M14 Forum banner
41 - 60 of 124 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 · (Edited)
Hi all,

Thanks again for all the insights and recommendations. I appreciate it. I've been thinking about my use case and doing some research. I do see this rifle best-suited for a DMR role. Based on my needs and wants, here's my initial list of scopes I'm considering. Each one has it's pros and cons. I'd really like a scope that is mid-power range, has a bold usable reticle at it's lowest power, and has rather simple with basic hash marks for ranging and holds. I do not need any sort of Christmas tree reticle, nor do I need it to be illuminated for darker environments. If I can get the very center dot illuminated that would be great, but a bold reticle for closer shots will do fine I think. I'd like to get the low power down to 2x or 3x if possible.
  • SWFA SS 3-15x42mm Mil-Quad
  • Vortex PST Gen 2 3-15x44mm FFP MRAD
  • Vortex Razor HD LHT 3-15x42mm MRAD
  • Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm (if I could fine one)
  • Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50mm TMR
  • Leupold Mark 3HD 4-12x40mm TMR
  • Leupold Mark 3HD 3-9x40mm Firedot TMR
  • Leupold VX-5HD 3-15x44mm CDS-ZL2 HTMR
  • Leupold VX-5HD 2-10X42 CDS-ZL2 Firedot Duplex
  • Nightforce SHV 3-10x40mm MOAR
  • Nightforce SHV 4-14x50mm F1 Mil-R
  • Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm Mil-R
The easy button seems to be the SWFA SS 3-15x42mm Mil-Quad based on lots of recommendations. The one thing I noticed about the SQFA is the fact the power rings moves in the opposite direction as other scopes. That may take some getting used to. But I really like the reticle on it. The Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm is the traditional/sentimental choice but I'm not sure if/how I could find one and I'm not sure what the price might be for one in good shape. All the others are very viable too.

I am quite surprised that there are no Trijicon scopes on my list, but their reticles just left a lot to be desired in my opinion. They are just not bold enough for my tastes. If they were, I would have seriously considered the Credo 2-10x36mm or Credo 3-9x40mm.

The Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm Mil-R would be a great choice, but it's just too far outside my price range (under $1K). I realize some on my list are over $1K but those I'd try to find used someplace.

Anyway, that's where I am. Thanks again for all your insights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
I do not consider the first focal plane PST Gen 2 3-15 with MOA EBR-2D reticle to be anything resembling bold. The outmost sections are bold and easily seen, but the inner area that's actually used is quite thin. It's possible that their FFP MRAD reticle is more bold, so checking one in person is highly recommended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,053 Posts
I look forward to seeing what you settle on.

We can learn to use most anything in the ball park pretty well, though having the luxury of choice... it can be a burden in itself.

I can relate pretty hard. Many have done well (and I do not begrudge them) picking up very nice glass I've tried but decided to pass on for the difference of purchase/resale, what I think of as a 'rental fee'. You like what you like, and somethings work better for some people, and it's kind of fun figuring out exactly what that is for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
Yep, at some point you just need to get one and shoot it and learn it. If it works for you, great. If not, then move on. But you don't really know until you try. I went through a few different red dots and scopes on my AR before settling on the PST 1-6x.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Unless it’s a non-standard reticle, any FFP that’s bold at minimum magnification is probably going to be unreasonably bold at max magnification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,053 Posts
Unless it’s a non-standard reticle, any FFP that’s bold at minimum magnification is probably going to be unreasonably bold at max magnification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right you are, though there are some pretty cool non-standard reticles that have enough elements that stand out and guide the eye to center, and as you zoom in get out of the way when magnified. SWFA's donut on their 1-6 hd, or the nightforce NX8 1-8 being good examples for what they are, even if not fitting the OP's end use criteria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
My only thing with that being SFP is you have varying holdovers as you zoom. On an lpvo with a generic BZO plus having holds to work with its not a deal breaker, but on a precision minded optic it is a bigger consideration. Also not a huge deal entirely but with a 42mm objective topping out at 15x your exit pupil gets super small at 2.8mm. That eyebox is gonna be tight unless you're on a solidly supported shooting position. It's a non issue for some and a factor for others, depends on what your plans are.

I'm in the middle of my own "DMR" tinkering so im interested to see what you general goals are.

Edit: check out CDOES YouTube channel. He does awesome optics reviews
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
Yes, I have watched a great many videos on the CDOES YouTube channel. He really does an excellent job. So helpful.

When I think of a DMR optic, I think lightweight, with a low end between 2x and 3x and a high end between 10x and 12x, an optic that is easy to get behind and has good field of view and depth of field, and a basic MIL reticle that is usable and bold at the low end. All the other features and optional.

Just trying to find the right one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts


anymore it seems like 1k or less is no mans land for optics. 1500 opens up a plethora of options but a chunk of cash no matter how you slice it. I'm trying to think of other options I've seen. I haven't sat behind much glass so im limited in personal experience but I've likely looked at most options you've mentioned about 35x in my nerd conquest of things I can't afford
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Yes, I have watched a great many videos on the CDOES YouTube channel. He really does an excellent job. So helpful.

When I think of a DMR optic, I think lightweight, with a low end between 2x and 3x and a high end between 10x and 12x, an optic that is easy to get behind and has good field of view and depth of field, and a basic MIL reticle that is usable and bold at the low end. All the other features and optional.

Just trying to find the right one.
If you like to keep it simple, that would be the SWFA SS 10Xx42 or 12X42 with MIL turrets and reticle.

Durable, basic, inexpensive, and plenty of magnification out to 600yds and up.

No additional features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 · (Edited)
Ya know… I really like everything about the Trijicon Credo 2.5-10x except it’s FFP. Yet the Credo 2.5-15x is SFP. I feel like they got these backwards. The 15x scope should be FFP and the 10x should be SFP. I think up to 10x that SFP works best. You lose the FFP reticle at 2.5x. The only really bad thing about the 2.5x-10 is that C_DOES on YT shows that the image quality above 8x really goes bad. That’s not good.
I’m also considering the Bushnell LRHS-2 4.5-18x that’s exclusively from GA Precision. Mainly because I love the FFP G2G reticle. Very usable at low power. But the lower power is a bit higher than I’d really like. But the reviews are great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 ·
And really the only thing I don’t really care for in the SWFA 3-15x is how tall the turrets are. I’d prefer a more low profile design since I don’t plan to be dialing very much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,053 Posts
The only really bad thing about the 2.5x-10 is that C_DOES on YT shows that the image quality above 8x really goes bad. That’s not good.
Not if you're going to use it at maximum magnification, that does suck. I would rather have had it stop at 8x. You can always just set it to 8x, but there is some value being able to just push the zoom ring/lever to the end position.

I haven't seen the video, but on the side topic of using C_DOES videos.

Something I really like about C_DOES videos is that you get to look through the scope, at least as well as a camera can, and see the reticle in context. I have found this very useful.

However, one thing I haven't seen any of his videos mention is that a camera doesn't work the way your eye does, in that your eye is detail-oriented in the center, and detection-oriented out of center, so that if it's looking at detail of any kind of angular spread, the visual system basically scans (and constructs the image based on that detail as well as general info it 'knows' about the object). While the eye is scanning, it will constantly re-focus which brings up several points, clumped together into a few relevant groups that are all intertwined...

First, your eye is part of the scope system. Objectively, whatever the scope does to the light it does, but what you see is the culmination of what your eye does with that, and your eye's ability to focus, and your brain's reconstruction that presents at what you see, is not mine, and it is not like a camera's.

Secondly, a camera focuses an image onto a flat sensor (or piece of film back in the days) with a single focus adjustment of the lens assembly. So, if through the scope the focal plan becomes non-flat, it becomes impossible for the camera to get an image where the whole picture through the scope is in focus. If he manually adjusted the focus of the camera, he might find that as he made adjustments, different parts of the image would come in and out of focus, and it wasn't simply that the center was clear but it got blurry as you went out, but that the camera could be focused to make the 'middle donut area' pretty clear, but then it lost focus in the center.

Eyeballs/visual systems can to some degree work around that, if the issue is in fact that the focal plane of the object is curved. There may be some fighting focusing on the reticle versus the object, though you can overcome that (or many can) simply by concentrating on what you want to be seeing.

That the eye's retina is round is not really the point, but rather that in the scanning action of the eye allows it to deal with different focal requirements, and so it can adjust to a curved focal plane where a camera cannot. So, in short, the camera may show lack of clarity issues that your eyes do not.

Third, depending on the quality of your vision, the scopes ability to adjust the focal requirements of your eye may provide image benefits to your eye that do not benefit a camera at all. For instance, I am near-sighted, have astigmatism, and setting the ocular focus adjustment, collecting light with lens a whole lot bigger than my widest pupil opening, whether it be from a 24mm or 50mm objective, and focusing it into a smaller area increasing that light intensity, and forcing my pupils shut, effectively 'stopping down' my eyeball-camera, making a smaller 'peep', makes my vision through that scope FAR better than without one, even though from the perspective of image distortion, apart from the magnification, anything any scope does is a matter of degradation. If you analyzed the image behind any scope with a really good camera, it would all be inferior to the image quality of just the camera. However, with most people, with any decent scope, they can see better with the scope than without, at least in most use contexts.

Just things to keep in mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
Great post, MuppetMeat4Me. Thanks. I have a very high astigmatism and wear corrective glasses at all times. My Rx is sensitive to my eye in relation to the lens of my glasses. It needs to be as centered as possible. Otherwise things get skewed and lots of chromatic aberration. But I’m used to that. I feel like my eye is very detail oriented, just like my personality. Distortions around the edges of scope lenses tends to bother me. That could be related to how high my Rx is. So in order for an image thru a scope to look good to me, the scope itself, my eye, and my Rx all play a part.
 
41 - 60 of 124 Posts
Top