Budget LVPO options?

[titsonritz]

Thanks Vegas, good stuff!

Just got my NX8 and first impressions (have not mounted or shot either one, so take with a grain of salt) are that the K16i has better FOV and eye box than NX8, but I personally like the reticle of the NX8 much better due to it being bolder and not needing illumination to function the way that I want it to. This is purely subjective and personal for me based on what *I* look for in a reticle, plenty of guys love the SM1 reticle, but as of right now, I’m leaning toward catch and release on the K16i and keeping the NX8. Still want to shoot them before making a final decision.

Anyone interested in a K16i?

I saw that you sold off the K16i (wish I had the cash at the time), in your ad you wrote "Decided that for my uses, the NX8 is better for me...but I will say the glass, FOV, eyebox forgiveness, ect. is better on the Khales than the NF". I'd love to hear more about the comparison as these are the two scopes I've narrowed my choices down to.

[Ironman8]

I saw that you sold off the K16i (wish I had the cash at the time), in your ad you wrote "Decided that for my uses, the NX8 is better for me...but I will say the glass, FOV, eyebox forgiveness, ect. is better on the Khales than the NF". I'd love to hear more about the comparison as these are the two scopes I've narrowed my choices down to.

What exactly would you like to know?

[Butch]

What exactly would you like to know?

I'll preface by saying that I am not judging but I too am curious. You did say, "...but I will say the glass, FOV, eyebox forgiveness, ect. is better on the Khales than the NF".

Those are all things we look for in a quality scope.

What uses do you have that take priority over such sought after features? Or to put it another way, what is of such high value to you that the NX8 has that you are willing to put these other highly desirable features in the back seat?

Again, not judging, Your money, your life. I'm good with that. I'm only asking for my own curiosity and you seem willing to answer. I must admit, I wanted to ask, I just wasn't going to. But since it got brought up...

[Ironman8]

Ok, got it.

Biggest thing to understand is that I’m not talking in absolutes. Just because those highly desirable features are “better” on the K16i, doesn’t mean that the NX8 was “bad” by default.

I had a SWFA SS-HD 1-6x, NX8, and the K16i to compare to. For most of those features I mentioned above it was K16i > NX8 > SWFA in that order. For the price point, I thought the SWFA was pretty good too, but there’s no question that the other two are better.

Just as important (to me) as all those other factors is a reticle that you can pick up easily when not illuminated. If battery life was on par with an Aimpoint, then I would be less concerned about this. But until then, it is. For me, the K16i has too fine a reticle to pick up easily without illumination, and it wasn’t black, more of a reflective bronze, so it made it even more difficult to pick up. Illuminated, it was great though!

Aside from the reticle, the form factor of the NX8 just can’t be beat either. Even though weight was about the same between NX8 and K16i, the K16i just felt like a bigger scope.

[titsonritz]

I'll preface by saying that I am not judging but I too am curious. You did say, "...but I will say the glass, FOV, eyebox forgiveness, ect. is better on the Khales than the NF".

Those are all things we look for in a quality scope.

What uses do you have that take priority over such sought after features? Or to put it another way, what is of such high value to you that the NX8 has that you are willing to put these other highly desirable features in the back seat?

Again, not judging, Your money, your life. I'm good with that. I'm only asking for my own curiosity and you seem willing to answer. I must admit, I wanted to ask, I just wasn't going to. But since it got brought up...

This is pretty much what I thinking.

Ok, got it.

Biggest thing to understand is that I’m not talking in absolutes. Just because those highly desirable features are “better” on the K16i, doesn’t mean that the NX8 was “bad” by default.

I had a SWFA SS-HD 1-6x, NX8, and the K16i to compare to. For most of those features I mentioned above it was K16i > NX8 > SWFA in that order. For the price point, I thought the SWFA was pretty good too, but there’s no question that the other two are better.

Just as important (to me) as all those other factors is a reticle that you can pick up easily when not illuminated. If battery life was on par with an Aimpoint, then I would be less concerned about this. But until then, it is. For me, the K16i has too fine a reticle to pick up easily without illumination, and it wasn’t black, more of a reflective bronze, so it made it even more difficult to pick up. Illuminated, it was great though!

Aside from the reticle, the form factor of the NX8 just can’t be beat either. Even though weight was about the same between NX8 and K16i, the K16i just felt like a bigger scope.

Thank you for your response, I do find it very helpful.

Doesn't K16i have a auto shut-off feature to help preserve battery life? Regardless, I agree a more useful non-illuminated reticle would be a big deal for me as well. But really your last line got me as the K16i appears to be sleeker to me and I would have thought it to be the other way around. Thanks again.

[JediGuy]

The million dollar question.
I will have mine mounted up today, and I anticipate spending several hours on it. It is, quite literally, on the Fed Ex truck, and out for delivery. I don’t have any classes, or any academy to teach today.

As a side note, the NX8 is the HEAT. I sold my Razor 1-6 when I got it. It’s that good..my buddy, shooting a PA Platinum 1-8, and me, shooting my NF, were pounding steel at 850yds yesterday. Speer 75gr Gold Dots and 16” Noveske’s. The weather was BEAUTIFUL, and virtually no wind. I’m super surprised how much vertical adjustment my NX8 has. I dialed up to 13 mils, and didn’t max the scope out. To get to 850, I dialed 10.5 mils I believe. Held a mil for wind.
For these folks saying the dot is too big, it’s a “Minute of Bad Guy” scope, not a “Precision” rig. The reticle is fantastic for its intended use.

I’ll come back tomorrow with my thoughts on the ATACR 1-8.

Sir,
Any thoughts on how the Viper PST ii 1-6x fits in the mix of quality/value, if you’ve gotten time behind it?

[RHINOWSO]

Sir,
Any thoughts on how the Viper PST ii 1-6x fits in the mix of quality/value, if you’ve gotten time behind it?

Not Vegas but I have a Viper PST Gen 2 1-6x24.

I bought it when they first came out and the unit I received had to go back and was replaced for defective illumination.

I received a newer unit, which seems to be all the ones with a more matte black finish as opposed to the shiny finish on the first ones to ship.

I am very pleased with the optic, although I can't compare it to others mentioned here besides a Accupower 1-4 and Gen 2 Razor I have some limited time behind. It is very similar to the Razor Gen 2, with a great eyebox, giving you great both eyes open RDS like shooting at 1x, it doesn't really feel like you are looking through a scope. The illumination is good, daylight bright but like the Razor its a small dot and I think not as bright as the Razor but it's good - you need to max it at 10 in bright sunlight, but 7-9 are good if it's the least bit cloudy - inside 5-6 are fine.

Overall as a budget option to a Razor Gen 2 I think it's great at about 1/2 the price and -3 oz from the original (not -E model), not a piggy.

[Vegasshooter]

The PST line from Vortex is not one I have spent a ton of time on. They are in a strange place, and I feel like that line struggles for identity. The PST line is too expensive to be “entry level”, yet they always loose out on the top to the Razor line. When I was shopping and looking, the PST was only a 1-4. You had the Strike Buzzard at less money, and it was a 1-6, or had the Razor at more money, and it was a 1-6. That left the PST lost. It was better than the bottom, but not as good as the top, and it was underpowered. The new Gen II PST has fixed that, now it’s a 1-6. By the time the Gen II PST came out, I already had a Razor, and was banging along with it. So, I really haven’t spent any time with the Gen II PST. Everything I heard about them has been mentioned here. First ones had some issues (Thanks Vortex for letting us work out the bugs) but the new ones seem to be ok. Again, Vortex should be 2 companies. There is Razor, and everything else.

[JediGuy]

Thanks guys.

[IKnowNotEverything]

Just received my Burris XTR II 1-5 w/ the Mil-QC reticle. I snagged one of the older units for under $450 shipped, as the capped turrets weren't worth the extra coin for my application. I did contact Burris and ask if there were any upgrades to that model and was told that the internals have not been changed otherwise. Customer service was knowledgeable and friendly.

Circle dot reticle is clean and simple, with 1/2 mil hash marks. Illumination is BRIGHT. There is certainly some bleed but only seems to appear when set too high for the surroundings, but this is daylight bright in the Texas sun. Clarity is far superior to any of the budget Primary Arms/Vortex offerings. I prefer it to the Viper PST 1-4 on my fathers rifle, and we have had no issues with that scope at all.

I'll admit that I do not have much time on the really high end glass, but so far I am extremely please with the scope I just bought. I chose this over the PST 1-6 because from everything I have researched, Burris has prioritized toughness and mechanical accuracy, while Vortex focused on glass quality in their second gen. Something has to give in order to meet their respective price points.

Very excited to put this on my 20" bastardized rifle. Undecided on the mount, but looking very hard at the Badger unimount. I am open to other cheaper options, but don't want to sacrifice quality.