View Full Version : Accupower 1-8 Initial Impressions (Range Review Coming Soon)
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-16-17, 09:42
So all of us are looking for the Holy Grail of Scopes, an end all be all jack of all trades, well this scope might fit the bill. I'll start by saying that I love Trijicon, but if you have owned Trijicon then you understand why. I purchased this scope to put on my 18inch 3gun rifle, a shooting discipline where you need a jack of all trades optic, because you need to engage multiple targets under 10 yards one stage then later in the match you'll be shooting at an 8inch gong at 400 yds. On 1x the reticle is very similiar to the VCOG and reminds me of an eotech reticle which is still my preferred red dot sight. However when the user cranks up the magnification you expand the segmented circle to a crosshair with an illuminated cross in the center that is 4 MOA long by 4 MOA tall with a .75 MOA thickness. Some people worry about this cross being too large to punch small groups, this is a possibility but it is thinner than the VCOG cross and has more magnification so should be still possible to punch small groups, however this scope is not a bench rest target scope. The space between each tick mark in the MOA model is 2MOA which allows for accurate holds but does not make the reticle too busy. The eye relief is generous and it has a forgiving eyebox, this is a trademark of both the accupower and accupoint line. The adjustments are in 1/4 MOA which lets you get a precise zero, I do prefer the capped turrets of the other acupowers and accupoints as I do not see the point of dialing on a 223 gun but I know there is a crowd that wanted it. The knobs feel solid and need to be lifted to adjust it to prevent accidental adjustments. This scope is a beast though, I'm used to a 14oz TR24 on my two rifles I use but twice the magnification seems like it could be worth twice the weight. MSRP is $1699 which is actually affordable when you consider the features that it comes with. Street price however is in the 1400-1490 range. I was able to get mine for $1286 so it is affordable when you factor it's a 1-8, Trijicon durability and glass, FFP, daylight bright. I think this is great scope and it is not only has the potential to be a great 3gun scope it can be a great battle rifle scope. 1-4/6 scopes allow you to be fast up close but having 1-8 lets you get more out of a 308 in my opinion.
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-16-17, 09:47
http://youtu.be/4GI3ZdR0vq8
450704507145072
The illumination settings are on 9, 10, and 11. This was taken around 1:30 the other day and it's on a white wall almost zero clouds were out that day so yeah it's daylight bright.
I like the reticle, if it could just be lighter and the illumination much much brighter. This is what I'm used to:
http://i66.tinypic.com/iymsr5.jpg
Thanks for the review! I had to watch it on mute and you may have addresses this, but I couldn't quite tell though, is the reticle GTG at 1x without illumination?
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-16-17, 12:17
Thanks for the review! I had to watch it on mute and you may have addresses this, but I couldn't quite tell though, is the reticle GTG at 1x without illumination?
Yes the reticle is good to go on 1x. I'm sorry but my phone doesn't pick the illumination as good as your eye would. But on 9,10, and 11 it is absolutely daylight bright. I like it a lot.
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-16-17, 12:18
I like the reticle, if it could just be lighter and the illumination much much brighter. This is what I'm used to:
http://i66.tinypic.com/iymsr5.jpg
The illumination is plenty bright on this. Yes it's heavy but I like it way better than anything leupold will make. In a speed shooting sport I like big bold reticles with forgiving eye boxes an the mk6 doesn't do it for me. It has clear glass but not my cup of tea.
The illumination is plenty bright on this. Yes it's heavy but I like it way better than anything leupold will make. In a speed shooting sport I like big bold reticles with forgiving eye boxes an the mk6 doesn't do it for me. It has clear glass but not my cup of tea.
People keep saying the illumination is bright. Really, I'd like to see for myself. I'll look around and see if anyone here carries them, as it DOES have me curious.
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-16-17, 20:56
The red MOA is for sure bright, I would say the MIL is too. Some people who own the geeen say they aren't bright enough. I hope trijicon can copy the 1-8 red and get the same brightness in the 1-4 accupowers and the vcog. The green vcog are brighter than the red ones though.
Yes the reticle is good to go on 1x. I'm sorry but my phone doesn't pick the illumination as good as your eye would. But on 9,10, and 11 it is absolutely daylight bright. I like it a lot.
Cool, good to know, I'm especially happy to hear that you can run it at 1x without illumination.
Jwknutson17
04-16-17, 23:22
People keep saying the illumination is bright. Really, I'd like to see for myself. I'll look around and see if anyone here carries them, as it DOES have me curious.
I'm in this boat with WS6. If it's as bright as some are saying I may give one a shot. Haven't seen any side by sides with a MK6 or something else that actually is, to have me convinced yet.
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-17-17, 08:47
I got a buddy with a mk6 and I'll do side by side when I get back from a trip for work. My buddy traded a Monte Carlo for the mk6 he likes the glass and small dot but he doesn't like the eyebox or how the illumination bleeds.
How is the feel of the magnification knob? My PST is super tight.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
ExplorinInTheWoods
04-21-17, 11:27
The knob is fine it's not super stiff but it's not loosey goosey.
ShotgunMiddie
06-19-17, 10:29
I handled the 1-8 in a store and was happy enough to find it, but I am so wary after my poor experience with the 1-4. I love trijicon as well, but was really disappointed with the accupower 1-4x. I thought the illumination was impossible to use and washed out too easily. Oddly, I think it only became visible on my scope around 200-300 meters and then would wash out before that and after. Had some other shooters with me confirm the same so I know I'm not crazy. I think the reticle was also too hard for my eyes to pick up, BUT I was nailing decent groups with it at mid-long range (300-500).
How has the 1-8x held up with use since this review? It felt heavy and beefy enough to be pretty solid, does it shoot well, maintain zero and all that? I apologize if that is all in the video, I can't seem to get it to load right now.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-21-17, 20:04
I handled the 1-8 in a store and was happy enough to find it, but I am so wary after my poor experience with the 1-4. I love trijicon as well, but was really disappointed with the accupower 1-4x. I thought the illumination was impossible to use and washed out too easily. Oddly, I think it only became visible on my scope around 200-300 meters and then would wash out before that and after. Had some other shooters with me confirm the same so I know I'm not crazy. I think the reticle was also too hard for my eyes to pick up, BUT I was nailing decent groups with it at mid-long range (300-500).
How has the 1-8x held up with use since this review? It felt heavy and beefy enough to be pretty solid, does it shoot well, maintain zero and all that? I apologize if that is all in the video, I can't seem to get it to load right now.
So I've used it in two 3gun matches so far and will use it in a third sunday, so it is heavy, but now distance shots are easier because of the useful MOA reticle, they were difficult with the 1-4 triangle. So trijicon did have problems with 1-4 accupowers and the VCOG. The 1-8 red accupowers are daylight bright, on 1x it's like having an eotech. the center crosshair is .75 moa thick so it is more precise than the VCOG, which is a tad thicker but it is a combat optic. The 1-8 is bright and becomes even brighter when you magnify it, on long shots I turn the illumination off. I really want to figure out a way to mount a go pro behind the 1-8 and do a range review to get some good first person views for y'all. I'm really happy with this and some of my buddies who are Vortex razor guys are trying to swap their razors for the 1-8 accupower.
So I've used it in two 3gun matches so far and will use it in a third sunday, so it is heavy, but now distance shots are easier because of the useful MOA reticle, they were difficult with the 1-4 triangle. So trijicon did have problems with 1-4 accupowers and the VCOG. The 1-8 red accupowers are daylight bright, on 1x it's like having an eotech. the center crosshair is .75 moa thick so it is more precise than the VCOG, which is a tad thicker but it is a combat optic. The 1-8 is bright and becomes even brighter when you magnify it, on long shots I turn the illumination off. I really want to figure out a way to mount a go pro behind the 1-8 and do a range review to get some good first person views for y'all. I'm really happy with this and some of my buddies who are Vortex razor guys are trying to swap their razors for the 1-8 accupower.
How arey ou liking it vs MK6?
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-21-17, 21:55
How arey ou liking it vs MK6?
I like it over my buddy's mk6 and he's looking to sell his mk6 now.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-21-17, 22:14
Of the 1-X optics I have tried it is the lightest, but the flickering was bothersome, .2 adjustments weren't great in my book. The BDC reticle on 6x is useful but busy at times, it has good glass but it's not noticeably better than the razor 1-6, accupower 1-8, or vcog. All of those have glass quality that's great but it's hard to tell if one is better than the other. I know the mk6 is a good scope but I personally prefer the Accupoer 1-8, VCOG, or the razor 1-6.
Of the 1-X optics I have tried it is the lightest, but the flickering was bothersome, .2 adjustments weren't great in my book. The BDC reticle on 6x is useful but busy at times, it has good glass but it's not noticeably better than the razor 1-6, accupower 1-8, or vcog. All of those have glass quality that's great but it's hard to tell if one is better than the other. I know the mk6 is a good scope but I personally prefer the Accupoer 1-8, VCOG, or the razor 1-6.
How much different does the 1-8 feel up top vs. the MK6, regarding how the weapon handles?
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-22-17, 07:39
It is heavier, I had my TR24 on my carbine before running 2 matches with the 1-8 and picking the gun up I notice it, but when I'm running around and gunning in a match I honestly don't notice a difference. The MK6 is lighter no doubt, my buddy did weigh his down with the LaRue mount and the throw lever but in my book the reticle and forgiving eyebox of the 1-8 accupower makeup for the weight difference. I want to like the MK6 but the busy reticle and the flicker bother me.
ShotgunMiddie
06-22-17, 08:10
It is heavier, I had my TR24 on my carbine before running 2 matches with the 1-8 and picking the gun up I notice it, but when I'm running around and gunning in a match I honestly don't notice a difference. The MK6 is lighter no doubt, my buddy did weigh his down with the LaRue mount and the throw lever but in my book the reticle and forgiving eyebox of the 1-8 accupower makeup for the weight difference. I want to like the MK6 but the busy reticle and the flicker bother me.
These are all very awesome and valid points, and I can't wait to check out your video review.
My question is now, is there a place for a 1-8x in 3-gun? I've just started shooting matches, and I used an MRO since it was all I had at the time, so I'm still learning how to shoot and move with non-issue gear.
I love the razor and 1-6x seems like the perfect formula for shooting those matches that reach out to the unknown distance ranges with 350-500 yds, but for the weight is it worth having more magnification? I'm honestly just curious. It makes sense to me, but I guess it just comes down to what application you want for your particular shooting problem of weapon+scope+match or hunt, etc.
I understand what you're saying about the Mk6, I think that application is more military/LE use and that is a crowded reticle for shooting on the move but I love that thing.
It is heavier, I had my TR24 on my carbine before running 2 matches with the 1-8 and picking the gun up I notice it, but when I'm running around and gunning in a match I honestly don't notice a difference. The MK6 is lighter no doubt, my buddy did weigh his down with the LaRue mount and the throw lever but in my book the reticle and forgiving eyebox of the 1-8 accupower makeup for the weight difference. I want to like the MK6 but the busy reticle and the flicker bother me.
Do they bother you, or do they impede you?
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-22-17, 20:16
These are all very awesome and valid points, and I can't wait to check out your video review.
My question is now, is there a place for a 1-8x in 3-gun? I've just started shooting matches, and I used an MRO since it was all I had at the time, so I'm still learning how to shoot and move with non-issue gear.
I love the razor and 1-6x seems like the perfect formula for shooting those matches that reach out to the unknown distance ranges with 350-500 yds, but for the weight is it worth having more magnification? I'm honestly just curious. It makes sense to me, but I guess it just comes down to what application you want for your particular shooting problem of weapon+scope+match or hunt, etc.
I understand what you're saying about the Mk6, I think that application is more military/LE use and that is a crowded reticle for shooting on the move but I love that thing.
I feel there is a place, it all depends on where you shoot, I shoot matches in SC and my farthest shot is under 200 probably 175, usually a 6 inch plate. So there not a huge need for it, can be done with a dot, can be done with a 1-4,1-6,1-8. Now when I shoot in NC the place I usually shoot we have an 8inch plate at 400 so that place the 1-8 helps, I was able to do it with my VCOG and can do it with my 1-8. my 1-4 I could but not as consistent because of my 4.2 MOA triangle obscures the plate so much. This match I'm going to shoot in TX they say they potentially have targets out to 500 so in my opinion there is a need. I also love the reticle on the 1-8. They have something similiar on the VCOG now but it's has a christmas tree-ish for wind holds.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-22-17, 20:23
Do they bother you, or do they impede you?
Driving the gun on 1x it flickers and bothers but on 6x it is easy for me to lose the reticle completely because the eyebox is not as forgiving. To me and my buddy we both feel that if you don't have perfect cheekweld you lose it, not just the illumination but you just get scope shadow. My buddy was thinking about making it his work gun optic but after playing with it he's not certain. He traded a monte carlo for it and my buddy came out on top scope value vs car value. I know what you mean with bother vs impede, for me bothersome is the noon sky induced dark green VCOG instead of the neon green that I have indoors, in the woods, or partial cloud cover. Impede is searching for my reticle or not having enough eye relief in awkward positions.
My #1 issue here is durability. The MK6 is durable as hell, and PROVEN TO BE. The VCOG is proven to not be so durable, and when I called Trijicon, they told me stuff:
-We have fired 1000 rounds on a SCAR17H
-We have tested it to 10ft for 24 hours under water
-The lens attachment system is different from the VCOG, there is no lens/tube contact, they are double O-ringed and "castle nutted" (best way I can describe it), but the VCOG uses a different "and in my opinion---tech" more robust system (not confidence inspiring to me, considering VCOG lens shift issues).
-It is tested to 500g's on a machine, but did not break/could do more, that was just minimum spec, so that was what it was tested to. It passed.
Another thing that bothered me---not impeded---but bothered the hell out of me, the CA with the Trijicon 1-8 is off the chart stoopid.
http://www.lightfighter.net/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/44094416669676636/filePointer/44094416669721263/fodoid/44094416669721253/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/accu8xwtf50.jpg
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-23-17, 10:33
My #1 issue here is durability. The MK6 is durable as hell, and PROVEN TO BE. The VCOG is proven to not be so durable, and when I called Trijicon, they told me stuff:
-We have fired 1000 rounds on a SCAR17H
-We have tested it to 10ft for 24 hours under water
-The lens attachment system is different from the VCOG, there is no lens/tube contact, they are double O-ringed and "castle nutted" (best way I can describe it), but the VCOG uses a different "and in my opinion---tech" more robust system (not confidence inspiring to me, considering VCOG lens shift issues).
-It is tested to 500g's on a machine, but did not break/could do more, that was just minimum spec, so that was what it was tested to. It passed.
Another thing that bothered me---not impeded---but bothered the hell out of me, the CA with the Trijicon 1-8 is off the chart stoopid.
http://www.lightfighter.net/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/44094416669676636/filePointer/44094416669721263/fodoid/44094416669721253/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/accu8xwtf50.jpg
Not sure what CA is, I'm not touting the 1-8 as a bomb proof optic. I think it can stand up to use and abuse in competition. I get it dude you don't like Trijicon and leupold is the kittie's titties in your book. Until the optic fails me I'll rep it.
Not sure what CA is, I'm not touting the 1-8 as a bomb proof optic. I think it can stand up to use and abuse in competition. I get it dude you don't like Trijicon and leupold is the kittie's titties in your book. Until the optic fails me I'll rep it.
CA is chromatic aberration. That's the purple fringe along the edges of all the cars in the above photos. Pretty much all optics suffer from it, but some worse than others.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-23-17, 16:36
word, I see some glare, not a purple fringe but I'll take your word for it.
The MK6 durable? I've known a few of them to have issues. Squishy knobs, turrets not tracking, etc. I dunno if the samples I've seen would classify as "durable as hell". They are a decent optic, but not the end all be all and not confidence inspiring. The only one I've run that seems build like a tank is the Vortex.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The MK6 durable? I've known a few of them to have issues. Squishy knobs, turrets not tracking, etc. I dunno if the samples I've seen would classify as "durable as hell". They are a decent optic, but not the end all be all and not confidence inspiring. The only one I've run that seems build like a tank is the Vortex.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An entire unit trashed their Vortex's. Everything can have issues. Turrets are mushy as a result of design, and as I understand tracking was a 3-18 issue, not a 1-6 issue, but I could be wrong. yes, Leupold can and does have QC issues.
word, I see some glare, not a purple fringe but I'll take your word for it.
Then your monitor has issues. I'm not trying to be rude, but there is a lot of purple in that photo, objectively. I saw it in person too. It's not a problem, it is a bit annoying to a purist though.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-23-17, 20:52
Probably, my laptop is from 2012. Is what is man, I like my Trijicon stuff and I do appreciate Leupold stuff. I love the MARK Ar mod 1.5-4, I think for the money it's one of the top value scopes, Leupold has solid glass and I have some Luepold stuff, I like the MK4 for distance, but for my AR's I like Trijicon. Their reticles catch my eye better. Optics are like triggers man, you may love flat faced two stage triggers while I prefer flat faced to be single stage. Both of us have our preferences and have pointed out things we find less than ideal in each others preferred scopes. I'll never trash Leupold they make good stuff.
Probably, my laptop is from 2012. Is what is man, I like my Trijicon stuff and I do appreciate Leupold stuff. I love the MARK Ar mod 1.5-4, I think for the money it's one of the top value scopes, Leupold has solid glass and I have some Luepold stuff, I like the MK4 for distance, but for my AR's I like Trijicon. Their reticles catch my eye better. Optics are like triggers man, you may love flat faced two stage triggers while I prefer flat faced to be single stage. Both of us have our preferences and have pointed out things we find less than ideal in each others preferred scopes. I'll never trash Leupold they make good stuff.
I liked the 1-8 trijicon, I just want to know more about it before I buy, if I go with it.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-23-17, 22:26
Anything I find with the 1-8 I'll post in here, I run it at least once a month in a match, so far I'm super happy with it. Is it a scope I'd use for work, that's something that will be determined after prolonged use, is it a scope that has a place in 3gun? Absolutely! Is it a good option for a general purpose AR? I think so. I think it's worth the money, like every scope it has it's faults. There are some things that i really don't give a shit about like one guy either on here or ar15.com was talking about the reticle being possibly seen at night through the front of the scope, I don't know I haven't tested that or really thought of it. If I'm really that concerned about it and I'm doing some top speed stealth ninja direct action stuff at night I'm probably rolling with some PVS31's and a LA5 on my rifle and probably don't even need to have the illumination on because I would be using an IR laser at night.
Jwknutson17
06-23-17, 23:54
WS6, just get a CQBSS H27D until the NF comes out and you don't need to worry about all of this.. When your actually running the rifle on 1.1x it's not anything that hinders performance even at 10m. I have yet to see any measurable performance loss. And the illumination is the same as the TMRD MK6. Sure it's not true, true 1x like the Mk6 or Razor, or a handful of others. You gain the precision on the higher end as the reticles allows for it. I am considering another for my 12.5.
For anyone interested, here are some specs on the Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm CQBSS. How tight is the eyebox on this scope on the top and bottom ? Also if Nightforce were to come out with a 1-6 or 1-8x LPV, what would be any better on it than the Leupold, other than the cost and probably less weight ? Also IMHO, the weight of a scope can, but does not always necessarily equal its strength or weakness.
Length (A) 11.75 in
Tube Length (B) 6.6 in
Tube Diameter (I) 34 mm
Actual Magnification 8.0 (1.1)
** FOV @ 100 yds (ft) 14.7 (92.0) **
Eye Relief (in) 3.3 (3.7
** Weight 23.2 oz / 657 g **
Let's be realistic. The Accupower 1-8 is a mid-tier optic in the $1200-1500 range. The Leupold and (future) NF offerings in that power range are a cut above, and you will pay for that accordingly.
Let's be realistic. The Accupower 1-8 is a mid-tier optic in the $1200-1500 range. The Leupold and (future) NF offerings in that power range are a cut above, and you will pay for that accordingly.
So is the Razor HD II 1-6 also a mid-tier optic? If so, it seems to have done fine.
I asked Trijicon about the price. I was told the margins on this optic were much narrower than typical and it was created as a "loss leader". Lies? Truth? I cannot say, but that is what the Trijicon rep I spoke with on the phone said. Maybe a dealer on here can vouch for MAP vs. what they paid making that statement likely, or BS?
So is the Razor HD II 1-6 also a mid-tier optic? If so, it seems to have done fine.
I asked Trijicon about the price. I was told the margins on this optic were much narrower than typical and it was created as a "loss leader". Lies? Truth? I cannot say, but that is what the Trijicon rep I spoke with on the phone said. Maybe a dealer on here can vouch for MAP vs. what they paid making that statement likely, or BS?
Maybe Trijicon's margins are slimmer? As far as dealer to MAP, it's about the same % as the various ACOG models around the same price range.
So is the Razor HD II 1-6 also a mid-tier optic? If so, it seems to have done fine.
I asked Trijicon about the price. I was told the margins on this optic were much narrower than typical and it was created as a "loss leader". Lies? Truth? I cannot say, but that is what the Trijicon rep I spoke with on the phone said. Maybe a dealer on here can vouch for MAP vs. what they paid making that statement likely, or BS?
Is the Vortex Razor a 1-8? No, it isn't
When it is, the your comparison would be valid.
It should be apparent that optics in the 1-8 ranger are newer to the market and in general, the newer classes of optics are (1) more expensive and (2) take some time to mature as a class.
1-4s used to be new, now they aren't. Then 1-6s. Now 1-8s.
ETA, additional differences between the Razor 1-6 and Trijicon 1-8 are SFP vs FFP, Capped vs uncapped turrets.
Or maybe all those differences (including magnification) shouldn't have any impact on pricing, etc.
Is the Vortex Razor a 1-8? No, it isn't
When it is, the your comparison would be valid.
It should be apparent that optics in the 1-8 ranger are newer to the market and in general, the newer classes of optics are (1) more expensive and (2) take some time to mature as a class.
1-4s used to be new, now they aren't. Then 1-6s. Now 1-8s.
ETA, additional differences between the Razor 1-6 and Trijicon 1-8 are SFP vs FFP, Capped vs uncapped turrets.
Or maybe all those differences (including magnification) shouldn't have any impact on pricing, etc.
Well, the Burris FFP and SFP cost about the same, right?
The S&B 1-4 and 1-8 cost similar from S&B, even today, no?
Pricing is kindof BS, in my opinion.
Well I guess alll scopes should cost the same in your world. Enjoy, thank you come again. ;)
Well I guess alll scopes should cost the same in your world. Enjoy, thank you come again. ;)
Some things cost, and some don't. Going .mil employee pricing for a MK6 is hovering at $1400ish currently, for example. MSRP is $2800. Street-price is $1750. So what's in a price-tag?
Sometimes a LOT...somethings...you tell me?
Some things cost, and some don't. Going .mil employee pricing for a MK6 is hovering at $1400ish currently, for example. MSRP is $2800. Street-price is $1750. So what's in a price-tag?
Sometimes a LOT...somethings...you tell me?
That is a great price for such a quality scope!
That is a great price for such a quality scope!
Yes, which is why I am not really sure how much price matters with these things. Like the K16i? It dropped $300 overnight. Why? I doubt it's made any different.
Yes, which is why I am not really sure how much price matters with these things. Like the K16i? It dropped $300 overnight. Why? I doubt it's made any different.
I thought they were dropping because of the manufactures upcoming (possible) 1-8 offerings?
I thought they were dropping because of the manufactures upcoming (possible) 1-8 offerings?
That is kindof my point. Quality is not what's setting the price (within reason). The Razor HD II 1-6 is very quality, yet retails for the same as the 1-8 Trijicon on the street, typically.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-27-17, 12:57
So I ran the 1-8 again in a match this Sunday and it still is daylight bright the center crosshair that some people whine about was still fine enough to make hits on a plate rack at 100 yds. I'll be shooting another match with it on Sunday the 2nd where we'll be pushing out to distance.
So I ran the 1-8 again in a match this Sunday and it still is daylight bright the center crosshair that some people whine about was still fine enough to make hits on a plate rack at 100 yds. I'll be shooting another match with it on Sunday the 2nd where we'll be pushing out to distance.
Solid! I read the cross is only 0.75" or so wide. Should be plenty "fine" enough. It will cover a dinner plate at 1000 yards...
Yes, which is why I am not really sure how much price matters with these things. Like the K16i? It dropped $300 overnight. Why? I doubt it's made any different.
You might benefit from a good economics / business class.
Seriously.
You might benefit from a good economics / business class.
Seriously.
Taken one already. Look at the SCAR. It's cheap as hell to make. But it sure costs...supply, demand, etc...
I'm just saying price does not always indicate materials or assembly cost.
Taken one already. Look at the SCAR. It's cheap as hell to make. But it sure costs...supply, demand, etc...
I'm just saying price does not always indicate materials or assembly cost.
Very true, high demand items can very often demand a much greater price than their worth.
Very true, high demand items can very often demand a much greater price than their worth.
Yep. And some stuff is using price as a substitute for engineering and actual cost to create value. These $2200 glocks are one such example. Then other items are loss leaders, which are meant to create a name for a brand, etc. Most products fall somewhere on a sliding scale. Trijicon represented the 1-8 to me as falling more on the loss leader side, while the vcog was more on the other end of the spectrum.
Maybe the forum rep here could chime in and put that to light?
Anytime you have a product, despite production cost, there is R&D, marketing, and brand development, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anytime you have a product, despite production cost, there is R&D, marketing, and brand development, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. So how much R&D was shared with the VCOG and TARS and other Accupowers? Did the 1-4 absorb most of the R&D, and making the 1-8 simply cost $50 more for the extra lens or two (figuratively, in both accounts)? Are we getting a $2100 scope for $1400 because that $700 in R&D and raw material sourcing was "supplied" by previous products?
Exactly. So how much R&D was shared with the VCOG and TARS and other Accupowers? Did the 1-4 absorb most of the R&D, and making the 1-8 simply cost $50 more for the extra lens or two (figuratively, in both accounts)? Are we getting a $2100 scope for $1400 because that $700 in R&D and raw material sourcing was "supplied" by previous products?
Well, we can make an educated guess that the R&D cost for the illumination in the 1-8 was zero because it was taken directly from the 1-4. ;)
Well, we can make an educated guess that the R&D cost for the illumination in the 1-8 was zero because it was taken directly from the 1-4. ;)
Exactly. That's what I'm saying, this may retail for $1400, but may also be "worth more" than another $1400 scope that did not share costs, defray through the organization, etc. That has been my point all along, but I was told "You need to take a basic econ course". :rolleyes:
Took my 1-8 out for the first time today. Got her zeroed pretty quick. Tried doing some close range work with her on 1x but I also run an offset T2 and found myself using the T2 for the close in drills. I'm sure if I ran the Trijicon exclusively and trained with her hard, I could get my times on par with the T2 but time will tell. I did however push her out to 500m. Clarity was good to go and I'm really digging the reticle. I did go with the Green reticle but haven't really had any issues with "daylight" bright or anything like that. I'll continue to push her, but so far I'm happy with the setup (she lies in a BoBro 34mm)
Took my 1-8 out for the first time today. Got her zeroed pretty quick. Tried doing some close range work with her on 1x but I also run an offset T2 and found myself using the T2 for the close in drills. I'm sure if I ran the Trijicon exclusively and trained with her hard, I could get my times on par with the T2 but time will tell. I did however push her out to 500m. Clarity was good to go and I'm really digging the reticle. I did go with the Green reticle but haven't really had any issues with "daylight" bright or anything like that. I'll continue to push her, but so far I'm happy with the setup (she lies in a BoBro 34mm)
The reticle is what turns me on most about this scope, as well as the "true" 1x I observed, and the very roomy eyebox on 8x for a 10", 25oz 1-8.
I like reticles with negative holds for transition between can/no can. Needs to be AT LEAST 1/2 MRAD or finer, starting AT THE CENTER.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 12:02
Yeah it's 4 Moa long and wide but the actual thickness is .75 moa so it's fine enough to make fine shots plus at real distance you're using the stadia lines which are even finer
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 12:06
Well, we can make an educated guess that the R&D cost for the illumination in the 1-8 was zero because it was taken directly from the 1-4. ;)
Dude if it was taken directly the. The 1-4 would be daylight bright, or the 1-8 would not be.
Except you're the only one that says it's daylight bright.
I want to believe it is but still skeptical. I'm may just order one with prime to see for myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Furbyballer
06-28-17, 12:23
I would also say that mine is daylight bright. however I just sold it for a kahles 1-6, so there is that.
Dude if it was taken directly the. The 1-4 would be daylight bright, or the 1-8 would not be.
I own the Accupower 1-4 and now two Accupower 1-8s. All in red. The illumination is the same. It is not daylight bright like a Razor 1-6 or an Aimpoint.
Edit - If you call it "daylight bright" it should be retina searing. A hint of color that washes out when you look at white objects is only "daylight bright" in the sense that the color is visible during daylight.
This is my Accupower 1-8 at max brightness in my backyard, taken 15 minutes ago. Blue skies in central NC. It looks exactly like the photo with my naked eyeball, too. And if I point it at a white house, it turns nearly black.
http://i.imgur.com/M5AlUmH.jpg
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 13:24
You must have lousy eyes man, is it "aimpoint" bright no but I wouldn't want it to have the over brightened bloom that you can get in an aimpoint on its max setting. My accupower is plenty bright.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 13:27
I own the Accupower 1-4 and now two Accupower 1-8s. All in red. The illumination is the same. It is not daylight bright like a Razor 1-6 or an Aimpoint.
Edit - If you call it "daylight bright" it should be retina searing. A hint of color that washes out when you look at white objects is only "daylight bright" in the sense that the color is visible during daylight.
This is my Accupower 1-8 at max brightness in my backyard, taken 15 minutes ago. Blue skies in central NC. It looks exactly like the photo with my naked eyeball, too. And if I point it at a white house, it turns nearly black.
http://i.imgur.com/M5AlUmH.jpg
Whenever I've taken pics of mine it comes out duller than what my eye actually picks up. Retina searing is not needed. If you dislike your accupower I got some guys that will but if off you.
Whenever I've taken pics of mine it comes out duller than what my eye actually picks up. Retina searing is not needed. If you dislike your accupower I got some guys that will but if off you.
Please read my posts. The picture shows exactly what I see through my scope, as I said above. I own two of the scopes (as I also said above), so obviously I don't want to get rid of them.
Your definition versus mine for what is considered "daylight bright" obviously differs. What I am noticing is that anytime someone speaks poorly about this scope you jump in to defend it. Two times now you have mentioned my eyesight. Take it easy, and perhaps try to be a little less invested in your gear. I'm not insulting you by saying I don't like the scope (or some aspect of the scope).
I am lucky enough to have access to a wide variety of optics, and I use them with an open mind and as impartial view as I can muster. I sell what I don't like, and I keep what I do like, and I share my observations with others in the hopes of helping them make informed decisions before they drop large sums of money on something they may be disappointed in.
Please read my posts. The picture shows exactly what I see through my scope, as I said above. I own two of the scopes (as I also said above), so obviously I don't want to get rid of them.
Your definition versus mine for what is considered "daylight bright" obviously differs. What I am noticing is that anytime someone speaks poorly about this scope you jump in to defend it. Two times now you have mentioned my eyesight. Take it easy, and perhaps try to be a little less invested in your gear. I'm not insulting you by saying I don't like the scope (or some aspect of the scope).
I am lucky enough to have access to a wide variety of optics, and I use them with an open mind and as impartial view as I can muster. I sell what I don't like, and I keep what I do like, and I share my observations with others in the hopes of helping them make informed decisions before they drop large sums of money on something they may be disappointed in.
Amen. Too many people defend their purchases until they are blue in the face and act as though any critique is insulting them personally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please read my posts. The picture shows exactly what I see through my scope, as I said above. I own two of the scopes (as I also said above), so obviously I don't want to get rid of them.
Your definition versus mine for what is considered "daylight bright" obviously differs. What I am noticing is that anytime someone speaks poorly about this scope you jump in to defend it. Two times now you have mentioned my eyesight. Take it easy, and perhaps try to be a little less invested in your gear. I'm not insulting you by saying I don't like the scope (or some aspect of the scope).
I am lucky enough to have access to a wide variety of optics, and I use them with an open mind and as impartial view as I can muster. I sell what I don't like, and I keep what I do like, and I share my observations with others in the hopes of helping them make informed decisions before they drop large sums of money on something they may be disappointed in.
I personally find the K16i to only be about 10% brighter. I think it's likely bright enough for all intents and purposes, but remain partial to the MK6's illumination.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 14:20
I just defend it because I see it as daylight bright, I've encountered a lot of people who brush this scope off because the 1-4 and vcog were not daylight bright. The 1-8 is a good scope, is it the perfect scope? No, it's heavy and I prefer capped turrets.
I just defend it because I see it as daylight bright, I've encountered a lot of people who brush this scope off because the 1-4 and vcog were not daylight bright. The 1-8 is a good scope, is it the perfect scope? No, it's heavy and I prefer capped turrets.
The turrets are clown shoes is why I'm on the fence, here. That, and I'd prefer Trijicon to have made it a bit more robust and charged the $200 or whatever to do so.
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-28-17, 15:10
A bunch of people want uncapped turrets because they think they're snipers but on a 1-8 on 5.56 you're not dialing you're using holds. Even my buddies that have their B4 just use holds and don't dial.
I really think Vortex has this figured out better than most, and Leupold is coming around.
On low-power variables, both should be capped.
On precision rifle optics, elevation needs to lock and windage needs a cap.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I just got a razor after having a k16i a couple accupower and a few other not worth mentioning.
I really do like a lot of the features on it but dang it's beastly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a fat bastard but so is the Leupold 1.1-8x and the new Trijicon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except you're the only one that says it's daylight bright.
I'll say the 1-4 is daylight bright when it's not very bright outside during the day or where you are shooting. ;)
1-4 is a good solid scope for the class of optic. Especially since you don't need to pay $50 for a cat-tail. :D
1-8s in general aren't 'quite' there yet for me. I thought I could go for the Trijicon 1-8 but the turrets are a deal breaker.
IMHO, anyone looking for the/their perfect scope, may have a long wait, it could happen, but in one area or another you will probably have to compromise. One LPV scope may be about perfect, but it's a boat anchor and may weigh more than *you* would like, another one doesn't offer any reticles *you* care for, others may not get bright enough to suit *you*, etc., etc. Our elite SF units have been using using LPV scopes for many years, and they don't have the luxury to wait until the next latest and greatest model comes out to fight with. Surely, somewhere between 0 and $4000. there should be a LPV scope compromise out there to *pretty much* satisfy everyone. That being said, I am just as guilty as many others here and also look forward to seeing and maybe trying out some of the new stuff coming out each year.
Weight is the biggest issue for me or I would have bought a Razor a long time ago.
The second issue is ruggedness. I wish there was someone who was reviewing the build quality of these optics. Obviously, that would be an expensive review, but damn I'd like to know more about the quality of the scope construction.
Third, reticle and dials. I like capped turrets, but if the scope has a good reticle, is lightweight and rugged I'll make compromises.
vicious_cb
06-28-17, 23:11
IMHO, anyone looking for the/their perfect scope, may have a long wait, it could happen, but in one area or another you will probably have to compromise. One LPV scope may be about perfect, but it's a boat anchor and may weigh more than *you* would like, another one doesn't offer any reticles *you* care for, others may not get bright enough to suit *you*, etc., etc. Some of our elite SF units are no doubt using some type/ brand of LPV scopes *right now* and don't have the luxury to wait for the next latest and greatest model to come out to fight with. Surely, somewhere between 0 and $4000. there should be a LPV scope compromise out there to *pretty much* satisfy everyone. That being said, I am just as guilty as many others here and also look forward to seeing and maybe trying out some of the new stuff coming out each year.
SOF guys have been using LPO for years. Who do you think they invented the short dot 1.1-4x for? Apparently alot of guys are currently using the razor 1-6x...
Weight is the biggest issue for me or I would have bought a Razor a long time ago.
The second issue is ruggedness. I wish there was someone who was reviewing the build quality of these optics. Obviously, that would be an expensive review, but damn I'd like to know more about the quality of the scope construction.
Third, reticle and dials. I like capped turrets, but if the scope has a good reticle, is lightweight and rugged I'll make compromises.
Razor ha what you want other than being "lightweight". Go for it. You won't find anything rugged and lightweight with our current crop. Buy it and rock it. When something better comes along, sell it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Razor ha what you want other than being "lightweight". Go for it. You won't find anything rugged and lightweight with our current crop. Buy it and rock it. When something better comes along, sell it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MK6: 17oz
NF 1-4: 17oz
But those are not 1-8's, sadly. I personally am probably going to give up 2x to have "rugged AND light". This poster might decided to do so as well.
I'm aware of what they weigh. The 4x is personally a no go. You can't use the reticle quite as well. The clarity of that particular scope also isn't that great.
Mark 6 illumination sucks, and as I've said before, they I don't find them to be so rugged. I get that you love the Mark 6. Hell I own several of the 3-18x models, but it didn't take long for me to abandon the 1-6x. Everybody has their opinions. That's mine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm aware of what they weigh. The 4x is personally a no go. You can't use the reticle quite as well. The clarity of that particular scope also isn't that great.
Mark 6 illumination sucks, and as I've said before, they I don't find them to be so rugged. I get that you love the Mark 6. Hell I own several of the 3-18x models, but it didn't take long for me to abandon the 1-6x. Everybody has their opinions. That's mine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the brightest illumination I've ever seen in a LPV, but you don't like it because it has an eyebox. Opinions.
What makes you say it's not durable, though?
The units you've played with were brighter than the Vortex? The ones I've used were not as bright and flickered. The eyebox is right and it was easy to lose it.
Durability, the knobs are made very weak and the build quality just isn't as good as some of the others. Several that didn't track properly, etc. I have a hard time trusting them. I've heard lots of folks sending them back back for illumination issues, too. I've seen multiple ones with lens debris showing up with hard use.
That said, I would still take them over lots of other options. Thus far I ended up with the Razor for having all the features I want and just dealing with a couple extra ounces.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The units you've played with were brighter than the Vortex? I've not looked at a Vortex in person, but my MK6 is bright enough that I can literally stare at the sun with the scope on a cloudless day and see the red illuminated centerpoints up until it touches the corona of the sun. It literally doesn't get brighter than that, IMO The ones I've used were not as bright and flickered. The eyebox is right and it was easy to lose it. I only have an issue if I'm headed out of the eyebox entirely. It dims as you move out of the eyebox, but not a big deal until I get so sideways that it's my problem and not an optic problem.
Durability, the knobs are made very weak and the build quality just isn't as good as some of the others. Several that didn't track properly, etc. I have a hard time trusting them. I've heard lots of folks sending them back back for illumination issues, too. I've seen multiple ones with lens debris showing up with hard use. Interesting on lens debris, as I actually have that issue myself, much to my dismay. Regarding tracking, was that the MK6 3-18, or 1-6?
That said, I would still take them over lots of other options. Thus far I ended up with the Razor for having all the features I want and just dealing with a couple extra ounces.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting viewpoints/datapoints. Tell me more about "build quality" though. Mine have "seemed" as well made as any other optic in that price range regarding fit/finish/feel
The flickering when moving in and out is a problem. You don't always get to make good positions. The Vortex is simply more tolerant to that.
The tracking issues have been on both.
Build quality....things like knobs not lining up correctly, magnification rings not indexing where they should, etc. it makes me question what things aren't right that one cannot see. Attention to detail goes a long way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OrlandoJones
06-29-17, 07:50
I have a Trijicon 1-8 Accupower that I use on my HK MR762 and could not be more pleased with it. Solid. Rugged. Great glass, reticle, etc. I know how people love to debate gear ad naseum on gun forums, I prefer to spend my time shooting and working on skills rather than endlessly searching for the "one optic to rule them all" ...
In photography there is a saying: There are two types of people, those who like to talk about taking pictures and those who take pictures.
The flickering when moving in and out is a problem. You don't always get to make good positions. The Vortex is simply more tolerant to that.
The tracking issues have been on both.
Build quality....things like knobs not lining up correctly, magnification rings not indexing where they should, etc. it makes me question what things aren't right that one cannot see. Attention to detail goes a long way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is your sample size? I am not discounting your observations, and I am actually looking at the Vortex. I currently need a second scope for an SR25. Would you mind taking a comparable picture to show me how much brighter your Vortex is than my MK6? This one was taken at around noon a while back.
http://i66.tinypic.com/iymsr5.jpg
I have a Trijicon 1-8 Accupower that I use on my HK MR762 and could not be more pleased with it. Solid. Rugged. Great glass, reticle, etc. I know how people love to debate gear ad naseum on gun forums, I prefer to spend my time shooting and working on skills rather than endlessly searching for the "one optic to rule them all" ...
In photography there is a saying: There are two types of people, those who like to talk about taking pictures and those who take pictures.
Indeed, but when talking about $1k+ in glass, I like to know as much as I can before I go shooting...
I'll try to get a pic later today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OrlandoJones
06-29-17, 11:48
What is your sample size? I am not discounting your observations, and I am actually looking at the Vortex. I currently need a second scope for an SR25. Would you mind taking a comparable picture to show me how much brighter your Vortex is than my MK6? This one was taken at around noon a while back.
http://i66.tinypic.com/iymsr5.jpg
I don't know about anyone else, but I really try not to aim my rifle directly at the sun and shoot it. LOL.
:)
ExplorinInTheWoods
06-29-17, 21:38
Another thing I would like to add is in 2/3 of my last 3gun matches we've had to use the VTAC barricade and shoot through the holes the trijicon has had plenty of eye relief and worked well shooting in awkward positions
WS6, I didn't get a chance to get out before dark, so I shined up against a 300w bulb from four feet away and tried to take a pic. Not the best pic, but it should give you an idea til I'm home during the daytime. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170630/7de4de0953a484a2da470c396c591365.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For reference, here is an Aimpoint M68 with a fresh battery. It washer about the same. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170630/7b43e7831b0f3ea35256e71617949fd7.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks good!
I've posed a few questions to Vortex about the optic. I really wish it had 1/2 mil hashes.
vicious_cb
06-30-17, 14:47
WS6, I didn't get a chance to get out before dark, so I shined up against a 300w bulb from four feet away and tried to take a pic. Not the best pic, but it should give you an idea til I'm home during the daytime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that a vortex on 11? From comparing the 2 back to back, a razor 1-6x on 11 is about a T-1 or T-2 on setting 10/12.
Looks good!
I've posed a few questions to Vortex about the optic. I really wish it had 1/2 mil hashes.
It's not perfect but it's the brightest LPV I've used. I can't wait to see what they come out with next.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Has anyone found any scope caps for this scope besides the crappy ones that come with it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.