LPVO distortion at 1X

[Disciple]

Wait, so this is a 50 post thread with 2 billion words and the scope hasn’t even been mounted?

I am sorry of that offends you. This is not pocket change to me and I needed to be able to return it if it would not work for me. Don't you at least check over products you receive before making them unreturnable?

[Wake27]

I am sorry of that offends you. This is not pocket change to me and I needed to be able to return it if it would not work for me. Don't you at least check over products you receive before making them unreturnable?

Its not offensive, its ridiculous. Go shoot it.

[ChrisM516]

I am sorry of that offends you. This is not pocket change to me and I needed to be able to return it if it would not work for me. Don't you at least check over products you receive before making them unreturnable?

Odds are you can use it a couple times and recoup 90% of your costs by selling it on an exchange if you don't like it. I know it's a pain, but it works.

As far as the ACOG, one very apparent downside I've come across while LARPing in dense woods with both optics is that you literally can't see the forest for the trees with an ACOG. It's difficult to maintain situational awareness without getting sucked into the magnification in dense brush. Since this is also my hunting rifle that's a big minus to me. The LPVO lets me maintain that awareness on 1x.

The optical issues of an LPVO aren't nearly as apparent when you're out and about with it.

[Disciple]

Its not offensive, its ridiculous. Go shoot it.

Not the first time I've been ridiculous and not likely to be the last either. I'll try to next week.


Thanks Chris.

[ST911]

Some things about glass are obvious in the store or when they escort you outside to try it in the parking lot. But truly teasing out all the nuances doesn't come until you can vary the terrain, lighting, shadows, positions, reticle contrast on target/environment, and stuff like that.

There are trends in brands and series in that way, and it helps if you can stay within a system or category. There are also trends in price point.

The differences matter, just not in all the same ways to all the same people.

[grizzman]

If the goal is to not allow ring marks to be be applied to the optic, it shouldn't be difficult to install it into a mount well enough to allow for as much dry firing as desired.

A sheet of copy paper cut into pieces sized to cover the scope tubes under the lightly tightened rings will completely isolate the rings from the tube.

[1168]

FWIW that's why I HATE FFP LPVOs. I that shrinking reticle at low power is not useful, for me at least.

I despise FFP optics. I like the reticle to be heavy at 1x. With that said, some of the newer ones have done a good job at mitigating that via reticle design. One other thing that has steered me to that opinion is cost. A good FFP simply costs more. You get nicer glass for the money, in my experience with SFP. And I don’t really see the benefit in a LPVO, or a moderate power hunting scope.

Disciple, this is an interesting problem. It has reminded me to go to the safe and re-mark the diopter adjustments on my 4 LPVOs. Because I hate adjusting them. Its very tedious with the “you can only look at it for a split second, then adjust” rule.

I pulled out a VCOG 1-6, a P4Xi, a T5Xi, and a PLx 1-8. I looked at white-ish wall, poked around the house, and cranked up mag and examined my neighborhood chimneys. It occurred to me that I don’t normally pay much attention to the edges. I do experience eye fatigue when using a PVS-14, though.

These optics did not have any distortion at the edges that I was able to detect, and all were working as expected on 1x and top mag when I snapped them up. I remember my T5Xi having noticeable fisheye, and what seemed like negative mag on 1x when I first got it, prompting me to use it on 1.5x, but it may be that I had it at the wrong eye distance or diopter setting, because that’s gone on the bolt gun it currently lives on.

As I paid attention to the edges, I noticed that with the PLx on 1x I could see my LAM clearly enough to make out the lettering on it, and with my VCOG, I can see a crisp front sight, despite the 2.05” mounting hight. I bet I can get hits with the sight post, and I’m going to try it tomorrow. Its very crisp.

On LPVO vs Dot/mag, the dot/mag combo is awesome for a gun focused on 2-200m. It weighs less than a LPVO, and you can pull the magnifier off when not needed, or to glass something, even using your NVGs. LPVOs are for a gun thats focused on 100-600m, but can also do the up close stuff if necessary.

I’ve messed with offset pistol dots, and I think they are optimal for competition, but I don’t personally prefer them on a work gun. They do work in that capacity, and many guys like them, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I absolutely hated the original Short Dot, because I felt like I was looking through a tube.

I think that perhaps:

1) something is out of place in your scope, and you should talk to the mfgr. I also think its reasonable to shoot it, and see what happens, but see #3.

2) I’m insensitive to this problem, or more target-focused

3) I’m lucky and/or spoiled

[1168]

Some things about glass are obvious in the store or when they escort you outside to try it in the parking lot. But truly teasing out all the nuances doesn't come until you can vary the terrain, lighting, shadows, positions, reticle contrast on target/environment, and stuff like that.

There are trends in brands and series in that way, and it helps if you can stay within a system or category. There are also trends in price point.

The differences matter, just not in all the same ways to all the same people.

Or the opposite, where they look great in the store, but shite when you take them afield.