Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment.

Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option.

Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled,
with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet.   Even better, the system is multispectral,  covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package.

You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby.

This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who
have to carry and maintain this system too much.

We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens.  The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today.   I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years.  As far as I'm concerned,
we should have it already.

Quoted:
Why do you want a 1-10 in SFP? That doesnt make a lot of sense to me. There may be a situation that demands 5x mag and holdover (300 yards) where you wouldn't want to be on max mag.

Quoted:

It already exists. Google CROWS.

Quoted:

Why even screw with 1.5x when true 1x exists?

Quoted:

The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope.

It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles.

For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway.  Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get.

For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale.

Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards.

In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic

Quoted:

The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope.

It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles.

For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway.  Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get.

For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale.

Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards.

In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic

Quoted:
Let me be forward thinking for a moment.

Today we have the technology to improve troop safety by giving them a remote view optic option.

Imagine being able to set up a rifle or machinegun on a small, lightweight, portable turret, that can be either manually or remotely controlled,
with a camera mounted on the rifle and a (wirelessly connected) display on your helmet.   Even better, the system is multispectral,  covering visible, IR, and thermal in a single package.

You can drop your rifle in a good spot for covering the enemy or target, while you hunker down in a place of greater safety from small arms fire nearby.

This would not be the solution for every soldier all the time, but I can see plenty of ways that it would find use provided that it works well and doesn't complicate the lives of those who
have to carry and maintain this system too much.

We all (well, most of us) saw Aliens.  The sentry turret is very much a viable concept today.   I predict it's going to become a practical reality in just a few years.  As far as I'm concerned,
we should have it already.

Quoted:

The main advantage I see for 2FP is that they are often close to 10 oz less than their FFP counterparts, and for that weight you could practically add a second scope.

It takes a really smart designed FFP reticle to be effective at both 1x and 10x, the Atibal is pretty good but still IMO not quite as nice at either extreme as many 2FP reticles.

For anything beyond 200 yards I would prefer to be on 10x mag anyway.  Yeah you can get make do with less if you've got less and just going for large targets but I think the extra magnification would definitely be helpful and at that range I think the slightly increased target acquisition time is more than compensated by the improved accuracy you're going to get.

For anything less than 200 yards, it's pretty easy to approximate holdovers just based on a mental model of your drop table and the fact you can use your target as a reference for scale.

Users of the M24 will also tell you they have no problems using the fixed 10x at under 200 yards.

In summary, I just feel like the 50% increase in weight and usually worse reticle overall makes for a less practical optic

Quoted:
There is no compelling reason why a FFP scope has to be 10 ounce heavier than a comparable SFP scope.  All else being equal, FFP and SFP designs weigh almost the same.  FFP tends to be a touch heavier, but I do not know where you came up with the 10 ounce number.

Quoted:

I just pulled that number out of my ass based on my memory from various comparisons in the past.
It's hard to compare apples to apples because most manufacturers don't make a FFP scope and a FFP scope in the same size.
Primary Arms does, and the FFP is exactly 10 oz heavier:

Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz
Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24 FFP, 26.9 oz

Out of curiosity, I tabulated the weights of all the SFP and FFP 1-8 scopes I could find:

1-8x 2FP options:
Primary Arms Silver Series 1-8x24 SFP, 16.9 oz
Atibal 1-8x24 2FP is 17.4 oz
Swampfox Tomahawk 1-8x24, 19 oz
Vortex Strike Eagle 1-8x24, 16.5 oz
Minox ZP 8 1-8x24, 24.5 oz
VUDU 1-8x24, ?

1-8x FFP options:
Primary Arms Platinum 1-8x24, 26.9 oz
Leupold Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm at 23.5 oz
Burris Optics 1-8x24 XTR II, 24.4 oz
Bushnell ET SRMS 1-8.5, 23 oz
Trijicon Accupower 1-8x, 25 oz
Minox ZP8 1-8x, 24.5 oz
Nightforce NX8, 17 oz
Nightforce ATACR 1-8, 21 oz
GPO 1-8x, 19 oz
1-8x24 PMII ShortDot, 21.4 oz
HiLux CMR8, 22 oz

Overall, it does seem like the FFP scopes are notably heavier. I was surprised to see that the average across all scopes is about 4 oz heavier, I expected more.

However, it's worth noting that the lighter weight FFP scopes are VERY expensive. To get down to 17 oz in FFP, you have to spend over $2000 for a Nightforce, whereas in the FFP category, you could get 17oz with a $300 Atibal scope.  If we restrict ourselves to scopes under $1000, the disparity grows a little wider.

Quoted:
I just can't get over the weight  I know this is going Army side but an M27 is already pushing 10 lbs loaded.  Before long we're going to have our guys humping 20 lb individual weapons  Guess the guys drawing up the specs don't have to hump it so why would they care.

Quoted:

The way currently available scopes go, a $300 1-8x24 is going to be crap regardless of whether it is SFP or FFP.  If you want to have an apples to apples comparison, you

Quoted:

I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap?

Quoted:
I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap?

Quoted:

I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap?

Quoted:

Now that's the Army I know and love....

What's your take on the solicitation?

Quoted:
Love the guys chiming in about their 'great' <$500 LVPO.

The Army wants to buy $hit that WORKs, not only today but in 5-10-15 years from now.  Illumination, hold a solid zero, etc, etc.

They don't want great customer service on 10,15,50% of the optics.

Chinese made junk that is good for finger banging on the range a couple times a year tops won't cut it.

Quoted:

Outside of VCOGs and ELCANs I'm not sure there's many LPVOs that will.  Military use, in combat arms oriented MOSs, is TOUGH on optics.   Especially tough if they have long erector sets, exposed turrets, or other features many LPVOs tend to have.

I'll be interested to see how the LPVO fairs once it's fielded in larger numbers and goes through lots of Airborne ops, FTXs, and deployments.    I'm guessing the USMCs IAR Squad Day Optic ACOG will hold up a lot better.

Quoted:

I just bought a 1-8x Atibal XP8 for $300. The reviews on YouTube were all great. Mind telly me why it is crap?

Quoted:

Steiner Military, Vortex Razor, Kahles K16i, etc. seem to be doing fine.

Quoted:

I'm not being a smart ass but are they?

I mentioned this in a video a while back so some may have heard it but...  I had the additional duty of being a unit armorer for portion of my military years and we had ACOGs, M68s, and EOTech 553s.   The 553s would frequently break, get sent in, and be replaced.    One M68 broke.  No ACOGs broke.    I realize it's not a huge sample size but it's telling.

Flash forward to this year and EOTech just got another huge military contract.

I'd be willing to bet many are still breaking and being replaced.   I'm not bashing EOTech and actually like the new models but just because the military continues to use something doesn't mean they're holding up.   It may mean that a contract is in place and they (big Army and USASOC/SOCOM in this case) may just not care about breakages as getting a new one isn't an issue with taxpayer dollars.

Quoted:
I’m aware of the info above.   Really no way to really know how they’re doing on a macro scale though.

Quoted:
Whats causing the optics to go TU? Is the actual shooting of the rifles(recoil) or breaking getting to the gunfight? I went through two aimpoints & neither time was it the optics fault...

There is a completely antiquated way of thinking in that a fixed 4X optic is somehow simpler and better for most jobs. I hear 'durability' tossed around a whole lot. Most are referring to the ACOG family of optics.

Here's the truth about them :
- The internals break more often than any other optic I've seen, in greater numbers, in greater frequency. Durability of the housings is assumed to transfer to the adjusters and prisms. This is incorrect.
- Put one on a gunner's quadrant some day to do a tracking and repeatability test. You'll see areas of dead clicks, so the adjusters are not actually giving the shooter what they say they are. Also, the elevation and windage components track about as straight as Freddy Mercurie's sexuality. The optics do not hold zero under impact. So if the optic doesn't track and can't hold zero... how are you ever going to achieve a true zero and fire the weapon at another human being, guaranteeing a hit?
- The eye reliefs and eye box of these optics are criminally short and small. To those saying you can get sight alignment in these optics easier than in most LPVOs, your assumed knowledge exceeds your actual capability.

I just helped run an event testing this exact thing, among other things. Out of 21 shooters (4 cadre, 17 students of all ground combat backgrounds), all performed better from 0-600 yards with LPVOs (Nightforce, Vortex, Trijicon) than ACOGs 100% of the time. Inside of 50M, the ability to go to 1X (mandatory prior to assuming movement in event of a critical short range engagement) dominated fixed 3.5/4X shooters, and the ability to zoom in further dominated all RDS (Aimpoint M4 and T1) and fixed 3.5/4X shooters. It wasn't even close. Training to use MILs took about 15 minutes for all (GASP! Impossibru they say!!).

….

Quoted:
In regards to durability of ACOGs:

Member GS5414 made a couple of the most influential posts I ever read about military use of LPVOs in this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/LPVOs-in-force-on-force-training-/18-729365/?page=1 (Posts made on 7/10/2018)

Embedded among many gems in there that surprised me: