$2k too much for beginner/LPV

[WS6]

I believe any scope is a beginner scope, when it comes to LPV's. This is because different people's eyes see things differently. You are just going to have to find the one that works best for YOU. For example, I hated the VCOG. It was absolute crap. Yet others LOVE the VCOG.

I think you have a good list, OP, although I'd put the K16i in the drawing, too.

Now, go and try all of them and buy what you like. I will say this, I have gone over to the 6x over the 4x on the top end. It's just better. Much.

If you MUST get a "true beginner" LPV, then get a Vortex Strike Eagle. It is of high enough quality and good enough optically, that if you hate it, you probably shouldn't run a LPV, and if you like it, you will not only have a good, reliable "cheap" scope for your bang-around gun, but you will also appreciate the upgrade to a MK6 of Z6i, or whatever.

[WS6]

Yes, I agree. The rifle could easily turn from hobby shooter to defense.

From a learning curve standpoint, are there certain reticles that are easier to work with?

I have really come to like the Leupold MK6. Ridiculously bright dot with great clarity and reticle for long range, as well.

[Failure2Stop]

Below is basically exactly what I would write:

I don't believe in "beginner" anything. Buy once, cry once. If you buy quality optics you'll get most of you're money back in the event things don't work out. In the 2K range I would be looking at the Leupold MK6 and the Khales K16i. The NF 1-4 is an incredible optic as well and quite a bit cheaper than the rest, and while not daylight visible, it has a great reticle that lends itself to easy acquisition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe any scope is a beginner scope, when it comes to LPV's. This is because different people's eyes see things differently. You are just going to have to find the one that works best for YOU. For example, I hated the VCOG. It was absolute crap. Yet others LOVE the VCOG.

I think you have a good list, OP, although I'd put the K16i in the drawing, too.

Now, go and try all of them and buy what you like. I will say this, I have gone over to the 6x over the 4x on the top end. It's just better. Much.

If you MUST get a "true beginner" LPV, then get a Vortex Strike Eagle. It is of high enough quality and good enough optically, that if you hate it, you probably shouldn't run a LPV, and if you like it, you will not only have a good, reliable "cheap" scope for your bang-around gun, but you will also appreciate the upgrade to a MK6 of Z6i, or whatever.

Caveat:
I have gone from 1-4s to 1-6s to 1-8s, and now use them all, depending on the application of the rifle.
The NF 1-4 FC3G is hands-down one of the most size/weight efficient aiming device performance enhancers, and on 10.5"-14.5" 5.56 rifles it is a great fit. SFP makes a lot of sense for the application. There are, however, definitely applications that call for a 1-6. I would have no purpose for a 1-4 IF there were high quality 1-4(+) optics with the size factor of the NF 1-4. It's just that good.

[WS6]

Below is basically exactly what I would write:





Caveat:
I have gone from 1-4s to 1-6s to 1-8s, and now use them all, depending on the application of the rifle.
The NF 1-4 FC3G is hands-down one of the most size/weight efficient aiming device performance enhancers, and on 10.5"-14.5" 5.56 rifles it is a great fit. SFP makes a lot of sense for the application. There are, however, definitely applications that call for a 1-6. I would have no purpose for a 1-4 IF there were high quality 1-4(+) optics with the size factor of the NF 1-4. It's just that good.

This is exactly why I love the NF 1-4 that I have. The form factor is just crazy good, and the glass is plenty serviceable. I love my FC-2 reticle as well, but I still prefer the "single red dot" of the Leupold MK6 that came into my possession. Kindof how I like AP over EO (politics etc. aside, reticle only).

[rocket]

Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.

Specifically:

Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either G4B or SM1

The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?

[WS6]

Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.

Specifically:

Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either BRT or SM1

The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?

I own a MK6 TMR-D, and had a K16i SM-1.

F2S also can offer you his perspective on these two identical optics, as well.

I prefer the MK6 TMR-D. On 1x, the "dot" is singular, bright, and the only thing there aside the 4 thicker sections of the cross-hairs. Very fast. The K16i SM-1 has a more complex reticle, and the illumination is not as bright to my eyes. The reticle distracts me with itself, the way an Eotech reticle does compared to an Aimpoint Dot. This is my personal taste.

The K16i was a "flatter" image, especially on 1x. It also offered better clarity, every so slightly, at 6x, and more FOV on 1 and 6x.'

The MK6 is built tougher and has good and usable turrets, locking diopter, etc. I much MUCH prefer the build quality of the MK6 scope.

The K16i has a very sexy fin on the power selector ring, Leupold's option is an almost as sexy $150 throw-lever.

Over-all, I prefer the MK6, but if you ask 10 people who have used both, it may be split down the middle. They are both EXCELLENT optics. The Glass in the Kahles is slightly better, but the Leupold's turrets are usable, and good, and the K16i's are absolute crap, and capped to boot.

All of the data that I have currently suggests that they are both very durable, but that the MK6 is moreso.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Yes, I agree. The rifle could easily turn from hobby shooter to defense.

From a learning curve standpoint, are there certain reticles that are easier to work with?

I like the NF FC3G, FC2, and the Khales SM1 and SL1 the best. If I bought a MK6 I'd be a little torn between the CMRW and the TMR.

The CMRW is a little cluttered at 6x but if you're using 62gr ammunition it's basically a point and pull dummy proof reticle (like an ACOG).

EDIT: The internet is a great thing and also the work of Satan. One of the best things you can do is not over think it too much. Forums and the interwebz expose us to so many different opinions, some good, some by some schmuck that's never picked up a real rifle and optic; thus we can start to over analyze things. In this case, you're getting some really solid advice from some real shooters.

In this case, pick a quality optic and reticle and roll with it. You can cause you're brain to literally implode trying to debate/decide between FC 3G, CMR-W, SL1, SM1, daylight visible, not so daylight visible etc... in the end, when you're splitting hairs between great options; for most of us it doesn't matter as much as the Internet may lead you to believe. What matters is you get out there and shoot it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Failure2Stop]

Thanks for everyone's response. I'm leaning now towards a 1-6x optic.

Specifically:

Leupold Mk6 with TMR reticle
Kahles K16i, haven't decided on reticle. Either BRT or SM1

The Leupold being FFP and Kahles SFP. I have a basic understanding of the difference, but curious for those who know, is one FP easier to learn on than another?

The Mk6 is a little better on the form-factor than the Kahles, but I personally like the fit and function of the Kahles on an 7.62. I do wish that it had a horizontal aspect to the lower vertical stadia, as it isn't great at wind-holds at hold-off distance.

Here's what you need to "learn" about SFP vs FFP":
With FFP, your reticle based holds are the same at every magnification level, with SFP your reticle reference varies with magnification changes.

ETA: the Leupold VX-6 is also a solid option. Their multigun reticle is pretty solid.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold-...iflescope.html

Also, I would be remiss not to recommend taking a look at the Vortex Razor HD Gen II with MRAD reticle. They are not my personal preference, but they are a dominating force in the market, and not just civilian gamer market.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-r...II1-RZR-16004A
Frankly, if someone told me that they wanted a resonably priced optic, with a daylight bright reticle, that didn't carte about SFP/FFP, and weight was not a significant factor, I'd tell them to get the Vortex, knowing that they'd be happy. No, I don't own one, and I'm not particularly interested in buying one, but they do the job well.

[rocket]

I own a MK6 TMR-D, and had a K16i SM-1.

F2S also can offer you his perspective on these two identical optics, as well.

I prefer the MK6 TMR-D. On 1x, the "dot" is singular, bright, and the only thing there aside the 4 thicker sections of the cross-hairs. Very fast. The K16i SM-1 has a more complex reticle, and the illumination is not as bright to my eyes. The reticle distracts me with itself, the way an Eotech reticle does compared to an Aimpoint Dot. This is my personal taste.

The K16i was a "flatter" image, especially on 1x. It also offered better clarity, every so slightly, at 6x, and more FOV on 1 and 6x.'

The MK6 is built tougher and has good and usable turrets, locking diopter, etc. I much MUCH prefer the build quality of the MK6 scope.

The K16i has a very sexy fin on the power selector ring, Leupold's option is an almost as sexy $150 throw-lever.

Over-all, I prefer the MK6, but if you ask 10 people who have used both, it may be split down the middle. They are both EXCELLENT optics. The Glass in the Kahles is slightly better, but the Leupold's turrets are usable, and good, and the K16i's are absolute crap, and capped to boot.

All of the data that I have currently suggests that they are both very durable, but that the MK6 is moreso.

Thanks, WS6. I was initially attracted to the Mk6 because of the durability and the simple TMR-D reticle. Nothing overly busy and cluttered, nice single bright dot at 1x that I think I can adapt to quickly coming from my Aimpoints. The Khales G4B reticle was also very simple, single red dot, very bright as well, not much info on durability, but I've also not heard any problems with them failing for any reason.

I like the NF FC3G, FC2, and the Khales SM1 and SL1 the best. If I bought a MK6 I'd be a little torn between the CMRW and the TMR.

The CMRW is a little cluttered at 6x but if you're using 62gr ammunition it's basically a point and pull dummy proof reticle (like an ACOG).

EDIT: The internet is a great thing and also the work of Satan. One of the best things you can do is not over think it too much. Forums and the interwebz expose us to so many different opinions, some good, some by some schmuck that's never picked up a real rifle and optic; thus we can start to over analyze things. In this case, you're getting some really solid advice from some real shooters.

In this case, pick a quality optic and reticle and roll with it. You can cause you're brain to literally implode trying to debate/decide between FC 3G, CMR-W, SL1, SM1, daylight visible, not so daylight visible etc... in the end, when you're splitting hairs between great options; for most of us it doesn't matter as much as the Internet may lead you to believe. What matters is you get out there and shoot it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Goodtimes. Yes, the inter webs can certainly make a muck of decision making. Good advice to just purchase, learn, and shoot. It's about all some of us can do when trying to gain a little knowledge from those who can at the very least, guide us in a particular direction, which is what you fine folks have done for me. Now, dive in head first!

The Mk6 is a little better on the form-factor than the Kahles, but I personally like the fit and function of the Kahles on an 7.62. I do wish that it had a horizontal aspect to the lower vertical stadia, as it isn't great at wind-holds at hold-off distance.

Here's what you need to "learn" about SFP vs FFP":
With FFP, your reticle based holds are the same at every magnification level, with SFP your reticle reference varies with magnification changes.

ETA: the Leupold VX-6 is also a solid option. Their multigun reticle is pretty solid.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold-...iflescope.html

Also, I would be remiss not to recommend taking a look at the Vortex Razor HD Gen II with MRAD reticle. They are not my personal preference, but they are a dominating force in the market, and not just civilian gamer market.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-r...II1-RZR-16004A
Frankly, if someone told me that they wanted a resonably priced optic, with a daylight bright reticle, that didn't carte about SFP/FFP, and weight was not a significant factor, I'd tell them to get the Vortex, knowing that they'd be happy. No, I don't own one, and I'm not particularly interested in buying one, but they do the job well.

Thanks, F2S. I've been reading pretty thoroughly through old threads and you've been a part of most of them. I certainly appreciate and value your input. The Vortex Razor HD is high on my list. From what I've read, not many have had any complaints at all. I understand none of these optics are "perfect" but they all are very serviceable on both the civilian market and beyond, well thought out, and durable.

I understand we're splitting hairs on these two great optics, but could you please explain what you mean by "form factor" on the Mk6 and "fit and function" on the Kahles?

[cbthedookie]

I'm going to provide a counter point to most of the feedback, as I was in precisely the same situation about six months ago: experience with AR, had an Aimpoint T1, but minimal experience with optics. I was not budget constrained, but ended up with an Accupower 1-4 with BDC reticle, and spent only about 650 instead of 2k.

When I purchased, I prioritized good glass, fast reticle, true 1x mag. I don't have daylight bright reticle, great battery life, or exposed turrets. But (as others have said) ultimately, optics are very personal decisions once you get past basic functionality. I've learned some of my expectations about use were correct, some less so. So: my advice is to buy a decent quality optic and use it - so you can learn your own preferences and buy another one later.

I really like my trijicon. But I want something with more magnification, so I just bought an SWFA 3-15 to try. My plan is to upgrade both optics, probably soon - but then I can move my trij to another AR, and the swfa to my rimfire.

Point being: if I hadn't just bought one and started using it, I'd never know if my "better" optic was the right one for me. And in the remote event I ended up absolutely hating something I bought, I could sell it and be no worse than a few hundred bucks in the hole.

So I'd recommend the viper pst, the accupower, a leupold fire dot, the Steiner 1-4 - just pick based on what you expect to like, then use - learn - and buy what you find that you really want in a few months.

My $0.02...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk