I just got a 14.5 SD and was thinking of putting a TA31 with a 1.93 extended eye relief ADM mount.  I can shoot ok up close with it on an 11.5, but it kind of weirds my eyes out.  I have a TR24 w/red triangle on another 11.5 and like it, but for the 14.5, was thinking something in 1-6x.  Been reading through the threads on here and trying to decide.  A tight eye box really bugs me.

So, looking for a good, forgiving eye box, good FOV, good on 1x, durable, etc. for a 1-6x LPVO?  ATACR is not in my range.  Was looking at possibly the Razor 1-6x E, Accupoint, Credo, ??  Many seem to like the Razor from many of the threads I have read through.  This is meant to be the SHTF, Mad Max, end of the world, Russia invades type weapon.  Not that I will likely need to be concerned about that.  The Accupoint appeals due to fiber optics.  Would most likely sell the TA31 and mount to fund as I would not really have a need for it.

Would the Razor be the best for that, Accupoint?  Suggestions?

Razor 1-6. Swarovski 1-6 is supposed to be comparable but I haven’t tried one.

A Razor if you take the time to get your eye relief set is like an open tube. Tr25 is very good also but not quite on par with the Razor. Has the advantage of not needing batteries and the glass is outstanding for it's price point.

Eyebox will be dictated by larger exit pupil and more eye relief. That and FOV should be easy to sort out as they should be listed specs.

The Trijicon is the undisputed champion of SHTF LPVO’s.

Many say they like the TR24 but I honestly hate it. The ocular housings is ginormous and the edge clarity is pretty warped across Trijicon’s 1-4 in all product lines. The 1-6 has an immensely better eye box, but many have claimed the .66MOA dot on the crosshair model is useless and opt for the triangle. I know I’ll get murdered for saying this, but I’ve owned three different Trijicon 1-4’s and they all sucked. Their 1-6’s on the other hand are excellent.

TR24 1-4. Complete with massive ocular ring and .5X magnification just at the edges. (Look at the grass concaving from left to right).


TR25 1-6. Small ocular ring, larger viewing window, and crisp flat image quality.


While instances of them breaking are possibly unheard of, the Trijicon fiber optic models do use a wire reticle. All things equal it would break before an etched reticle, but you also can’t do external light illumination in an etched reticle LPVO due to the lens assemblies.

FPNI

OST

Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24 reticle 4A-IF

Better illumination and controls than it’s little cousin Kahles.

Unfortunately it is so subjective that it is impossible.  Best will be determined by the end user's priorities, problems preferences and perspective(s).

What I want from an LPVO on a GP rifle that will be near the top of the roster of possible defensive use.  Maybe second to the red dot equipped carbine.

I don't have a massive need for FFP and having this feature in a LPVO means that at some point my reticle is going to less than optimal and bright illumination becomes more difficult and costlier. SFP works perfectly for my uses.

I don't want anything over about 6x.  Weight is highly variable but all else being equal it should weigh less apples to apples.  More importantly, you pay that extra magnification. Physics won't let you have your cake and eat it.  Dim, dark tubes with tiny eyebox are order of the day in low to mid $$$ LPVO of higher magnification. Big dollar optics are not immune.  You can trade some FOV for eyebox, but that is another point of preference.  Can't get both.

I want a BDC with a useable BC/velocity reference with an illuminated central cicle dot, segmented circle dot or horseshoe.  Some wind reference is great, but Christmas tree is a no from me.  Of course it would be at long ranges, but that is the job of a different optic on a different rifle. The reticle needs to be biased toward being a ad hoc red dot first and a crutch for failing eyesight second.  As such, I want all the bright I can get without the manufacturer resorting to cheats that might compromise durability.

Turrets: Lowest profile and capped.  This is an area to shave a little cost.  So much as I like nice things, these need to hold zero under mild abuse and be reasonably consistent.  If they feel good, it is a bonus.

Build quality and durability: Yes.  Please.  All I can afford and a bit more.  This is the weakness of the LPVO and needs to be designated around.  That cost.  It fails at it's intended purpose if it breaks.

Glass quality: The best I have money for, but of lower priority than durability.  I'll take a small hit here to buy more durability, but not much as to reduce it too much compromises it's original purpose.

FOV vs.  Eyebox: Slightly biased toward eyebox.  The closer to red dot the better, but I don't want FOV to be tight either. Compromise

Battery life: best I can get, but will compromise for daylight bright.

Weight vs. Price vs. Durability.  Choose two.  I probably don't agree.

The issue is, you aren't wrong for wanting a 1-12 FFP with target knobs and a fully illuminated mildot or Christmas tree.  You may not care about durability as you want it as light and cheap as possible since it is going to exclusively be a range toy and it won't cost you anything but a stage.

Not wrong.  A different best.

Narrow down what you really want and go shopping.

I love my Kahles 1-8 and that Swarovski 1-8 is right up there with it.

Most of the 1-6x LPVO I've seen had similar eyeboxes. The Razor and Z6i may have been a little bigger than some of the others, but nothing dramatic. I have not found exit pupil to correlate well with eyebox size, either with these optics or with many others. The TR25's 1x exit pupil is listed as being considerably larger than the Z6i's but I do not recall that it was any better - slightly smaller if anything.

There is somewhat more difference in the length of the proper eye relief range, my general impression was Accupower < Razor = Z6i < Eotech Vudu 1-6x. That being said this isn't a quality that I tend to notice all that much in practice unless it's extremely short.

I think most reports of differing eyebox sizes between 1-6x optics come from people who are at varying distances outside of the proper eye relief range. This makes an apples to apples comparison impossible, both in regards to eyebox and FoV (since being outside of the proper eye relief range precludes an acquisition of the full FoV).

I can say with confidence that none of the above were as good in the eyebox department as your current TR24 Accupower. The TR24 does not have the best image quality ever, nor is its ocular occlusion subtle, but the eyebox is very wide and the eye relief range is good too.

The best eyebox LPVOs I've tried (Kahles, Swaro, Trijicon) are still sucky compared to prism scopes.
Best 1x, durability, and eyebox is an ACOG + RMR

So long as you don't live long enough to get old.

Yeah?  One would think since “eye box” means exit pupil and eye relief, that it would correlate by definition.  

Or maybe you meant you measured the exit pupil and it was smaller than mfg claims?  Since exit pupil is a pretty straightforward formula, that seems like a silly thing to lie about

Pretty sure a prism won't "age."

If SHTF and you survive long enough to need new batteries,  good on you.  Still have the ACOG.

I went with this setup for my serious gun.

Think he means more that the lack of an adjustable diopter makes them less than ideal for people with bad eyes.

I've had to wear glasses since I was 6, and even with corrective lenses, ACOGs are less useful than a red dot for me.

Well that's the thing, I'm saying that it doesn't, the exit pupil does not reflect the actual eyebox size.

I define eyebox as the degree of radial forgiveness that an optic allows, i.e. the maximum distance you can move your head off to the side before the image blacks out completely. I refer to the front-to-back forgiveness as 'eye relief range', first because it is easier to simply isolate the dimensional measures for the purposes of description (that way when you say a scope has a "large eyebox" people don't have to wonder whether it's wide or long or both), second because I don't find them both equally important, and third because they are fundamentally different in nature: You don't lose any FoV at all when moving forwards and backwards within the proper eye relief range whereas your FoV does decrease when moving towards the edges of the eyebox.

Now with that being said, you can measure the exit pupil by shining a light through the optic and measuring the disc of light projected onto a surface. I tried that with the Elcan SpecterDR, which has a listed exit pupil of 8mm. My finding was that the disc was indeed 8mm wide at 2.76", the listed eye relief distance...

...except 2.76" isn't the practical eye relief, because you don't actually have a full FoV when you're that far away. In fact the actual eye relief distance is around 2.15". Now you could define 2.76" as being the mechanical eye relief or the such because that's where you find the calculated exit pupil, but this is useless for practical purposes because nothing special actually happens there and you don't have a full FoV so why would you put your eye there?

But here's the thing. At 2.15", the eyebox is wider than it is at 2.76", and yet if you measure the little disc of light when it's 2.15" away, it's actually smaller. And if you move even closer to the ocular, the eyebox continues to grow (albeit you are now out of your proper eye relief range and have a constricted FoV), and yet the measured disc or 'exit pupil' continues to shrink.

Observation also finds that there are secondary halos around the primary disc, which indicates that the central disc alone is not the only light being transmitted through the optic. However, whereas the central disc is smaller than the true eyebox, the halos are larger. The true eyebox is somewhere in between, and not clearly delineated.

This isn't the only optic where the practical eye relief distance is different from the listed spec. I have also measured the SUIT Trilux 4x, and its actual eye relief is closer to 0.7" rather than the listed 1.37". I believe it had something similar going on with the exit pupil although I did not take precise measurements.

Anyways my personal suspicion is that this is actually a common phenomenon, and in many cases the listed eye relief is where you will find the listed exit pupil, but the actual eye relief distance is different than the paper spec. Accordingly the interactions of the light rays are likewise different at that location. I have posted a preliminary hypothesis of that here, but it's very basic and doesn't work well for certain scopes (e.g. the NX8 and actually the 4x ACOG, upon further inspection it turns out the eyebox diameter changes significantly throughout its proper eye relief range) so it likely needs revision.

At any rate - the real point to be made here is that I have simply not found the listed or calculated exit pupil sizes to be consistently proportional with the actual eyebox diameter. I'm not an optical engineer, but the Vortex Rep on this forum has explicitly said that eyebox doesn't necessarily equal exit pupil, you've got Swampfox who has said that there are optics with large eyeboxes and small exit pupils and vice-versa, and there's BigJimFish who started out using his exit pupil measurements as a measure of eyebox size in his compilation of reviews but later ended up dropping them because he didn't find them to be useful. Case in point, see the Leupold Mk8 CQBSS and Mk6 reviews where he comments that the Mk8's eyebox is large despite only having an 8mm exit pupil, while the Mk6 has a measured exit pupil over 10mm wide yet he thought it had a smaller eyebox.

If one cares to delve into the weeds, there are some more esoteric papers out there relating to the subject matter in some way or another, but I frankly do not have the education to fully comprehend them. Many of these concern product design and assume some prior baseline of knowledge, knowledge that an individual may not have without already having formally studied the subject.

I would be all over the TR25 if it wasn't for the lack of decent reticle choices. ACSS or similar would be what I would want, something with more than just the absolute minimal basic functionality of Trijicon's current reticle lineup. Manufacturers just need to bite the bullet and license the ACSS system from PA so we can get high function reticles that require minimal skill to get quick hits at various unknown ranges (especially under stress) in more optics.

Interesting. I’ll try to find the time to measure some of mine.

Razor 1-6.

VCOG 1-8x28mm too costly or too heavy?

Doesnt seem too much heavier or expensive than a Razor II E  by the time you factor in a Scalarworks. But I guess if you go lower ladder than Scalarworks it starts to pencil better.

That screenshot is at the front of the eye relief. "Shoot with both eyes open", as a lot of y'all like to say, and it's a lot less noticeable.

Magnification-wise is more like 1.1, certainly not 1.5 until room distance. I have the diopter screwed all the way in, so it ought to be as low as it can be.

Looking through an Aimpoint T-2. Oh noes! Ocular ring! It must be herriblez!

Point: All optics have an ocular ring.

We’ll, I’d certainly agree that as distance increases that little extra clip in magnification becomes less noticeable, but Molon took a picture that shows what I mean pretty well. Being a SHTF focused optic with an importance stressed on image and eye box, I think one could do quite a bit better.

Attached File

The difference is a red dot is true view. An LPVO is not. The flatter the image is, the more natural and better view you have and the easier it is for your eyes to pick up. This is part of why the Razor is so beloved. It’s a combination of things that make it faster, including almost no transition from the lens to your eyes.

I’ve had a lot of optics and there is absolutely no convincing me that views like this are not beneficial.

I'd like to see a TR25 looking that close. @Molon how far was the ruler from the objective cap?

I’m sure it’d not do considerably better magnification wise. My biggest complaint with Trijicon 1-4’s is how much they flare at the edges. I’ve had a TR21, TR24, and an RS24 and they all exhibited that same trait up close. Some fish eye is to be expected, but they seem to have more trouble with it at the edges than others.

And for the record, I still think the Accupoint is the epitome of a SHTF LPVO, I just think the 1-6 has a huge increase in glass and image quality. I certainly wouldn’t judge one for picking either.

That glass is unbelievable. Which optics are those pictures of?

I can tell you which one has sucked the biggest and the biggest disappointmnet of my $2000+ dollars...Vortex Razor 1-10...trully a pathetic performer from 1-4X...it is really only good from 6-10X...

I really enjoyed my time behind a Steiner P4XI...and TR24

not sure about the first one but the second picture is the Razor 1-6x

The top is the soon to be released Primary Arms PLxC and bottom is the Razor 1-6.



Every LPVO will magnifiy when looking at things at 5m away. Even is the 1x is perfect, you're still transporting your eye 11 inches closer to the target, this is part of the reason why IR laser units will look better through shorter 1x optics like the Elcan or NX8 than a long ass vortex razor .

My dislike of them isn’t that they’re not true 1X, it’s that they have a magnification flare at the edges on 1X that’s worse than any other optic I’ve tried. It gets worse with compromised eye placement too, and the whole issue for me is magnified by the obnoxiously huge ocular housing. At this point it feels overblown with all of the discussion surrounding it. My initial point was just that the 1-6 bests it in both edge clarity and image.

Yep Trijicon TR25, best eyebox, and clarity, worst reticles ever.

As mentioned by others it’s the new Primary Arms 1-8 PLX Compact and the Vortex 1-6 Razor.

Primary Arms is on to something big with that combo, it’s just a shame it doesn’t have daylight brightness.

I’ve personally only ever found one other LPVO with a disappearing ocular and it was a sprint run Leupold. Despite being 1.5X it’s still a crazy good image and I can’t bring myself to get rid of it. I’d be running a Razor on my carbine if I wasn’t obsessive about weight.

Still the King of LPVO’s.

Still think the Razor 1-6 is the benchmark. You can pay a lot more for marginal gains in optical clarity, but the Vortex is the standard of comparison at 1x imo.

Under $1k, the Steiner is excellent. Not the same value it used to be, unfortunately.

Nothing ( 1X ) is faster than an EoTech and if you have time to aim small and scroll through the magnification settings then you have time to flip up the G45



The Razor 1-6, in spite of it’s enormous heft, is probably the happy place between red dot and magnifier and the Swarovski

Of course. The perfect optic would have zero ocular ring and be a free floating dot in space. But those don't exist and with both eyes open it doesn't matter. There will be a ring, it will be blurry as you are shooting with both eyes open and focusing on the target. Your eyes do the magic.

At some point people in these threads begin to major in the minors.

Step one buy optic
Step two train like a mofo
Step three profit

Instead of speaking towards image size and eye dominance and continuing, I’ll ask one thing of you since you’re so far off from my point and ignoring half of it entirely.

What’s your argument against it?

I’m a fan of the Vortex Razor E 1-6 and Nightforce NX8

Also enjoy shooting drills from 5-200y with my TR24

It’s light, fast and priced much better than some of my other glass.

My Steiner pXi4 has an awesome eyebox, but it doesnt meet your requirement of 1-6

My point is that ocular ring view is not a relevant buying point. Weight, length, eye box, clarity, true 1X, daylight bright are all buying points. "It has a more visible ocular ring" is a social media influencer talking point.

Yes it is. If I can have less scope in my vision I want that feature.

Been seeing Geissele Super Precision scopes in 1-6x popping up.  What are they like or analogous too?

It's like a bad, heavier Razor 1-6. Casting my vote too for the razor, with the kahles as a secondary if money is no object. I've owned the swaro Z6i and that is a slenderly built optic. Since durability is a concern scratch that one.

Well, since you’re keen on taking conversations personal enough to use insults, I think you lack the experience to know any different based on your postings.

You can think what you think. Come back when you’ve actually tried it.

They are unimpressive optics to say the least.  They aren't even Water Proof.

What are you talking about? Nobody used a personal insult. Smh. I sure didn't. Yeesh.

LOL! I had a Steiner P4Xi, sold it on the EE here. If you resort to digging through my past posts you would have seen that. Sure, I don't speak from experience using a LPVO.

There are faster optics than EOTech, I don’t know why this keeps getting repeated. It’s not doing anything terribly special.

It's because people have the common misconception that easy=fast.

A correct statement would be that eotechs have less of a training sustainment curve, and thus are easier to be fast on.

My split times are exactly the same running a comp m5, exps3, and nx8. The nx8 requires more sustainment training than the comp and exps but also is also a lot more capable.

Another side note, people for some reason equate being fast on a known, static range as good cqb/self defense skills. In reality static ranges are to shooting what a heavy bag is to boxing/mma. The bag will teach you how to strike but not how to fight.

Well congratulations. You’ve had one LPVO. You’re clearly expert enough to say the opinions of others only matter as a social media influencer talking point. Not like I’ve owned nearly 20 LPVO’s or been shooting them for a decade and a half.

I’m pretty sure my point went over your head way back when you were talking in leet speak though. So by all means, do what’s best for you.