This scope has been a big deal online and with certain segments of the market since it was announced. A European company that historically makes very good optics, releasing 6x zoom range SFP and FFP scopes with locking turrets, illumination, decent reticles, etc. for $500-$700? That’s a first.
They started shipping a couple months ago, yet no one has really shot them. The big question isn’t “how’s the glass”, or “how the turrets feel”, or any other secondary nonsense. The important question is do they work. Do they hold zero even with rough handling, do they “track”, do they return to zero, etc. You know.... things a scope is supposed to do. Yet no one has measured or talked about these things.
So...
This one is the 3-18x50mm RD FFP with MRAD 1 reticle.
It weighs 30.9 ounces
The reticle is a a .2 mil hash reticle, except for the center. The center has a horseshoe ostensibly to make it usable/visible at low powers. Meopta and the gentleman that designed the reticle want it to be a crossover hunting and long range shooting reticle.
High power-
Low power-
Mounted it to a Tikka T3 that has been bonded to a KRG Chassis (top rifle)-
Bottom rifle is a T3x Lite SS, 6.5 Creedmoor also in a KRG chassis. It has mounted a SWFA SS 3-9x with way more than 100,000 rounds on it. If the Meopta works correctly, it’ll go on the 6.5 and go antelope hunting.
The first trip was super short (200’ish rounds). Bore sighted, fired two rounds. Adjusted down .5, and right .3, and fired 7 more rounds. A final up .2 and done.
Next was checking adjustment value. Normally this would be done with the scope mounted on a vice and the “tracking” checked on a tracking board. I didn’t have that this time, so live shooting would be it. Two dots placed as far apart as I could get with the target I was using. Went to scope, measured with the reticle 10.4 mils between centers on the dots. Fired a round at the bottom dot, dialed 10.4 mils, aimed at the bottom dot and fired. Dialed down 10.4 mils, fired up 10.4 mils, etc, etc. Shooting is NOT a very accurate way to measure increment value. It takes a really, really, good gun with consistent sub MOA 10 round groups, and big adjustment range (10+ mil/30+ MOA) to see anything worthwhile. This gun is a very consistent 1.2-1.3 MOA gun for ten rounds with the lot of ammo being used. After 20 rounds the scope adjusted within 1% at 10.4 mils.
With that completed, a quick check for return to zero (RTZ). Shoot a round, dial up and down 300-500 mils, shoot a round, etc. I got bored and the last time I dialed up and down a couple thousand mils.
No issues-
Next was checking to see how it does with zero retention from side and top impacts. The way we do it is- gun zeroed, drop once on left side from 12” onto padded mat, shoot, drop once on right side, shoot, once top side, shoot. If all is good, then repeat from 36”. If it holds zero, then three drops on each side, and check.
After dropping on left/right/top from 12”, and two drops from 36”-
The next hundred’ish rounds were spent shooting from alternate positions and getting a feel for the reticle, eyebox, etc. Once that was done, it was taken off and remounted on the 6.5 Creed. Zeroed without issue.
I did fire a 3 round group for those that think 3 rounds means anything-
Checked drop at 700 or so on the 6.5, and shot some more positional stuff. Amazingly, despite being told countless times that when shooting long range you’ll be on the highest power, with the lower light and not being prone, this is where I ended up when I looked at it-
The big question isn’t “how’s the glass”, or “how the turrets feel”, or any other secondary nonsense. The important question is do they work. Do they hold zero even with rough handling, do they “track”, do they return to zero, etc. You know.... things a scope is supposed to do. Yet no one has measured or talked about these things.
...
deer god YESS!!! who gives a crap about the freaking glass. let it be tasco, give me bomb proof internals. Someone needs to send me one to test in my scope testing fixture, tall target that is tape measured at 100 yards.
deer god YESS!!! who gives a crap about the freaking glass. let it be tasco, give me bomb proof internals. Someone needs to send me one to test in my scope testing fixture, tall target that is tape measured at 100 yards.
Dumbass.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
The next morning the chick and I got up early for her to confirm zero on her rifle. I put the 6.5 with the Meopta on top of the targets and gear for the quite crappy ride up the mountain. The Optika6 was good after going down, and back up the FS road which the ride alone will have most scopes loose zero...
Everything still worked after shooting a bit, so in the truck it goes-
..... Is that a Leupold...!
It rode in the drawer like that with a 1/4” to 1/2 “ mat for padding. All the other rifles were stacked on top with no padding. The rifle was strapped to the side of the pack for a few days and took a hit every time I dropped the bag.
A few days later at 576 yards-
Exit from the 130gr Berger OTM-
Again, the scope was nowhere near the highest power on the goat. Of the 6 animals shot, only two were killed with the scope on the highest power.... from a fixed 6x
After the trip, I’ve decided that the X-RAY butt is great for a dedicated LR gun, however the Bravo rear end is better for all around hunting use. The forend and butt of the KRG chassis come off with just a couple of screws and about 60 seconds you can swapaloo.
Lost a bit of weight on the 6.5 Lite, and improved handling. Shot it a bit after the swap, still zeroed, still working correctly.
Here’s where it sits at two weeks, 400’ish rounds, 1,200 miles of vibration in the truck bed, and 8 days being treated unmercifully on the pack. Keep in mind this is a sample of one, with extremely limited use so far.
In order of importance-
Zero retention: No issues noted yet. 400 rounds is a laughably small number. It’s about equivalent to 4,000 miles on a new car. All it tells us is that there’s not something grossly wrong with the scope. The scope will be given no quarter in abuse, and zero will be confirmed often using the original lot number of ammo. Any shift will be immediately apparent. That it stayed zeroed with the drop “test” and truck rides are very good signs however. Both of those totally crush most scopes.
Return to zero: Has been correct. Again 400 rounds is just a warm up, but with spinning the turrets hundreds of times- no issues.
Adjustment value: It’ll go on the tracking board probably in December, but unless it fails before then I don’t expect any surprises. It’s been shot on two well known rifles from 200 yards to 900’ish yards and all data is identical. As well, the 10.4 mil target test went fine.
Tracking: This is vertical movement of reticle when dialing elevation checking for lateral deviation. No issues.
Eyebox/ease of use: Actually pretty good. Higher zoom ratio scope tend to suffer critical eyeboxes and this one really doesn’t. It’s easy enough that you don’t have to think about it at all.
Reticle: hmmm. This one is my biggest question mark with this scope, and this will be long.
The reticle generally does what they wanted it to do- be useful at low and high powers. But they did it in a way that is... “eh”. First, I dislike “donuts”. It’s a lazy way to make a reticle visable on low power, it obscures the target and surroundings in the most critical location in the scope where you need to see impacts/splash the most, and generally screws up the intuitiveness of the reticle holds. This one does all of those. Overall the reticle is broken down in .2 mil increments. That’s great. Tick marks should be in linear and consistent fashion, I.E.- 1 mil, .5, or .2 mils. The problem with this MRAD1 reticle is that because of the donut, the tick marks inside the center go- dot, .2 to the near side of “cross line”, .4 to far side of line, then nothing usable until 1 mil (or .9, not really sure). You actually have to look at it and think about what means what, until you get to 1.4 mils (where the horizontal reticle starts. A lot of winds holds in actual field shooting tend to be in the .5 to 1.5 mil range... right where this reticle sucks. Or I should say is compromised. It’s usable for sure, but I shoot a lot of scopes and reticles, and I had to play with it to figure out what the subtentions are from center to 1.5 mils. Multiple shooters that are extremely capable and experienced had to do the same thing when they picked it up.
Next is the spacing between horizontal bold posts. Or, how much windage can be held. Holy Pete, who in the flip needs and can use over 6 mils of windage in the reticle!?
At sea level with a 308 and crappy BC bullet that is 52 miles per hour at 500 yards. Fifty-two miles per hour of wind. With a 300WM and 215gr Berger at 500 yards it’s EIGHTY-ONE mile per hour wind to drift 6 mils. At 1,000 yards for both it’s- 21mph and 36mph respectively. That’s just silly, and the only reason companies keep doing that is lack of critical thinking and public perception.
Reduce the windage to 2.5 or 3 mils to bold posts, and now you can see and center the reticle on animals on low power even in low light, while still having way more than enough windage available for shooting. Or, keep the windage 3-4 mils out, but bring the bottom 6 o’clock post in to 1.5 mils or so, then it looks like a German #4 on low powers with all the great attributes of that reticle, keeps the center clear for spotting impacts/splash, while still offering quick elevation holds out to 450-500 yards.
Explanation-
Reticles are a weak point for manufactures. This is brought on by two main things it seems- One, is that consumers are ignorant. I do not mean this maliciously, but people have no idea how stuff works, nor a broad enough base of experience in actual shooting and performance to know what they should want. Two, manufacturers and designers are generally NOT skilled or experienced shooters with a broad base of experience to know what works better and worse, and they are being inundated by the public’s ignorance to build compromised stuff quite frankly. Both don’t know, what they don’t know.
These lead to things like donuts, inconsistent spacing in reticles, huge windage spacing, BDC’s, SFP, extremely high zoom ranges; especially coupled with short length, small tube size, and lightweight. I/we’re constantly shooting with people that are rabid about these things. They will argue endlessly, yet it is all their feelings or beliefs, not actual performance. Take them off the square range, put realistic sized (that’d be much smaller than most use) targets at varying ranges with real wind, or shoot from unconventional positions (sitting off of a pack, kneeling over a downed tree, MPAJ, etc), put time constraints on them, and maybe a bit of heavy breathing, and NO ONE walks away wanting any of that stuff. I’ve shot with several good dudes from this forum alone, some were all about those things and just knew they were going to learn me something. :coffee: Then they actually shot as above while being measured, fail miserably, and then watch the chick crush what they just did with a 223 and SWFA.... dudes are swiping cards for new gear within an hour.
I say all this to say- reticles and “features” should not be designed or implemented in a vacuum. We would all like to think, and most do, that manufactures have a full staff of professional level shooters telling the designers and engineers what to build, and the engineers know enough about field use to build it correctly and robustly, then the company gives the product back to the pro shooters to ensure it actually works before it’s sold to you. Except for one company- nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is with most companies that some marketing dude brings an idea he thinks will sell, then they take it to another company that actually makes the optics and they tell those engineers how to build it to a certain price point. I’m not saying Meopta did that here... I’m not saying they didn’t either.
Whew...
That out of the way, the reticle while being compromised, is usable, and does work. It IS better than most in that regard, and I would not let the issues of it hinder a purchase.
Eyebox/ease of use: Actually pretty good. Higher zoom ratio scope tend to suffer critical eyeboxes and this one really doesn’t. It’s easy enough that you don’t have to think about it at all.
Any comments on the general quality of the glass: Similar to the Meopro line? Better? Worse? How does the glass compare to some of the well know standards?
From my Couch, bushnells G3 reticle is my favorite. But, I only shoot on average 200 rounds a week, so I don't know much about actually using stuff. And, I hate donuts as well.
... Zero retention: No issues noted yet. 400 rounds is a laughably small number. ...
That'll stir up the set-n-forgetters.
Of that I have no doubt. But, what they don’t realize is that 400 rounds of “experience” is about the same “experience” as they had at 14yo a week after they figured out what their hotdog does. All it shows is that it’s not a total waste.
Originally Posted by screaminweasil
Form, you considering replacing your Bushy LRTS/LRHS Scopes with this model?
Ha. We’re so far from these scopes proving they’re actually good it’s not funny. I won’t be remotely ready to say “yay, or nay” until I see and use 6-8 Optika6’s of multiple models, shot, evaluated, and used for 6,000-8,000 rounds a piece. If they get there without issues, then they probably have something that is unlikely to fail on a hunt.
Bushnell LRHS and tactical line, while still generally good, are not what they were. I would only suggest them with a caveat now.
Originally Posted by screaminweasil
From my Couch, bushnells G3 reticle is my favorite. But, I only shoot on average 200 rounds a week, so I don't know much about actually using stuff. And, I hate donuts as well.
Sure, sure. 😗
The G3 is fine, but it is a little to fine, and it suffers the same needlessly wide horizontal spacing as all of them. Illumination works of course, but a scope should not require it to be used in normal lowlight situations.
... Zero retention: No issues noted yet. 400 rounds is a laughably small number. ...
That'll stir up the set-n-forgetters.
Of that I have no doubt. But, what they don’t realize is that 400 rounds of “experience” is about the same “experience” as they had at 14yo a week after they figured out what their hotdog does. All it shows is that it’s not a total waste.
Originally Posted by screaminweasil
Form, you considering replacing your Bushy LRTS/LRHS Scopes with this model?
Ha. We’re so far from these scopes proving they’re actually good it’s not funny. I won’t be remotely ready to say “yay, or nay” until I see and use 6-8 Optika6’s of multiple models, shot, evaluated, and used for 6,000-8,000 rounds a piece. If they get there without issues, then they probably have something that is unlikely to fail on a hunt.
Bushnell LRHS and tactical line, while still generally good, are not what they were. I would only suggest them with a caveat now.
Originally Posted by screaminweasil
From my Couch, bushnells G3 reticle is my favorite. But, I only shoot on average 200 rounds a week, so I don't know much about actually using stuff. And, I hate donuts as well.
Sure, sure. 😗
The G3 is fine, but it is a little to fine, and it suffers the same needlessly wide horizontal spacing as all of them. Illumination works of course, but a scope should not require it to be used in normal lowlight situations.
The two 3-12 LRTS I have mounted seem to work fine so far. But, I don't have any kind of round count through them yet.
On a different note, I finally got to "drop test" the SWFA 6x mounted on my Ruger Ranch 7.62 Commie. Dropped about 3.5 Feet/waist high from the hood of the "purple dragon".....IE mid 90's Geo Tracker 4x4. Sounded pretty robust. Elevation was exactly .5 Mil High after the fall. Came down 5 clicks and "bobs your uncle", went back to busting Rocks at 559 yds. I was impressed for how hard it it on the top turret.
We’re so far from these scopes proving they’re actually good it’s not funny. I won’t be remotely ready to say “yay, or nay” until I see and use 6-8 Optika6’s of multiple models, shot, evaluated, and used for 6,000-8,000 rounds a piece. If they get there without issues, then they probably have something that is unlikely to fail on a hunt.
I like hunting and want my scope to be trustworthy, but 60,000 rounds thru 8 scopes to verify it just isn't going to happen. I apologize for my lack of commitment. Hat is off to those who would.
I like hunting and want my scope to be trustworthy, but 60,000 rounds thru 8 scopes to verify it just isn't going to happen. I apologize for my lack of commitment. Hat is off to those who would.
Nah. No one said that you should do it. But, until someone does it, we really don’t know what that scope will do. To put it into perspective- 60,000 rounds, is about like 60,000 miles on a truck.
A 3.5 foot drop shouldn’t have moved the scope .5 mil. Not that it can’t happen, however more likely something in the mounting system, or action moved in the stock. From what I’ve seen sporter weight rifles need more than that to shift that much at that hight with a FF.
Action/bases/rings moving when impacted are the reason that rifles with bonded actions to chassis, and permanently mounted bases are used for the drop “tests” now.
Reticle: hmmm. This one is my biggest question mark with this scope, and this will be long.
The reticle generally does what they wanted it to do- be useful at low and high powers. But they did it in a way that is... “eh”. First, I dislike “donuts”. It’s a lazy way to make a reticle visable on low power, it obscures the target and surroundings in the most critical location in the scope where you need to see impacts/splash the most, and generally screws up the intuitiveness of the reticle holds. This one does all of those. Overall the reticle is broken down in .2 mil increments. That’s great. Tick marks should be in linear and consistent fashion, I.E.- 1 mil, .5, or .2 mils. The problem with this MRAD1 reticle is that because of the donut, the tick marks inside the center go- dot, .2 to the near side of “cross line”, .4 to far side of line, then nothing usable until 1 mil (or .9, not really sure). You actually have to look at it and think about what means what, until you get to 1.4 mils (where the horizontal reticle starts. A lot of winds holds in actual field shooting tend to be in the .5 to 1.5 mil range... right where this reticle sucks. Or I should say is compromised. It’s usable for sure, but I shoot a lot of scopes and reticles, and I had to play with it to figure out what the subtentions are from center to 1.5 mils. Multiple shooters that are extremely capable and experienced had to do the same thing when they picked it up.
Next is the spacing between horizontal bold posts. Or, how much windage can be held. Holy Pete, who in the flip needs and can use over 6 mils of windage in the reticle!?
At sea level with a 308 and crappy BC bullet that is 52 miles per hour at 500 yards. Fifty-two miles per hour of wind. With a 300WM and 215gr Berger at 500 yards it’s EIGHTY-ONE mile per hour wind to drift 6 mils. At 1,000 yards for both it’s- 21mph and 36mph respectively. That’s just silly, and the only reason companies keep doing that is lack of critical thinking and public perception.
Reduce the windage to 2.5 or 3 mils to bold posts, and now you can see and center the reticle on animals on low power even in low light, while still having way more than enough windage available for shooting. Or, keep the windage 3-4 mils out, but bring the bottom 6 o’clock post in to 1.5 mils or so, then it looks like a German #4 on low powers with all the great attributes of that reticle, keeps the center clear for spotting impacts/splash, while still offering quick elevation holds out to 450-500 yards.
Explanation-
Reticles are a weak point for manufactures. This is brought on by two main things it seems- One, is that consumers are ignorant. I do not mean this maliciously, but people have no idea how stuff works, nor a broad enough base of experience in actual shooting and performance to know what they should want. Two, manufacturers and designers are generally NOT skilled or experienced shooters with a broad base of experience to know what works better and worse, and they are being inundated by the public’s ignorance to build compromised stuff quite frankly. Both don’t know, what they don’t know.
These lead to things like donuts, inconsistent spacing in reticles, huge windage spacing, BDC’s, SFP, extremely high zoom ranges; especially coupled with short length, small tube size, and lightweight. I/we’re constantly shooting with people that are rabid about these things. They will argue endlessly, yet it is all their feelings or beliefs, not actual performance. Take them off the square range, put realistic sized (that’d be much smaller than most use) targets at varying ranges with real wind, or shoot from unconventional positions (sitting off of a pack, kneeling over a downed tree, MPAJ, etc), put time constraints on them, and maybe a bit of heavy breathing, and NO ONE walks away wanting any of that stuff. I’ve shot with several good dudes from this forum alone, some were all about those things and just knew they were going to learn me something. :coffee: Then they actually shot as above while being measured, fail miserably, and then watch the chick crush what they just did with a 223 and SWFA.... dudes are swiping cards for new gear within an hour.
I say all this to say- reticles and “features” should not be designed or implemented in a vacuum. We would all like to think, and most do, that manufactures have a full staff of professional level shooters telling the designers and engineers what to build, and the engineers know enough about field use to build it correctly and robustly, then the company gives the product back to the pro shooters to ensure it actually works before it’s sold to you. Except for one company- nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is with most companies that some marketing dude brings an idea he thinks will sell, then they take it to another company that actually makes the optics and they tell those engineers how to build it to a certain price point. I’m not saying Meopta did that here... I’m not saying they didn’t either.
Whew...
That out of the way, the reticle while being compromised, is usable, and does work. It IS better than most in that regard, and I would not let the issues of it hinder a purchase.
TBC....
can't disagree with really any of that, other than I would add this, most people just aren't shooting their guns all that much, nor do they have access to all the different ways and shooting you mention, like all the different positions etc.
Seems to me where the impact occurs will make a big difference in the potential effect of a drop. If it's on either end of the scope instead of one of the turrets or the tube close to the rings, the effect would be more severe, I think, even with a robust tube and mount. Dropped stuff rarely lands how you want.
Had a Sako .223 slide off the fender of my SS 396 Rally Sport Camaro, causing me to miss an easy shot at a big fat crow a few minutes later. It landed on the objective end of the Lyman 8x. POI shift was about a foot at 100. Don't think the tube was bent, as none was apparent, and it soldiered on for some years afterward.
Seems to me where the impact occurs will make a big difference in the potential effect of a drop. If it's on either end of the scope instead of one of the turrets or the tube close to the rings, the effect would be more severe, I think, even with a robust tube and mount. Dropped stuff rarely lands how you want.
Had a Sako .223 slide off the fender of my SS 396 Rally Sport Camaro, causing me to miss an easy shot at a big fat crow a few minutes later. It landed on the objective end of the Lyman 8x. POI shift was about a foot at 100. Don't think the tube was bent, as none was apparent, and it soldiered on for some years afterward.
A 3.5 foot drop shouldn’t have moved the scope .5 mil. Not that it can’t happen, however more likely something in the mounting system, or action moved in the stock. From what I’ve seen sporter weight rifles need more than that to shift that much at that hight with a FF.
Action/bases/rings moving when impacted are the reason that rifles with bonded actions to chassis, and permanently mounted bases are used for the drop “tests” now.
I don't doubt that. Rifle is bone stock. It's got only around 800 rounds through it so far with that same SWFA 6x with never a bobble. I used blue loctite on the factory rail torqued to 25 inch/lbs. Action screws torqued in the stock at 65 inch lbs. It's mounted in the SWFA rings that came in blackfriday special as well. In any event, a Leupy would have been off 1.5 feet after a fall like that.....bugger hit hard.
Speaking of Leupy, sent an old VarixII 3-9 with M1 turret back to beaverton this morning. 11 MOA of elevation moves it 14.5" at 100 yds. I bought that scope from somebody here, don't remember who for $75. So, no loss for me. I knew it wasn't tracking correctly when my dope on a Ruger 10/22 target was causing sever high points of impact a few months ago. I put it on the Ruger Ranch in question yesterday to confirm on paper that it "tracks as shi*tty as the rest of the "gold rings".
It sure is nice to have equipment that works. Also nice to have somebody with your trigger time and rough testing to show what puts up and what shuts up.
Thanks for the report. I hope Meopta Optika6 makes out in the long run. Sure will blow away the used scope market if they are reliable.
Seems to me where the impact occurs will make a big difference in the potential effect of a drop. If it's on either end of the scope instead of one of the turrets or the tube close to the rings, the effect would be more severe, I think, even with a robust tube and mount. Dropped stuff rarely lands how you want.
Had a Sako .223 slide off the fender of my SS 396 Rally Sport Camaro, causing me to miss an easy shot at a big fat crow a few minutes later. It landed on the objective end of the Lyman 8x. POI shift was about a foot at 100. Don't think the tube was bent, as none was apparent, and it soldiered on for some years afterward.
What year and where is the Camaro now?
1972. Bought new for about $3500. Had a toad of a 2-bolt cast-iron crank station wagon motor, but the RSs were very pretty cars. Royal blue. When I bought it, there was a '71 396 with solid lifters on the showroom floor, but alas it was already sold. Probably would've killed myself in that one.
Gone the way of all cars; probably became a stove or refrigerator.
BTW, that Sako cost $257 at Best, a membership store of the era. Gone too, dammit.
Speaking of Leupy, sent an old VarixII 3-9 with M1 turret back to beaverton this morning. 11 MOA of elevation moves it 14.5" at 100 yds. I bought that scope from somebody here, don't remember who for $75. So, no loss for me. I knew it wasn't tracking correctly when my dope on a Ruger 10/22 target was causing sever high points of impact a few months ago. I put it on the Ruger Ranch in question yesterday to confirm on paper that it "tracks as shi*tty as the rest of the "gold rings".
Did it do that reliably? If so, then there was a workaround.
On the 10/22 target it seemed to come back to zero, the clicks were just off on anything past 100 yards........hitting high every time, worse the farther out I went, out to 200 yds if I remember correctly. I haven't messed with the scope for several months now, only rifle it was was the 10/22 target. When i mounted it yesterday on the Ruger Ranch 7.62x39 the groups at 100 yds were twice as large as with the SWFA 6x that is normally on it. Shot both scopes side by side yesterday. SWFA tracked as perfectly as I could have measured. Leupold did not come back to zero every time, taking a "shot" and then coming back to zero. Not to mention the 3 MOA Error at a paltry 11 MOA come up.............I wasn't going to "work around" this POS
A 3.5 foot drop shouldn’t have moved the scope .5 mil. Not that it can’t happen, however more likely something in the mounting system, or action moved in the stock. From what I’ve seen sporter weight rifles need more than that to shift that much at that hight with a FF.
Action/bases/rings moving when impacted are the reason that rifles with bonded actions to chassis, and permanently mounted bases are used for the drop “tests” now.
I don't doubt that. Rifle is bone stock. It's got only around 800 rounds through it so far with that same SWFA 6x with never a bobble. I used blue loctite on the factory rail torqued to 25 inch/lbs. Action screws torqued in the stock at 65 inch lbs. It's mounted in the SWFA rings that came in blackfriday special as well. In any event, a Leupy would have been off 1.5 feet after a fall like that.....bugger hit hard.
Speaking of Leupy, sent an old VarixII 3-9 with M1 turret back to beaverton this morning. 11 MOA of elevation moves it 14.5" at 100 yds. I bought that scope from somebody here, don't remember who for $75. So, no loss for me. I knew it wasn't tracking correctly when my dope on a Ruger 10/22 target was causing sever high points of impact a few months ago. I put it on the Ruger Ranch in question yesterday to confirm on paper that it "tracks as shi*tty as the rest of the "gold rings".
It sure is nice to have equipment that works. Also nice to have somebody with your trigger time and rough testing to show what puts up and what shuts up.
Thanks for the report. I hope Meopta Optika6 makes out in the long run. Sure will blow away the used scope market if they are reliable.
If it’s in the mounting system or action then a Leupold would have made a difference in POI. Yeah sure
I really hope the Optika6 scopes prove to be solid performers. After looking at Doug’s site, it appears a 2.5-15x44mm is coming late 2019.
Waiting on my 4.5-27X50 SFP, Dichrotech 4-D, ret. should be here soon (November). Its going on a custom Volquartsen Deluxe .22lr for long range rimfire matches.
Thanks for the write up............really big scope at 14.6" & 30 oz.
I go to the Czech Republic frequently as we own a plant there, & would like to go to Mepota for a tour on one of my trips.
MM
its said USA on the box the formadillo posted. I assume these are built in the US facility, new jersey? same place they assembled the ziess conquests for years.
Turrets: This model has a 10 mil per revolution, pop up, locking elevation turret with zero stop, and a capped windage turret.
Elevation locked (down)-
Elevation unlocked (up)-
Cap unscrews without tools to remove elevationt turret (the cap vibrated loose while driving and fell off) -
Pull the turret off and you have the zero stop with mechanical limiter-
Windage-
Parallax and illumination knob-
Power ring with small built in rubber cat tail-
On the turrets, not that it really matters but they feel good. It needs a revolution indicator on the elevation, but being that when adjusting the turret doesn’t move up or down....? I do not set zero stops to stop dead nuts on zero. But instead 2.9 mils lower, in any case, without a rev indicator multiple times a day I popped the ele turret up, spun down to bottom, and back up to be positive that it was not a rev off. The windage needs a half rev limiter as well, as there also is no rev indicator either. They also need to mark the windage knob starting at “0” 5 mils each direction. Instead it is marked in a continuous fashion from “0” to “9”.
Setting the zero stop is not really intuitive, and Meopta does not include very good instructions.
One can say that they’ll never touch the windage dial after zeroing as it’s capped, or that the elevation has a zero stop so there’s no need there.... both of those are good ways to end up a full rev off of where you thought you were. Checking elevation and windage zero and revolution is a part of picking the rifle up first thing in the morning, periodically throughout the day, and anytime it has been out of your immediate control. Checking elevation is simple enough, if not as easy as it could be, but windage is a no go unless you dial all the way one direction and count back.
The power ring is good. Has a built in small cat tail, and multiple slots for an extended one if desired.
Parallax: Knob is easy and smooth, and the numbers are decently close with where the diopter is currently set. Not super finicky on parallax.
Illumination: It’s designed to only illuminate the center dot and cross. It does that, however there is quite a bit of bleed and the illumination is not even. I don’t care, as the illumination does what it is supposed to -make you be able to see the reticle in low light, and I’m glad they didn’t spend more money or effort on this, rather than function. The knob is adjacent to the parallax knob. Between every setting there is on off click.
its said USA on the box the formadillo posted. I assume these are built in the US facility, new jersey? same place they assembled the ziess conquests for years.
That is just the UPC code. They are made in the Czech Republic.
its said USA on the box the formadillo posted. I assume these are built in the US facility, new jersey? same place they assembled the ziess conquests for years.
That is just the UPC code. They are made in the Czech Republic.
formadillo! Phucqk!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Form, nice write up. I don't want to hijack the thread, but was wondering if the large quantities of ammunition that you shoot are factory or handloads. Your high volume would take some serious reloading . Thanks.
Form, nice write up. I don't want to hijack the thread, but was wondering if the large quantities of ammunition that you shoot are factory or handloads. Your high volume would take some serious reloading . Thanks.
Haha. No.
I prefer my ammo to come 20 to a box, 460 to a can, and 920 to a case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dreamt this up awhile back. Too fat maybe but donut free?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
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.
Guys, when I’m talking about reticles here, I’m not trying to make a “80 year old dude with cataracts sitting over a corn feeder at night trying to shoot 300 yards” reticle. The market has no option other than the MQ for a reticle that is optimized for 100-800 yard hunting where the primary means will be dialing elevation, and holding wind- that is still usable completely without illumination. It’s hard to do, and unless you compromise ability to shoot at 200-600 yards, or use illumination, or use a donut, really the only way is a #4 reticle that is modified.
Needs of reticle-
1). Open center to spot splash, impact, corrections, and make tracking game easier
2). Means to hold some elevation, and enough windage for any hunting shot
3). Ability to use in extremely low light without illumination on lowest power from 0-150’ish yards
4). Illuminated center dot
There’s only a few ways to get there, and if you go back to my post about alternative positions in the field, time constraints, a bit of stress, etc; doing that starts driving you to want certain things. We have done a lot of shooting in that venue measuring performance, and then having the shooters give feedback and answer questions about reticles (among other things), and I can say without hesitation that what no one has asked for is MORE thick stuff in the center. Guys may not realize it, but when taught to shoot correctly, we get A LOT of information through the scope, mostly within 2-3 mils from center, and the place that is “least” important is below the aiming point.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
[quote=Formidilosus] 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.
With a #4 style reticle you don’t need that thinner part to be that thick as you are not using it on low power, your using the 6 o’clock bar. About .05 mil thickness or maybe even a bit thinner on the thin portion will be close. 4 mils is good on windage, 1.5 mils for bottom elevation, mostly clean 12 o’clock, tiny illuminated center dot. The deal is to get the center open enough to see what’s happening especially during recoil, but have something bold enough to aim under 200 yards on low power.
Originally Posted by prm
Using the SWFA MQ reticle and moving horizontal bars into 4 MOA 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 too, like a German #4 reticle.
4 MOA (just over 1 mil) is extremely tight. Way too tight if using thick outer bars. A LOT of information would be lost with that. Not to mention that 1 mil of windage is too far the other way, as a normal day in Wyoming will have more than that at 200 yards.
Originally Posted by JCMCUBIC
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.
The problem is the top heavy post blocks the portion of view that we get most of our information from. It’s a trade off, but with the bottom post coming to 1.5 mils, you just aim at the heart with that, or use the tiny illuminated dot.
And yes, the only differences in scopes should be glass and features. Mechanical function “should” be the same whether it a $200 scope or a $2,000 one.
Originally Posted by ckat
"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!
No problem.
There are no plans to make the 2.5-15x in FFP with mils. However, IF these turn out to be reliable, then that scope with a hunting reticle as being discussed would set the market.
Using the SWFA MQ reticle and moving horizontal bars into 4 MOA 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 too, like a German #4 reticle.
4 MOA (just over 1 mil) is extremely tight. Way too tight if using thick outer bars. A LOT of information would be lost with that. Not to mention that 1 mil of windage is too far the other way, as a normal day in Wyoming will have more than that at 200 yards.
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant 4 Mils. Just move the current MQ thick bars in by 2 mils on each side.
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible....
That would be about perfect. I prefer an equal distribution of space to all three posts, as I feel that this makes my brain/eyes balance everything quickly.
If the center dot was illuminated, there'd be no worry about "dark" shots.
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
I got a naked model 70 waiting on one...... A swfa 3 -9×42 hunter version would sell. Dont know why they haven't done it yet.....
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
I got a naked model 70 waiting on one...... A swfa 3 -9×42 hunter version would sell. Dont know why they haven't done it yet.....
To clear things up: I designed the MRAD, MRAD1 and MRAD2 reticle for Meopta. MRAD in the 5-30x56 made it in exactly the way I drew it up. MRAD 1 in the 3-18x50 was modified a little, but it is close. I have not seen MRAD2 in the scope yet, so I do not know whether it was changed.
With reticle designs, you can not make everyone happy all at once, so I sorta assume that some people are going to like it and some won't. It was not designed as a pure hunting reticle. I was asked to do a crossover reticle, that could do most things in a pinch, so that is exactly what I set out to do.
Overall, I am pretty happy, how both MRAD and MRAD1 worked out, but you can be certain that I pay attention to user reviews and anything I learn is considered for the next design I do. I do not work for Meopta, so I do not have an opportunity to see the design in a scope before it goes to production.
Also, given that this is mostly a hunting forum, if I were asked to make a reticle purely for hunters, I would do it a little differently. The rest of the reticles in the Optika6 scopes are their own internal designs.
As originally conceived, MRAD has a 0.2 mrad based tree that extends 12 mrad down, while MRAD1 was supposed to have a 8mrad tree. MRAD2 has a 6 mrad tree, but a much sparser one. For production scopes, Meopta used a 12 mrad tree in the MRAD1 reticle. Aside from that, it is veyr close to my original design.
A couple of specific comments: 6 mrad of hold on the left and right of the primary aiming point are there for lead. You very rarely not need that much for wind. For lead, sorta standard reference holds are 3mrad and 6mrad. Whether holding for 10mph lead is a big deal for a 3-18x scope is arguable, but that was one of the design criteria since the scope is intended for accurate gas guns, SPR-type application, long-ish range hunting rifles, etc.
The circle is there for visibility on low power when the illumination is off. That is why I specifically asked Meopta to only illuminate the center dot-hash arrangement. In the MRAD2 reticle for the 1-6x24FFP, I asked them to illuminate the circle as well, since you need it to pop a lot more on 1x.
Adding additional wind holds inside the circle was something I went back and forth on a fair bit. Adding more stuff inside the circle makes it pretty busy, but I suppose there is a way to do that without obscuring too much stuff. The wind holds inside the circle is easily the most common criticism of this reticle i have received to date, so it is something to consider carefully. I have a couple of versions of this reticle that incorporate additional wind holds. Perhaps, I will try them on the next design I do a reticle for.
I am messing with March's FMC-3 reticle right now that has such an arrangement and it seems to work pretty well. They use it in a comparatively low power 1-8x24 Shorty scope with a significantly larger circle. With a 2 mrad circle it is a little trickier. I would probably make the circle a little bit bigger and the wind holds a little thinner on a higher power scope, but it is definitely viable.
Guys, when I’m talking about reticles here, I’m not trying to make a “80 year old dude with cataracts sitting over a corn feeder at night trying to shoot 300 yards” reticle. The market has no option other than the MQ for a reticle that is optimized for 100-800 yard hunting where the primary means will be dialing elevation, and holding wind- that is still usable completely without illumination. It’s hard to do, and unless you compromise ability to shoot at 200-600 yards, or use illumination, or use a donut, really the only way is a #4 reticle that is modified.
Needs of reticle-
1). Open center to spot splash, impact, corrections, and make tracking game easier
2). Means to hold some elevation, and enough windage for any hunting shot
3). Ability to use in extremely low light without illumination on lowest power from 0-150’ish yards
4). Illuminated center dot
There’s only a few ways to get there, and if you go back to my post about alternative positions in the field, time constraints, a bit of stress, etc; doing that starts driving you to want certain things. We have done a lot of shooting in that venue measuring performance, and then having the shooters give feedback and answer questions about reticles (among other things), and I can say without hesitation that what no one has asked for is MORE thick stuff in the center. Guys may not realize it, but when taught to shoot correctly, we get A LOT of information through the scope, mostly within 2-3 mils from center, and the place that is “least” important is below the aiming point.
Originally Posted by MtnBoomer
[quote=Formidilosus] 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.
With a #4 style reticle you don’t need that thinner part to be that thick as you are not using it on low power, your using the 6 o’clock bar. About .05 mil thickness or maybe even a bit thinner on the thin portion will be close. 4 mils is good on windage, 1.5 mils for bottom elevation, mostly clean 12 o’clock, tiny illuminated center dot. The deal is to get the center open enough to see what’s happening especially during recoil, but have something bold enough to aim under 200 yards on low power.
Originally Posted by prm
Using the SWFA MQ reticle and moving horizontal bars into 4 MOA 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 too, like a German #4 reticle.
4 MOA (just over 1 mil) is extremely tight. Way too tight if using thick outer bars. A LOT of information would be lost with that. Not to mention that 1 mil of windage is too far the other way, as a normal day in Wyoming will have more than that at 200 yards.
Originally Posted by JCMCUBIC
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.
The problem is the top heavy post blocks the portion of view that we get most of our information from. It’s a trade off, but with the bottom post coming to 1.5 mils, you just aim at the heart with that, or use the tiny illuminated dot.
And yes, the only differences in scopes should be glass and features. Mechanical function “should” be the same whether it a $200 scope or a $2,000 one.
Originally Posted by ckat
"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!
No problem.
There are no plans to make the 2.5-15x in FFP with mils. However, IF these turn out to be reliable, then that scope with a hunting reticle as being discussed would set the market.
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
Noted.
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
Bottom rifle is a T3x Lite SS, 6.5 Creedmoor also in a KRG chassis. It has mounted a SWFA SS 3-9x with way more than 100,000 rounds on it. If the Meopta works correctly, it’ll go on the 6.5 and go antelope hunting.
TBC.....
Last edited by AKwolverine; 10/20/19. Reason: Spacing and trying to be nicer.
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
You simply have zero clue. And I mean zero....
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
The scope had 100k rounds “on it”, not the rifle you Dingus.
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
In FFP or 2FP? 😂😂😂😂
John
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
nightforce moar solves all the problems in a hunting situation. Maybe not in a tactical situation, but this is a hunting forum
That this is the “hunting optics” forum did not escape the OP. Had you read and comprehended all he has written on this thread ... you wouldn’t need to suggest otherwise - or post your drivel.
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
You simply have zero clue. And I mean zero....
At least he's consistent.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
Your inability to comprehend the written word is starting to lead from ignorance, to stupidity. Unlike you, I do not need to be passive aggressive- I can write directly.
Interesting that the street price of the Optika6 models is about $150 less than the Meopro models. With their 30mm tube and 6x zoom range, I was expecting the Optika6 to cost more than the Meopro line.
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
Phucqking dumbass.
Name a single person on this forum that has met you in person AND that will vouch for you. There are none, are there? Didn't think so. Piss off!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
Passive-aggressive ignorance at its finest...
If that means delusional phucqktard, I agree totally!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
Playground experience versus battlefield experience. He's jealous.
Rest of his videos are awesome...
Let me see...the name sounds stupid, they have a funky logo.....uhhhmmmm they're made by LOW in Japan....I think..... Love that Canadian accent. Reminded of Strange Brew.
you guys are hilarious so distracted by the shiny object. the fact a guy comes on here bragging about 100k rounds through factory barrels, means nothing to you guys. You do realize 100k rounds of 6.5 creed means those barrels should have been replaced about 20 times? Yet somehow you think its funny to make fun of me. I really don't give a crap. I just laugh. you guys have fun protecting your own at the same time blinded and baffled by bull$hiiit. I really don't need internet street credit and could really give a rip, I do however get great satisfaction at pointing out bull$hiiit
you guys are hilarious so distracted by the shiny object. the fact a guy comes on here bragging about 100k rounds through factory barrels, means nothing to you guys. You do realize 100k rounds of 6.5 creed means those barrels should have been replaced about 20 times? Yet somehow you think its funny to make fun of me. I really don't give a crap. I just laugh. you guys have fun protecting your own at the same time blinded and baffled by bull$hiiit. I really don't need internet street credit and could really give a rip, I do however get great satisfaction at pointing out bull$hiiit
You do realize he said 100k rounds on the SCOPE, not the rifles or barrels, right?
you guys are hilarious so distracted by the shiny object. the fact a guy comes on here bragging about 100k rounds through factory barrels, means nothing to you guys. You do realize 100k rounds of 6.5 creed means those barrels should have been replaced about 20 times? Yet somehow you think its funny to make fun of me. I really don't give a crap. I just laugh. you guys have fun protecting your own at the same time blinded and baffled by bull$hiiit. I really don't need internet street credit and could really give a rip, I do however get great satisfaction at pointing out bull$hiiit
PHUCQKTARD +P!
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
you guys are hilarious so distracted by the shiny object. the fact a guy comes on here bragging about 100k rounds through factory barrels, means nothing to you guys. You do realize 100k rounds of 6.5 creed means those barrels should have been replaced about 20 times? Yet somehow you think its funny to make fun of me. I really don't give a crap. I just laugh. you guys have fun protecting your own at the same time blinded and baffled by bull$hiiit. I really don't need internet street credit and could really give a rip, I do however get great satisfaction at pointing out bull$hiiit
I don't know where this 100k round test barrel idea comes from. The picture your referring to only has three barrels in it.
Cowboy of comprehension - I placed the pertinent in bold for you earlier in an attempt to help; now you are simply being willfully ignorant.
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
Bottom rifle is a T3x Lite SS, 6.5 Creedmoor also in a KRG chassis. It has mounted a SWFA SS 3-9x with way more than 100,000 rounds on it. If the Meopta works correctly, it’ll go on the 6.5 and go antelope hunting.
Cowboy of comprehension - I placed the pertinent in bold for you earlier in an attempt to help; now you are simply being willfully ignorant.
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
Bottom rifle is a T3x Lite SS, 6.5 Creedmoor also in a KRG chassis. It has mounted a SWFA SS 3-9x with way more than 100,000 rounds on it. If the Meopta works correctly, it’ll go on the 6.5 and go antelope hunting.
TBC.....
Yes....
Par for the course. Legend in his own feeble mind...
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
look I like formadillo, I actually agree with most of what he says on some things. probably would love the heck out of shooting the bull with him one day. I have an open invitation to meet up with him if he ever makes it to salt lake. but 100k on factory tikka barrels? Lets just say their "might" be just a "little" dose of bull$shiiit to go along with the commentary. its ok, god I hate being the wet blanket.
You have recently compared your experience, knowledge and prowess to that of Scenar Shooter and Formidolosus. That kind of makes you the TRH of the optics forum, congratulations.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
shiny object again. I don't compare my knowledge to anyone, They have theirs I have mine. where did scenar enter the scene? I didn't know he was involved. He actually replaces barrels, by the truckload I might add. I have no issue with him.
You have recently compared your experience, knowledge and prowess to that of Scenar Shooter and Formidolosus. That kind of makes you the TRH of the optics forum, congratulations.
mike r[/quote]
Don’t feed the trolls. Starve them or shoot them...
But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Phil. 4:13
Goodness. He really, really doesn't get it. About as perceptive as Ringman and Gunswizard all wrapped up in the Book of Mormon. He's schooling everyone! Damn, poor retarded phucqker.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!" --- Kid Rock 2022
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
Gatdamn, I hope you've never managed to reproduce.
Goodness. He really, really doesn't get it. About as perceptive as Ringman and Gunswizard all wrapped up in the Book of Mormon. He's schooling everyone! Damn, poor retarded phucqker.
HAHAHA!! And so true! He did claim to have shot a coyote once. All while living in the "hunting capital" of the US; which is somewhat proven by the use of truck window decals...
You do realize the “OP” brags about shooting “100k” rounds through his tikka 6.5’s but post pics of guns with factory barrels on them? But then again you say go read the thread, Maybe you should and be careful what information you swallow as gospel and from whom. Go ahead and keep swallowing everything the group and pack thinks. I don’t give a Rip about anyone’s approval
Gatdamn, I hope you've never managed to reproduce.
I tagged this thread to catch up on when my time allowed after a long loading session. FYI, wildcat load dev sucks-ass on the front end!
Form, excellent starting info on the Optika6. I don’t want one - hate the doughnut of death reticle, and since I’m running SWFA and NF “thanks to you” on all rigs that matter for tagging fur. I’m gtg.
Things of note...You certainly can and will fûck up some gear in your endeavors to prove worthiness...Please don’t ever post a piece of your used gear in the classifieds without a disclaimer saying “Cosmetically ruined-but works Good”. Grins.
As mentioned by many, including myself in the past to you...Your evaluations are always superb, beyond honest, and without any hype or fanboy Pom-Poms.
The best reads a guy could ask for before jumping all in on a piece of gear. Appreciate the time you invest in doing the heavy lifting, then putting the findings to print...😎
PS
For gods sake get some new shocks for your truck....All your equipment is screaming for a softer ride up the mountain. 😂
Edited to add....The Mystery Prototype is showing some promise?
Last edited by Beaver10; 10/23/19.
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog “Molon Labe”
To get back on topic although the Tropic Thunder video had me spitting my coffee. What is the expected time frame for new arrivals and orders? The model I picked out wasn't in stock and was told that it could be as early as end of month or 2nd week of November from place here in Louisiana. I was just curious what others are hearing around the other states.
Glad to hear you all survived. That could get a bit spooky. But, the only way you really will know if the scope still works is to send it down to Utah for a "playground C-Clamp" static tracking test. Of all people, I figured you would know that. PM "the deisel cowboy"for more details........
Glad to hear you all survived. That could get a bit spooky. But, the only way you really will know if the scope still works is to send it down to Utah for a "playground C-Clamp" static tracking test. Of all people, I figured you would know that. PM "the deisel cowboy"for more details........
Got a good chuckle outa that........
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
Kind of looks like a Leupold Pig Plex.
Last edited by Huntz; 11/09/19.
Its all right to be white!! Stupidity left unattended will run rampant Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
Kind of looks like a Leupold Pig Plex.
That was Leupold reticle of the quarter last year , Q3 2018
Shot on 9x I believe, with impact velocity of just above 1,800fps-
Checked zero after packing out the elk and a couple more severe hits-
Shot on 11x, with impact velocity right at 1,800fps as well-
Main hunting with the Meopta has pretty much ended. Have a couple more buck tags and does, but 223’s will get that work. The Optika 6, will go on a gas gun and get worked over hard.
Around 800 rounds, three big game animals for me from “pretty far” to about maximum distance, multiple shooters/hunters using it from point blank to 1,280 yards on 12” targets- no scope issues have been noted, it has maintained zero, adjusted, and RTZ correctly. The reticle DOES work. Though every animal and most test shots have been with between .5-1.2 mils of wind hold.... right where the reticle is weakest. At least two hits on animals were unobserved due to the round impacting behind the thick donut ring. Three world class shooters have used it, and all preferred if it had no donut and some other method to see the reticle on low power. This really isn’t a knock on Meopta or Ilya- donuts are what people want. Why and how is a mystery as it is so very easy to show how that donut makes it harder to spot impacts from field positions.
And for CC,
Once again, not a single animal was killed using the scope on its maximum power. Other than zeroing, maximum power (18x) has not been used at all. Field of view matters WAY more than magnification, and being able to gather as much information as possible before, during, and after the shot is critical.
Mine arrived this pass weekend from Doug, thanks again. 3-18x56 RD SFP 4C, really like the optic so far. Shot a few boxes this weekend with it and really liking it. Agree with the 18x, on 18x it is still very clear. But probably wouldn't need it during normal hunting situations. The 56 mm gathers some light. It will get you way pass legal times and the illuminated dot of the 4C can be dialed way down for low light hunting. I didn't and I wanted to, but I wanted to see what it weighed. On my Tikka T3 lite, it doesn't feel that heavy on the rifle. I got the capped turrets, but clicks are solid and audible. Trying to figure out how to reset zero. Was told it could be done.
Shot on 9x I believe, with impact velocity of just above 1,800fps- [img]
And for CC,
Once again, not a single animal was killed using the scope on its maximum power. Other than zeroing, maximum power (18x) has not been used at all. Field of view matters WAY more than magnification, and being able to gather as much information as possible before, during, and after the shot is critical.
form, have you read what I have said? I said FFP does have a very definite place in higher power optics. 18x is really beyond the power I want my long range "hunting" optics to be. my main long range hunting scopes are NXS 3.5-15x scopes. for a well rested up shot where I am going to move the turret, IE a prone shot off a pack, bipod or some other steady rest. I see no reason I wouldn't be on 15x max power, because I am not. I simply go prone, rest the gun, find the animal, (remember my scope is on the lowest power while stalking, walking, riding, whatever. ) crank the scope to max. power, adjust the turret, SHOOT. pretty simple. however even in most western hunting situations its very very common for the shots to not be long range, these situations also typically mean low light, early morning, last light etc. in which case the reticle must work well on low power in poor light. Trading that ability for subtensions that match at every power is not worth giving up, point and shoot low light abilty or hindering it. Remember this isn't shooting 20# rifles off fake barricades at long range targets that may be moving.
scopes are a trade off of some sort. FFP or SFP its a trade off. the power range of the scope is also a trade off. I am glad you like the meopta, I like their products, I look forward to more from them. I was using their S2 spotting scope looking for animals last night actually. nice animals looks like you had a great hunt. not much snow around where I am at yet, even in the high country all ours melted off. too bad I am wanting deer to push down for rutt hunting.
Formid - what is that caveat on late production LRST/LRHS? Was thinking about giving an LRST a run.
The early ones were solid, never saw issues. The ones from the last few years I have seen and heard from legit people some have issues. The probability of getting one with problems is very low, but it is there. They are at the level that if the LRHS/LRTS fit my needs, I wouldn’t hesitate to get one. Just test it thoroughly.
I’ve read every post in this thread. Only one of us seems to have comprehension problems.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
I said FFP does have a very definite place in higher power optics. 18x is really beyond the power I want my long range "hunting" optics to be. my main long range hunting scopes are NXS 3.5-15x scopes. for a well rested up shot where I am going to move the turret, IE a prone shot off a pack, bipod or some other steady rest. I see no reason I wouldn't be on 15x max power, because I am not. I simply go prone, rest the gun, find the animal, (remember my scope is on the lowest power while stalking, walking, riding, whatever. ) crank the scope to max. power, adjust the turret, SHOOT. pretty simple.
How is it that you can not grasp “SPOTTING IMPACTS and SPLASH”? It is rare to see ones own impact with 15x on a sub 10lb rifle from field positions. Same for 12x, and really 9x. Every single person misses if they do much killing off a greenfield. Everyone. The only thing worse than a miss, is not seeing the miss, understanding why you missed, and correcting immediately.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
however even in most western hunting situations its very very common for the shots to not be long range, these situations also typically mean low light, early morning, last light etc. in which case the reticle must work well on low power in poor light. Trading that ability for subtensions that match at every power is not worth giving up, point and shoot low light abilty or hindering it.
I kill things every singe year with both SFP and FFP scopes at near muzzle contact to past 1,200 meters in everything from Alabama swamps to 12,000 foot mountains, and in all lighting conditions. Do you?
A WELL designed FFP is perfectly usable from low and high powers. Just because most are not well designed, does not mean SFP is the answer.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
Remember this isn't shooting 20# rifles off fake barricades at long range targets that may be moving.
Who are you speaking to with this quote? I don’t talk about things I’ve never used, that’s you.
From memory, I’ve killed or been on the spotting scope for animals being killed since October at 801, 606, 576, 342, 321, 317, 300, 289, 278, 242, 189, 189, 186, 176, 169, 70’ish, and 40’ish yards. Probably missing a few as well. The heaiviet rifle used has been 9.2lbs. Scopes were fixed 6’s, 3-9x’s, 2.5-10x, 3-12x, and 3-18x. The largest cartridge used so far is a 6.5 Creedmoor.
Wind has had to be held on the shots at- 801, 606, 321, 317, 300, 289, 242, 189, 186, 176, and 169. The only time a variable scope was on the highest power was the 2.5-10x at 317, 300, and 242 yards. The shooter wished for a FFP for each shot die to bigger FOV on lower power, however he still meeded to hold wind. He will be switching to a FFP directly.
I’ve read every post in this thread. Only one of us seems to have comprehension problems.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
I said FFP does have a very definite place in higher power optics. 18x is really beyond the power I want my long range "hunting" optics to be. my main long range hunting scopes are NXS 3.5-15x scopes. for a well rested up shot where I am going to move the turret, IE a prone shot off a pack, bipod or some other steady rest. I see no reason I wouldn't be on 15x max power, because I am not. I simply go prone, rest the gun, find the animal, (remember my scope is on the lowest power while stalking, walking, riding, whatever. ) crank the scope to max. power, adjust the turret, SHOOT. pretty simple.
How is it that you can not grasp “SPOTTING IMPACTS and SPLASH”? It is rare to see ones own impact with 15x on a sub 10lb rifle from field positions. Same for 12x, and really 9x. Every single person misses if they do much killing off a greenfield. Everyone. The only thing worse than a miss, is not seeing the miss, understanding why you missed, and correcting immediately.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
however even in most western hunting situations its very very common for the shots to not be long range, these situations also typically mean low light, early morning, last light etc. in which case the reticle must work well on low power in poor light. Trading that ability for subtensions that match at every power is not worth giving up, point and shoot low light abilty or hindering it.
I kill things every singe year with both SFP and FFP scopes at near muzzle contact to past 1,200 meters in everything from Alabama swamps to 12,000 foot mountains, and in all lighting conditions. Do you?
A WELL designed FFP is perfectly usable from low and high powers. Just because most are not well designed, does not mean SFP is the answer.
Originally Posted by cumminscowboy
Remember this isn't shooting 20# rifles off fake barricades at long range targets that may be moving.
Who are you speaking to with this quote? I don’t talk about things I’ve never used, that’s you.
From memory, I’ve killed or been on the spotting scope for animals being killed since October at 801, 606, 576, 342, 321, 317, 300, 289, 278, 242, 189, 189, 186, 176, 169, 70’ish, and 40’ish yards. Probably missing a few as well. The heaiviet rifle used has been 9.2lbs. Scopes were fixed 6’s, 3-9x’s, 2.5-10x, 3-12x, and 3-18x. The largest cartridge used so far is a 6.5 Creedmoor.
Wind has had to be held on the shots at- 801, 606, 321, 317, 300, 289, 242, 189, 186, 176, and 169. The only time a variable scope was on the highest power was the 2.5-10x at 317, 300, and 242 yards. The shooter wished for a FFP for each shot die to bigger FOV on lower power, however he still meeded to hold wind. He will be switching to a FFP directly.
Your opinion would carry more weight if you did actual testing at real public playgrounds over ranges verified by tape measure. No serious evaluation could be done at that erratic series of ranges. Real science and engineering is done with round numbers. Care must be made to ensure the math is as easy and straightforward as possible. This prevents errors. I’ll bet you don’t even use test fixtures.
Field of view matters WAY more than magnification, and being able to gather as much information as possible before, during, and after the shot is critical.
It is rare to see ones own impact with 15x on a sub 10lb rifle from field positions. Same for 12x, and really 9x. Every single person misses if they do much killing off a greenfield. Everyone. The only thing worse than a miss, is not seeing the miss, understanding why you missed, and correcting immediately.
A WELL designed FFP is perfectly usable from low and high powers. Just because most are not well designed, does not mean SFP is the answer.
BIG +1
As usual, Form brings practicality and facts gained through experience to the discussion.
You, my friend, are one Hell of a writer! I feel like I, or someone, should be paying for an analysis like this.
Thank you,
“My horn is full and my pouch is stocked with ball and patch. There is a new, sharp flint in my lock and my rifle and I are ready. It is sighted true and my eyes can still aim.” Kaywoodie
It is rare to see ones own impact with 15x on a sub 10lb rifle from field positions. Same for 12x, and really 9x. Every single person misses if they do much killing off a greenfield. Everyone. The only thing worse than a miss, is not seeing the miss, understanding why you missed, and correcting immediately.
A WELL designed FFP is perfectly usable from low and high powers. Just because most are not well designed, does not mean SFP is the answer.
BIG +1
As usual, Form brings practicality and facts gained through experience to the discussion.
Funny how that works....
Hey! But there was that one coyote!
Thanks for another no bullschit review Form. When I saw these being released I immediately jumped on board as I was in the market for another 14-18x scope. After talking to the tech at Meopta USA getting the subtension values and reticle options I was turned off. I’m personally not a fan of the donuts for the simple to grasp issues you already talked about. The tech took the reticle conversation well and said he’d pass the feedback along. Hopefully they’ll come out with some updated, more useful reticles for our style of shooting.
Do we want .1 tick marks along the cross hairs, left and right? Both up and down?
0.05 mil just between SWFA 10 and 12X cross hairs....
Not to distract from the OPs fine work, but to answer you, I’m pretty simple. Same scales as the 3-9 or 6x42, just arranged like this:
So, take a SWFA 3-9x42, cap the windage, scale down el knob if possible, and use this reticle. That gets me from dark timber to as far as I’ll ever shoot at a critter. It’s simple, very capable, no illumination necessary, and will center quickly on a snap shot. I can dream...
I could definitely use and like that reticle.
John
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
Jeepers. I'm thinking about adding a pound to my Tikka now with that stock/chassis... Dammit! Even though it is in 260 Rem...
I’ve used the KRG Bravo a bunch on heavy rifles. A friend wanted to put a lite weight rifle in one a year or so ago. I poo pood the idea for some reason, probably because it would add a pound. Fast forward to a couple months ago, and I tried an X-Ray on the T3 Lite for better tracking during recoil, and zero retention. The X-Ray wasn’t the right answer for a general purpose hunting rifle though the idea had merit. Swapped butts on the X-Ray and Bravo. That was the answer.
Though the Bravo adds a pound over the factory stock, it greatly improves spotting your own impacts due to straightline recoil, vertical grip improves stability and control in all positions, and the chassis is more stable for zero retention. It also looks like one can modify the chassis component to drop some ounces.
Since no one wants to make a correctly designed stock for T3’s (or most others), the Bravo is a great option even for lighter weight rifles. Add a WTO Switchlug, and one can bond the action to the chassis for 100% zero retention in any use.
Thanks for the thread and this review, exactly what I was looking for to answer a bunch of questions.
I’ve been considering FFP for this exact magnification with the exact reticle except 56mm objective (due to the nature of where I hunt and shoot, I’d rather have a little extra low light availability on the higher magnification).
I have been planning on a tikka t3x stainless varmint 22-250 with a KRG bravo chassis as a gun I can legally take in the woods in my area to practice medium range shooting with (I am not allowed anything bigger than a .22 calibre for coyote in Newfoundland). Thanks for answering any Tikka heavy barrel with KRG bravo chassis questions I may have had.
I’ve been planning on shooting using high power on paper, and medium to lower power for coyote. I was afraid of using FFP for this due to reticles disappearing at lower power. Nice to know this one works well enough. I’m only planning on shooting 300-350 yards for the most part and maybe trying upwards of 500 the odd time (knowing I may be restricted by the tikka 22-250 1:14 twist rate).
You have hit all the things I am concerned about on the scope:
- brightness - reticle working on lower powers - reliable and tough - easy to get behind with good eyebox - non finicky parallax setting - workable illumination to help find the point of aim with dark back drops or in lower light situations (I don’t care about illumination bleeding as it’s illegal to hunt or shoot at night where I live anyways)
I have a Pentax 80mm ED spotting scope to see hits on paper and MeoStar 8x55 B1.1 binoculars to search for coyotes with. The scope to me is a means to aim a gun in a variety of situations.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/oqIr4Lf.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/fJKTlYL.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/u6vGCQP.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/BjEZJ8i.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/kIclS4c.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/NPsjAIb.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/oWlq6wk.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/DeLhrII.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/EJmtMsG.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/snUMaNX.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/9GQUvVF.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/SDlraYp.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/dO0Nf1Q.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/VKoDaho.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/USh8BIR.jpg)
![[Linked Image from monstermuleys.com]](https://www.monstermuleys.com/adimages/Camera-Land-728x90-120222.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/cJRRzwL2/SWFA-6x42-MQ-firedot.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/110338.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/aQmch0X.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/9uaWuJs.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/HHzSNSF.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/xmlbObc.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/yVp9oOk.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/1SsUpUj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/4TvrRxD.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/FWCZAjV.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/9Vjol9k.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/3ckBjhl.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/W8X53Rn.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/KYdwG8X.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/o5EFP55.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/110435.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/Ao6UXIL.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/X0n16mr.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/mMlsFxd.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/5UIJheg.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/3DjwS5G.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/GomUNtB.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/8oT5RAI.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/ersBUyo.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/zwQpToa.jpg)
...