Having a hard time deciding 1x6 or 2.5x10?

[Obscenejesster]

A 1-6x will cover more practical applications of 5.56 in realistic conditions than a 2.5-10x.
The gap can be closed at the extremes of magnification if the 2.5-10x has a properly selected SFP reticle, however, it will cause you to give up mid-range magnification level applications due to the reticle not giving much usable feedback as far as hard data.

The issue is that most people using optics don't really know what they are doing, how to use a good contemporary reticle, what makes a certain reticle better than another, what it's like to really need to shoot fast without giving up accuracy in less than favorable conditions, and therefore are willing to cede certain aspects of performance that those with advanced knowledge/skill/performance requirements are not. I'm not calling anyone out, simply pointing out that there are a lot of different ways to look at the problem, and that in a dizzying array of responses it is generally better to identify those that are performing at a high level in the critical applications that you want to maximize and listen to them.

The fact of the matter is that all optics are a compromise at this point.

So according to your expertise, what pro's or con's do you see with the Vortex PST 2.5-10x32?

Also, what pro's or con's do you see with the SWFA 1x6?

Lastly, what scopes and what reticles would you recommend if I wanted to spend less than $1,000?

I'll be honest. I have never used a magnified optic in a tactical application. In fact, the only magnified optics I have sit on rim-fires and bolt guns. Every AR I have or have had has either had an Aimpoint, Eotech or Irons.

When it comes to practical applications of the 5.56 round, I do believe it is underestimated by many. I also know that our Military decided to use a 2.5x10 scope on the MK12 and I'm only going to assume they knew what they were doing. I'm also going to assume that during testing of the MK12, the operators deemed benefit from 10 power magnification. Am I wrong in this thinking?

[Biggy]

A 1-6x will cover more practical applications of 5.56 in realistic conditions than a 2.5-10x.
The gap can be closed at the extremes of magnification if the 2.5-10x has a properly selected SFP reticle, however, it will cause you to give up mid-range magnification level applications due to the reticle not giving much usable feedback as far as hard data.

The issue is that most people using optics don't really know what they are doing, how to use a good contemporary reticle, what makes a certain reticle better than another, what it's like to really need to shoot fast without giving up accuracy in less than favorable conditions, and therefore are willing to cede certain aspects of performance that those with advanced knowledge/skill/performance requirements are not. I'm not calling anyone out, simply pointing out that there are a lot of different ways to look at the problem, and that in a dizzying array of responses it is generally better to identify those that are performing at a high level in the critical applications that you want to maximize and listen to them.

The fact of the matter is that all optics are a compromise at this point.

I think your last sentence pretty well sums it up, at least for me. IMHO, there are also pros and cons to mount type, (QD vs fixed) , secondary sights (angled buis vs angled micro RDS),etc. *For me ,* and the way I plan on using my scoped 5.56 rifle, for man sized targets out to 0-500yds I like something like the Kahles 16i, SWAROVSKI Z6i, Vortex Razor HD Gen II ,etc. Yes, I will sacrifice some top end X and practical accuracy out at 500yds to get more fov at 1x within 100 yds. Once past approx 500yds , I would much prefer the 2.5-10x magnification range with an offset secondary sight. Also, if I were doing more shooting at 600yds and longer I would also prefer going to a 7.62/.308 rifle. I know what I like, but get what works for you and the way you plan on using it the most.

[cma g21]

... I also know that our Military decided to use a 2.5x10 scope on the MK12 and I'm only going to assume they knew what they were doing. I'm also going to assume that during testing of the MK12, the operators deemed benefit from 10 power magnification. Am I wrong in this thinking?

If I was a designated marksman, as part of a specialized group having some members armed with guns better suited to CQC, then I'd think a 2.5x10 scope would be a viable option - on an appropriately set up SPR.

As a civilian, operating alone or within a smaller less specialized group, I'd want something better suited to close range/low-light encounters - which I'd consider the more likely to occur scenarios.

But that's just me, and YMMV.

[TAZ]

If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.

I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.

There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.

[Obscenejesster]

If I was a designated marksman, as part of a specialized group having some members armed with guns better suited to CQC, then I'd think a 2.5x10 scope would be a viable option - on an appropriately set up SPR.

As a civilian, operating alone or within a smaller less specialized group, I'd want something better suited to close range/low-light encounters - which I'd consider the more likely to occur scenarios.

But that's just me, and YMMV.

Where you live, those scenarios may be more likely to occur. I would rather not thrust myself into any CQC and I'd much rather identify and eliminate a threat when there 500 yards away rather than when they're 25 yards away.

I've actually figured out what I'm going to do and it just occurred to me.

I'll probably go with the 2.5x10 and if the S ever does hit the fan then I'll grab the Trijicon RMR off of my Buckmark and mount it in the 45 degree. That way, I'll have something capable of CQC in low light.

[TAZ]

Double tap

[Obscenejesster]

If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.

I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.

There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.

What scope do you have in regards to your 2.5x10? I just want to compare it's reticle to the Vortex.

My purpose of this build is to have a Jack of all Trades....Master of None.

[Obscenejesster]

Double tap

Triple Tap

[BobinNC]

If memory serves correct the Mk12 uses a SFP reticle making it useful at both extremes of its mag range. At the low end you still have a very clear reticle to use for aiming. At 10x its clear and functional for ranging and wind holds. The weapon system itself is also a purpose built for a specific task. It was not meant to be a door kicking gun, but one capable of offering long range support. In willing to bet that most will now sport some form of red dot back up for the close stuff.

I have a 18" knock off topped with a 2.5-10 FFP scope and it sits at 10x 90% of the time simply cause below 5x the reticle becomes really anemic. It can be used at 2.5 but not fast. For up close stuff I use an MRDS in an offset position. Much faster for me than the 2.5x anemic reticle. Maybe the Vortex reticle design is better and it will work for you. IMO no matter which way you go you'll want something in an offset position. Even 6x is going to cause issues at CQB ranges.

There is no master of all trades tool. It's always a compromise. Decide what you want to do with it, then build and train accordingly.

TAZ,

Just curious which brand FFP 2.5-10 are you have using that your unhappy with the reticle size below 5x?

Thanks....

[TAZ]

I have one of the first batches of the IOR 2.5-10 FFP scopes. I would not say I'm totally unsatisfied with the scope, just that it has some limits. Used to think it was good enough till I began using an offset red dot. Then I realized how much slower I was with the tube vs the dot.

I made my gun usable in more conditions with the offset dot. Doesn't mean that it's the right path for all though. Maybe the Vortex reticle is better suited.