Quoted:

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.

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/trijicon_tr24_ruler_view_21_resized-1963549.jpg

Quoted:

As mentioned by others it’s the new Primary Arms 1-8 GLX 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.

Quoted:

What gen vortex? Is the regular gen 2 1-6 as good as that picture?

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:

What gen vortex? Is the regular gen 2 1-6 as good as that picture?

Quoted:


So first you assume I have had no experience and now you pivot to that I've owned one? Dang. Moving those goal posts enough or what? Care to move them further as your assumptions continue to fail?

Leet speak? Wait, who is getting personal with insults now? Tossing some hypocrisy into the thread?

I'm just pointing out that all optics have an ocular ring. Period. Most people aren't phased by them as they are focusing on the target and using both eyes open.

Quoted:
How does the Credo fit with the TR25 and Razor II?

Quoted:
I heard the Leupold VX6-HD 1-6x are some great glass with great eye relief. I could be wrong though, as I've never used one. Also is like 13oz which is like 3-4 oz lighter than the competition. Only SFP though. Someone who has one should chime in.

Quoted:
I heard the Leupold VX6-HD 1-6x are some great glass with great eye relief. I could be wrong though, as I've never used one. Also is like 13oz which is like 3-4 oz lighter than the competition. Only SFP though. Someone who has one should chime in.

Quoted:
How does the Credo fit . . .

Quoted:


I've only looked at one in the store but it seemed very similar to the tr25. Good glass and daylight bright dot. They'd probably sell a boatload if they didn't have so many models that confuse people. The one I looked at was a 1-6 hx led with red illumination. Think they were asking 850 and if I wasn't set for scopes I probably would have bought it.

Quoted:


This right here. I would have gone with two of those instead of the Razors due to it's lighter weight.

Quoted:




Isn't it amazing how frequently optics companies come so close to getting something just right but fuck up one seemingly small thing and ruin an otherwise great optic.  Not specifically Leupold, not trying to shit on them.  But making an optic like that and putting a duplex reticle in it. Pants on head.

Quoted:




Isn't it amazing how frequently optics companies come so close to getting something just right but fuck up one seemingly small thing and ruin an otherwise great optic.  Not specifically Leupold, not trying to shit on them.  But making an optic like that and putting a duplex reticle in it. Pants on head.

Quoted:

Especially when they have the BDC Firedot reticle which is just about perfect. Kind of mind boggling.

Quoted:


Another optic they they could have made 1x instead of 1.5x. They dropped the ball on that one as far as I'm concerned also. Another hard pass for me dog.

Not that I'm not glad it's working out for you though.

Quoted:


It says 16.2oz on their site. You may be talking about the older non-HD version that’s discontinued and wasn’t $1500.

Quoted:


I bought this in green today. I was completely unaware of this scope til this weekend. Apparently it's nearly identical to the Delta Stryker as long as your looking at the SFP Hunter BDC reticle. It cost me $250 less than my Razor gen II and it weighs about half a pound less. I'm putting it on my new Larue which showed up today. C_DOES review on Youtube sold me on it, can't wait to get it.

Quoted:


How bright is the green illumination? Daytime bright? As bright or close as the red as shown by C_DOES?

Quoted:
Starting to get paralysis through analysis!

Torn between the TR25, Credo HX green, the Razor.  Would love to look through all these to compare at once.  Was really set on the TR25, but the Credo HX has a better reticle.  The Razor appears to have a lot of happy users here.

Ugh

Quoted:
Starting to get paralysis through analysis!

Torn between the TR25, Credo HX green, the Razor.  Would love to look through all these to compare at once.  Was really set on the TR25, but the Credo HX has a better reticle.  The Razor appears to have a lot of happy users here.

Ugh

Quoted:
Sounds like the Razor it is.  

Quoted:




Isn't it amazing how frequently optics companies come so close to getting something just right but fuck up one seemingly small thing and ruin an otherwise great optic.  Not specifically Leupold, not trying to shit on them.  But making an optic like that and putting a duplex reticle in it. Pants on head.

Quoted:
Over the last few years I kept trying the optics mentioned in this thread, and a few others to try and drop some weight compared to the razor, but I kept saying fuck it I'll just deal with the weight and I end up with a razor again and again.

The others will come close, with some being closer than others, but they are still no razor.

If I really need lighter weight I'll go Trijicon credo or NX8.

Quoted:


I do like the segmented green circle on the Credo.  Seems from what I have gathered is that the Razor is more prove and durable with glass close on both.

Quoted:


Leupold does this better than any other optics manufacturer.

Quoted:


I do like the segmented green circle on the Credo.  Seems from what I have gathered is that the Razor is more prove and durable with glass close on both.