I am wondering why the Leupold Prismatic tactical scope is not more popular. It is compact, weighs 12 oz, and has an illuminated reticule. I know Aimpoint and Eotech dominate the market for cqb optics, and I own both with satisfaction so I understand why people buy them. But it seems odd that the Leupold hardly ever shows up.
I don’t see the point in the thing, personally, since it’s not variable power.
You have all the limitations of a scope (exit pupil, cheek weld, eye relief etc. though all seem to be relatively generous) without the benefits of magnification. And all for nearly 500 dollars.
I cannot think of a reason to buy one over an Aimpoint or EOTech unless you have terrible case of uncorrected astigmatism or something.
I wanted to like Prismatic.
I like the idea of a etched reticle that might offer more precise distance shooting.
I didn’t like the need to have a proper cheek weld and eye relief. I also didn’t like the inability to co-witness your irons either.
For me, I decided that a 1-4x scope would be just as good as the Prismatic for close in shooting and better at long range.
I didn’t feel that it would be faster than a Aimpoint or EoTech for close up.
I never did any shooting with the Prismatic, so my opinions are worthless.
You have to be right behind it, just like a scope, unlike an Aimpoint or similar that can make it less advantageous when shooting from unusual positions or with less than perfect cheekweld. It’s also not parallax free.
Expensive. Reticle sucks.
tried one, i think it would be great on as a hunting scope on a shot gun.
number one thing for me was not having unlimited eye relief and the battery life sucked.
Swapped for an aimpoint, havnt looked back.
I had one. Didn’t really like it the circle-plex reticle-way too busy. I like my Aimpoint T1 and Trijicons better.
Then it broke. Sent it back to Leupold. They had if for six months and couldn’t get parts that would work to fix it.
I traded it in for a spotting scope. Don’t miss it. I give Leupold credit, they do honor their warrantly, I like their regular VX3 scopes.
Louis
I had noticed that Gander has one here where I live. I know Leupold makes nice stuff but I wasn’t to impressed with it. Just me.
Cant use irons, and no QD capability.
Illuminated reticle is not daytime visible
FOV and Eye Relief suck
If Leupold made a 2.5x version with about the same weight and size I would be interested.
I wonder if they could and do it for roughly the same price.
I missed this thread earlier and just posted about this scope.
I actually really liked it, at least looking at it in the store.
I compared the LP to an AP and found that the LP glass was cleaner, clearer; whatever term you want to use.
The LP was easier to see through from different position. (All standing with rifle mounted ready to fire) I think that is called eye relief. Maybe I’m doing something wrong with the aimpoint?
The big circle didn’t clutter up the view because the lines are very thin. I’m looking at trading my EOTech because I hate how cluttered it is, didn’t get that feeling at all from this scope.
There are multiple different illumination settings from off to what seemed fairly bright.
I’m a little scope shy that I liked this one a lot, but the reviews are very negative.
???
Strange that you found the Leupold easier from various positions. Aimpoints, EOTechs, and other red dot sights have unlimited eye relief and no exit pupil restrictions.
What do you mean by “easier to see through”? Easier how?
I’ll try to explain it the best I can… when I would look through the Leupold whether it was being held by hand or mounted on an M4, it seemed like first, the view field was bigger, (The lens might be bigger) it seemed like it was easier to line up the dot with whatever I wanted to put it on. I actually felt, and I think this is opposite what everyone else is saying, that it was quicker to acquire my target.
Also, I thought the reticle (The red dot and the larger red circle) were very crisp and didn’t distract from seeing the target I was aiming at.
Again, guys, I’m not new to guns by a long ways, but I’m new to really working with AR’s so my opinion is that of a novice.
I also found that the recticle was so crisp and clear the front sight, which is a bother to me with my EOTech, virtually disappeared from my field of vision. (Or at least the field of vision I noticed)
When I left the store I called my buddy who, like me, has been thinking about the Aimpoint, and more so the ACOG and told him I found the perfect sight. I was that excited about it.
Part of me is wondering if Leupold had upgraded the specifications and made it closer to what people wanted? Part of me is wondering if I’m just plain wrong and not looking at the right things?
I’ll probably go back on Monday or Tuesday with my own M4 and mount up an Aimpoint and the Leupold and compare them again.
…
Part of me is wondering if Leupold had upgraded the specifications and made it closer to what people wanted?
Well, I don’t think it’s the scope’s lack of features that people don’t like. I think it’s the fact that it’s a 1X scope. Without magnification, I’m simply failing to see the purpose. Crispness aside (and one’s focus should be on the target anyway), a 1X scope offers no real advantages over a quality red dot or variable power option, and introduces a number of potential disadvantages that have already been commented on.
To me, it would make more sense to save your pennies and pick up a a used Accupoint TR24 1-4X. With that, you’ll have a quality build optic, variable magnification all the way up the 4X power, and no need for batteries as the reticle gains illumination from fiber optics and tritium.
Isn’t the point of both the Aimpoint and the Leupold to put a red dot on the intended target without having to line up a front and rear sight? I don’t mean that in a rude way, to me they do the same thing because both put a dot on the target without magnification.
The battery issue is definately something to consider, however the one I looked at allowed you to see the recticle with no battery, no illumination. It was simply an outline of the recticle much like the lines of a rifle scope.
…
The point of red dot/holographic optics is for fast target aquisition at close ranges. A generalization is wherever that dot is, thats where you will hit. As long as you can see a dot on the target, you can hit it. Thers is not a “need” for cheekweld, eye/head position, etc.
The prismatic is a scope. You have to aim and use it like a scope. You get a 1x scope with none of the advantages of a red dot/hologaphic sights and all the disadvantages of a scope. All that when you could get an EOTech or even an older Aimpoint for less. The only marginal advantage I can see is the etched reticule.
You mentioned “different poisitions”, yet you also said “all standing”… What does that mean? Try laying on your back (like as if you got knocked off your feet) and try aiming at a target in front of you with a scope.
IMHO, the prismatic is the perfect 1X optic for shooters that shoot at a static range, but is entirely unsuitable for combat.
Sounds like it’s a darn good thing I decided to wait and do a little more research.
Yes, they both put a reticle on the target without magnification. However, the Leupold requires proper cheek weld and proper eye relief to do so. Without the former, you’ll run the risk of seeing nothing but darkness until you reposition your eye into that “sweet spot”.
With a red dot or holographic sight, all you have to do is have the target and reticle in view. Your distance from the sight, or your orientation behind it doesn’t matter.
Thanks guys, it’s all starting to make sense. At least in theory.