View Full Version : 1-10x vs 1-6
So, I have a little change to spend. I am struggling on my decision of which direction to go and maybe someone can offer some thoughts.
My current setup is I have an 18" SPR with a 4-16x, a lightweight build 16" with a ta31, and a 10.5" with a MRO( I mostly run this suppressed)
The longest range I have access to is 400 yrds, and I very rarely get to shoot at that range. Also in my AO, 400 is about max your going to run into anyway as it is hilly and dense forest.
So I am considering purchasing the vortex 1-10x. It is a lot of coin for me. The acog is the most expensive optic I have ever purchased. If I bought the 10x, I would probably eliminate the SPR, because it mostly collects dust, and in reality, my 16" with the 1-10x could probably fill all my needs considering the ranges I shoot at.
That being said, for about the same coin I could get a 1-6 (either razor or PST) and build another upper. (I've always wanted to do a 12.5).
Anyway, I am just looking for insight from fellow shooters.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
A 1-6X on your 16” to 400 will fill 98.3% of your needs.
Are you looking to shoot groups a lot or just steel/silhouettes?
I will say that for real use, I found the 10 power very useful at target identification over the 6 power.
For range work, as someone asked is the mission shooting smallest possible group out to your 400 yards or you banging steel.
If your banging steel, I would say go for the 6 power and a new upper.
For a 400 yds and in LPV, *I* still prefer my second focal plane, 16.9 ounce, K16i, with it's generous eye box and it's huge field of view. If I would need past 400 yds capability very often, *I* would have chosen the 4.6 oz heavier, 21.5 oz Vortex Gen 3 Razor 1-10X, LPV. *I* would also probably put it on at least a 16 inch barreled rifle. I bought a Kahles 16i new around three months ago, for $1719. *delivered* and no sales tax from sportoptics.com . I use it on a 12.5” barreled SBR.
pointblank4445
04-30-20, 19:58
Not all magnification is created equal. I'll take a Schmidt & Bender 8x over a NF NXS 10x or a Bushnell 12x all day.
Here's a basic formula that helps guys with buying...adding on to 1x per 100 yards with a caveat:
#100 yards / Target size in MOA = ballpark minimum magnification.
Say I'm shooting a big ol 2 MOA target at 800y, I can see it and engage it with a 4x magnification
Say I'm shooting a 1/2 MOA target at 800y, I may need the finer details and per the above, 16x is more appropriate.
What you shoot is as important as how far you shoot ;).
turnburglar
04-30-20, 22:13
For LPVO's I have found that the specs can be a little misleading. One of my buddies has ZERO experience behind one and he keeps showing me a model that "has the best features" and when I actually look at said optic I always say the same thing: "Your gonna spend A LOT of money to get an unbalanced optic". In my opinion LPVO's do best when they are well rounded. I think 6x top end is plenty for shooting 400 yards. My Steiner P4Xi does that pretty regularly and its only a 4x top end.
The G3 rzr has clear glass and good eye relief; I just think its reticles leave it as a 1x or 8-10x optic. It doesn't seem to do much in the 3-7 range which is where I spend most of my time. The higher the magnification the less field of view, which makes it less ideal for shooting medium distances. The RZR g3 also lacks parallax adjustment and the turrets one would want for a true precision optic. So at the end of the day its: Almost like an aim point at 1x, but leaves the intermediate to ACOG's and other LPVO's, but can go as far as a precision optic, but isn't. I personally think the G3 is most suited for a do-it-all AR10 and the G2 is more of the general purpose 556 optic with the JM1 reticle. I would look hard at sigs tango 6 line up as well.
All good points.
I occasionally shoot for tiny groups. That is about all the usey SPR gets because anything else, I would rather use my 16".
I actually really love my acog. I have flirted with the various LPVO for a while, and always go back to it because it's lightweight and simple, and I have gotten very good with it even within 25 yrds.
There are a few things I don't like about the acog though. My particular reticle (horseshoe) works great for speed, but it's not the best for groups. At only 4x sometimes it leaves me wanting at the further distances with things like target i. D.
The more I think about it, the more I lean towards buying a 6x and building a 12.5 upper and just playing with that setup. If I love it, I will keep it, if not, I will move on.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
vicious_cb
05-01-20, 01:54
You still haven't specified what you are doing with the optic. Shooting what at 400 yards? Paper? Steel? People?
Get as close to the definition of what are you are going to be using the optic for. If its in the realm of possibility you need to take a shot at a partially obscured bad guy hiding in the garden section of the Walmart from the grocery section, then yes the added capability of the 1-10x is probably worth the extra $ spent.
Furbyballer
05-01-20, 06:29
If you have the money, get the 1-10x. I have found no real world drop off in performance going from the 1-6 to 1-10. The reticle is better, the magnification range is better, the light transmission is better, you have more elevation travel. If its not a money thing get the 1-10.
mebiuspower
05-01-20, 07:29
It's not the magnification, but the clarity of the image that matters.
[QUOTE=mebiuspower;2837858]It's not the magnification, but the clarity of the image that matters.[/QUOTE
Actually, IMHO, they both are important, as it is possible for a scope to lack clarity but have plenty of magnification for your usage, and it is also possible for your scope to have excellent clarity but not enough magnification for your usage.
The_War_Wagon
05-01-20, 10:14
A 1-6X on your 16” to 400 will fill 98.3% of your needs.
Your AO sounds EXACTLY like mine, and I'm running a 1x6 on MY SPR. I have 5 AR's, so I wanna keep my SPR. You oughta keep yours, and get a few more carbines or mid-lengths to supplement!
You still haven't specified what you are doing with the optic. Shooting what at 400 yards? Paper? Steel? People?
Get as close to the definition of what are you are going to be using the optic for. If its in the realm of possibility you need to take a shot at a partially obscured bad guy hiding in the garden section of the Walmart from the grocery section, then yes the added capability of the 1-10x is probably worth the extra $ spent.I guess the idea of getting that optic was to be able to do a little of everything.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
I guess the idea of getting that optic was to be able to do a little of everything.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
I've run 1-4, 1-6, and 1-8 LPVOs, and if 400 yards is your max range, a 1-6 would probably do most everything you need. For me here in Utah, i really like the extra magnification of the 1-8 and 1-10 options, but we're often shooting ours out to 800 yards on steel.
If i were you, i would spend a little extra and get the Vortex Razor Gen II 1-6 over the PST. And if you want to save a little, you can often find deals on them used, now that the 1-10 is out.
I will give an update on my decision. I placed an order for the 1-10x. I very quickly decided I made the wrong choice and cancelled the order. Truth is, I don't need a 2k$ scope, even though I would love to have one. The thing that really drew me to the optic was the reticle more then the 10x.
I was debating between getting the razor and the pst. Then I saw that some companies were dumping the 1-8x accupowers. I am assuming this is because the creedo is out.
Anyway I ordered an accupowers 1-8x. Got it for 860 after taxes and shipping. I know it's not a perfect optic, but it seems to bridge some gaps in what I wanted and I got it for no much more then a pst.
In the end if I don't like it, at the price I paid, I am sure I can get most of my investment back.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
I will give an update on my decision. I placed an order for the 1-10x. I very quickly decided I made the wrong choice and cancelled the order. Truth is, I don't need a 2k$ scope, even though I would love to have one. The thing that really drew me to the optic was the reticle more then the 10x.
I was debating between getting the razor and the pst. Then I saw that some companies were dumping the 1-8x accupowers. I am assuming this is because the creedo is out.
Anyway I ordered an accupowers 1-8x. Got it for 860 after taxes and shipping. I know it's not a perfect optic, but it seems to bridge some gaps in what I wanted and I got it for no much more then a pst.
In the end if I don't like it, at the price I paid, I am sure I can get most of my investment back.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Awesome, let us know what you think once you get some time behind it.
Awesome, let us know what you think once you get some time behind it.Will do. I have to figure out which mount to use now. My go to has always been ADM, but I am tempted to try a badger ordnance c1. I do want to keep the weight down.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Will do. I have to figure out which mount to use now. My go to has always been ADM, but I am tempted to try a badger ordnance c1. I do want to keep the weight down.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
You’ll save ~2 oz with the Badger and that Accupower ain’t light, so that’s what I’d recommend based solely on weight. I just got a C1 in 30mm 1.93 height and it weighed in at 6.7 ounces. I can’t speak to durability, RTZ, or any other features since I just got it...but it’s Badger so I’m not worried.
As with all things optics, "it depends..." is a very important consideration.
I know putting your scope on jacks is the tactic-cool think to do today, but I've found that heavier optics, placed higher on a rifle can have more effect than just the # of ounces - they can change the center of balance of the rifle, not so much forward to aft, but side to side when making lateral transitions. So often you don't know this until you feel it but it is something you may feel / consider when you get the rifle off a bipod and shoot standing / moving / etc.
Not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to have a high scope (mainly to clear mission critical accessories like IR lasers, etc) but don't be a lemming and blindly buy XYZ just because everyone else is.
As with all things optics, "it depends..." is a very important consideration.
I know putting your scope on jacks is the tactic-cool think to do today, but I've found that heavier optics, placed higher on a rifle can have more effect than just the # of ounces - they can change the center of balance of the rifle, not so much forward to aft, but side to side when making lateral transitions. So often you don't know this until you feel it but it is something you may feel / consider when you get the rifle off a bipod and shoot standing / moving / etc.
Not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to have a high scope (mainly to clear mission critical accessories like IR lasers, etc) but don't be a lemming and blindly buy XYZ just because everyone else is.
To be clear, I was only talking about Badger C1 mounts and gave mine (just so happens is 1.93) as an example. Mount height is up to him and his needs.
I ordered a c1 1.70 . I like that height with red dots, so I figured I would give it a try. Time will tell.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Yup, I love mine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If shaving weight is a priority, Aero Precision's 34mm mount is only 4.1 oz... Granted there are some reports of them breaking, but most are due to user-errors (over-torquing the screws putting excess stress on the top hook).
Also, the combined weight of an Aero 30mm mount plus an offset RMR mount is only 3.8 oz... I would imagine similar setup using their 34mm rings could be in the 4.5 oz range. That's a lot of weight savings over a similar Badger Ordnance setup. I am not saying Badger mounts are not good mounts, they are definitely solid and designed to survive any war zone. You just need to decide which is more important - weight savings vs. ruggedness.
VT
If shaving weight is a priority, Aero Precision's 34mm mount is only 4.1 oz... Granted there are some reports of them breaking, but most are due to user-errors (over-torquing the screws putting excess stress on the top hook).
Also, the combined weight of an Aero 30mm mount plus an offset RMR mount is only 3.8 oz... I would imagine similar setup using their 34mm rings could be in the 4.5 oz range. That's a lot of weight savings over a similar Badger Ordnance setup. I am not saying Badger mounts are not good mounts, they are definitely solid and designed to survive any war zone. You just need to decide which is more important - weight savings vs. ruggedness.
VTI have used the aero before. If weight savings is the ultimate goal I think they are the best option and they are certainly affordable.
I wanted something a little more rugged though. And the badger only come in at about 2oz more, but seems to be a huge jump in ruggedness, and it is very modular.
If I ever get into nods, I might want to piggy back a rds and that appears to be very easy with the badger. There seems to be one downside though, and that is that it hurt my wallet.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
pointblank4445
05-05-20, 22:07
The Badger C1 is one of the best things going now. Multiple heights...cant options for the precision stuff and open modularity options for RDS and other accessories. Simple like the Geissele's but with the versatility of the SPUHR
I wanted something a little more rugged though.
Oh yeah, strength definitely isn't a battle the Aero was designed to win... I think we both agree it's by no means "weak", but certainly not as strong as the Badger.
Just keep in mind you can piggyback RDS on the Aero mount too, with significantly more RDS choices than what Badger offers. [emoji16]
VThttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200506/883960201a2a00813cfa40f39b38e77a.jpg
Sent from my J9210 using Tapatalk
The Badger C1 is one of the best things going now. Multiple heights...cant options for the precision stuff and open modularity options for RDS and other accessories. Simple like the Geissele's but with the versatility of the SPUHR
I'll tell you one thing I wonder about the Badger C1 is the offset RDS mounting to the scope mount - I know it's splitting hairs but both optics are now beholden to the single mount. Which is obviously the case with any 'piggy back' setup like Reptilia / Valhalla / etc, but most 'offsets' have been directly attached to the top rail, giving some redundancy if the scope / mount takes the hit (or vice versa).
Again, splitting hairs but something that stood out for me (in addition to all the screws one must attach for a C1 mount - arm to the mount, adaptor to the arm, RDS to the adaptor). Its a great solution but certainly has lots of pieces.
I'll tell you one thing I wonder about the Badger C1 is the offset RDS mounting to the scope mount - I know it's splitting hairs but both optics are now beholden to the single mount. Which is obviously the case with any 'piggy back' setup like Reptilia / Valhalla / etc, but most 'offsets' have been directly attached to the top rail, giving some redundancy if the scope / mount takes the hit (or vice versa).
Again, splitting hairs but something that stood out for me (in addition to all the screws one must attach for a C1 mount - arm to the mount, adaptor to the arm, RDS to the adaptor). Its a great solution but certainly has lots of pieces.
I’ve wondered about that too but the feel of the mount caused me not to overthink it. I’d be super interested to see testing, but it feels solid enough that I’m willing to risk it. While it does have a lot of screws, it’s modularity is huge and I’ve never felt like any part couldn’t take a beating. At some point I want to test RTZ on the offset, just haven’t gotten to it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I went with the C1 due to weight and the ability to run piggyback for passive IR aiming. If I were running offset MRDS I’d likely go with a stand-alone mount. I’m sure it’d be fine, but I have the same thoughts as Rhino. Either way you’re starting with a lighter main optic mount to offset the weight of your secondary setup.
All good points. And that's the beauty of AR platform... everyone can build something they like.
I don't disagree with the idea of keeping everything "independent" on a combat rifle. After all we already have a mount capable of doing so (our Rukh). However, some users likes to tinker/reconfigure their rifles frequently (plinking one day, 3-gun the next), and having piggybacked RDS, especially on a QD mount that RTZ, is a big time-saver. It's really about giving your customers OPTIONS, because no single setup is perfect for "every situation".
Case in point, I have a "pussy-chaser" where I had it configured as light as possible, for that once-in-a-lifetime chance some chic wants to hit the range with me. (Haven't happened yet, still dreaming...) That gun is never gonna be dropped... plus it has a pencil barrel, and simply will not survive the zombie apocalypse. So I traded ruggedness to lower it's weight. On the other hand, my LMT has the trusted Elcan on it, and they are probably never going to be separated... because if the world ends tomorrow and I can only bring one gun with me, I am bugging out with that gun! lol
VT
Life's a Hillary
05-09-20, 10:14
It's not the magnification, but the clarity of the image that matters.
Clarity is one of the last things on my list of importance when looking for a scope. First and foremost it’s an aiming device, if it can’t maintain zero, track properly, return to zero, and do all of the above when being bumped and dropped and carried then it doesn’t matter how clear the class is.
vicious_cb
05-11-20, 02:33
Clarity is one of the last things on my list of importance when looking for a scope. First and foremost it’s an aiming device, if it can’t maintain zero, track properly, return to zero, and do all of the above when being bumped and dropped and carried then it doesn’t matter how clear the class is.
If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.
Life's a Hillary
05-11-20, 08:40
If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.
Everything is useless if your aiming device cannot be trusted to aim at what you are thinking of. Too many people focus on, "what does the glass look like?" when they don't ever bother to ask things like how does it track, hold zero, rtz, hold up to drops and impacts, etc.
I mostly shoot for hunting purposes so I understand the importance of resolving what you are look at and is why I often tell new shooters to avoid cheap optics with high magnification like the Diamondback 6-24. Well, I would tell them to avoid that scope because it probably won't be reliable but it will be pretty useless at that high of a magnification.
The harsh reality is that the variables in assessing an optic are beyond the relevance and ability of many folks. They've never looked through a premium optic, much less taken one into the field through variable terrain, lighting conditions, and target looks. Nor shot one to a meaningful distance through a range of adjustments.
Life's a Hillary
05-11-20, 09:55
The harsh reality is that the variables in assessing an optic are beyond the relevance and ability of many folks. They've never looked through a premium optic, much less taken one into the field through variable terrain, lighting conditions, and target looks. Nor shot one to a meaningful distance through a range of adjustments.
100%
Which is why I don't take much stock in someone telling me their scope is solid when they use it for hunting each deer season but for someone reason have to rezero it every year.
If you cant resolve what you are looking at then magnification is useless. You might as well just use a red dot if you are looking at a blurry mess through the optic.
I've had $400 Leupold 3-9x optics that were clear enough to make out whitetail at 250 yards in forest undergrowth, with a deciduous and conifer canopy, and near dusk conditions. The thing that stopped me from the shot, was I could not make out the un-lit reticle against the background. I could see their face, but didn't have an aiming point. Ugh.
Very little chance that someone is really going to have a major optical clarity issue from a Vortex Viper PST over a Razor HD. The better glass, and bigger tube might make it brighter and appear clearer, but it's unlikely at civilian engagement distances for hunting, or SD, that clarity will yield a discernible difference between the two optics. If I was making life and death shots, all the time, for serious LE or MIL usage, I would prefer the better glass -- but for rifle/carbine #25, I don't necessarily need to throw on a $2k+ optic to achieve my goals.
So I have had the 1-8 accupower for a few days. I understand the complaints that people have had with this optic. It is not daylight bright. But I find the reticle very useful without illumination. The center crosshair is a little thick but useable. I actually like the boldness of the rest of the reticle, I wish they would not have made the center thicker, but I am sure that was for the illumination. Of course it's on the heavier side.
The glass seems plenty good in my opinion. I like the locking exposed turrets. It's not the perfect optic, but for the price I can't complain. If I would have been paying the full price they had been going for, I might have opted for the razor.
I find myself running it on 4x or 6x a lot, but it's nice to be able to crank it up to 8x.
The badger c1 mount is nice. I am still getting used to the 1.7 height but I think I like it. I wish they made an extended model as I like to run my scope a little further out.
Sent from my moto e5 (XT1920DL) using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.