User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:07:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Go to a 3-Gun match and watch guys work a bay stage with a LPVO. That’s literally the entire point of the optic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: All that proves is that you are absolutely terrible with the holographic, or a ninja with the LVPO, or some combination of the two. Go to a 3-Gun match and watch guys work a bay stage with a LPVO. That’s literally the entire point of the optic. The matches I've been to, the LPVO is ok at the short stages. Dudes with an RDS smoke them. Then things flip at the 200+ yard stages. The real difference is during force on force with moving targets and so forth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:07:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FOV and simplicity of RDS and ACOG are what make them so superior to LPVO for shorter range infantry combat fire and maneuver things. If you are trying to do DM things at intermediate and longer ranges, or hunting, an LPVO gets you closer to that. I understand the concept. I’m just not convinced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:09:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I understand the concept. I’m just not convinced. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The FOV and simplicity of RDS and ACOG are what make them so superior to LPVO for shorter range infantry combat fire and maneuver things. If you are trying to do DM things at intermediate and longer ranges, or hunting, an LPVO gets you closer to that. I understand the concept. I’m just not convinced. Don't be. There's a reason the military dumped the acog/rds thing. It's a great setup but there's far better for that application now |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:23:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And a fucking iotv lolol IBA for me. Same bulky bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:25:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IBA for me. Same bulky bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And a fucking iotv lolol IBA for me. Same bulky bullshit. Oh man! Glad things have changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:27:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't be. There's a reason the military dumped the acog/rds thing. It's a great setup but there's far better for that application now Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The FOV and simplicity of RDS and ACOG are what make them so superior to LPVO for shorter range infantry combat fire and maneuver things. If you are trying to do DM things at intermediate and longer ranges, or hunting, an LPVO gets you closer to that. I understand the concept. I’m just not convinced. Don't be. There's a reason the military dumped the acog/rds thing. It's a great setup but there's far better for that application now More bullshit from this guy. So there's no more RDS or ACOGs on M-4s anywhere in the military? I saw such a setup last week. They are issuing more optic options, for the same reason they are starting to issue full size caliber rifles; because they want to shoot shit further away. Everything I've seen suggests they are keeping the RDS/M4 for when they need them (urban/close up). There's no plan to change the weapons/optics for POGs either. And despite what some larpers want to believe, the stuff you are more likely to do as a civilian during HD or crisis, is a lot more like a POG, than a Delta assaulter or scout team or whatever. I'll just stick with my shorty AR and RDS for home defense. You can keep your 12lbs 6.8X51 and LPVO wonder weapon. I know, it's my funeral. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:52:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More bullshit from this guy. So there's no more RDS or ACOGs on M-4s anywhere in the military? I saw such a setup last week. They are issuing more optic options, for the same reason they are starting to issue full size caliber rifles; because they want to shoot shit further away. Everything I've seen suggests they are keeping the RDS/M4 for when they need them (urban/close up). There's no plan to change the weapons/optics for POGs either. And despite what some larpers want to believe, the stuff you are more likely to do as a civilian during HD or crisis, is a lot more like a POG, than a Delta assaulter or scout team or whatever. I'll just stick with my shorty AR and RDS for home defense. You can keep your 12lbs 6.8X51 and LPVO wonder weapon. I know, it's my funeral. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The FOV and simplicity of RDS and ACOG are what make them so superior to LPVO for shorter range infantry combat fire and maneuver things. If you are trying to do DM things at intermediate and longer ranges, or hunting, an LPVO gets you closer to that. I understand the concept. I’m just not convinced. Don't be. There's a reason the military dumped the acog/rds thing. It's a great setup but there's far better for that application now More bullshit from this guy. So there's no more RDS or ACOGs on M-4s anywhere in the military? I saw such a setup last week. They are issuing more optic options, for the same reason they are starting to issue full size caliber rifles; because they want to shoot shit further away. Everything I've seen suggests they are keeping the RDS/M4 for when they need them (urban/close up). There's no plan to change the weapons/optics for POGs either. And despite what some larpers want to believe, the stuff you are more likely to do as a civilian during HD or crisis, is a lot more like a POG, than a Delta assaulter or scout team or whatever. I'll just stick with my shorty AR and RDS for home defense. You can keep your 12lbs 6.8X51 and LPVO wonder weapon. I know, it's my funeral. *sigh* lol boots these days |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 6:54:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The matches I've been to, the LPVO is ok at the short stages. Dudes with an RDS smoke them. Then things flip at the 200+ yard stages. The real difference is during force on force with moving targets and so forth. On short range stages, the stage times are usually very close for good shooters, usually only showing separation by a few seconds. It's actually very difficult to make up 5 seconds on someone on a short stage. But once you start shooting out to mid and long range, it's easier to pick up or give up 5 seconds since the differences between skill level is more pronounced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 7:25:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On short range stages, the stage times are usually very close for good shooters, usually only showing separation by a few seconds. It's actually very difficult to make up 5 seconds on someone on a short stage. But once you start shooting out to mid and long range, it's easier to pick up or give up 5 seconds since the differences between skill level is more pronounced. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The matches I've been to, the LPVO is ok at the short stages. Dudes with an RDS smoke them. Then things flip at the 200+ yard stages. The real difference is during force on force with moving targets and so forth. On short range stages, the stage times are usually very close for good shooters, usually only showing separation by a few seconds. It's actually very difficult to make up 5 seconds on someone on a short stage. But once you start shooting out to mid and long range, it's easier to pick up or give up 5 seconds since the differences between skill level is more pronounced. I agree. I'm sorta of the opinion that LPVO got so big, because of the tactical games shooting and some of the limitations of it. It can be pretty tough to quickly hit an 8" plate at 2-300 yards with an RDS. It's not so tough with a good lpvo. So depending on how you set up your tactical rifle game, an LPVO can be a huge advantage on the timer for the longer stages. In my limited experience this is common. The matches I've been to don't have many moving targets. And none at 25+ yards. And no fleeting targets. These are things that RDS shine at, quick acquisition and engagement. But games around here just usually have a bunch of smaller targets, that don't move, at mid range, which is what LPVO does real well. Or a bay stage with non moving paper targets similar to uspsa. LPVO is ok at that, a little slower than RDS, as you've described. So the end result is a bunch of people who think the lpvo is better overall, when really it's just better at one specific task that's scores higher in the game. I have been to a competition where the RDS guys did real well, and surprise surprise, the guy who designed it, was shooting an RDS. It had a bunch of shirt stages and a few longer stages, but nothing too bad for the RDS guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 7:55:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The matches I've been to don't have many moving targets. And none at 25+ yards. And no fleeting targets. These are things that RDS shine at, quick acquisition and engagement. But games around here just usually have a bunch of smaller targets, that don't move, at mid range, which is what LPVO does real well. Or a bay stage with non moving paper targets similar to uspsa. LPVO is ok at that, a little slower than RDS, as you've described. Your club doesn't use swinger or disappearing targets?  FWIW I haven't found that optics choice makes much difference on moving vs static targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 8:04:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your club doesn't use swinger or disappearing targets? https://media.mwstatic.com/product-images/src/Primary/528/528007.jpg FWIW I haven't found that optics choice makes much difference on moving vs static targets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The matches I've been to don't have many moving targets. And none at 25+ yards. And no fleeting targets. These are things that RDS shine at, quick acquisition and engagement. But games around here just usually have a bunch of smaller targets, that don't move, at mid range, which is what LPVO does real well. Or a bay stage with non moving paper targets similar to uspsa. LPVO is ok at that, a little slower than RDS, as you've described. Your club doesn't use swinger or disappearing targets? https://media.mwstatic.com/product-images/src/Primary/528/528007.jpg FWIW I haven't found that optics choice makes much difference on moving vs static targets. Very few. And always 15 yards or closer. Those are pretty lame in my opinion. The movement is not even close to normal human movement. The pop up and moving targets the military uses are much better. The drop turns are ok as a fleeting target.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 10:54:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The matches I've been to, the LPVO is ok at the short stages. Dudes with an RDS smoke them. Then things flip at the 200+ yard stages. The real difference is during force on force with moving targets and so forth. You need to go to more matches then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 10:56:42 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On short range stages, the stage times are usually very close for good shooters, usually only showing separation by a few seconds. It's actually very difficult to make up 5 seconds on someone on a short stage. But once you start shooting out to mid and long range, it's easier to pick up or give up 5 seconds since the differences between skill level is more pronounced. My difference between LPVO and RDS in a bay stage is less than 5% typically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 6:25:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My difference between LPVO and RDS in a bay stage is less than 5% typically. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: On short range stages, the stage times are usually very close for good shooters, usually only showing separation by a few seconds. It's actually very difficult to make up 5 seconds on someone on a short stage. But once you start shooting out to mid and long range, it's easier to pick up or give up 5 seconds since the differences between skill level is more pronounced. My difference between LPVO and RDS in a bay stage is less than 5% typically. I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo. In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot. This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances. This guy is slightly annoying, but the first 15 minutes of this seem like a pretty fair assessment.  LPVO Versus Red Dot + Magnifier |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 6:26:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo. In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot. This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances. They are the same because the 5-10% isn't made up by optic choice, but by proper tactical execution. If you had any real experience you'd understand that simple concept the reason you perceive rds/holo's to be faster is because they are easier and have a smaller sustainment curve which shows in force on force with your unit because sadly, the military has a horrible record of providing conventional forces good training. Because of this reason, poor fundamentals show more when using something like an lpvo which isn't a knock against you or anybody else. It's 100% the fault of the whole system. listen, don't listen, it really doesn't matter. The facts are the facts and competent individuals are given something with a good 1x what it actually is does not matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 6:51:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are the same because the 5-10% isn't made up by optic choice, but by proper tactical execution. If you had any real experience you'd understand that simple concept Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo. In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot. This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances. They are the same because the 5-10% isn't made up by optic choice, but by proper tactical execution. If you had any real experience you'd understand that simple concept How is slower target engagement and slower transitions between targets a part of a better or proper tactical execution? How does your tactical execution overcome physical realities that limit the position of the rifle relative to your body and cover? The RDS is an advantage over an LPVO for CQB. Pretending it's not is ignorant. Pretending that seemingly small advantages don't matter in that environment, is ignorant. Things happen very fast, and the margin of error is very small to start with. Can someone who is better trained, or otherwise executes better for whatever reason, beat someone with better equipment? Sure. But this thread isn't about that. It's also not about stacking up and clearing a room with a team. It's civilian personal defense. The differences are usually pretty substantial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 7:01:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the reason you perceive rds/holo's to be faster is because they are easier and have a smaller sustainment curve which shows in force on force with your unit because sadly, the military has a horrible record of providing conventional forces good training. Because of this reason, poor fundamentals show more when using something like an lpvo which isn't a knock against you or anybody else. It's 100% the fault of the whole system. So you agree that it's worse equipment for people who are allegedly not trained enough. These people who train somewhat regularly, and do it as part of their profession. And also that they can't figure out how to train properly with it. And your shitty advice to civilians who are extremely likely to get less and/or worse training is that it's "the same." Even if your claims aren't bullshit (which they are). If the equipment requires 7000% more training time or proficiency, or ninja level training to be "the same"... It's absolutely not the same or "just as good" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 7:04:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is slower target engagement and slower transitions between targets a part of a better or proper tactical execution? How does your tactical execution overcome physical realities that limit the position of the rifle relative to your body and cover? The RDS is an advantage over an LPVO for CQB. Pretending it's not is ignorant. Pretending that seemingly small advantages don't matter in that environment, is ignorant. Things happen very fast, and the margin of error is very small to start with. Can someone who is better trained, or otherwise executes better for whatever reason, beat someone with better equipment? Sure. But this thread isn't about that. It's also not about stacking up and clearing a room with a team. It's civilian personal defense. The differences are usually pretty substantial. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd say closer to 10%, but it seems our observations aren't too far apart. It is hard to say precisely, because not a lot of people shoot the same course of fire with both optic setups. And in a game, using static targets, it's not that big of a deal. And it's easily made up on the longer stages. That's why a lot of good competitors use lpvo. In the real world, that 5-10% difference is amplified significantly, when facing moving targets and when using cover in a more realistic force on force training or real life fight. Actual CQB is much more complex and challenging, with much higher stakes, than competition. Winning and losing can be decided in fractions of seconds. Even 5-10% is actually pretty meaningful. In force on force, the guy who is 5-10% faster with a weapon presentation is going to win, a lot. This whole shitshow part of the thread blossomed, because a guy was saying they are "the same." And we are in agreement, they are not the same, not even in the best of circumstances. They are the same because the 5-10% isn't made up by optic choice, but by proper tactical execution. If you had any real experience you'd understand that simple concept How is slower target engagement and slower transitions between targets a part of a better or proper tactical execution? How does your tactical execution overcome physical realities that limit the position of the rifle relative to your body and cover? The RDS is an advantage over an LPVO for CQB. Pretending it's not is ignorant. Pretending that seemingly small advantages don't matter in that environment, is ignorant. Things happen very fast, and the margin of error is very small to start with. Can someone who is better trained, or otherwise executes better for whatever reason, beat someone with better equipment? Sure. But this thread isn't about that. It's also not about stacking up and clearing a room with a team. It's civilian personal defense. The differences are usually pretty substantial. I would like to start with this-I'm sorry I came off rude the other night-I was at the animal hospital with my dog who's dying of heart failure and took it out on you. Because there isn't an actual difference in splits once you start getting off the flat range. It's not something I can easily quantify over a forum. I wish we were closer because so I could demonstrate this stuff but it's the truth. Those hundreths and thousandths of seconds do not exist on the clock in cqb for those that solid fundamentals-the times come out exactly the same. If you have different times then YOU are the weakpoint in the system. Another possibility is you just do not jive with whatever reticle you are using. I've seen dudes that can't do shit with an eotech because they find the donut too distracting. Real talk. another thing that i've noticed become more prominent: dudes that started out with irons or an acog have a much much easier time using an lpvo for cqb stuff than those who started with eotechs and aimpoints. I wish I could get with you in real life as im sure we could learn a thing or two from each other. I said this earlier, but the complete lack of training in the entire .mil complex saddens me. Only a select few are lucky enough to get consistent, solid training and the rest are left to fend for themselves |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 7:05:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you agree that it's worse equipment for people who are allegedly not trained enough. These people who train somewhat regularly, and do it as part of their profession. And also that they can't figure out how to train properly with it. And your shitty advice to civilians who are extremely likely to get less and/or worse training is that it's "the same." Even if your claims aren't bullshit (which they are). If the equipment requires 7000% more training time or proficiency, or ninja level training to be "the same"... It's absolutely not the same or "just as good" I do. nowhere did I say that it was as easy to use. but it IS as fast. you have to weigh if sustaining that training is worth the increase in capabilities and its not for everyone the reality is that civilians have access to much much better firearms training than the .mil does. The .mil has much better resources for tactical training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 8:30:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Hey dude, very sorry to hear about your dog. Fuck guns and optics, in comparison. I hope he has a good outcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 8:31:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hey dude, very sorry to hear about your dog. Fuck guns and optics, in comparison. I hope he has a good outcome. Thanks my dude. If it keeps progressing at this rate he has a month at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 8:44:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would like to start with this-I'm sorry I came off rude the other night-I was at the animal hospital with my dog who's dying of heart failure and took it out on you. Because there isn't an actual difference in splits once you start getting off the flat range. It's not something I can easily quantify over a forum. I wish we were closer because so I could demonstrate this stuff but it's the truth. Those hundreths and thousandths of seconds do not exist on the clock in cqb for those that solid fundamentals-the times come out exactly the same. If you have different times then YOU are the weakpoint in the system. Another possibility is you just do not jive with whatever reticle you are using. I've seen dudes that can't do shit with an eotech because they find the donut too distracting. Real talk. another thing that i've noticed become more prominent: dudes that started out with irons or an acog have a much much easier time using an lpvo for cqb stuff than those who started with eotechs and aimpoints. I wish I could get with you in real life as im sure we could learn a thing or two from each other. I said this earlier, but the complete lack of training in the entire .mil complex saddens me. Only a select few are lucky enough to get consistent, solid training and the rest are left to fend for themselves I hope your dog gets better. No apology necessary, I'm not going to get offended in an online optic opinion debate. I doubt you are either. But I still want to apologize for the snarky tone I've taken with you here. I don't even have a decent excuse. If you are ever at Carson, we can go shoot and you can laugh at how much I suck, with a wide variety of rifle and pistol optics. One thing we do absolutely agree on is that getting good with what gear you have is way more important than what you choose to buy (assuming it isn't junk that fails). Some dudes are very good with using an ACOG to clear rooms. I even met a dude who claimed it was just as good as an RDS for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 8:51:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hope your dog gets better. No apology necessary, I'm not going to get offended in an online optic opinion debate. I doubt you are either. But I still want to apologize for the snarky tone I've taken with you here. I don't even have a decent excuse. If you are ever at Carson, we can go shoot and you can laugh at how much I suck, with a wide variety of rifle and pistol optics. One thing we do absolutely agree on is that getting good with what gear you have is way more important than what you choose to buy (assuming it isn't junk that fails). Some dudes are very good with using an ACOG to clear rooms. I even met a dude who claimed it was just as good as an RDS for that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I would like to start with this-I'm sorry I came off rude the other night-I was at the animal hospital with my dog who's dying of heart failure and took it out on you. Because there isn't an actual difference in splits once you start getting off the flat range. It's not something I can easily quantify over a forum. I wish we were closer because so I could demonstrate this stuff but it's the truth. Those hundreths and thousandths of seconds do not exist on the clock in cqb for those that solid fundamentals-the times come out exactly the same. If you have different times then YOU are the weakpoint in the system. Another possibility is you just do not jive with whatever reticle you are using. I've seen dudes that can't do shit with an eotech because they find the donut too distracting. Real talk. another thing that i've noticed become more prominent: dudes that started out with irons or an acog have a much much easier time using an lpvo for cqb stuff than those who started with eotechs and aimpoints. I wish I could get with you in real life as im sure we could learn a thing or two from each other. I said this earlier, but the complete lack of training in the entire .mil complex saddens me. Only a select few are lucky enough to get consistent, solid training and the rest are left to fend for themselves I hope your dog gets better. No apology necessary, I'm not going to get offended in an online optic opinion debate. I doubt you are either. But I still want to apologize for the snarky tone I've taken with you here. I don't even have a decent excuse. If you are ever at Carson, we can go shoot and you can laugh at how much I suck, with a wide variety of rifle and pistol optics. One thing we do absolutely agree on is that getting good with what gear you have is way more important than what you choose to buy (assuming it isn't junk that fails). Some dudes are very good with using an ACOG to clear rooms. I even met a dude who claimed it was just as good as an RDS for that. 100% agree with all of this. I fucking suck with a pistol compared to my rifle and I shoot my pistol a A LOT. Pistols have just never jived with me and I'm probably a worse technical shot than you lol. I'm REALLY confident at cqb and urban stuff in general and the last shoot house I did I got absolutely destroyed by some dude rocking a ta31 on an m4 and irons on his pistol. Just this old dude... vibe checking targets with an acog making all our high speed setups look like shit lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 9:12:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks my dude. If it keeps progressing at this rate he has a month at best. I’m really sorry to hear that. I’ve been in those shoes and it was lame as fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 9:14:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m really sorry to hear that. I’ve been in those shoes and it was lame as fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thanks my dude. If it keeps progressing at this rate he has a month at best. I’m really sorry to hear that. I’ve been in those shoes and it was lame as fuck. I honestly don't care if he goes tomorrow or in 10 years as long as he doesn't suffer. Seeing him gasping for air was hard. He's never going for another hike with me or ever going back to the range. He loves shooting lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 9:19:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Man, that sucks. Like I said, fuck guns and optics; that shit is gay, comparatively. Sorry about your dog. I hope you get/got some good time with him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 9:21:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man, that sucks. Like I said, fuck guns and optics; that shit is gay, comparatively. Sorry about your dog. I hope you get/got some good time with him. We have had some adventures that's for sure! People always laugh seeing a chihuahua in a vest and wearing hearing protection just sitting on my left side while I sling led at targets :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 9:27:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have had some adventures that's for sure! People always laugh seeing a chihuahua in a vest and wearing hearing protection just sitting on my left side while I sling led at targets :) I’m glad you’ve had a good time with your companion. It can be hard to get past that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 10:30:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's perfectly acceptable to simply not jive with something. This cannot be overstated. There is no one size fits all. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 11:17:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have had some adventures that's for sure! People always laugh seeing a chihuahua in a vest and wearing hearing protection just sitting on my left side while I sling led at targets :) Your dog sounds like a good one. All the small dogs my wife and I or my parents have had are/were terrified of guns. ETA. As for my original post I've decided I'm going to keep the LPVO on a rifle as I see there are circumstances where it would be superior. It's good to have options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2023 11:23:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your dog sounds like a good one. All the small dogs my wife and I or my parents have had are/were terrified of guns. ETA. As for my original post I've decided I'm going to keep the LPVO on a rifle as I see there are circumstances where it would be superior. It's good to have options. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We have had some adventures that's for sure! People always laugh seeing a chihuahua in a vest and wearing hearing protection just sitting on my left side while I sling led at targets :) Your dog sounds like a good one. All the small dogs my wife and I or my parents have had are/were terrified of guns. ETA. As for my original post I've decided I'm going to keep the LPVO on a rifle as I see there are circumstances where it would be superior. It's good to have options. If it's a tool you struggle to improve with shoot me a DM. He's good with pistols and suppressed rifles. Not good auto-loaders that don't have cans |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 7:22:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it's a tool you struggle to improve with shoot me a DM. He's good with pistols and suppressed rifles. Not good auto-loaders that don't have cans Thanks for the offer. Actually I shoot the LPVO pretty dang good(more accurate than the RDS), I just haven't warned up yet to the extra bulk they have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 9:59:15 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the offer. Actually I shoot the LPVO pretty dang good(more accurate than the RDS), I just haven't warned up yet to the extra bulk they have. That definitely is a downside but what are your thoughts on all the new prism optics hitting the market. Example the PA micro prisms, previous gen3 options, Vortex options, or ACOG? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 10:47:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the offer. Actually I shoot the LPVO pretty dang good(more accurate than the RDS), I just haven't warned up yet to the extra bulk they have. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it's a tool you struggle to improve with shoot me a DM. He's good with pistols and suppressed rifles. Not good auto-loaders that don't have cans Thanks for the offer. Actually I shoot the LPVO pretty dang good(more accurate than the RDS), I just haven't warned up yet to the extra bulk they have. Fair. They do have that 'oh lawd he comin' feel |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 1:40:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Tried a LPVO years ago and it didn't stick with me. Tried again last winter with a nicer model and I'm already thinking about pulling it and replacing with a RDS. The scope is nice but I only have access to a range that's longer than 200yds for a few months of the year(when the crops are out) otherwise my shooting is all within 200 and with a RDS I'm more than accurate enough at those ranges for defensive/SHTF shooting scenarios. I could probably buy a magnifier with a removable mount for those times I might think I need a little more power. Past 200yds I think a guy would be better off with a larger caliber and more power than a LPVO offers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 1:55:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chris Kyle used a 5.56 DMR to kill what over a hundred people? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Tried a LPVO years ago and it didn't stick with me. Tried again last winter with a nicer model and I'm already thinking about pulling it and replacing with a RDS. The scope is nice but I only have access to a range that's longer than 200yds for a few months of the year(when the crops are out) otherwise my shooting is all within 200 and with a RDS I'm more than accurate enough at those ranges for defensive/SHTF shooting scenarios. I could probably buy a magnifier with a removable mount for those times I might think I need a little more power. Past 200yds I think a guy would be better off with a larger caliber and more power than a LPVO offers.  • …. Ain’t luggin that ^^^ around anywhere . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 1:57:47 PM EDT
[#37]
I love LPVO’s but I hate their bulk more than that.
SupersetCA did some transition testing with different configurations and found using a magnified optic as a semi OEG up close and far was actually faster than any other configuration. So an LPVO set on 4Xor a fixed 3/5X prism outran changing magnification on all set ups, even the offset red dots. What he didn’t speak to was accuracy, as phoria is a real concern. The prism with a 35* offset was second fastest, followed by a prism with a piggy back and then changing magnification on an LPVO. Next time I’m out I’ll do some shot timing. I’ve always found a red dot and offset to be fastest but haven’t tested accuracy using BAC/OEG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:23:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love LPVO’s but I hate their bulk more than that. SupersetCA did some transition testing with different configurations and found using a magnified optic as a semi OEG up close and far was actually faster than any other configuration. So an LPVO set on 4Xor a fixed 3/5X prism outran changing magnification on all set ups, even the offset red dots. What he didn’t speak to was accuracy, as phoria is a real concern. The prism with a 35* offset was second fastest, followed by a prism with a piggy back and then changing magnification on an LPVO. Next time I’m out I’ll do some shot timing. I’ve always found a red dot and offset to be fastest but haven’t tested accuracy using BAC/OEG. Thats how we use them for general things-lpvo on 'default setting' the user Likes. Adjust up for down depending on whatever happens. My personal atacr lives on 4x and goes up or down depending on what I need it to do |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:30:15 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love LPVO’s but I hate their bulk more than that. SupersetCA did some transition testing with different configurations and found using a magnified optic as a semi OEG up close and far was actually faster than any other configuration. So an LPVO set on 4Xor a fixed 3/5X prism outran changing magnification on all set ups, even the offset red dots. What he didn’t speak to was accuracy, as phoria is a real concern. The prism with a 35* offset was second fastest, followed by a prism with a piggy back and then changing magnification on an LPVO. Next time I’m out I’ll do some shot timing. I’ve always found a red dot and offset to be fastest but haven’t tested accuracy using BAC/OEG. Shooting occluded has been around a while in the 2gun/3gun circuit. Personally, For instances when a close target needs to be engaged while I’m shooting long distance, I shoot it occluded as long as the target is <15 yds and is not covered by hard cover or no shoots. If the latter is the case, I slow down and use the magnified view to make the shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:37:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've had a LVPO since waayyy before anyone called them that. Had a Leupold 1.5-5x20 SPR on my patrol rifle in the early 2000's. Still have the same scope on a rifle to this day. I had a Simmons 1.5-5x20 on a deer rifle as a kid. I wish I still had it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:42:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thats how we use them for general things-lpvo on 'default setting' the user Likes. Adjust up for down depending on whatever happens. My personal atacr lives on 4x and goes up or down depending on what I need it to do That’s actually what lead me down the prism path. I was just leaving my LPVO’s on 3X. No sense in having an extra pound of optic and a smaller exit pupil. Micro red dots were just icing on the cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:45:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s actually what lead me down the prism path. I was just leaving my LPVO’s on 3X. No sense in having an extra pound of optic and a smaller exit pupil. Micro red dots were just icing on the cake. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thats how we use them for general things-lpvo on 'default setting' the user Likes. Adjust up for down depending on whatever happens. My personal atacr lives on 4x and goes up or down depending on what I need it to do That’s actually what lead me down the prism path. I was just leaving my LPVO’s on 3X. No sense in having an extra pound of optic and a smaller exit pupil. Micro red dots were just icing on the cake. Perfectly fair if you don't actually use more magnification. I do use 6-8 almost as often as I use 1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 2:54:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perfectly fair if you don't actually use more magnification. I do use 6-8 almost as often as I use 1 Yep and that’s the big caveat. I don’t shoot my 5.56 AR’s past 300 hardly ever anymore. My 308 on the other hand has a 1-6 on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2023 3:00:51 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep and that’s the big caveat. I don’t shoot my 5.56 AR’s past 300 hardly ever anymore. My 308 on the other hand has a 1-6 on it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Perfectly fair if you don't actually use more magnification. I do use 6-8 almost as often as I use 1 Yep and that’s the big caveat. I don’t shoot my 5.56 AR’s past 300 hardly ever anymore. My 308 on the other hand has a 1-6 on it. It's rare but I do push mine to 800 occasionally. The normal range I go to have steel hung all the way out to 400 so I normally shoot the smaller steel. 6" diamonds shooting off a mag pod are a decent challenge for consistent hit |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2023 5:43:53 PM EDT
[#45]
I don't think I use my LPVO how most people seem to. I'm not zooming in to 6 and trying to make a 400 yard shot. I'm using that zoom to place a 77g projectile in a CNS department or major cardiac department IE cerebrum or heart for the quickest elimination of my threat. Otherwise i'm rolling on x1. So even if I'm zooming my shot is usually still well within 200 yards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2023 6:05:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think I use my LPVO how most people seem to. I'm not zooming in to 6 and trying to make a 400 yard shot. I'm using that zoom to place a 77g projectile in a CNS department or major cardiac department IE cerebrum or heart for the quickest elimination of my threat. Otherwise i'm rolling on x1. So even if I'm zooming my shot is usually still well within 200 yards. Sounds like a perfect use to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2023 6:06:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Batteries on prism scopes are optional not required. Watch youtube.com battle videos and you will see no long scopes used. 1X microprism or 2X. If you want more get a dedicated qd long scope. Chances are you would use at the range more than you would in situations. Do you hunt with red dot?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2023 8:15:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a perfect use to me Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't think I use my LPVO how most people seem to. I'm not zooming in to 6 and trying to make a 400 yard shot. I'm using that zoom to place a 77g projectile in a CNS department or major cardiac department IE cerebrum or heart for the quickest elimination of my threat. Otherwise i'm rolling on x1. So even if I'm zooming my shot is usually still well within 200 yards. Sounds like a perfect use to me Seriously.. People trying to use lpvo's to shoot groups at distance baffle me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2023 11:57:02 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a perfect use to me Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't think I use my LPVO how most people seem to. I'm not zooming in to 6 and trying to make a 400 yard shot. I'm using that zoom to place a 77g projectile in a CNS department or major cardiac department IE cerebrum or heart for the quickest elimination of my threat. Otherwise i'm rolling on x1. So even if I'm zooming my shot is usually still well within 200 yards. Sounds like a perfect use to me Same 1X is the point of an LPVO. If the 1X ain’t somewhere near as fast as an Aimpoint then just use a red dot and magnifier or a 6-24 and piggyback/offset RMR. If ya have time to aim small then it doesn’t matter what magnification tool you use to aim small. You have time to work through any shortcomings. If a hog is charging you then your 1X needs to be spot on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2023 2:20:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think I use my LPVO how most people seem to. I'm not zooming in to 6 and trying to make a 400 yard shot. I'm using that zoom to place a 77g projectile in a CNS department or major cardiac department IE cerebrum or heart for the quickest elimination of my threat. Otherwise i'm rolling on x1. So even if I'm zooming my shot is usually still well within 200 yards. That is how I ended up with 300blk and a flip to side 3X, but regardless of equipment, I think what you described is a realistic use case for most folks (target shooting or long range big game hunting is another story). Precision close-ish shots seem more useful (to me) than 1/4 mile shots. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
