Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Meopta Optika6 3-18x50mm FFP Evaluation

I've learned a lot from just from what these guys have to say on here, Form, ,screaminweasle and Mtnboomer. Good stuff.

I know you are not supposed to care about such things, but that is a damn ugly scope.

Phucqk!

Does the "bleed" in the illumination go away at lower illumination settings or is it throughout each from dim to bright?

eye of the beholder

The part that the vast majority want to talk about.... glass. I almost don’t even want to write it, as “glass” past good enough to see the target is an overblown, nearly useless thing for aiming devices. Somewhere around Leupold VX2 level glass is better than is required to positively identify and shoot big game in the US during legal hours. I, and friends have hunted from Alabama and Florida swamps, to Tennessee and Virginia thickets, to western dark timber, and 13,000ft alpine. Never, have I not been able to kill an animal I wanted because of “glass” once scopes reached good enough. People talk glass, because they care more about showing their buddies thier scope, than killing with it.
If scopes actually worked like people believe they do, I would probably care more about clarity, brightness, color rendidtion, and resolution in scopes.



I’ve gotten so many questions on “what’s the glass like” even after the second paragraph in my first post, that I’m going to explain why “glass” is such a ridiculous thing to care about for scopes. There’s going to be some history, reality, and hopefully a start down the path of changing some people’s beliefs and thinking.


To begin what is a scope? This seems like such an easy question. I ask this all the time to groups of supposedly very experienced people, and almost universally they say- “an aiming device” or the equivalent. To which I reply- “so it's not an observation device like a bino or spotting scope?” They say of course not. “Then why is the first thing everyone of you did when I set that prototype scope on the table, is pick it up and ask about glass?” “Not one of you asked about ANYTHING that has to do with hitting a target”. “No questions in zero retention, tracking, RTZ... NOTHING”. They’ll be silence for a moment while everyone thinks.

There is a massive cognitive dissonance in the hunting/shooting world. All BS aside, in the first post I could have said “failed horribly, couldn’t even zero out of the box” and someone- most likely multiple people, would have still asked “yeah, so what’s the glass comparable to?”
Think about what you do when you pick up a scope at the gun counter or range. For most it’s “look at the glass”. I was shown a prototype scope by a major scope manufacturer a few years ago. The scope was going to change my life, and they wanted me to “test it”. No, what they wanted was a shill, and they thought I’d be so excited to get a free scope to “test”, that I’d look through it, shoot a hundred rounds, hit some targets and exclaim “it’s great!” like every other “tester” that manufacturers send product to.

I asked is it the final version?

The rep said yep, almost ready to hit the market. He tries to hand it to me, and is talking abut the glass clarity.

I didn’t take it. I ask- “ok, what is the zero retention like?” “how many rounds do you have through them, have they held zero, how do they adjust, any failures?”

He says something to the effect of “nah man it’s good, lots of testing”. “Look at the clarity, it’s awesome, best in the class”. “Also, we did a great job on the BDC”.

Me- “Zero interest in a BDC” “how many rounds do you have on a single sample, how has it held zero from impacts, specifically being dropped?”

Him looking confused- “uhhh, mmm I’ll have to ask”. “It’s super reliable though”. “Man, you really need to look through it, this thing has an awesome view, and is light!”

Me- not really interested, sir.

Him- “what!, you haven’t even looked through it?”

At some point in this he put the scope on the shelf, and my partners had found seats to sipp their coffee and watch the exchange.

Me- “dude, this scope has not been tested for anything that matters by what you are telling me.” I don’t care about glass, I don’t care about weight, I care “does it work?” That’s it. I can tell you that scope is almost guaranteed to fail even basic testing, because you guys didn’t do it” “not trying to be a dick, but it’d be a waste of both of our times”.

Him- uhh, I’ve never been asked this before. I really don’t know how to respond, you haven’t even looked at it.

Me- “Ok”. I picked it, took the turret caps off, spun the turrets, turned the power ring, then looked through and started laughing.

Him- What?

Me- look through it.

Him- uggh....

Me- “this is why we’re not interested”. (The freaking reticle was rotated 45 degrees, and one of the lenses was about to fall out).

Him- “uhhh, mmmm, it was fine earlier” he calls over another rep, that rep looks through and says “damn. Someone dropped it earlier”, and takes it to a back room”.



Stupid long story, but it is absolutely illustrative of the reality of the scope world. That was a major, well thought of company, marketing a scope aimed at the military. The worst part about it is, it actually got traction with segments. Couple years later now, that scope is on the market, people buy them, exclaim how great they are, but they are exactly the same. I’ve seen a bunch, and if they get bumped at all- they lose zero.

People care about “glass” I think, because they don’t know anything else. No one actually shoots. Think about it, there is no reason that a rifle hunter, most especially one that will shoot past 100-200 yards, should not be practicing like a serious bow hunter. Serious archers shoot hundreds of arrows a week, they practice in all positions- not just standing, they practice in the most realistic way possible- 3D Targets, varied terrain, wearing their pack/bino pouch/hunting clothes. They get their heart rate up, practice in the wind; if they are really dedicated, in bad weather.
Yet a “serious” rifle hunter might shoot 100 to 200 rounds a year, almost all from a bench, and any that’s not from a bench will be from prone. How does this hold up? Anyone that has done both seriously and for an extended period will see that arcery and rifles aren’t really different- it’s just the range. If someone buys a bow, they can be relatively successful out to 20-30 yards with only a few hours of practice. If someone buys a rifle, they can be relatively successful out to 200 or so yards with only a few hours of practice. But the moment an archer wants to be truly competent at 40+ yards, he has to PRACTICE. And, his equipment needs to be tuned, and reliable. The same for a rifleman. If a rifle hunter wants to be truly competent past 200-300 yards, it requires PRACTICE- just like an archer, and he better start paying attention to what matters with his equipment.

But.... almost no one does this. Every forum, gun shop, and range is full of people buying or having bought a “insert whatever rifle” generally chambered in a big cartridge, with some “insert supposedly good scope”, saying he’s plans on hunting elk “to 600 for now, but would like to be able to go to 800, in the future”. This same person that is “600 yard capable” now, has to ask about BC, ballistic programs, if his BDC will be correct in the mountains, ft-lbs energy, ad nauseam. He can talk about how clear his scope is, but he can’t tell you if it’ll still be zeroed after the drive to Colorado.....


Here’s the dirty little secret- scopes fail. A lot. If you use a rifle like it was a bow, there are laughably few scopes that will last a week without a failure. What hasn’t I haven’t revealed was in the time that I’ve been evaluating this Meopta- I’ve had two other scopes from “great” brands. Both have utterly failed. One caused a complete rodeo on an animal when it did. Both of these scopes have gotten great reviews from others. However the way they failed, is not a QC problem, it’s a design problem. One of these is already on the market, one was about to be. If they bring this scope to production.... I hope you don’t slip while hunting because the scope won’t be zeroed afterwards.

I say what I do about equipment (especially scopes), not because I am “loyal” to a brand, or even because I care what someone uses. I do it, because some people want real information that comes from real use- not “shot a box of shells through it, it’s great”.


Scope failures are real even with just hunting and a bit of shooting use. 4 of the last 5 years the group of 6-8 people I hunt with have had scope failures. All of them knew better, but they couldn’t shake the “its really awesome glass and features”. “it’s just hunting, it’ll be fine”. Quite a few tags went infilled after a LOT of effort, and two complete rodeos on wounded animals.


TBC....

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-


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....

Agree with the above. However, glass quality does matter. Maybe not when shooting "big game" in prime lighting. I'm a dedicated varminter and no way am I spending 6 hours in a ground squirrel infested alfalfa field with a VX2 "quality" optic. Nor will I waste my time shooting at Rock chucks with VX2 quality lenses with rampant mirage in the air. When picking out fine details and looking through a scope for hours on end is the "gig", glass quality matters and matters much.

But, if the scope doesn't work as an "aiming devise" it's useless to me as well. I literally shoot thousands of rounds in the spring at ground squirrels, with multiple rifles at multiple ranges usually out to 600 yards and glass matters much. But, if it doesn't track correctly I'm wasting a lot of ammo. I've had zero issues with 1" tubed Japanese LOW factory made Weaver Grand Slam 5-20x50 models with dialing and returning to zero. Have no idea if they survive a fall, don't care, I don't drop my gear while walking in the varmint fields. I also have had ZERO issues with Meopta 4.5-14x44 HTR model scopes of which I have many and dial much with. As far as how "robust" they are, don't know, haven't dropped them and don't plan to. Sightron big sky models are another example where I've had thousands of rounds through them without "failure" of any kind. Now, I start drop testing, and beating the heck out of them, different story I'm sure.

Hunting western big game and walking in much tougher terrain than that in which usual varminting takes place changes my views completely. A robust scope and more robust mounting systems are wise for that application, and I totally agree with you in that regard.

Everyone has different applications/expectations for their optics. Agreed, that most don't know a scopes abilities to "track" or lack thereof and many are probably "lucky" to shoot more than a few hundred rounds through a specific scope in a years time.
I would caution to not throw everyone who values glass quality as a top priority as a "dumb dumb" who doesn't shoot more than a box of shells in a year, as that is simply not the case. Might be the majority, but some of us actually spend a lot of time in the field, much like yourself.

Different applications for everyone, however, all should be MOST concerned with proper function of their aiming devise. Assuming they like to hit the bullseye everytime.

You've written some good info on these forums, some is applicable to me more that other parts, & most of it I agree wholeheartedly with, so thanks for all the info past & future.

But what's in the paragraph above might be some of the best of all. I really really think you ought to say it again: After good enough, it just doesn't matter anymore.

I really think some people have a hard time separating the use of a scope from that of a binocular & want to make a scope into a binocular.

MM

the only time I have wished for better glass is, overlooking a prairie dog town for hours in heavy mirage conditions. but would still rather be using a reliable scope mechanically and deal with the eye strain, than have better optics and crappy mechanical. those burris XTR's look like they are made in the same phillipene factory that the vortex PST 2's are made. I would be interested if they also had canted reticles like the 2 PST's 2's I tested.

Phucqk!

Meant to respond to this. That’s certainly better, but flip it upside down, reducevthe thickness of the cross hair, and bring the bottom post to within 1.5 mils.

What the hell?

How deep should the blue on the barrel be?
How much figure to the walnut stock?
How fancy the rifle sling?
How smooth should the action cycle?
How tight should the groups be?
How smooth the ride of your car?
How green your lawn?
Burger or steak?
First class or coach?

People should buy and enjoy what they want. If you don't want high end glass, then don't buy it.

THLR’s reticle is interesting, and pretty close to what I am saying.

This is it, with some of the extra stuff removed-




On low power-

What are you talking about?

Lol

Ok. Maybe have the cross hair .1 until about 2 mils then step down to .06-.07ish toward the center? (.06 like SWFA 10X, .07 like the 3-9 and 6x)

4 mils to the sides before the thick posts enough? I can't tell from the couch.

Using the SWFA MQ reticle and moving horizontal bars into 4 MOA mil is exactly what seems right for my purposes. For symmetry, and to retain a clear FOV around the aimpoint, I’d have the lower bar at 4 MOA mil too, like a German #4 reticle.

Liking the reticle ideas. Thicker, closer bars with a fine aiming point that can be illuminated (very light in low light), and marked windage. One addition, from a lot of last light looking, even with some heavy German #4's.....4 bars are easier to bracket with in low light than 3.

Agree on everything said concerning reliability/toughness/perfect adjustments/rtz....everything else is secondary. With those things in place, there's no downside to good glass aside from cost.

"After looking at Doug’s site, it appears a 2.5-15x44mm is coming late 2019."

I hope they do a 2.5-15x44mm FFP with Mil adjustments. I would try one.

Thanks, Form for the thorough testing and reporting!