Other than fondling in a shop, I have never used a prism type scope and was wondering if there was any advantages of a 3x prism versus something like a 3-9 variable in use?
Lately I’ve been thinking about prism scopes as opposed to a lpvo. I find I leave my 1-4x lpvo on 4x, and wonder if something like the upcoming 3x micro prism from Primary Arms can’t fulfill the same role while weighing less.
I think the 3x prism and 3-9 powered scopes have different applications.
The prism is more of a combat optic similar to an Acog, the 3-9 is more of a hunting/distance optic and not good for moving targets.
If you’re looking at 3x prism the closer comparison would be a red dot or Eotech with a 3x magnifier or a LPVO.
Prism’s tend to be a bit heavy, eye relief is short and is 3x all the time, but if you have astigmatism it will be better than a red dot.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
I don’t know about heavy unless comparing to an Aimpoint micro. Most ACOGs are lighter than most LPVOs, and way lighter than a red dot plus magnifier plus mounts. In fact most ACOGs weigh about the same as just the magnifier plus mount.
These new generation of micro prisms from PA and Vortex are even lighter still.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Carrying around a variable on max power is not ideal. Low power first for field of view and quickness, then zoom in to get a better view when there is something to see. Made that mistake hunting with my long range rifle and fixed 10x scope. Nice 10 pt walked right up to me while ground hunting in the woods. Couldn’t find a good spot to shoot once he started walking away. I have shot more deer on the lowest power of my scopes because the lower power appears to hold more steady as my slightest movements are not exaggerated by the reduced field of view. Moving targets are easier to pick up and track. Magnification does not equal more accuracy. Unless you are benchrested aiming at tiny targets, lower power can be more beneficial.
I leave the lpvo on 4x because it serves my use an an ACOG stand in, and combined with a small rds gives a near/far capability without the necessity of adjusting anything. In hindsight I may have been better served saving further for an ACOG, but I elected to spend that money on ammo and continue training. At this point, short of doing a micro rds/mag combo, I don’t think anything out there better serves my uses.
I just got the Primary Arms GLX 2x prism and SLX 1x. I was going to use the 2x on my 14.5" to replace the vortex gen 2 1-6 and the 1x is going on the AR pistol to replace the holosun 510. Pretty sure I need glasses as reddots are not a crisp dot for me. Also ordered a vortex micro 3x magnifier to try with the 1x as some people have shown it works with the prism scope. We will see. Would like to get another 2x and put it on my duty rifle to replace the carry handle.
It’s easier to make a durable prism optic than a traditional variable power design. Prism optics tend to be lighter/smaller than LPVO equivalents.
One of the tradeoffs on the “high end” prism optics like ACOGs and Elcans is that they lack a focusing eyepiece for aging eyes. The more inexpensive prism optics from Vortex, Primary Arms, Swamp Fox and others have this feature.
To the opening question, though, I don’t think it’s a fair use case comparison between a compact 3x prism optic and a medium power variable optic like a 3-9x or 2.5-10x. A 3x or 4x prism should be compared to similar LPVO use cases.
I was wondering if there was some quirk of 3x in a prism being quicker to acquire than 3x in a non prism. Hadn’t thought of the usually shorter eye relief in most prisms.
I hope the Vortex works for you with the 1x. I picked one up back in the summer to use with a Holosun 515 and so far I am really liking it.
I got a Vortex 3x micro magnifier a couple of months ago and I’m loving it. It works really well behind the Romeo5 and it has helped me a little bit with my astigmatism.
Yes, yes there is. Prism and conventional magnifying optics (tube-type refractor telescopes) give you a view for wherever the scope’s objective lens happens to be. The closer that objective lens is to your eye, the more the view is like what your eye would see unaided, and the easier and faster it will be for your brain to process. The farther that lens is from your eye, the worse it is. A 1-6x or 1-8x scope with a 10" tube and 4" eye relief is forming its image 14" away forward of your eye, somewhere down the barrel of your gun. A prism sight (ACOG or not) with a 4" length and 3" eye relief is forming that image 7" forward of your eye, which isn’t ideal but is tons better than the tube scope. The 4x32 ACOG, with its short length and terribly short eye relief, can work great for this if you spend enough time practicing, and don’t develop a flinch from the eyepiece hitting your glasses. I find the 3.5x35 to be an ideal compromise, even though it sticks the objective farther out.
The closer the target is, the more this difference matters. The longer scope would still slow you down at, say, 500 yards, but the difference would be small, while at 5-10 yards it’s a big difference.
You can play around with this with an unloaded gun in a safe area trying different scopes, and it will be immediately obvious in back to back testing.
Red dots and holographic sights work completely differently and this doesn’t apply to them, only to scopes using lenses and/or prisms.
(For hyper-technical people, note that what matters is the physical location of the objective lens, not the optical path. Prism sights normally have an optical path much longer than the external physical length of the scope. Also, an ultra-short refractor scope would provide the same benefit, but they are extremely rare - the IOR Valdada Pitbull is the only one I’m aware of, and it was never widely seen in the US.)
Thank you! That was what I was curious about.