View Full Version : Premier Reticles 1.1-8 (UPDATE pg. 3, Oct 21)
Failure2Stop
07-16-11, 09:14
I got mine a couple of days ago.
Will be running updates and pics as soon as I get it mounted and setup. I plan on doing a 1000 round evaluation in varying use; Close range, enclosure clearing, mid range (including hasty and unconventional positions), night runs at close and mid range, and if able, try to stretch legs out to 600 meters (or more).
First impressions:
-It's big. And heavy. Dwarfs 1-4s I have used before, and the 34mm tube looks robust enough to be used as a breaching device.
-Eye-box is a little shorter than I find optimal, but not "bad".
-Dot is bright. I didn't do a side by side with my aimpoints, but it looks at least aimpoint-ish in brightness.
-Reticle is great throughout the magnification range. This is the first variable that I have considered using magnifications other than the extremes. In reticle comparison I like 1x, 2x (displays center red dot at 1-2x, bounces to mildot illum over 2x), 4x, and 8x. I think that I will carry it at either 2 or 4x, and adjust from there for specialized applications. If you have never used them, hollow mil-dots are the bees knees, if you have, well...you already know.
-Glass is clear, but should go without saying.
-Illimination Knob is clever. Pull/twist with "off" between each setting. I don't know how you could accidentally change illumination with their system.
-Turret adjustment: positive tactile clicks, good turret retention with the top lever thing, but doesn't need tools, which is cool.
Mounting:
I really wish Bobro made a 34mm mount.
It looks like a standard SPR base from LaRue will fit between the turrets and occular bell. The forward placement of the erector housing makes mount selection critical, but the good news is that if the SPR doesn't fit right there will be a 34mm SPR mount in the EE.
Overall I like it, or really the capability it brings to the table.
I am not able to compare it to the S&B or Leupy, but if they are anywhere nearly as impressive, it would be hard to pick a "bad" one.
I am looking forward to getting shooting.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-16-11, 11:24
And then there were three....
Looking forward to hearing more. Did they give you anyword on if this is a one-off or the start of production?
Definitely looking forward to more info. Thanks.
Failure2Stop
07-16-11, 17:25
Did they give you anyword on if this is a one-off or the start of production?
I am unsure of exactly where in the design/commercial release process this one is from. I know that they were supposed to be redesigned to lower consumer cost at some point, but I don't know which side of that line I am on. I will check it out and report back.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-11, 13:54
OK, you've had all weekend with it. Let's hear it.. ;)
Failure2Stop
07-19-11, 16:08
OK, you've had all weekend with it. Let's hear it.. ;)
I'm still waiting on my mount to come.
I didn't feel good with ordering the mount before I could compare it's dimensions against mounts and optics I had on hand, and I couldn't use any of the mounts I already own as they are all 30mm and the PR is 34mm.
Believe me, I'm chomping at the bit too.
Whaaaaaaaat?!
You didn't decide to go with a set of 16oz Badger rings?
Idolater!
Heard that the 1.1-8 is going to be a limited release, They are going back to the design shed for a true 1 power model. Is this what anyone else is hearing?
QuietShootr
07-20-11, 06:48
I got mine a couple of days ago.
Will be running updates and pics as soon as I get it mounted and setup. I plan on doing a 1000 round evaluation in varying use; Close range, enclosure clearing, mid range (including hasty and unconventional positions), night runs at close and mid range, and if able, try to stretch legs out to 600 meters (or more).
First impressions:
-It's big. And heavy. Dwarfs 1-4s I have used before, and the 34mm tube looks robust enough to be used as a breaching device.
-Eye-box is a little shorter than I find optimal, but not "bad".
-Dot is bright. I didn't do a side by side with my aimpoints, but it looks at least aimpoint-ish in brightness.
-Reticle is great throughout the magnification range. This is the first variable that I have considered using magnifications other than the extremes. In reticle comparison I like 1x, 2x (displays center red dot at 1-2x, bounces to mildot illum over 2x), 4x, and 8x. I think that I will carry it at either 2 or 4x, and adjust from there for specialized applications. If you have never used them, hollow mil-dots are the bees knees, if you have, well...you already know.
-Glass is clear, but should go without saying.
-Illimination Knob is clever. Pull/twist with "off" between each setting. I don't know how you could accidentally change illumination with their system.
-Turret adjustment: positive tactile clicks, good turret retention with the top lever thing, but doesn't need tools, which is cool.
Mounting:
I really wish Bobro made a 34mm mount.
It looks like a standard SPR base from LaRue will fit between the turrets and occular bell. The forward placement of the erector housing makes mount selection critical, but the good news is that if the SPR doesn't fit right there will be a 34mm SPR mount in the EE.
Overall I like it, or really the capability it brings to the table.
I am not able to compare it to the S&B or Leupy, but if they are anywhere nearly as impressive, it would be hard to pick a "bad" one.
I am looking forward to getting shooting.
That they are.
I'd be very interested to hear what you think of it as a possible mate for the SCAR-H.
post tensioned
07-20-11, 07:14
I am unsure of exactly where in the design/commercial release process this one is from. I know that they were supposed to be redesigned to lower consumer cost at some point, but I don't know which side of that line I am on. I will check it out and report back.
When I tried to order one from CS Tactical, they informed me that PR was only going to make a few of these scopes, as they wanted to redesign it to be a "true" 1x vs. the 1.1x.
I'm still waiting on my mount to come.
I didn't feel good with ordering the mount before I could compare it's dimensions against mounts and optics I had on hand, and I couldn't use any of the mounts I already own as they are all 30mm and the PR is 34mm.
Believe me, I'm chomping at the bit too.
DUDE!!! I got mine in also, and i couldnt agree more with you initial review. if you dont mind me asking, what are you using for a mount? I taught about a Larue but i think that i am going to get a ADM mount.
Looey
and the 34mm tube looks robust enough to be used as a breaching device.
sorry to hijack but does anyone offer an off the shelf 34mm lapping tool for those monster rings?? Had a call today and did a little looking but appears they may have to have one made from bar stock.
thanks...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, I got to fondle my first Premier and was impressed with the glass...it was higher magnification but liked the zero stop / knob adjustment set up better than the NF. I was informed that they are getting their lenses from the same supplier as S&B but will say again that is hearsay.
I hope he does well & was not even aware the son continued the biz to this extent after his father passed away. I have a vintage 6.5-20 leupy bumped to 18-40 on my 6BR:)
Failure2Stop
07-21-11, 15:39
Bad news, the LaRue SPR is too long to fit between the erector housing and the occular bell by about 4 mm.
Guess it's off to the SPR-E.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-21-11, 17:18
I'm surprised that PR didn't work with Larue or ADM to make a custom mount. With that odd form factor, it would be a good move, I think.
Love my PR 3-15. Looking forward to hearing both of your reviews.
I feel like the only one on M4C that hasn't been offered a 1-8 for trial testing.
Can't wait to hear the review. Of all the 1-8x I saw at SHOT, the Premier was the only one that made me say "WOW!" I was slightly disappointed with the S&B and hugely disappointed with the Leupold.
Failure2Stop
07-23-11, 08:45
I feel like the only one on M4C that hasn't been offered a 1-8 for trial testing.
Sorry if I gave the impression that this was given to me.
I bought it out of pocket because I was interested in it and wanted one. I am writing the review only because it is a new product, very expensive, difficult to get ahold of, and a bit of interest.
Bad news, the LaRue SPR is too long to fit between the erector housing and the occular bell by about 4 mm.
Guess it's off to the SPR-E.
F2S, I'm not exactly sure what you from your description. Do you mean the measurement from inside ring to inside ring on the SPR isn't wide enough? If so, is the SPR-E wider? I thought it was the same size, just cantilevered further forward.
F2S, I'm not exactly sure what you from your description. Do you mean the measurement from inside ring to inside ring on the SPR isn't wide enough? If so, is the SPR-E wider? I thought it was the same size, just cantilevered further forward.
Putting the SPR mount fore/aft of the erector might put the whole scope too far backwards to get proper eye relief on the receiver. It might require mounting it on the handguards and receiver, something I have heard is frowned upon, although have no experience with myself.
Does anyone know if there is a technical reason or advantage to how far forward they place the erector assembly?
Failure2Stop
07-25-11, 05:46
F2S, I'm not exactly sure what you from your description. Do you mean the measurement from inside ring to inside ring on the SPR isn't wide enough? If so, is the SPR-E wider? I thought it was the same size, just cantilevered further forward.
I wanted to put both rings of the mount between the erector housing and the occular bell. It was what I thought would work the best with regard to mount stability and eye relief.
I compared the optic to a Bobro mount I have on hand (my SPR-E is in storage at the moment) and foolishly deduced that if the Bobro was of correct size, surely the LaRue would be as well.
So, I was wrong, and I really wanted to get the optic on a rifle to start figuring out how it handled and performed. I mounted the PR into the SPR in the traditional method, with the erector housing between the rings, and stuck it on one of my rifles. I had to bridge the gap to get proper eye-relief.
I am not sure if the SPR-E will push the PR far enough forward (it was designed for traditionally set up optics), so I am going to get some measurements and see where to go from here.
Well, since I did get it mounted (kinda) I do like how it performs. It's heavy and big (previously established) but what the scope does is pretty impressive.
About all I don't like is the very tight eye-box at 8x, but given intended application I don't think it will be too bad in actual use.
I understand now; thanks for the follow up. I have a Short Dot in an SPR-E on a 5.56 and it does put it far enough forward for the correct eye relief.
I just looked at a pic of this. it's weird how far froward the erector is. this would almost make it essential for two single rings mount rather than a 1-piece mount in my mind...
Failure2Stop
07-25-11, 13:21
I just looked at a pic of this. it's weird how far froward the erector is. this would almost make it essential for two single rings mount rather than a 1-piece mount in my mind...
Almost :shout:
At least guys with monolithic tops rails have solid justification for the purchase.
From my memory, I need a mount with a span of not more than 4" for success.
Pretty sure you should throw this on an SBR for s'n'g's. I'd be curious to see how well something like an 11.5" or 12.5" barrel would perform given the increased magnification, and the ability to more precisely engage targets at the far end of the spectrum.
I've seen guys run ELCAN's and ACOG's on short guns before, I'd like to see how this would perform over the typical AP/Eo setup.
Failure2Stop
07-25-11, 13:32
Pretty sure you should throw this on an SBR for s'n'g's. I'd be curious to see how well something like an 11.5" or 12.5" barrel would perform given the increased magnification, and the ability to more precisely engage targets at the far end of the spectrum.
I've seen guys run ELCAN's and ACOG's on short guns before, I'd like to see how this would perform over the typical AP/Eo setup.
I've shot out to 600 meters with 10.5 guns with both RDSs and TA01s, and have put 10Xs on 10.5s for giggles.
They do just as well as their longer barreled brethren. The short barrel isnt the problem, and I think something as big and bulky as the 1-8s would severely hamper their handiness.
Hey F2S, it's been a week! Any new info for the unwashed masses? I'm excited to hear all about this thing.
Army Chief
08-01-11, 05:48
At least guys with monolithic tops rails have solid justification for the purchase.
Sounds like it might be well-suited for the SCAR on that account, anyway.
AC
That they are.
I'd be very interested to hear what you think of it as a possible mate for the SCAR-H.
When he wants to, I have just the one for it:D
Failure2Stop
08-02-11, 12:22
Hey F2S, it's been a week! Any new info for the unwashed masses? I'm excited to hear all about this thing.
I have been severely delayed due to the inability to mount the optic satisfactorily to any of my uppers. The LaRue SPR doesn't work unless I want to get eye-relief at the tip of the buttstock. Not a criticism of LaRue, but of my lack of attention to detail, "Nah, it'll be fine! I do this sh!t for a living!" Ahh, the delicious taste of humble pie.
I have it hastily mounted, so I have spent some minimal time playing with it (GF's parents are in town, and I don't need more family members thinking I am "scary"), and I have come to the conclusion that the optic is extremely useful, but is probably a bit much for a 5.56 gun. It isn't necessarily in opposition to my use of my weapon, but in comparison to mid-grade or better 1-4s (I don't have a 1-6), it has tighter eye-box (very much so up at 8X), is heavier/taller/longer, cannot switch as rapidly to higher power (approx 270 degree throw from 1x to 8x, and due to that throw can't use a lever), and is a pain in the ass to mount. This much effort might not be worth it when it comes to my use on my ARs.
I think I would really like to see PR make a similar model in 1-6 or 1-4, with a similar reticle and dot (but with thicker outer posts) and a wider eye-box that would be no larger or heavier than a Short Dot
This optic has a lot going for it, but it doesn't matter how great the engine is if it doesn't fit in the engine compartment. Now, I have not really made a decision (haven't even gotten it onto the range yet!), and it says a lot for it that my biggest criticism so far is size.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-02-11, 17:55
It is incredible to me that PR doesn't have a mount for the scope. How did they test it? Was it only on monolithic uppers with individual rings? How often do you see tactical scoped mounted that way? It's all QD now it seems.
Interesting thought about a 1-6. A 1-6 with a FFP reticle and dot, at a more economic price point would be really interesting- especially for 556 shooters that dont' go past 4-500 yards often.
1-4 is a pretty crowded marketplace.
Belmont31R
08-02-11, 18:11
I have been severely delayed due to the inability to mount the optic satisfactorily to any of my uppers. The LaRue SPR doesn't work unless I want to get eye-relief at the tip of the buttstock. Not a criticism of LaRue, but of my lack of attention to detail, "Nah, it'll be fine! I do this sh!t for a living!" Ahh, the delicious taste of humble pie.
I have it hastily mounted, so I have spent some minimal time playing with it (GF's parents are in town, and I don't need more family members thinking I am "scary"), and I have come to the conclusion that the optic is extremely useful, but is probably a bit much for a 5.56 gun. It isn't necessarily in opposition to my use of my weapon, but in comparison to mid-grade or better 1-4s (I don't have a 1-6), it has tighter eye-box (very much so up at 8X), is heavier/taller/longer, cannot switch as rapidly to higher power (approx 270 degree throw from 1x to 8x, and due to that throw can't use a lever), and is a pain in the ass to mount. This much effort might not be worth it when it comes to my use on my ARs.
I think I would really like to see PR make a similar model in 1-6 or 1-4, with a similar reticle and dot (but with thicker outer posts) and a wider eye-box that would be no larger or heavier than a Short Dot
This optic has a lot going for it, but it doesn't matter how great the engine is if it doesn't fit in the engine compartment. Now, I have not really made a decision (haven't even gotten it onto the range yet!), and it says a lot for it that my biggest criticism so far is size.
Ill send you a PM, too, but just wanted to say something first:
34MM is a big tube, and its really stretching the optical technology to squeeze that size scope into that size package. Ive expressed my own concerns with the 1-8X short dot. I would not get that scope for a 5.56. I want it for my 308.
I view the variables with a 1.?/1.1X bottom ends as being a replacement for a RDS while at the same time having ACOG like magnification. The 1.1-4X Short-Dot, to me, is the best GP optic for a 5.56 gun but when I switched it over to the 308 I found I wanted a bit more top end. I could still hit targets at 750 with it maxed out at 25MOA but as of today I think the package is limited, and needs to be updated to todays findings. I don't want an mil based reticle with MOA turrets, and it needs more elevation adjustment.
Edit: You're PM box is full.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-20-11, 01:21
F2S- Anything new?
Belmont31R
08-20-11, 01:28
F2S- Anything new?
He's sending it to me for a TE....(hint hint ;):D)
Failure2Stop
08-20-11, 16:21
He's sending it to me for a TE....(hint hint ;):D)
I thought you were sending me a rifle for the test.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-21-11, 10:39
Children, stop bickering... send me the rifle and the scope ;)
Children, stop bickering... send me the rifle and the scope ;)
I don't care who gets the damn rifle and the damn scope! Pictures man, pictures!!!!!
Hell send one to me to test..............:D
F2S, if 4" is the distance between erector and ocular bell, this might work. I don't know if you'd be able to get it far enugh forward for the proper eye relief but it should fit at least.
ADM Recon "PB" (http://www.americandefensemanufacturing.com/view/product/260/)
It says it's designed for the IOR Pitbull but the "B" value in the chart show it possibly working with the Premier.
Failure2Stop
08-21-11, 18:14
Yeah, I saw the PB, but it only comes with 35mm or 30mm rings standard.
My current plan is to mill out the overhang of the LaRue.
Magic_Salad0892
08-22-11, 03:48
KAC, or ADM should work, by the pictures I've seen.
IMHO, right now I'm thinking of 1-6 as the sweet spot for 5.56mm AR guns.
However, I plan to mount the 1-8X S&B on an 11.1'' gun, seeing as how I very much liked a 1-4X for the time I'd borrowed one, and can't see how 1-8X would be worse.
Any input there would be nice, however once again: (true intention of this post)
KAC, or ADM should/might work.
I know I'm being an asshole about this, but any updates? Pictures? I can't find any updated information anywhere.
I know I'm being an asshole about this, but any updates? Pictures? I can't find any updated information anywhere.
Would love an update also.
Failure2Stop
10-21-11, 00:23
Wow, it's been a while, but I have finally got mine mounted and shot. The LaRue SPR-E is needed, as the rinds of the SPR will not fit between the erector housing and the occular bell, as pointed out earlier.
So far, all I have been able to do is 100 to 500(ish) with it.
I shot on steel from a supported prone position with it mounted on a 16" BCM BFH. I was shooting IMI M193. Weather conditions were favorable, mild temperature, no to very light wind, plenty of sun.
I was also shooting a SWFA 1-4 w/ T-reticle for comparison.
I had to zero both at the range as it was the first time I was shooting the IMI ammo. I started out shooting at the 100 yard steel, walking observed strikes to POA.
The ammo was wholly acceptable for the application. Once the zero was true and I did my part I had no issue putting bullets where they were supposed to go. I mostly shot at 100-300 as the guys with serious long-range rigs were using the longer targets.
The top end 8X of the Premier made target identification much easier than 4X once the paint was blasted off the steel. The eye-box at 8X is much tighter than the 4X optics I have chosen to use (SWFA, S&B), but at distances that call for 8X I am not completely convinced that it is as big of a draw-back as I previously feared. I would like to see some kind of speed lever for the magnification ring, as I think that there is validity in using these higher magnification optics across their range of magnification. I plan on running some drills later to see how well that theory holds up at close to mid range.
The mildots in the Premier made mil-holds very easy. Having subtentions at every half mil (past 1 mil) made holds more precise than those with subtensions only at every whole mil. I did not need to use illumination, but at 1X the dot was easily seen in bright daylight on a white background.
I did have an issue with zeroing when I did not sufficiently lock the turret, causing me to simply rotate the turret without making actual adjustment. Completely my fault, but something to be aware of. The turret adjustments were exceptionally positive and tactile.
I was forced to use a 100 yard zero (vice my preferred 100 meter zero), so I will be rezeroing at 100 meters shortly for 0 to 150 meter employment.
I am seriously considering putting this optic on my 3-gun rifle, as it's Noveske SPR barrel will pull more performance out of this exceptional optic, and the weight versus performance will probably be less conspicuous.
Premier 1.1-8
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm174/Fail2Stop/73d425dd.jpg
SWFA 1-4
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm174/Fail2Stop/08f96cfb.jpg
And for comparison, Aimpoint M4S
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm174/Fail2Stop/7738e035.jpg
Very nice report F2S....Glad to see you found a mounting solution. Also glad to hear that you didn't find the 8x to be totally unforgiving. One has to think that the Premier has crystal clear glass as well.
In regards to a cattail...that would seem like a great idea for that particular optic or any other 1-8x type. I highly doubt that folks will ever even touch 2x-7x. So essentially people will be going from one end of the spectrum to the other and need it to be done as quickly as possible. Throwing the entire power range can't be done very quickly at all when a cat tail or similar throw ring isn't present on the power dial.
I cannot understand why that optic needs to be as big and robust as it is. The size and the way in which it must be mounted are some real limiting factors for this optic in the future. I tend to think this optic might be a bit over built, much like IORs are. IORs have beautiful glass, nice adjustments, and at least one awesome ret. which is the MP-8, but at the end of the day one really has to wonder if they are really getting anything in return for having the optic be as robust and heavy as it is.
I think your SPR would make a great host for it, I don't 3gun but in terms of what is possible w/ a SPR, this optic seems to make a really logical pick. Personally I think this optic would make a perfect fit on a 16" highly accurate .308 AR like a MWS or EMC.
Failure2Stop
10-22-11, 01:55
Just got back from the range, did some 5 to 100 meter work.
Rezeroed due to a change back to Fed XM193 to burn what I had in stock.
I had to do a hasty 50 yard zero (1" low) as the longer range was occupied.
I started out with the SWFA 1-4 since it was already mounted.
I was shooting on a B8 repair center (not my preferred target for magnified optics, but it was all I had on me due to a different topic), and the groups I was turning in were less than superb, wandering between 1.5" to 2" at 50 yards.
Yuck.
Switched over to the Premier, and was getting the same group sizes despite double the magnification.
Damn Fed XM193!
Still needed to rezero a Comp M4S and my irons.
Feeling nostalgic, I decided to go the irons first.
First group was a cluster of 5 shots, all touching.
Hmmmm.
I know, impossible considering that I use a hooded front sight post :p
Made my corrections and fired my second group. I was expecting the anomaly to be corrected, fully expecting a 2" group.
To my embarrassment, it was not to be.
Instead of a two inch group, I was looking at a 5 shot group that was 1" tall, slightly leaning to the left, one on top of the other, neatly cutting through the "X" of the B8, all within the X-Ring.
Maybe that "damn Fed XM193" wasn't the problem after all.
So I did a little dedicated precision shooting from the magazine monopod prone on smaller circles and the dots within the Warren Tactical IDPA refaces (http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=WTS-2). With the SWFA my groups settled down rapidly, so I switched back to the Premier, fully expecting to see the same reduction in group sizes.
Well, today was just effing full of suprises.
I could not get a good, consistent, 5-shot group. Literally every group would have one or two fliers that would open it up to embarassing dispersion. I immediately figured that I must be failing to maintain proper eye-relief and eye position, so I fully extended my stock (which is a fairly long LOP due to the A5 RE) and tried again. Easier to find eye-relief rapidly, but no significant change in group size. Damn.
So as a test I shifted my eye position enough to get scope shadow to fill the reticle to the first MIL hash to the left and shot another group. It was identical to the rest. Repeated to the right: same result.
So, I'm scratching my head on this one.
The focus is good, my eye relief and position is good, my fundamentals are sound and proven.
Well, I had a decent enough zero on the optics I wanted to compare so I drove forward before I got too ebroiled in minutia and started doing presentations at 5, 10, and 25, and a half and half drill. I ran those all at 1X, and there wasn't anything significant to report. The Premier dot is bright, and I had it set at 7 of 9 the whole time with absolutely no issue on white Warren facers or my BCC steel (http://mgmtargets.com/tstore/index.php?main_page=popup_image&pID=38), finding it literally Aimpoint bright. The eye-box at 1X gave me no issues.
I moved on to barricade/support shooting at 50.
To get this right out in the open as soon as possible, I do NOT think that there is any good reason to have an optic at 4X or higher for 50 yards. I normally operate under the premise of, "Run it at 1X, and if you need the magnification, run it up." I have proven to myself time and time again that if I can identify it with the naked eye I can get acceptable hits at 1X pretty fast and still maintain my close-range performance. The opposite is not true in my experience. However, I wanted to compare the optics at 1X and 4X, and the Premier against both, at 8X.
So the drill went like this:
5 yard movement to cover. Fire 5 shots from the supported standing, over the center spindle of a large wire spool, at the head of a Warren reface. Switch to left side. Engage body circle from left side of spool, supported standing. Repeat until 30 rounds were expended. Total of 15 shots at the head and 15 shots at the circle.
I shot the SWFA at 1X and 4X and the Premier at 1X, 4X and 8X.
I had no problem holding most shots in the designated targets (yeah, sometimes I rush, and I squirted a shot or two just out of the circle from the support-side supported position when I got cocky). I was able to acquire the reticle and target the fastest on 1X. I shot the best on 4X. I found that I was trying to be too precise when I dialed up to 8X, and getting eye position on the support side took longer. I didn't put it on the clock as a lot of the time during the drill is involved with safety manipulation and grip switching, and I didn't want a fumble (or an abnormally smoking run) on my part to give a false impression of the performance of the optic. Seeing the trend, I decided to also try the Premier out on 2X. I found it work very well, which brought back a thought I had about the optic earlier:
If two-eyed shooting is already compromised due to the 1.1X at the low end, what would running it at 2X do?
Well, at 50 yards it worked out nicely. It was easier to center the dot in the target area, but I wasn't tempted to make the shot prettier than it needed to be (or at least not as bad as when at 4X or higher). I am not ready to say that this is how I recommend employing the optic, just an observation about the condition of use.
I then went into target transitions.
10 and 20 yards. 2 targets, 10 yards apart. 10 shot strings, alternating targets for each shot. 3 strings per power setting at both distances.
Both optics did well at 1X at both distances, with the edge to the Premier due to the very bright dot. Still, more time was lost settling/recovering the reticle than in trying to find the reticle.
At 4x, hits were good, but slight overswing bothered me more than it did at 1X, and I broke a couple shots too early in the recovery, landing the shots just outside the center circle as it swung in. Mea culpa.
Overall, the Premier did an acceptable job. The large turrets were not as obtrusive as I anticipated, and exact eye placement was not needed to perform well. The dot brightness is exactly what I want in a close-range optic. Yeah, it's big and heavy, and for some reason I am not shooting it to the precision level it should deliver, but it works very well at 5 to 50 yards.
Now, that being said, the 5 to 100 yd fight isn't the primary application for a multi-thousand dollar optic of this design. I am going to do some more 100 meter work with it to try to nail down this precision issue, but at this point I have to cede that 200 to 600 meters (probably 800 meters on a 7.62 gun) is where this optic will really be run-out and have the opportunity to prove it's capability.
So, my next update will be the next time I can get a minimum of 200 meters to shoot, and preferably out to 600.
I will note if I get the precision issue worked out or not.
Pics to follow.
*Note: the items I hotlinked are to give the reader information since I don't have pics uploaded yet. They are NOT an advertisement or endorsement for anything.
Could your inconsistency issue with the PR be mount related?
Failure2Stop
10-30-11, 20:05
Could your inconsistency issue with the PR be mount related?
I can't say that it definately is not, but I doubt it.
Shot in the dark. Your experience is rather puzzling.
Failure2Stop
10-31-11, 15:44
Shot in the dark. Your experience is rather puzzling.
I am inclined to believe that I am failing, not the optic.
I don't have the problem with other optics with a lower variable range or with a fixed power, so I am thinking that I am not adequately accounting for the changing eye-relief when zoomed fully in.
I was also not using precision ammo. I have some 69gr BlackHills that I am going to try out side by side with a Leupy 10X through my Noveske SPR off bags.
Maybe parallax then. IIRC, this scope has fixed parallax.
Belmont31R
11-01-11, 00:04
Damn I had to look up the length on that beast and its HUGE. Not to mention the odd spacing between the erector housing the rest of the scope.
That thing is as long as my 3-12x50 I had. :p
SWFA posted a picture and specs of the new and improved Premier Heritage 1-8x on their OpticsTalk forum. It is now a true 1x optic and it also looks like they changed the turrets, although it's hard to tell from the description.
The reticle is the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.