Meopta Optika6 3-18x50mm FFP Field Evaluation

[p3t3rsn]

I’m saying SOMEONE other than Minox with the THLR, should examine what is truly used on a contact distance to longe range hunting reticle using people that actually do kill animals from zero to as far as possible, design the reticle and put it in a reliable, durable, FFP scope of 3-15x’ish power.

Or, just make a deal and use the THLR reticle.

Form, thinking you need to talk to your friends at NF into a Formidilosus designed reticle. Thomas did it with Minox, Cal Zant did it with Leica, only seems fitting that you do one with NF. Just saying’

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, thinking you need to talk to your friends at NF into a Formidilosus designed reticle. Thomas did it with Minox, Cal Zant did it with Leica, only seems fitting that you do one with NF. Just saying’

I can. 8 have to commit to the same scope, and it will add $750 to the cost.

 

[p3t3rsn]

I can. 8 have to commit to the same scope, and it will add $750 to the cost.

Count me in!! Please PM me if you have enough ppl interested. Depending on the details, may even take two.

 

[p3t3rsn]

Surely to god others here are interested??

 

[TheUgly]

I can. 8 have to commit to the same scope, and it will add $750 to the cost.

Very interested in this as well.

I’m especially curious about the details of the reticle you’ve thought up, and what it looks like. I'm guessing its similar to the THLR reticle minus the ranging scale?

 

[DPReef]

Would you guys feel optika 5 line has same dialing, tracking, and robustness quality albeit different knobs and features?

 

[ChrisAU]

Would you guys feel optika 5 line has same dialing, tracking, and robustness quality albeit different knobs and features?

I recently zeroed a friends 30-06 with a 3-18 Optika6 and my 270 with a 2-10 Optika5 in the same range trip. The turrets “felt” the same, and both adjusted accurately. I am more than impressed with the Optika5 for the price. It has withstood some banging around already without losing zero. Far from a thorough test, but I have seen very little on the 5 series so far and that is my experience to this point.

 

[Ondavirg]

I asked the rep if the mechanism was the same on the optika 5 and 6 and he stated the only difference was the 30mm tube allowed more adjustment. If so the 5 should be a great scope for the money. I bought one.

 

[ChrisAU]

I asked the rep if the mechanism was the same on the optika 5 and 6 and he stated the only difference was the 30mm tube allowed more adjustment. If so the 5 should be a great scope for the money. I bought one.

If that’s true (and my experience seems to say it is) then I sure hope a 3-15 and/or 4-20 with an exposed locking elevation turret is in the works!

 

[bmanb940]

I have been using an Optika6 1-6x24 for 15 months now and I have had zero issues at all. Yes, I do some work with Meopta, but that has no bearing on the info I pass along. Mine sits on an LMT and has over 500 rounds under it. It has been strapped to the underside of a tractor cab through 100+ hours of brush hogging, plowing, and planting. My son had the scope on his carbine that he shot in local competitions until I took it back because they are so hard to find. While CS isn't part of what I do, whenever I run across someone who has an issue with a Meopta product (2 in almost 2 years) I do my best to try and make sure they are taken care of quickly and correctly. I don't do any sales at all. Meopta is a proud supporter of LE/Mil too.

 

[Dobermann]

Alright, if you’ve lasted this far....


The “glass”. It’s good. Actually pretty darn good. Color rendition is good, clarity is good (falls of a smidge at the edges), resolution is good; really nothing jumps out other than “that’s pretty good”. My eyes seem to notice resolution- ability to observe fine details, over brightness, color contrast, etc.

These are what was laying around to compare this Meopta to-
View attachment 127337

From left to right- prototype, Optika6, Burris XTR II5-25x, SWFA SS 3-9x, Nightforce ATACR 4-16x, Leupolds Mark 6 3-18x.



In resolution from worst to best all at 16x (and 9x to compare SWFA): Burris, Leupold, Meopta, SWFA, prototype, ATACR. The Burris and Mark 6 is noticeably worse than all of them. The Meopta, SWFA, and prototype are relatively close- you would know which was which if not told. The Nightforce has always favored resolving detail over other factors, and it shows.


Brightness or most most perceive as brightness/clarity= “color pop”. This is how vivid and lifel like the colors are. From worst to “best”: Burris, Leupold, SWFA/Meopta, Nightforce, prototype. Again, Burris not great, Leupold ok, SWFA and Meopta are “pleasing” to look through, Nightforce and the prototype are close, but color does seem better with the proto.


Actual brightness or low light resolving: As the light gets lower, can I see and ID the target: Burris, Leupold, SWFA, Meopta, Nightforce, Proto. Once again, the Burris and Leupold are behind. SWFA is beat by the Meopta due to bigger objective and higher power. Nightforce seems to be just behind the proto due objective as well.




I’ve shot the Meopta next to a bunch of scopes, and overall the “glass” is better than anything in its price range. It destroys Vortex PST GEN 1 and is better than Gen 2, as well as Razor Gen 1. It’s better than latest Leupold VX3, and about on par with Zeiss V4/6, with the Meopta having maybe a bit better resolution. Maybe. It’s got better color pop, perceived brightness, but not quite as good resolution as the Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50mm. But it’s close.



TBC....

@Formidilosus: has there been enough passage of time now to let us know what the prototype was ... seemed like it faired relatively well compared to the ATACR ...

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus: has there been enough passage of time now to let us know what the prototype was ... seemed like it faired relatively well compared to the ATACR ...

That scope is on the market. That example did not do well.

 

[Dobermann]

That scope is on the market. That example did not do well.

Great - thanks!

Was almost wondering if it was a ZCO given the timing ... have you got to test one of those much yet?

 

[Formidilosus]

I do not have a ton of use on ZCO, what I have seen has been solid.

 

[Dobermann]

Good to hear ... was expecting so, given the history of those involved.

 

[ChrisAU]

For anyone clamoring for one, Sport Optics has some 3-18x50 FFP MRAD1's in stock. I ordered one to play with. I know they have been out for a long time.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

These lead to things like donuts, inconsistent spacing in reticles, huge windage spacing, BDC’s, SFP, extremely high zoom ranges; especially coupled with short length, small tube size, and lightweight. I/we’re constantly shooting with people that are rabid about these things. They will argue endlessly, yet it is all their feelings or beliefs, not actual performance. Take them off the square range, put realistic sized (that’d be much smaller than most use) targets at varying ranges with real wind, or shoot from unconventional positions (sitting off of a pack, kneeling over a downed tree, MPAJ, etc), put time constraints on them, and maybe a bit of heavy breathing, and NO ONE walks away wanting any of that stuff. I’ve shot with several good dudes from this forum alone, some were all about those things and just knew they were going to learn me something.
Then they actually shot as above while being measured, fail miserably, and then watch the chick crush what they just did with a 223 and SWFA.... dudes are swiping cards for new gear within an hour.

Form would you say from your experience that the failures to perform with the lightweight SFP setups you referenced above is a result of lack of shooting ability/practice? Or if the same shooter was using a system that you typically recommend (SWFA 3-9 FFP/tikka 6.5) there shooting would have/did improve for the same exercise?

 

[6.5G]

Hi Formidilosus,

Thank you for practically evaluating this. I saw you say in another thread you were considering updating this thread soon and I look forward to any new insights. I am curious about your further thoughts on the reticle design intentions vs reality, and durability.

In this vid from from 18 to 25 min, Ilya describes his thinking re your points about spotting misses, crowding the center, and wind/mover references on the main horizontal.

He has a few things he said he would change next time, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on y’all’s divergent perspectives on designing for the issues you both bring up. Is the donut being in the way any less of an issue if you use the tree versus dialing elevation, or is there still enough wind at 0-200 yards to make his intended holds insufficient? What do you think about his other reasoning?

I asked on another forum about a sub-$800 optic for this DMR course, not for hunting. http://thesitetraining.com/designated-marksman-rifle I know it’s a little off-topic but you are the only one durability testing the Optika6, and you have MRAD reticle points that have not been brought up anywhere else. And this rokslide thread from an SEO perspective is the first stop as well as the most rich convo regarding the Optika6 3-18’s general merits. But if this use case is too off-topic we can skip it.

When I asked on the other forum, Ilya actually didn’t mention the Optika6 and echoed yourself and the Rokslide special, recommending the SWFA 3-9 because of track record and light weight. I found the Optika6 later though, and am lured by it on paper.

However the course instructor (Jim Kauber) recommended a Vortex PST II with the EBR-4 reticle for his class. I agree with what you’ve said before though that the reason why we hear about Vortex’ great customer service is that their return rate is high, so I am surprised by this recommendation.

So I am stuck between the SWFA HD 3-9 (LOW), SWFA 3-15 (Kenko), The PST II and the Optika6. Does a DMR course make a tree-style/donut/illuminated reticle more critical? Do those features in this price point still not outweigh the known quantity of the 3-9? If one does need a tree reticle is there a better option at this price point? I have an SWFA 10x42, and I am not sure I could use the Mil-quad reticle without dialing for elevation. But I will work on it with a SWFA 3-9 if that is what is best. It sounds like you and Ilya think so. Thank you for your firsthand wisdom and insights from thorough testing.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form would you say from your experience that the failures to perform with the lightweight SFP setups you referenced above is a result of lack of shooting ability/practice? Or if the same shooter was using a system that you typically recommend (SWFA 3-9 FFP/tikka 6.5) there shooting would have/did improve for the same exercise?

Yes to both. Lack of ability and skill is almost always present, however different “systems” have differing amount of possible error built in, and whether people like to admit it or not- some ways and gear are not as good and/or require more skill and time to use.

 

[Formidilosus]

In this vid from from 18 to 25 min, Ilya describes his thinking re your points about spotting misses, crowding the center, and wind/mover references on the main horizontal.

He has a few things he said he would change next time, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on y’all’s divergent perspectives on designing for the issues you both bring up. Is the donut being in the way any less of an issue if you use the tree versus dialing elevation, or is there still enough wind at 0-200 yards to make his intended holds insufficient? What do you think about his other reasoning?

If you’re using the reticle for elevation holds, then the donut is not an issue. Everything is a compromise, and for dialing elevation as the vast majority do, the donut blocks quite a few impacts.

So I am stuck between the SWFA HD 3-9 (LOW), SWFA 3-15 (Kenko), The PST II and the Optika6. Does a DMR course make a tree-style/donut/illuminated reticle more critical? Do those features in this price point still not outweigh the known quantity of the 3-9? If one does need a tree reticle is there a better option at this price point? I have an SWFA 10x42, and I am not sure I could use the Mil-quad reticle without dialing for elevation. But I will work on it with a SWFA 3-9 if that is what is best. It sounds like you and Ilya think so. Thank you for your firsthand wisdom and insights from thorough testing.

The PST isn’t even a consideration for me. Gas gun DMR the 3-9x is a very workable option. The Optika 6 would work but is quite large.