With all this talk of the tight eyebox and “flicker”, maybe the Leupold isn’t the way to go after all. I’m curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn’t really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.
I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It’s obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you’re skilled at mil calculation, or is it?
Typically lpvo’s are ran at 1x and then maxed out for distance shots. In other words, most folks arent using anything between the lowest and highest mag setting and thus FFP is not needed. FFP in these small scopes negatively effects the FOV and eyebox, same thing for higher mag levels. 4-6x is plenty of top end out to 6-700yds. Cramming 8x in there has more of a negative effect than positive, you are sacrificing 1x performance to gain a negligible/unnecessary amount of top end.
It depends how you are going to use it most and what distances/type of shooting. Lpvo’s shine with (in theory) red dot like performance at 1x with the ability to zoom in with usable reticle for distance. If you plan on doing a lot of range estimation and shooting longer range/precision, than sure FFP is an important feature. You’ll probably want a higher mag level as well and probably should be looking at a traditional precision optic.
As far as mils vs moa it preference really. Moa allow for slightly more precise adjustments (.25” vs mils .36”) but its really negligible. To me mils are faster to work with and I prefer them. Here is one of the better articles on the subject: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/ . BUT, I disagree with the author on range estimation with mils. I think inches and still use mil with no issue. Yeah a calculator is needed but it’s likely needed for dividing target size by moa reading as well. Not to mention its a simple formula on both moa/mil.
I think the the post above kind of summed it up on SFP or FFP. FFP are nice because you can get a decent 1x dot with few distractions and a detailed 6x, but there are tradeoffs- FFP seems to be harder to illuminate well and is more finicky with the illum visibility in the eye box.
SFP are often more coarse on 1x but are more usable without illumination, and are often brighter.
On the Kahles, unless you are tied to the SM1, think about the G4b or even better the new reticle that looks like swaro’s BRT-I. Both use center dots that are much brighter than the illuminated portion of the SM1 and also give you some wind holds, which are good to have. SM1 is still a nice reticle, however, and still quite fast/usable with no illum on at all.
I had a chance to handle a Kahles with the SM1 reticle yesterday and the FoV and eye box seemed definitely impressive, but I ordered the Nightforce NX8 this morning.
My decision was mostly because I really wanted the 8x and FFP. I can deal with the tighter eye box on 8x, but at 1x it is still fine for me when actually mounted to a rifle.
I didn’t really like the Kahles SM1 reticle much in person, as I found the outside circle a little distracting and the mil markings a little difficult to track since they aren’t numbered. It seemed plenty bright, but I’m not a fan of the 4 hour shutoff feature or the brightness adjustment knob.
I was also a little shocked that the Kahles only has a 10 year warranty. I feel like a $2000 optic should come with a lifetime warranty and I seem to have really bad luck breaking stuff so I want something that will last forever.
I forgot to mention that the NX8 ended up being almost $300 cheaper. Considering this rifle is pretty much just a toy and the NX8 was almost double what I originally budgeted for the optic, spending a little less was nice too.
I’m shooting a 2-Gun match this weekend and will use my buddies NX8. I have enough time behind one via drills/plinking but I’m going to run one on the clock to either upset or reaffirm my initial thoughts.
Good read, I’ve wanted to try the NX8 and fully expect sacrifices in a tiny 1-8 FFP.
Illum flicker on higher mags would not bother me, as on 8x I’d be locked into the eyebox tighter and the illum also would not be a critical. If it’s as good or better than the Mark 6 on 1x, I’d be fine with it.
Still can’t go wrong with the K16…the new 3GR reticle looks about perfect for a GP rifle. The SM1 is also excellent but does not have wind holds.
Just a quick update. I ended up ditching the Mark 6 as an option, in fact FFP all together, in favor of a Kahles with an SM1 reticle. I missed the one on the EE a few weeks ago, but picked up a show demo for $1700. This reticle will be a good excuse to learn how to use mils properly, and so far I’m impressed with the eyebox and glass, but I haven’t mounted it yet.
I’m kicking myself for missing the Geissele sale over Memorial Day Weekend too, so now I’m shopping some more. QD is ok, but not a requirement. What are opinions on the right mount for this nice scope? I can’t really afford Spuhr after splurging on the scope, so Geissele at full price? LaRue? Nightforce? Lighter is better, links are appreciated.
I had no issue with the MK6 eyebox, which people use to complain about. I have yet to test out my NX8, I will next month. I will be shooting from 0-500yds. If I hate it, I will also get the Khales.
Op, I like bobro mounts. I use them for everything.
You chose well on the scope. I just sold an SM1 in the EE because I wanted the new 3gr reticle, but the K16 is about as good as it gets, and I have a lot of time with the Mark 6, Vortex, and some other 1-6s. Be sure to give diopter adjustment a chance…work on it until the image is flat rather than only until the reticle is clear like you would with other scopes.
On the mounts, any of the above. LaRue is fine if you aren’t worried about split rings; his mounts are tough with steel thread inserts so you aren’t going to strip one out. Just be sure the levers are properly adjusted and check them from time to time if you remove it a lot.
I really liked my MK6, but after a while I got some black trash in it. This is very common for the MK6 series, and Leupold fixed it in about 3 weeks, free of charge, and it was flawless. It did not affect performance, but it was very “Tasco” feeling for such a high end optic. I have never before experienced this (even with Tasco).
IMHO, the 3-18x is an ideal scope for long range work in the .308 (the bottom end) and up. The 3 is still sufficiently fast (like the 3-9x for hunting) and likely forgiving of form while the 18x is better for those long range shots. Considering a 1.2 MOA (yes, a rare few shoot better) rifle in 7.62 with POI of 12" on an 18" plate at 1,000 the justification for anything over 15x, surveillance aside, is questionable on this platform as the average shooter will spend most of their time off target and correcting for variables they do not understand. Again, IMHO, the 17s is a battle rifle in 7.62 that can turn some cover into concealment and is thus deserving of an optic of more power than traditional 5.56 carbines. If you have the money to spend, by all means and it is tough to beat Leupold in quality, features, reliability, customer service vs price. For the average guy a 3-9x will get you on any steel you want out to 700 with 7.62, probably why the 4.5-14 and 3.5-15 are so popular in .308. The Mark 6 line really reflects higher powered scopes with a more useful lower end, albeit at a price. If I understand what you are asking, the 17s doesn’t need 18x for any reason whatsoever. I have an OBR LT-762 in 18", that is a 1,000 yard rifle capable of stupid tiny groups; it is fitted with an ER/T 4.5-14x 50mm and I have never needed more. For an additional, lighter and more manageable rifle at closer ranges I considered the PredatAR in 7.62 but for the same price the 17s was an easy win. The 17s now sits with a 2 MOA M3 Aimpoint and 3x magnifier. I can hit steel targets all day at 450y while standing, but not so much beyond that due to a lack of holdover. The 1x 2 MOA dot is incredible fast where this rifle was designed to spend most of it’s time. The Aimpoint is also extremely forgiving of poor form, position, etc. At the end of the day, it’s a civilian (steel ringer) battle rifle.
My NX8 had a significant amount of debris like this that became worse the more vibration it was subjected to. I have only experienced this now with Nightforce and Mueller. Any company can have things slip through.
Is there “a blurry ring area” on 1x like a donut of fail around the image with the nx8? That’s the other complaint I’ve read, although I’ve never seen it in the photo of video of the optic I’ve managed to find.