken my 1-6 equipped rifles out to 600 yards.
On your 2k number, I would say your in no beginner price range. You can get that Razor Gen2 1-6 on your list right now for 1200. If your capable and your rifle can do it, I see no reservations besides weight on going with a quality 1-6 with daylight bright reticle on 1x.
What rifle are you planning to put one on, and intended use? I have 1-6/8 on a few rifles from 11.5 to 18 in guns.
Mr. Goodtimes
11-27-16, 15:01
I don't believe in "beginner" anything. Buy once, cry once. If you buy quality optics you'll get most of you're money back in the event things don't work out. In the 2K range I would be looking at the Leupold MK6 and the Khales K16i. The NF 1-4 is an incredible optic as well and quite a bit cheaper than the rest, and while not daylight visible, it has a great reticle that lends it self to easy acquisition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rifle is a BCM 16" middy.
I do want daylight bright, quick target acquisition at 100 yds and the versatility of reaching out longer distances, say 500-600 yds., even if I never get there. I want a simple reticle to learn on, less clutter the better. I don't want to upgrade in the future. I don't want to build another AR for another purpose. I need this rifle to be multi purpose, i.e., potential 3 gun rifle if I wish for that to happen, HD, long range target shooting.
Will a novice like me find the benefit of learning on higher end glass then an entry level optic? Will it complicate the learning curve? Does it matter one way or anther? Sorry, these must sound like dumb questions.
Mr. Goodtimes
11-27-16, 17:38
Rifle is a BCM 16" middy.
I do want daylight bright, quick target acquisition at 100 yds and the versatility of reaching out longer distances, say 500-600 yds., even if I never get there. I want a simple reticle to learn on, less clutter the better. I don't want to upgrade in the future. I don't want to build another AR for another purpose. I need this rifle to be multi purpose, i.e., potential 3 gun rifle if I wish for that to happen, HD, long range target shooting.
Will a novice like me find the benefit of learning on higher end glass then an entry level optic? Will it complicate the learning curve? Does it matter one way or anther? Sorry, these must sound like dumb questions.
1. Yes, the quality is noticeable, and I know you said you're a "hobbyist" but if the rifle has any chance of being used in a life safety application, it's not a hobby rifle anymore. You can spend 2 grand and get a top quality optic and mount and if you don't like it, you won't really be out any more than if you bought a cheap optic and sold it as high end glass retains its value much better. Or you can buy a cheap optic, realize you like it (likely scenario) and then spend $2500 because you're going to buy the higher end optic at the end of the day anyways, when you could have just done it right the first time for 2K .
2. The learning curve is going to be about the same. The hard part (IMO) is learning that a 1-4 or 1-6 doesn't have the eye box a red dot has. Some of the higher end low power variables have a better eye box. It's a lot easier to shoot from weird shooting positions with a red dot than a LPV.
3. You didn't ask but....IMO daylight visible reticle are over rated. With a reticle it's shows up just fine. The internet makes it sound like if you buy a LPV without daylight visible illumination you'll never be able to find you're reticle. It should be noted that there are a lot of dead hajis in the ground that were killed with those crummy old outdated NF 1-4's with no daylight visible illumination. Not trying to change you're mind, just some food for thought.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I agree. The rifle could easily turn from hobby shooter to defense.
From a learning curve standpoint, are there certain reticles that are easier to work with?
If you have the budget, I would say go for it. However, I would recommend Steiner 1-4 ($579) for entry level or Kahles 1-6 (2250) for top dog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
11-28-16, 07:27
I don't believe in "beginner" anything. Buy once, cry once. If you buy quality optics you'll get most of you're money back in the event things don't work out. In the 2K range I would be looking at the Leupold MK6 and the Khales K16i. The NF 1-4 is an incredible optic as well and quite a bit cheaper than the rest, and while not daylight visible, it has a great reticle that lends it self to easy acquisition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Amen.
F2S destroys everyone with that 1-4 NF
It's never too early to buy quality. If you have the scratch, get rid of the itch...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe any scope is a beginner scope, when it comes to LPV's. This is because different people's eyes see things differently. You are just going to have to find the one that works best for YOU. For example, I hated the VCOG. It was absolute crap. Yet others LOVE the VCOG.
I think you have a good list, OP, although I'd put the K16i in the drawing, too.
Now, go and try all of them and buy what you like. I will say this, I have gone over to the 6x over the 4x on the top end. It's just better. Much.
If you MUST get a "true beginner" LPV, then get a Vortex Strike Eagle. It is of high enough quality and good enough optically, that if you hate it, you probably shouldn't run a LPV, and if you like it, you will not only have a good, reliable "cheap" scope for your bang-around gun, but you will also appreciate the upgrade to a MK6 of Z6i, or whatever.
Yes, I agree. The rifle could easily turn from hobby shooter to defense.
From a learning curve standpoint, are there certain reticles that are easier to work with?
I have really come to like the Leupold MK6. Ridiculously bright dot with great clarity and reticle for long range, as well.
Failure2Stop
11-28-16, 08:17
Below is basically exactly what I would write:
I don't believe in "beginner" anything. Buy once, cry once. If you buy quality optics you'll get most of you're money back in the event things don't work out. In the 2K range I would be looking at the Leupold MK6 and the Khales K16i. The NF 1-4 is an incredible optic as well and quite a bit cheaper than the rest, and while not daylight visible, it has a great reticle that lends itself to easy acquisition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe any scope is a beginner scope, when it comes to LPV's. This is because different people's eyes see things differently. You are just going to have to find the one that works best for YOU. For example, I hated the VCOG. It was absolute crap. Yet others LOVE the VCOG.
I think you have a good list, OP, although I'd put the K16i in the drawing, too.
Now, go and try all of them and buy what you like. I will say this, I have gone over to the 6x over the 4x on the top end. It's just better. Much.
If you MUST get a "true beginner" LPV, then get a Vortex Strike Eagle. It is of high enough quality and good enough optically, that if you hate it, you probably shouldn't run a LPV, and if you like it, you will not only have a good, reliable "cheap" scope for your bang-around gun, but you will also appreciate the upgrade to a MK6 of Z6i, or whatever.
Caveat:
I have gone from 1-4s to 1-6s to 1-8s, and now use them all, depending on the application of the rifle.
The NF 1-4 FC3G is hands-down one of the most size/weight efficient aiming device performance enhancers, and on 10.5"-14.5" 5.56 rifles it is a great fit. SFP makes a lot of sense for the application. There are, however, definitely applications that call for a 1-6. I would have no purpose for a 1-4 IF there were high quality 1-4(+) optics with the size factor of the NF 1-4. It's just that good.
Below is basically exactly what I would write:
Caveat:
I have gone from 1-4s to 1-6s to 1-8s, and now use them all, depending on the application of the rifle.
The NF 1-4 FC3G is hands-down one of the most size/weight efficient aiming device performance enhancers, and on 10.5"-14.5" 5.56 rifles it is a great fit. SFP makes a lot of sense for the application. There are, however, definitely applications that call for a 1-6. I would have no purpose for a 1-4 IF there were high quality 1-4(+) optics with the size factor of the NF 1-4. It's just that good.
This is exactly why I love the NF 1-4 that I have. The form factor is just crazy good, and the glass is plenty serviceable. I love my FC-2 reticle as well, but I still prefer the "single red dot" of the Leupold MK6 that came into my possession. Kindof how I like AP over EO (politics etc. aside, reticle only).
Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.
Specifically:
Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either G4B or SM1
The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?
Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.
Specifically:
Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either BRT or SM1
The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?
I own a MK6 TMR-D, and had a K16i SM-1.
F2S also can offer you his perspective on these two identical optics, as well.
I prefer the MK6 TMR-D. On 1x, the "dot" is singular, bright, and the only thing there aside the 4 thicker sections of the cross-hairs. Very fast. The K16i SM-1 has a more complex reticle, and the illumination is not as bright to my eyes. The reticle distracts me with itself, the way an Eotech reticle does compared to an Aimpoint Dot. This is my personal taste.
The K16i was a "flatter" image, especially on 1x. It also offered better clarity, every so slightly, at 6x, and more FOV on 1 and 6x.'
The MK6 is built tougher and has good and usable turrets, locking diopter, etc. I much MUCH prefer the build quality of the MK6 scope.
The K16i has a very sexy fin on the power selector ring, Leupold's option is an almost as sexy $150 throw-lever.
Over-all, I prefer the MK6, but if you ask 10 people who have used both, it may be split down the middle. They are both EXCELLENT optics. The Glass in the Kahles is slightly better, but the Leupold's turrets are usable, and good, and the K16i's are absolute crap, and capped to boot.
All of the data that I have currently suggests that they are both very durable, but that the MK6 is moreso.
Mr. Goodtimes
11-28-16, 10:49
Yes, I agree. The rifle could easily turn from hobby shooter to defense.
From a learning curve standpoint, are there certain reticles that are easier to work with?
I like the NF FC3G, FC2, and the Khales SM1 and SL1 the best. If I bought a MK6 I'd be a little torn between the CMRW and the TMR.
The CMRW is a little cluttered at 6x but if you're using 62gr ammunition it's basically a point and pull dummy proof reticle (like an ACOG).
EDIT: The internet is a great thing and also the work of Satan. One of the best things you can do is not over think it too much. Forums and the interwebz expose us to so many different opinions, some good, some by some schmuck that's never picked up a real rifle and optic; thus we can start to over analyze things. In this case, you're getting some really solid advice from some real shooters.
In this case, pick a quality optic and reticle and roll with it. You can cause you're brain to literally implode trying to debate/decide between FC 3G, CMR-W, SL1, SM1, daylight visible, not so daylight visible etc... in the end, when you're splitting hairs between great options; for most of us it doesn't matter as much as the Internet may lead you to believe. What matters is you get out there and shoot it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Failure2Stop
11-28-16, 12:49
Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.
Specifically:
Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either BRT or SM1
The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?
The Mk6 is a little better on the form-factor than the Kahles, but I personally like the fit and function of the Kahles on an 7.62. I do wish that it had a horizontal aspect to the lower vertical stadia, as it isn't great at wind-holds at hold-off distance.
Here's what you need to "learn" about SFP vs FFP":
With FFP, your reticle based holds are the same at every magnification level, with SFP your reticle reference varies with magnification changes.
ETA: the Leupold VX-6 is also a solid option. Their multigun reticle is pretty solid.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold-vx-6-1-6x24mm-30mm-tube-multigun-cds-riflescope.html
Also, I would be remiss not to recommend taking a look at the Vortex Razor HD Gen II with MRAD reticle. They are not my personal preference, but they are a dominating force in the market, and not just civilian gamer market.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-ii-1-6x24mm-riflescope.html?_iv_code=VX-RS-RHDGII1-RZR-16004A
Frankly, if someone told me that they wanted a resonably priced optic, with a daylight bright reticle, that didn't carte about SFP/FFP, and weight was not a significant factor, I'd tell them to get the Vortex, knowing that they'd be happy. No, I don't own one, and I'm not particularly interested in buying one, but they do the job well.
I own a MK6 TMR-D, and had a K16i SM-1.
F2S also can offer you his perspective on these two identical optics, as well.
I prefer the MK6 TMR-D. On 1x, the "dot" is singular, bright, and the only thing there aside the 4 thicker sections of the cross-hairs. Very fast. The K16i SM-1 has a more complex reticle, and the illumination is not as bright to my eyes. The reticle distracts me with itself, the way an Eotech reticle does compared to an Aimpoint Dot. This is my personal taste.
The K16i was a "flatter" image, especially on 1x. It also offered better clarity, every so slightly, at 6x, and more FOV on 1 and 6x.'
The MK6 is built tougher and has good and usable turrets, locking diopter, etc. I much MUCH prefer the build quality of the MK6 scope.
The K16i has a very sexy fin on the power selector ring, Leupold's option is an almost as sexy $150 throw-lever.
Over-all, I prefer the MK6, but if you ask 10 people who have used both, it may be split down the middle. They are both EXCELLENT optics. The Glass in the Kahles is slightly better, but the Leupold's turrets are usable, and good, and the K16i's are absolute crap, and capped to boot.
All of the data that I have currently suggests that they are both very durable, but that the MK6 is moreso.
Thanks, WS6. I was initially attracted to the Mk6 because of the durability and the simple TMR-D reticle. Nothing overly busy and cluttered, nice single bright dot at 1x that I think I can adapt to quickly coming from my Aimpoints. The Khales G4B reticle was also very simple, single red dot, very bright as well, not much info on durability, but I've also not heard any problems with them failing for any reason.
I like the NF FC3G, FC2, and the Khales SM1 and SL1 the best. If I bought a MK6 I'd be a little torn between the CMRW and the TMR.
The CMRW is a little cluttered at 6x but if you're using 62gr ammunition it's basically a point and pull dummy proof reticle (like an ACOG).
EDIT: The internet is a great thing and also the work of Satan. One of the best things you can do is not over think it too much. Forums and the interwebz expose us to so many different opinions, some good, some by some schmuck that's never picked up a real rifle and optic; thus we can start to over analyze things. In this case, you're getting some really solid advice from some real shooters.
In this case, pick a quality optic and reticle and roll with it. You can cause you're brain to literally implode trying to debate/decide between FC 3G, CMR-W, SL1, SM1, daylight visible, not so daylight visible etc... in the end, when you're splitting hairs between great options; for most of us it doesn't matter as much as the Internet may lead you to believe. What matters is you get out there and shoot it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks, Goodtimes. Yes, the inter webs can certainly make a muck of decision making. Good advice to just purchase, learn, and shoot. It's about all some of us can do when trying to gain a little knowledge from those who can at the very least, guide us in a particular direction, which is what you fine folks have done for me. Now, dive in head first!
The Mk6 is a little better on the form-factor than the Kahles, but I personally like the fit and function of the Kahles on an 7.62. I do wish that it had a horizontal aspect to the lower vertical stadia, as it isn't great at wind-holds at hold-off distance.
Here's what you need to "learn" about SFP vs FFP":
With FFP, your reticle based holds are the same at every magnification level, with SFP your reticle reference varies with magnification changes.
ETA: the Leupold VX-6 is also a solid option. Their multigun reticle is pretty solid.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold-vx-6-1-6x24mm-30mm-tube-multigun-cds-riflescope.html
Also, I would be remiss not to recommend taking a look at the Vortex Razor HD Gen II with MRAD reticle. They are not my personal preference, but they are a dominating force in the market, and not just civilian gamer market.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-ii-1-6x24mm-riflescope.html?_iv_code=VX-RS-RHDGII1-RZR-16004A
Frankly, if someone told me that they wanted a resonably priced optic, with a daylight bright reticle, that didn't carte about SFP/FFP, and weight was not a significant factor, I'd tell them to get the Vortex, knowing that they'd be happy. No, I don't own one, and I'm not particularly interested in buying one, but they do the job well.
Thanks, F2S. I've been reading pretty thoroughly through old threads and you've been a part of most of them. I certainly appreciate and value your input. The Vortex Razor HD is high on my list. From what I've read, not many have had any complaints at all. I understand none of these optics are "perfect" but they all are very serviceable on both the civilian market and beyond, well thought out, and durable.
I understand we're splitting hairs on these two great optics, but could you please explain what you mean by "form factor" on the Mk6 and "fit and function" on the Kahles?
cbthedookie
11-28-16, 19:55
I'm going to provide a counter point to most of the feedback, as I was in precisely the same situation about six months ago: experience with AR, had an Aimpoint T1, but minimal experience with optics. I was not budget constrained, but ended up with an Accupower 1-4 with BDC reticle, and spent only about 650 instead of 2k.
When I purchased, I prioritized good glass, fast reticle, true 1x mag. I don't have daylight bright reticle, great battery life, or exposed turrets. But (as others have said) ultimately, optics are very personal decisions once you get past basic functionality. I've learned some of my expectations about use were correct, some less so. So: my advice is to buy a decent quality optic and use it - so you can learn your own preferences and buy another one later.
I really like my trijicon. But I want something with more magnification, so I just bought an SWFA 3-15 to try. My plan is to upgrade both optics, probably soon - but then I can move my trij to another AR, and the swfa to my rimfire.
Point being: if I hadn't just bought one and started using it, I'd never know if my "better" optic was the right one for me. And in the remote event I ended up absolutely hating something I bought, I could sell it and be no worse than a few hundred bucks in the hole.
So I'd recommend the viper pst, the accupower, a leupold fire dot, the Steiner 1-4 - just pick based on what you expect to like, then use - learn - and buy what you find that you really want in a few months.
My $0.02...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks, WS6. I was initially attracted to the Mk6 because of the durability and the simple TMR-D reticle. Nothing overly busy and cluttered, nice single bright dot at 1x that I think I can adapt to quickly coming from my Aimpoints. The Khales G4B reticle was also very simple, single red dot, very bright as well, not much info on durability, but I've also not heard any problems with them failing for any reason.
Thanks, Goodtimes. Yes, the inter webs can certainly make a muck of decision making. Good advice to just purchase, learn, and shoot. It's about all some of us can do when trying to gain a little knowledge from those who can at the very least, guide us in a particular direction, which is what you fine folks have done for me. Now, dive in head first!
Thanks, F2S. I've been reading pretty thoroughly through old threads and you've been a part of most of them. I certainly appreciate and value your input. The Vortex Razor HD is high on my list. From what I've read, not many have had any complaints at all. I understand none of these optics are "perfect" but they all are very serviceable on both the civilian market and beyond, well thought out, and durable.
I understand we're splitting hairs on these two great optics, but could you please explain what you mean by "form factor" on the Mk6 and "fit and function" on the Kahles?
I don't want to speak for F2S, but I believe what he means is that the Kahles just "feels bigger" sitting on top of the gun, regardless of the actual technical size and weight. With the Kahles, I feel that this has to do with the turrets and huge (seeming) occular. The MK6 has very low-pro turrets, and just "feels" smaller sitting on top of the gun, even though they weigh nearly the same and the MK6 is less than 1/2" shorter than the Kahles. Also, the fatter main-body of the MK6 has the effect of visually shortening the optic. It just "seems less bulky". I feel identically to him regarding the MK6 and K16i though, for "form factor", to add another datapoint on that front for you.
I'm going to provide a counter point to most of the feedback, as I was in precisely the same situation about six months ago: experience with AR, had an Aimpoint T1, but minimal experience with optics. I was not budget constrained, but ended up with an Accupower 1-4 with BDC reticle, and spent only about 650 instead of 2k.
When I purchased, I prioritized good glass, fast reticle, true 1x mag. I don't have daylight bright reticle, great battery life, or exposed turrets. But (as others have said) ultimately, optics are very personal decisions once you get past basic functionality. I've learned some of my expectations about use were correct, some less so. So: my advice is to buy a decent quality optic and use it - so you can learn your own preferences and buy another one later.
I really like my trijicon. But I want something with more magnification, so I just bought an SWFA 3-15 to try. My plan is to upgrade both optics, probably soon - but then I can move my trij to another AR, and the swfa to my rimfire.
Point being: if I hadn't just bought one and started using it, I'd never know if my "better" optic was the right one for me. And in the remote event I ended up absolutely hating something I bought, I could sell it and be no worse than a few hundred bucks in the hole.
So I'd recommend the viper pst, the accupower, a leupold fire dot, the Steiner 1-4 - just pick based on what you expect to like, then use - learn - and buy what you find that you really want in a few months.
My $0.02...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't leave the Vortex Strike Eagle out. It can be had WITH a mount for mid 300's. It also is a very decent scope for the money, and even if OP decides to dump it later, it can be dumped for a sensible amount too, since it has a no-questions-asked lifetime warranty from Vortex. I think it is THE gateway to LPV's if someone says "I'm not sure if they are for me, how do I try one for a few months to see?" It really does work and function well enough that if they don't like LPV's because of it, it's not "because they went cheap and need to buy a REAL LPV to see." No, it's no MK6, but it ain't a bottom barrel Tasco, either.
Well, I went all in. I ordered the Mk6 with TMR-D reticle. Liberty Optics already had them on sale cheaper than anywhere else and with an additional holiday sale, took another 5% off, brought it to $1709 shipped. Mounting it to a 0 MOA Bobro QD 34mm. Found this at SWFA and a 10% sale, got it for $252 shipped. I was super happy to keep this under $2000 for the whole purchase, until I realized I forgot to add the Mk6 throw lever to the order. So, I'll call SWFA today and see if I can add this to my order with the sale price.
I look forward to getting this thing dialed in and learning something new. I appreciate everyones help and insight.
Well, I went all in. I ordered the Mk6 with TMR-D reticle. Liberty Optics already had them on sale cheaper than anywhere else and with an additional holiday sale, took another 5% off, brought it to $1709 shipped. Mounting it to a 0 MOA Bobro QD 34mm. Found this at SWFA and a 10% sale, got it for $252 shipped. I was super happy to keep this under $2000 for the whole purchase, until I realized I forgot to add the Mk6 throw lever to the order. So, I'll call SWFA today and see if I can add this to my order with the sale price.
I look forward to getting this thing dialed in and learning something new. I appreciate everyones help and insight.
Swfa wants more than white knight armory and some others on the throw lever. Shop it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.