EOTECH Vudu 1-10x28 Fails!

[mtnscar]

I'd say this reviewer's thoughts and experiences closely aligned with mine although I'd say the illumination is essentially worthless as opposed to barely adequate or whatever words he uses.

Eye box is tight higher up as it is on the Razor. It is probably fine at 7x or 8x and may be unforgiving above that. I've found this also depends somewhat on the stock. I recently switched to a BCM Mod 1 stock thinking the wider comb would make cheek weld more consistent. I think it has actually made it a little worse. The wider stock seems to push my head off to the left a tiny bit.

Good to know! Thanks for the response

[Pappabear]

I think the F1 scopes make no sense on LPVO scopes. Reticle disappears at 1X but works fine at 6-8-10X.

PB

[HKGuns]

Are there any LVPO’s with 8 or 10 on the high end that have a good eye box at full magnification?

Obviously I haven’t used every option out there, but it seems 6x is about as far as you can push the high end without creating an intolerable eye box.

[drtywk]

Are there any LVPO’s with 8 or 10 on the high end that have a good eye box at full magnification?

Obviously I haven’t used every option out there, but it seems 6x is about as far as you can push the high end without creating an intolerable eye box.

The Leupold MK8 and the NF ATACR really are the only two 1-8x/1-10x LPVO's that have good eye boxes at the higher magnifications. I have not shot the new platinum series 1-8x from PA, but the reviews have been good, just like they were on the previous generation.

[turnburglar]

Are there any LVPO’s with 8 or 10 on the high end that have a good eye box at full magnification?

Almost all 8x LPvo have a exit pupil (eye box'ish) of 3mm. The 10x should be something like 2.6mm. There is no way around the physics of optics. To have a true 1x you need a 24mm front lens and that doesn't play well with eye box. Thats why most 34mm looked warped at 1x. Physics. Trade offs. All the time. No way around it.

Go ahead and read the paragraph I wrote earlier about 'the people' that are abandoning LPVO's and why.

[grizzman]

delete

[Tokarev]

I think the F1 scopes make no sense on LPVO scopes. Reticle disappears at 1X but works fine at 6-8-10X.

PB

Correct more often then not.

Maybe what we need is some thought and innovation in the SFP reticle. Often these reticles are nothing more than crosshairs with a bright center dot and maybe some hash marks for elevation holdovers.

Steiner is kind of trying to make something new with the P4xi G1 reticle. But they changed from a fiber optic dot to an etched illuminating triangle that isn't as bright.

Anyway, how hard would it be to create some sort of hybrid reticle that is SFP but contains some ranging, wind and trajectory info? Maybe a simple distance estimation scale in one corner that's sized to work at a middle magnification setting and a scale in the other corner that's sized to work at max magnification. Something kind of like what Leupold did a few years ago for the 300 Blackout sub / super reticle.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[One More Time]

There are hybrid reticles out there.
S&B and March has them.
https://marchscopes.com/scopes/d10sv24fiml/
Almost went with the 1-10x24 March but it's more than I had to spend so went with a NF 2.5-10x42.

[Tokarev]

There are hybrid reticles out there.
S&B and March has them.
https://marchscopes.com/scopes/d10sv24fiml/
Almost went with the 1-10x24 March but it's more than I had to spend so went with a NF 2.5-10x42.

Am aware of the S&B offering. It and the March become mostly academic discussions based on price. The Gen III razor is also mostly status symbol.

I should have clarified that the multiple ranging SFP reticle would be for something like the Vudu or even Viper PST. A more pedestrian optic for the masses.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[turnburglar]

Based on a lot of the replies in this thread, it is obvious to me that some of you could use a really fast a dirty way to look at a spec sheet and even compare optics to each other.

The quality we are trying to empirically judge is the 'eye box' (its actually shaped like a double ended cone, but whatever). This is referring to the useable amount of space that the eyeball has a useful sight picture. On variable power optics the eye box will shrink as magnification increases. Most manufactures list the specs of their scopes, but you will notice nothing is actually listed on their website as an "eye box". The most useful specification that correlates to an 'eye box' is actually called the exit pupil. In our circumstances the larger the exit pupil, the larger the eye box feels. Other useful specifications that tell us a lot about an optic is the Field of view, and lastly eye relief. FOV is important as it controls how wide the optic can actually cover. Optics with a smaller FOV feel like looking through a paper towel roll, where as optics with a large FOV feel like you cant see the edges of the bezel.

Let's compare two well known optics empirically and see if the numbers back up the user experience.

Vortex Razor Gen 2: 1 - 6

Exit pupil: 24mm - 4mm

FOV: 115 - 20.5



Night Force Nx8: 1-8

Exit pupil: 7.9mm - 3mm

FOV: 106 - 13

As you can see at the 1x the Razor almost has triple the exit pupil of the Nx8. The Razor also has a wider field of view. This is synonymous with user experiences of:

"Razor 2 has a huge eye box!"

"Nx8 has a tiny eye box and is like looking through a tube"



Using the manufactures given numbers for Exit pupil and FOV you can even compare Lpvo's to other scopes. If one wanted too they could compare any number of optics on a spread sheet and have a very good idea of how the eye box will feel between two different models. You will QUICKLY see why serious shooters are scaling away from LPVO's when you start comparing optics in this way. The main benefit to this approach is that you dont actually have to spend the money or borrow an optic to find out you dont like the eye box. Too many of you think spending more money will somehow bend physics.