LPVO for an AR

[JDBAK]

paging the collective wisdom here....

I'm looking for good LPVO options for an accurate 18" 223 wylde chamber AR. I'd thought about getting a Tikka .223 as a trainer, but my WOA 18" 3-gun upper can shoot so well with 77SMK that it doesn't make sense.

Use case is as a long range trainer, out to say 600 yds, suppressed. Also occasional service rifle matches, and blacktail deer hunting to 3-400 yds (with bears present), and occasional 2 gun matches
1x on the low end with a red dot would be really nice, hence the desire for an LPVO. I realize it won't be optimal image quality on higher power, but hopefully still usable to see splash at 600 yds.


So, do any of the 1-8x or 1-10x options really pan out shooting at distance of up to 600 yds? I tried a Nightforce NX8 at a multigun match years ago, and if the light wasn't good, it didn't really help going above 6x (eye box too tight, and a dimmer view). I've not tried the larger 34mm objective ATACR.

Anyway, I'd like an optic that can dial reliably and be durable in the field, with 1x and a red dox. Does that limit me to Nightforce and Vortex?

 

[pattimusprime22]

I'm in the same boat and want to see suggestions from the slide

 

[RockAndSage]

Uncomfortable truth: LPVOs are optimal for when you only get one gun, you need that gun to be compact, and your life is dependent on 1x for CQB, but you might also need shots past 300yds.

Home defense gun, especially in a rural area or on a ranch? Perfect. Deployed downrange? SHTF fantasy? Perfect, perfect.

But in an 18" AR not doing CQB, especially in the use case being that of a long-range trainer, you give up an awful lot in not going with something with a higher mag range. And you lose almost nothing - in reality - with the low end being 2x or 3x. In my personal experience, you gain a hell of a lot more from having a 2-12ish or 3-15 range, especially in capability and image quality, than you'll ever lose in not having 1x.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

I'd agree with RockAndSage. There are some good 2-10 or 2-12 options that will do a better job for what you stated you want the rifle for.

If you're committed to a true 1x, I'd look at the Kahles K18i-2. The field of view and glass quality are silly. The things I'm not a fan of with the Vortex 1-10x24 is that it's really a 1 & 3-8x24. The reticle is unusable at 2-3 power, and the scope gets difficult to be behind between 8-10x. The Nightforce NX8 and ATACR 1-8s have tiny fields of view, so you frequently end up dialing the magnification back. You can live at 8x on the Kahles.

 

[schmidty3]

My current AR has a vx6 2-12 with a piggieback dot. Works really well for 3 gun. I already had the vx6 and it should get me to 400.

The sfp and standard reticle aren't ideal for long range work. I could replace it, but it works fine for now. I had the scope so it was easy enough to try the concept.

Main point... I don't find the 2x to be limiting on shots as close as 15-20 yards. Swap to the dot when closer.

If you indeed want to take it to 600 and be effective a 2-12 or similar setup with ffp and a usable reticle makes a lot of sense.

I really want something like a 1.5-12 or 1.75-14 with a great eye box and bombproof zero retention. Capped windage. Ffp. Usable reticle with some graduations on a tree of some kind. One can dream

 

[Steve300xcw]

Had a 1-6x swfa on a 16" gun for a while. Neat scope, but I am a hell of a lot happier with a 3-9x on the gun now though. I could see that and maybe a dot on the side for close in stuff, if a guy needed that

 

[Long Cut]

I’ve got a similar use AR with an 18” WOA barrel. No plans to “game gun” with it yet, but the SPR/DMR precision matches do catch my interest.

That being said, I currently have an SWFA 5-20 HD on it and it’s surprisingly a “good” fit in my opinion for my uses.

Personally any AR over 16” is better built for “long range” applications I.e practice, training, hunting, matches etc and I’d optically set it up for that. Especially one that will be suppressed.
A diving board and red dot can be added to increase close range performance inside 50-100 yards, but I doubt you’ll want to CQB with a +23” barrel between the suppressor & barrel.

An LVPO would be better suited on a 12.5-16” gun in my opinion, especially if we’re adding suppressors.

 

[RockAndSage]

I really want something like a 1.5-12 or 1.75-14 with a great eye box and bombproof zero retention. Capped windage. Ffp. Usable reticle with some graduations on a tree of some kind. One can dream

That would be excellent, as long as the mag range and scope geometry didn't negatively impact eyebox, etc. Would love that, especially with the THLR reticle.

I have a Swarovski Z8i 1-8x on my primary AR, and while I absolutely love the glass and the Swaro's form factor, I keep it right around 2.3x for virtually everything except prone or supported longer shots. It seems optimal in balancing quick target acquisition and accuracy. Have generally found that I seem to lose no speed or accuracy within CQB ranges keeping it there, at least at my level of what "speed or accuracy" mean. Which means, in my realities, the 1x has been absolutely useless, in the most literal sense of the word.

And for anything beyond 200 yards, I'd kill to have something around 12 to 15x, in that same package. Especially in field realities, getting a better view into shadows and on obscured game a little further out. The only issue I really have with the Swaro is just not being sure it's as rugged as I want - the drop tests here bring a lot of things into question.

Something that is particularly interesting to me is the scope UM/S2H/Form are bringing out in the summer/fall. At somewhere between 2/3x - 12/15x, ruggedized, with low-profile turrets and capped windage, it seems pretty optimized for field realities. And as long as it's not too chonky, would be a really good candidate as a better upgrade for all-around capability in my applications for that AR, over the Swaro.

 

[pattimusprime22]

I'm not sure how necessary the 1x was for my use, so I too am interested in the UM scope. They keep finding ways to get me to spend my money

 

[RockAndSage]

I'm not sure how necessary the 1x was for my use, so I too am interested in the UM scope. They keep finding ways to get me to spend my money

Same. Which, given that they are all hunters and shooters first, over being marketing guys and corporate executives, makes me much more inclined to consider their stuff a trustworthy risk of my money. That, and the long history of posting evidence of their testing. In that context, even things that may not quite pan out for me personally as much as I might like, are still reality-based and thoroughly tested.

 

[JDBAK]

Thanks for the replies all. The main question is likely how important keeping 1x is. Was kinda hoping someone would chime in that the ATACR with its larger tube worked well at 8x. The 1x is really handy for most of my carbine work. But I have other carbines with red dots, and use the Elcan 1x/4x prism quite a lot to 400 yds on M4s. I don't have an optic that works from 100-600 with any real precision. The Elcan actually dials quite precisely, but its a silly process prone to being a rev off. And it's only 4x, so can't really see impact on anything.

 

[RockAndSage]

Thanks for the replies all. The main question is likely how important keeping 1x is. Was kinda hoping someone would chime in that the ATACR with its larger tube worked well at 8x. The 1x is really handy for most of my carbine work. But I have other carbines with red dots, and use the Elcan 1x/4x prism quite a lot to 400 yds on M4s. I don't have an optic that works from 100-600 with any real precision. The Elcan actually dials quite precisely, but its a silly process prone to being a rev off. And it's only 4x, so can't really see impact on anything.

Understandable. Been in a similar situation a number of times, with hoping/wanting something to work, and end up experiencing a disappointing reality. On this subject, its especially bad with 1-10x LPVOs. Too many compromises with the end-use experience, that the 10x doesn't make up for. If you're going out to 600 and actually want magnification that matches precision, I wouldn't go with anything less than a 12x high end. And in the actual hunting realities I deal with, I get a lot more benefit out of superior glass and high end magnification in evaluating animals, penetrating shadow/brush/low light, etc.

 

[gbflyer]

I’m trying a 1-8 Credo HX. Heavy beast, I like it so far.