As additional thoughts to your current requirements, you may want to add types of targets (ie sizes), frequency of appearance of those targets and how much weight to give to outliers.

For sizing, your top end magnification may only be 4X if your further target is a 66% IPSC at 300 yards. I know there's an old adage that for every 100 yards, you'll want 1X but from my experience, I like having 1.5X for every 100 yards.

For outliers, I had been running a 1-6 for several years but I started to run into matches with targets in the 500-600y range. When I tested a 1-8 vs my 1-6, my first round hit percentage went from 60% to 80% and those types of targets started appearing with enough regularity that this was decisive enough for me to move to 1-8.  In your type of shooting, if you never or rarely see those types, then it would a lower factor in your calculus.

This is true. I would add, this is arfcom so “get both” applies. I have an HD rifle that never really leaves the house. It has a red dot because that is simple, fast, and has shake awake. I have other guns set up for other needs including LPVO and higher magnification. For one gun to do it all, LPVO all the way.

Yes, same here.

When I shoot a night match for passive NODs division or go to an NV course, I take my EOTech gun.  Although when I took 1 Minute Out's course, I also had my LPVO with laser.

If I take a day course where virtually all your shooting is within a 50 yard bay, I take my EOTech gun.

For everything else, I take my LPVO gun.

I'll definitely do this.  Same as a dead RDS drill.  

The 2.5x option will be interesting too.

More good feedback.

I currently shoot 0 to 385 yards with most of my range time being at 0 to 200.  Target size beyond 200 are stationary steel gongs that range from 2" to 30".  I have yet to hit the 2" at 385 since I mostly shoot Wolf steel case, haha.  

The old adage of add 1x for every 100 yards worked for me when I was younger, but as my eyesight ages more magnification is better.  At 385, firing from a bench (forend sitting on a rest), I'm pretty consistent on a 12" steel plate with a 4x ACOG.  Drop down to the 8" plate and my hit rate is less than 50%.  Using a 3.5x ACOG at 385 does make a difference as my hit rates are lower. Same day, same ammo, different optics yield different results.

Oddly, I've been cranking my LPVO up to 6x and am not getting much better results.  I think this might be a reticle familiarization issue though.

I need to spend more time beyond 100 yards with my LPVOs.  I think that is when I'll start to realize the advantage.  This, of course, will be after I get more comfortable with their reticles.

Reticle selection seems, perhaps, more important than a fixed prism vs LPVO.  I have the same model of ACOG with various reticles and the results vary greatly depending on the type of shooting I'm doing that day.  The horseshoe dot models are very functional for fast shooting on the move at man sized targets, but not great at precision.  The crosshair is great for precision, but not great for quick acquisition or on the move.  The chevron and triangle split the middle and aren't great anything before or after 100 yards.  I'm come to appreciate less reticle clutter and a simple illuminated center dot for LPVOs. The NF I have is very nice, but also very busy.  I do like fine line reticles for precision work (duh).

Motion passed.

I have LMT Monos set up thusly ....

LMT MLC (9" MLOK) with 14.5" P/W & Aimpoint T-1 in a Unity Tactical FAST mount (HD / Passive NODs) ... I had a DBAL-D2 mounted for active, but removed it.
LMT MLC (9" MLOK) with 16" & ACOG TA11 with RMR Piggyback in LaRue mount (general purpose)
LMT MARS MRP (13" M1913) with 16" & Vortex Razor Gen 2 HD 1-6x in LaRue SPR mount (recce)

All have KAC BUIS.
All have SureFire Scout lights.
All have the same 2pt sling.
All have the same SOPMOD stock.
All have the same MBT-2S trigger (these are getting replaced with SSA-E).

Those three guns cover everything I want or need to do with a 5.56 carbine.  I have others, but these are my "go to" guns.

If you have the dmx most people zero it wrong. Feel free to shoot me a pm or ask here if you need help with the reticle.

I appreciate the offer. I have the FC-MOA.

No issue-my nx8 was the fc-mil. Those reticles are a little more traditional.

I forgot .... I actually have ....

5.56x45mm

LMT MLC (9" MLOK) with 14.5" P/W & Aimpoint T-1 in a Unity Tactical FAST mount (HD / Passive NODs) ... I had a DBAL-D2 mounted for active, but removed it.
LMT MLC (9" MLOK) with 16" & ACOG TA11 with RMR Piggyback in LaRue mount (light general purpose)
LMT MARS-L MRP (13" M1913) with 16" & Vortex Razor Gen 2 HD 1-6x in LaRue SPR mount (recce)

7.62x51mm

LMT MARS-H MLK (MLOK) with 16" & ACOG TA11 with RMR Piggyback in LaRue mount (heavy general purpose)

All have KAC BUIS.
All have SureFire Scout lights.
All have the same 2pt sling.
All have the same SOPMOD stock.
All have the same MBT-2S trigger (these are getting replaced with SSA-E).

**I need to replace the 13" M1913 with a 13" MLOK so I am totally consistent.  I am also interested in standardizing my optic height. Currently I have 1.5" LPVO, 1.53" ACOG with RMR on top, 2.26" RDS.  I'm waiting on delivery of a 1.93" ADM High Recon to test with a LPVO.  If I like the height I'll probably add a KRAM riser to the ACOG / move the MRDS to an offset in front of the ACOG and change the 2.26" FAST RDS mounts out for 1.93" RDS mounts.**

I really like the FC-MOA.  For a "cluttered" reticle it works really well.  I've only had a couple of FFP optics so the F1 coupled with the FC-MOA took a little time to adapt to, but the consistent thru-power-ranging is nice.

Most definitely. The moa version is much busier than the mrad version. Not sure why they didn't stick to different subtensions to simplify it lol

I didn't know the sub-ts were different in the FC-MIL.  I just googled it, and MUCH prefer the simplified MRAD version.  The unnecessary clutter in the MOA is my only real compliant about the reticle.

Oof

If you trade up I'd consider getting the dmx over both of those.

LPVOs are so bad for warfare they’re now being issued en-mass.

“ACOG magnification is too high for 3-Gun use.”

“At 3-Gun matches I see guys constantly screwing with their magnification.”

Which one is it? You’re not making any sense.

Haha.  WAY too much Christmas tree in that DMX!

In a bay stage my times with a high quality 1X LPVO are virtually indistinguishable from those of a RDS.

This biggest tangible difference is weight.

It only looks like that but it's actually not. That center circle will do the majority of the work for gas guns if you understand it.

Having designed a lot of stages, I have no idea what this means.

Read the entire post?

I did.

Quite frankly, it reads like someone who has a general idea of what 3-Gun is but doesn’t actually do it.

Everyone is different, and I think you just have to try everything and arrive at your own conclusion--and be OK with it.

For my uses (LE patrol rifle, 3-gun, 2-gun, Run and Gun) I've gone through my share of optics--an old Weaver 1.5-something, Burris MTAC 1-4, Razor 1-6 (x3), Nightforce ATACR 1-8, PA 2-10, Trijicon Accupoint 3-9, and most recently a PA PLXC 1-8.  After hearing so many people here rave about the ACOG and the RDS/Magnifier combo being superior to an LPVO, I figured I'd give it a try.  Hated them (ACOG and RDS/Mag combo).  I thought they were so awful that I figured there was some joke I was missing out on.  I found the LPVOs so much better at everything than an ACOG or RDS/Mag combo that it wasn't even close.  That's when I came to the realization that optics were such a personal thing that you just have to try them out and see what you like--and be OK with it not lining up with what ARF.com thinks is best.

I served in combat in afghan and iraq 2001 thru 2005 in both places. Started with eotech initally, ranging enemy was an educated guess without rangefinders and we would have to walk rounds in on the hillsides if they were distant, within villages/cities they worked very well. Then the acog with bdc made life much easier with ranging and ulitmately killing bad guys in all environments other than cqb where the eotech reined (aimpont was good too). With that being said if a rifle is built for combat/urban combat i would go that route, if its an all around rifle a good ffp lpvo is likely the answer. I have lpvo on my range/comp/hunting AR's and the acog for my shtf AR's. Thats based on my experience and training and what i feel compitent with though. Its really hard to build something that is good for every situation so i have built several for several situations 😀

Um... sure.  So like all internet gun-forum threads, we all put way to much of our identity into the topic and get defensive.  Which is fine.  

As to 3-gun, to me I run that for fun and familiarization with my gear.  I'm less focused on trying to make top 10 or the game aspect (which is the same thing).  The part that aparently I failed ot communicate well. is 4X fixed is too high for CQB.  But 2.5X is more usable.  For distance shooting, I find 2.5X about as low as I want to go, and it does pretty decent out to 500 yards even.

The commentary that seems to be confusing people on the LPVO being better for gamers but maybe not for everyone's general purpose, is that it's one thing to know ahead of time the course of fire and adjust yoru scope setting to accomidate, as well as pre-stage your mind on adjust it here while afoot, and there while rolling over to reload.  Vs an actual no-planning usage.   Just because the top shooters in a game-setting are using certain gear, doesn't automatically validate it as the best choice gear for a general purpose less practiced user.  Top High Power shooters use great shooting coats.  I certainly wouldn't suggest everyone go get a 15# shooting coat for field shooting.'


LPVO's are great general purpose scopes that let you do all.  They do that at a financial and wieght cost.  And to those not well practiced in a dynamic situation, that adjustaility may prove a detriment rather than a feature.  That trade-off doesn't show up with a 3-gunner who has mastered its usage and who prestages it.
It doesn't show up at a casual shooters range session, where time doesn't matter and who nominally is shooting a static fixed distance.  IMHO, it can show up in a more dynamic grab and go run and especially if not so practiced with it.

Last time I was at the range a guy had a neat AR with some neat features and some components I wanted to test out.  Including a LPVO and an offset RDS.  The 16" AR weighed as much as my car, but had lots of cool shit on it.  He ran a mag through mine, and you could see the gears turning on that mine weighed half what his did, yet same 16" ballistics, same recoil response time back on target, and faster swing up and swing over on target, and the simple fixed power 2.5X scope worked just fine at the snap engagements and for accuracy.  He likes his gun, and for the things he uses it for seems happy, so cool - he's not a dumass or anything like that; it's just a configration and trade-off that doesn't work for me.

If you love LPVO, love LPVO.  Most people do.  It's a great general purpose choice.  For my own usage, I'm with OP's original premis, that for how I like to run a gun and the features of weight and simplicity purposes, yet still good usability, and the gun is the set the same every time, all the time, I prefer a low power fixed.  I also like things for my own personal reasons that aren't as popular by the 3-gunners as much, such as DA/SA pistols, Grendel, and Bullpups.  It's cool if your own preferences differ - that's the basis behind mine.

Don't buy a LPVO then. I still haven't found one I feel like I can trust as far as durability goes. Hoping the NX8 will be it.

I love ACOGs but I got tired of dealing with a BDC reticle. More magnification is nice when you're looking for targets that aren't white or are hidden.

This comment wins.

Nobody’s getting defensive, it’s just that the post seems untethered from reality. There are a lot of good things to be said about fixed power prism optics like the ACOG so there’s no real need to spin off into an immaterial argument. ACOGs are great and I still use them.

I also use LPVOs because they’re a better option for some uses.

I have a half dozen LPVO's and 6 Aimpoints. Each tool has its job. Would be very interested to try  the PA 5x.

IIRC that's pretty much the bread and butter infantry squad fire and maneuver, close with and kill the enemy distances. I believe these studies showed that the vast majority of historical small arms kills happen inside 100 meters.

I'm sure someone here knows the data and research that the Army and Marines put into the Aimpoint and ACOGs, better than I do. IIRC it was pretty thorough and logical. They are very effective combat sights for what they are meant to do. The RDS was good for most people to 300m and really good in an infantry fight inside 100m.The ACOG was good to 500m and really good from 100-300.  

Of course there has also recently been more military adoption of scopes, for all the reasons why a good scope can be a preferred optic.

Do you really not know when more magnification is beneficial and what the tradeoffs are? Page 2 post 1 does a good job explaining how beneficial magnification can be for shooting smaller targets at a variety of distances.

The local matches I've seen here basically do 2 things over and over:
1. Basically a USPSA pistol course of fire with silhouette targets from 3-15 yards.
2. 3-5 MOA fixed steel targets (4" to 12" plates) from 200-400+ yards (Known distance)

LVPO by design are good at those two things. It's not the optimal use of an ACOG. I've owned certain stages, that are not as described above, with an ACOG. Then at the next stage, setup as #2 above, got dead last. The thing about the LVPO is that it does everything pretty well, and nothing poorly. IMO, the ACOG only does 50-300 well, with a pretty large target.

I don't have a ton of experience with gun games in other places. It may just be that's what our ranges or equipment are designed to do. Perhaps it's a limitation of the imagination of the local stage designers. YMMV. Based on what I know from my military experience, these games are extremely poor reflections of the common marksmanship challenges expected on a battlefield. Small arms infantry fights are all about both fire and maneuver. Shooting static targets, at known locations and fixed distances, is severely limited in it's value.

You mentioned you have the Gen 2 Razor 1-6 which is a second focal plane correct?
Have you tried one thats a first focal plane like the gen 3 1-10?
I must preface this by saying I do not run matches, but as far as retical selection goes, it sounds like what it offers is what you are looking for. At low power for quick aquisition its a uncluttered red dot with bracket, but at high power it opens up a fine mil dot patterned reticle for wind and drop. Here's an example of the difference in the reticle between 1x and 10x (I understand this may be more optic than what you are looking for)

The problem is when people confuse a game for real life.

In a game, you know the targets in advance.  In a game, they are stationary.  In a game you can shoot the targets in any order you want.  

In a game an LPVO is good.  

In real life you might have go to 1x instantly from magnification.  In real life, you don’t know where your next threat will be.  In real life things aren’t static.  

You need magnification and instant 1x.  An LPVO alone won’t give you that.

False. I've had my ass handed to me in a shoot house by some dude rocking a ta31. This whole idea that gear replaces skillset is an abomination and needs to stop.

With a daylight bright red dot in the middle of your 2nd focal plane LPVO, close range targets can be engaged with BAC when at high magnification with all the benefits and drawbacks of an ACOG with BAC... but higher magnification than 3x to 4x makes the BAC easier to use on an LPVO than an ACOG because as you swing to a close target, you get the extra speed of the motion blur in your dominant eye/optic FOV.

When shooting an unexpected close target, you don't have to swing to the unexpected target AND lift your head to a high mounted red dot to aquire the dot and target... you can just swing and fire while your head stays locked into its original position. This is easier FOR ME to get a quick SINGLE shot off, but I get the expected BAC POI shift and any follow up shots AFTER the first close shot are not as easy and fast as a mini red dot... but the FIRST one is faster with BAC, which I think is most important. YMMV.

As far as fiddling with magnification, I train to run 100% of the time at 1x and only zoom when my target is far enough I need magnification. I train to go back to 1x after shooting a distant target before (or as) I move every time... just like I train to go back on safe after shooting and preparing to move. However, because I have to hold the rifle with my shooting hand to go back to 1x, I do not train to immediaty close my port door after going on safe anymore. I go to safe and sweep to 1x first instead.

I mentioned this earlier but understanding the reticle is a huge obstacle for the uninitiated when it comes to lpvo's. A lot of people like the razor because the reticle is the easiest to digest. Frankly, once you get away from that style a lot of reticles are garbage for gas gun use and adds to the frustration of the optical limitations for lpvo's.

I had a conversation earlier with somebody on this topic. How many people realize the fc-dmx is supposed to be zeroed like this?

Attached File

Someone should tell the Marine Corps so they can stop issuing VCOGs. If only they had listened to ARFCOM.

That.

*this comment is in place of a like button*

There is a good reason that every technical thread you start gets locked, and everyone you post in results in you simply repeating yourself with virtually everyone else wondering if you're old enough to attend highschool, let alone actually shoot firearms.  You propose a ridiculous argument, it gets shot to shit, and then you double and triple down making it blatantly obvious to anyone reading that you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.  

Everything you have stated as a downside to an LPVO is a common sense issue that can be solved with....common sense, and maybe a little bit of training if you're lacking in the common sense area.  

Use your gear, and keep the power range in an area that you can address unexpected close up threats.  It doesn't have to be at 1x to accomplish this, but it surely shouldn't be at 8x.  So, use 8x sparingly, and when you have time, cover, concealment, or friends next to you covering that for you.  I rarely dial mine past 3-4x, and guess what, it still is useful on close targets in that magnification range too.

It may not be that way for *you*, but thats a you problem,  not an equipment problem.  Nobody here has any concern what is on your rifle.  You can like whatever you want.  Its the false bullshit that you constantly spread as gospel in the tech forums that I genuinely hope isn't read by a casual browser trying to make an *educated* decision.

There is at least one person who has posted in this thread who I'd wager has used an LPVO in anger.  There are a few more that have definitely come close.  They all disagree with you.

I'd suggest you take that as a clue, even though we all know you won't.

Because mils change depending on caliber Or because you both didn't realize "close shots" while at higher mag may require a 1 mil underhold

Would it be beneficial to create a thread simply to understanding reticles? Only posts allowed are factual, technical based posts on how employ the reticle as designed? There's a lot more reticles out there than the simplistic jdm-1

I'm not sure what you're asking here sorry. Its about keeping the engagement distances that are less affected by atmospherics in the circle of death so you can use lesser magnification to take advantage of the better optical properties. Fast macro hits that gas guns excel at.

Can you expand on the reasoning behind this for us slow folks?
Thanks

I was politely implying you both were smoking crack

Oh got it. This is a technical thread. I'm sorry you didn't know how nightforce designed this reticle. Or that the fc-dmx is based in the tremor 8. Hopefully you can learn something in here to help you out from us crack heads.

It's all about using the parabolic arc in an advantageous way for macro style hits. Think hits on target not hits in a specific spot on target. You are putting enough arc in the bullet that distance less affected by wind and other outside variables stay in the donut of death. This allows you to dial back to 4ish and take advantage of the better eyebox and optical properties while keeping the threat more centered in the optic for better situational awareness. Think of it as effectively having two reticles married into it. The speed ring and the grid for when the caliber reaches distances that atmospherics have a greater affect.

So an optic which utilizes a mil grid pattern which had labeled sub-tensions is to be negated?  I am to believe that I must zero using a mark 1 mill higher so that in the fly I would have to remember to add another mil mentally to my holdovers?  

You may have made sense if you said like in the tremor reticle the dot above is to be zero'd at 25-50 so that the center dot could be used as a hundred yard zero or better yet you could have said the center dot is the zero point (as it is in most scopes) and the dots above are used for under-holds for anything that may be in closer than the 50 or 100 yard zero people have.  

Instead you just claimed something that isnt even in the nightforce literature.

Probably a good idea.