KAC, or ADM should work, by the pictures I’ve seen.
IMHO, right now I’m thinking of 1-6 as the sweet spot for 5.56mm AR guns.
However, I plan to mount the 1-8X S&B on an 11.1’’ gun, seeing as how I very much liked a 1-4X for the time I’d borrowed one, and can’t see how 1-8X would be worse.
Any input there would be nice, however once again: (true intention of this post)
KAC, or ADM should/might work.
I know I’m being an asshole about this, but any updates? Pictures? I can’t find any updated information anywhere.
Would love an update also.
Wow, it’s been a while, but I have finally got mine mounted and shot. The LaRue SPR-E is needed, as the rinds of the SPR will not fit between the erector housing and the occular bell, as pointed out earlier.
So far, all I have been able to do is 100 to 500(ish) with it.
I shot on steel from a supported prone position with it mounted on a 16" BCM BFH. I was shooting IMI M193. Weather conditions were favorable, mild temperature, no to very light wind, plenty of sun.
I was also shooting a SWFA 1-4 w/ T-reticle for comparison.
I had to zero both at the range as it was the first time I was shooting the IMI ammo. I started out shooting at the 100 yard steel, walking observed strikes to POA.
The ammo was wholly acceptable for the application. Once the zero was true and I did my part I had no issue putting bullets where they were supposed to go. I mostly shot at 100-300 as the guys with serious long-range rigs were using the longer targets.
The top end 8X of the Premier made target identification much easier than 4X once the paint was blasted off the steel. The eye-box at 8X is much tighter than the 4X optics I have chosen to use (SWFA, S&B), but at distances that call for 8X I am not completely convinced that it is as big of a draw-back as I previously feared. I would like to see some kind of speed lever for the magnification ring, as I think that there is validity in using these higher magnification optics across their range of magnification. I plan on running some drills later to see how well that theory holds up at close to mid range.
The mildots in the Premier made mil-holds very easy. Having subtentions at every half mil (past 1 mil) made holds more precise than those with subtensions only at every whole mil. I did not need to use illumination, but at 1X the dot was easily seen in bright daylight on a white background.
I did have an issue with zeroing when I did not sufficiently lock the turret, causing me to simply rotate the turret without making actual adjustment. Completely my fault, but something to be aware of. The turret adjustments were exceptionally positive and tactile.
I was forced to use a 100 yard zero (vice my preferred 100 meter zero), so I will be rezeroing at 100 meters shortly for 0 to 150 meter employment.
I am seriously considering putting this optic on my 3-gun rifle, as it’s Noveske SPR barrel will pull more performance out of this exceptional optic, and the weight versus performance will probably be less conspicuous.
Premier 1.1-8
SWFA 1-4
And for comparison, Aimpoint M4S
Very nice report F2S…Glad to see you found a mounting solution. Also glad to hear that you didn’t find the 8x to be totally unforgiving. One has to think that the Premier has crystal clear glass as well.
In regards to a cattail…that would seem like a great idea for that particular optic or any other 1-8x type. I highly doubt that folks will ever even touch 2x-7x. So essentially people will be going from one end of the spectrum to the other and need it to be done as quickly as possible. Throwing the entire power range can’t be done very quickly at all when a cat tail or similar throw ring isn’t present on the power dial.
I cannot understand why that optic needs to be as big and robust as it is. The size and the way in which it must be mounted are some real limiting factors for this optic in the future. I tend to think this optic might be a bit over built, much like IORs are. IORs have beautiful glass, nice adjustments, and at least one awesome ret. which is the MP-8, but at the end of the day one really has to wonder if they are really getting anything in return for having the optic be as robust and heavy as it is.
I think your SPR would make a great host for it, I don’t 3gun but in terms of what is possible w/ a SPR, this optic seems to make a really logical pick. Personally I think this optic would make a perfect fit on a 16" highly accurate .308 AR like a MWS or EMC.
Just got back from the range, did some 5 to 100 meter work.
Rezeroed due to a change back to Fed XM193 to burn what I had in stock.
I had to do a hasty 50 yard zero (1" low) as the longer range was occupied.
I started out with the SWFA 1-4 since it was already mounted.
I was shooting on a B8 repair center (not my preferred target for magnified optics, but it was all I had on me due to a different topic), and the groups I was turning in were less than superb, wandering between 1.5" to 2" at 50 yards.
Yuck.
Switched over to the Premier, and was getting the same group sizes despite double the magnification.
Damn Fed XM193!
Still needed to rezero a Comp M4S and my irons.
Feeling nostalgic, I decided to go the irons first.
First group was a cluster of 5 shots, all touching.
Hmmmm.
I know, impossible considering that I use a hooded front sight post 
Made my corrections and fired my second group. I was expecting the anomaly to be corrected, fully expecting a 2" group.
To my embarrassment, it was not to be.
Instead of a two inch group, I was looking at a 5 shot group that was 1" tall, slightly leaning to the left, one on top of the other, neatly cutting through the “X” of the B8, all within the X-Ring.
Maybe that “damn Fed XM193” wasn’t the problem after all.
So I did a little dedicated precision shooting from the magazine monopod prone on smaller circles and the dots within the Warren Tactical IDPA refaces. With the SWFA my groups settled down rapidly, so I switched back to the Premier, fully expecting to see the same reduction in group sizes.
Well, today was just effing full of suprises.
I could not get a good, consistent, 5-shot group. Literally every group would have one or two fliers that would open it up to embarassing dispersion. I immediately figured that I must be failing to maintain proper eye-relief and eye position, so I fully extended my stock (which is a fairly long LOP due to the A5 RE) and tried again. Easier to find eye-relief rapidly, but no significant change in group size. Damn.
So as a test I shifted my eye position enough to get scope shadow to fill the reticle to the first MIL hash to the left and shot another group. It was identical to the rest. Repeated to the right: same result.
So, I’m scratching my head on this one.
The focus is good, my eye relief and position is good, my fundamentals are sound and proven.
Well, I had a decent enough zero on the optics I wanted to compare so I drove forward before I got too ebroiled in minutia and started doing presentations at 5, 10, and 25, and a half and half drill. I ran those all at 1X, and there wasn’t anything significant to report. The Premier dot is bright, and I had it set at 7 of 9 the whole time with absolutely no issue on white Warren facers or my BCC steel, finding it literally Aimpoint bright. The eye-box at 1X gave me no issues.
I moved on to barricade/support shooting at 50.
To get this right out in the open as soon as possible, I do NOT think that there is any good reason to have an optic at 4X or higher for 50 yards. I normally operate under the premise of, “Run it at 1X, and if you need the magnification, run it up.” I have proven to myself time and time again that if I can identify it with the naked eye I can get acceptable hits at 1X pretty fast and still maintain my close-range performance. The opposite is not true in my experience. However, I wanted to compare the optics at 1X and 4X, and the Premier against both, at 8X.
So the drill went like this:
5 yard movement to cover. Fire 5 shots from the supported standing, over the center spindle of a large wire spool, at the head of a Warren reface. Switch to left side. Engage body circle from left side of spool, supported standing. Repeat until 30 rounds were expended. Total of 15 shots at the head and 15 shots at the circle.
I shot the SWFA at 1X and 4X and the Premier at 1X, 4X and 8X.
I had no problem holding most shots in the designated targets (yeah, sometimes I rush, and I squirted a shot or two just out of the circle from the support-side supported position when I got cocky). I was able to acquire the reticle and target the fastest on 1X. I shot the best on 4X. I found that I was trying to be too precise when I dialed up to 8X, and getting eye position on the support side took longer. I didn’t put it on the clock as a lot of the time during the drill is involved with safety manipulation and grip switching, and I didn’t want a fumble (or an abnormally smoking run) on my part to give a false impression of the performance of the optic. Seeing the trend, I decided to also try the Premier out on 2X. I found it work very well, which brought back a thought I had about the optic earlier:
If two-eyed shooting is already compromised due to the 1.1X at the low end, what would running it at 2X do?
Well, at 50 yards it worked out nicely. It was easier to center the dot in the target area, but I wasn’t tempted to make the shot prettier than it needed to be (or at least not as bad as when at 4X or higher). I am not ready to say that this is how I recommend employing the optic, just an observation about the condition of use.
I then went into target transitions.
10 and 20 yards. 2 targets, 10 yards apart. 10 shot strings, alternating targets for each shot. 3 strings per power setting at both distances.
Both optics did well at 1X at both distances, with the edge to the Premier due to the very bright dot. Still, more time was lost settling/recovering the reticle than in trying to find the reticle.
At 4x, hits were good, but slight overswing bothered me more than it did at 1X, and I broke a couple shots too early in the recovery, landing the shots just outside the center circle as it swung in. Mea culpa.
Overall, the Premier did an acceptable job. The large turrets were not as obtrusive as I anticipated, and exact eye placement was not needed to perform well. The dot brightness is exactly what I want in a close-range optic. Yeah, it’s big and heavy, and for some reason I am not shooting it to the precision level it should deliver, but it works very well at 5 to 50 yards.
Now, that being said, the 5 to 100 yd fight isn’t the primary application for a multi-thousand dollar optic of this design. I am going to do some more 100 meter work with it to try to nail down this precision issue, but at this point I have to cede that 200 to 600 meters (probably 800 meters on a 7.62 gun) is where this optic will really be run-out and have the opportunity to prove it’s capability.
So, my next update will be the next time I can get a minimum of 200 meters to shoot, and preferably out to 600.
I will note if I get the precision issue worked out or not.
Pics to follow.
*Note: the items I hotlinked are to give the reader information since I don’t have pics uploaded yet. They are NOT an advertisement or endorsement for anything.
Could your inconsistency issue with the PR be mount related?
I can’t say that it definately is not, but I doubt it.
Shot in the dark. Your experience is rather puzzling.
I am inclined to believe that I am failing, not the optic.
I don’t have the problem with other optics with a lower variable range or with a fixed power, so I am thinking that I am not adequately accounting for the changing eye-relief when zoomed fully in.
I was also not using precision ammo. I have some 69gr BlackHills that I am going to try out side by side with a Leupy 10X through my Noveske SPR off bags.
Maybe parallax then. IIRC, this scope has fixed parallax.
Damn I had to look up the length on that beast and its HUGE. Not to mention the odd spacing between the erector housing the rest of the scope.
That thing is as long as my 3-12x50 I had.
SWFA posted a picture and specs of the new and improved Premier Heritage 1-8x on their OpticsTalk forum. It is now a true 1x optic and it also looks like they changed the turrets, although it’s hard to tell from the description.
The reticle is the same.