Need Advise on Optics selection for 6.5 12.7" pistol build

[Kswhitetails]

OP- I'm with you, I'm so torn. I was convinced on the Mark AR 1-4 Leupold for a while, it's light, it's Leupold. Then, I saw the Burris RT6, but dang is it heavy, and huge too. Then it's been Strike Eagles. I'm not committing to the PA stuff. I've had a friend that was a believer until his recent experiences so I'm staying off PA. Lately, the more I think about it, the more I'm interested in the Mark6 Leupold 1-6s, but 1100 bucks for a new optic (hard to find used, probably for good reasons) is a bit steep.

BUT- the range of the Grendel, even in the short package, and since I plan to suppress it, is worthy of the convenience of more magnification...

THEN

There's the most recent evolution in my decision making process. I made the mistake of looking upward on the scale (trust me, this has opened a new can of worms, don't do it, DON'T LOOK ETHEL!); So, looking at the NF 2.5-10s, the USO B-10s, even the March 1 -10s LRRPF mentioned (Oh Lord, that lottery ticket I bought - yea, if you could just - no? Oh, ok, well you know best...?). So, I'm wondering if I should just bight the bullet and pony up my budget for more; and wondering if I really want the RDS-like true 1x. If I put a current marker on the low end of mag, I'd say it dropped considerably since looking at the 10x.

My purpose for my pistol Grendel is going to be a run-around-with. Short, light. A beater that I can woods walk and coyote hunt with while I am out and about; so putting a multi-thousand dollar optic on it would seem to be counter-intuitive - I don't plan on necessarily making nice with this one. I want light, but with more magnification than 4x. 6x would be the bare minimum maximum with 10x being an attractive max.

I don't anticipate using it as a defense weapon. I have two handguns and two shotguns at the ready for home defense, me with the pistolas, the wife and son ready with the shots. And the nice thing is that I already have my Larue mounted RDS, since I will be putting the optic here in another LT 104, I can cover that end easily enough...

Is a gen 1 Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10 going to be too long for this short of a build? I'm liking it more and more, even the 44 would be OK, but would look Hubble like on a 12". These can be had somewhere in the area of $450-$500 bucks used, and with the transferable warranty I'm about to think this one's the ticket. Leupold, Vortex, Bushnell, Burris are the ones I know of with similar warranty coverage for optics of this level. Are the NF, Trij, USO, S&B guys stepping up to this yet?

The power range is the first priority now, the quality/warranty second, the weight a close third.

[98Z]

OP- I'm with you, I'm so torn. I was convinced on the Mark AR 1-4 Leupold for a while, it's light, it's Leupold.

I'm putting this on mine. It's currently on a 16" 300BLK carbine, but it's coming off that and going on my 12.5 Grendel. Reasons are many. It's light. Damn, is it light. I'm not putting a BDC-hold scope on this short gun that was designed for a 5.56 or .308, because the holds won't be there - that feature will be useless. The Leup Mark AR Mod 1 is mildot, so I can range with that, and it's my preference anyway, over MOA. The turrets are mils in 0.1 mil increments, so that matches. It's not a mash-up of mil-MOA, like alot of offerings out there. The turrets are exposed and marked, not covered, which turned me away from the Vortex line in this magnification range.

Determine the velocity of my handloads for this 12.5 barrel, come up with the drop chart in mils, range in mils with the mil-dot reticle, dial drop... Done.

What WAS going to go on there was a Bushnell 1-4 AR-series scope, because it has 0.1 mil adjustments... The reticle on that one did it in, though, with a BDC setup only for 5.56 drop. I can't range with that, but I could estimate distance, then dial up the mil drop. Nope. Not having it.

The 1-4 Firedot is coming off that blackout, and going on the short Grendel.

I've got everything for it, but the barrel - it's on the way. I'm painting the gun tomorrow, so I'll get pics up once the paint is on.

For a Grendel, I'd give out the very same advise that I gave myself on the scope selection for the 25-45 - no reticle with a bullet-drop compensating anything - because it's off. Sure, you can compute those hash marks to equal something for your round/load - but it just confuses the situation. Why settle? Just get something with mil-dots, with turrets that click in 0.1 mil increments, and use mils for ranging and drops. It's so much easier that way.

[Kswhitetails]

4 power at 300. How’s it hold? What’s the reticle going to do on the chest of a coyote? I’m just worried that 4x isn’t going to be sufficient for that.

I have 20-20, have never once in my life thus far needed correction, so I do have that as a trump card.

[98Z]

Painted it up over the weekend and got it put back together. Still waiting on the barrel, but that should be in soon.

Went with the Nikon M223XR mount, because it's got 20 MOA built in. I don't know how this barrel will do at distance, so the drop in the mount will help. The Leup 1.5-4 states it's 125 MOA of travel in windage and elevation, and that works out to 36 mils of travel. Don't know why they did the whole scope in mils, then list that in MOA. 36 mils total is 18 up and 18 down, which is good for some distance, but the 12.5" barrel will really tell it once it gets shot. Anyway, that's the "why" on that mount. Once on there, it's pretty solid. Here it sits, waiting on a barrel...
P1060112.jpg

[mdewitt71]

Being on the Vortex Military Staff, I got the 1-8x Strike Eagle scope as soon as they hit Vortex

Here are some thoughts I shared on another forum when I received it:

It is very nice.... I really like it.
It is shorter in length that I would of thought... over an inch over all from my GEN II Primary Arms ACSS 1-6x scope.

I know the new PA 1-8 is out but, I do not have one but, have been told they are made in the same factory.
This Vortex model seems to be .5 oz heavier but, a half inch shorter in length.... but, that is just from the written specs of the PA 1-8.

The illumination is very bright... almost too bright when you crank it up in daylight.
This pic is from a dark room with it 2 clicks from highest setting. It's nice and bright but, clear.


This was for my daughters Radical Arms AR that I got for her ($499 rifle not bad for the $$).
I wish I had got the Strike Eagle 1-8 for me now.... might have to order another one.


First thing I noticed was how sharp and crisp it was compared to my Vortex Crossfire 1-4, Primary Arms 1-6X, and my Bushnell 1-4 AR scope.
Really impressive and the reticle is very nice and alot larger than the Bushnell 1-4 AR scope which is what my daughter was having a hard time with.
So far, I am glad I got it. My daughter likes it a lot better than the PA or Bushnell she was using before and spends much more time behind it, which is always a plus.

[VASCAR2]

I have the Vortex 1-6 StrikeEagle and I like the reticle better on the 1-8 StrikeEagle. My Son in Law has a Bushnell 1-4 and I thought the reticle was kind of hard to see on his non illuminated model. I was a little surprised by the size of the 1-6 SE, actually larger than I expected. I’m using the Vortex CM -202 mount with my SE which rides on one of my midlength 16” 5.56 AR-15’s. Overall I’ve been pleased with my SE but for the size and weight I like 2.5-10 or 4-12 size optics.

[Birdblastingbrad]

To further complicate things, I'll throw out my 12.7" build. I know you want sub $300, but then you mentioned the Leupold VX-5... I had the same idea and ended up with a Nightforce SHV 3-10x42, which I ended up picking up at Cabelas fo right at $900 All I can say is wow! The only thing I "wish" it had would be the illuminated reticle, but in all honesty, I doubt I'd ever use it anyways. Looked through the VX-5, but really liked the MOAR reticle of the NF a lot better. It is a bit heavier that the Leupold, but just feels tougher in the hands. Also like the capped turrets of the NF, however the VX-5 does have the locking target turrets, which are sweet.

Just for reference, I'm not an optics snob either. I do have a few nice scopes, but also have a "Cabelas brand" scope on my muzzle loader and a Konus 2x7 on my .300 BLK pistol, both of which have been great for the money. The difference, however in the amount of light transmission between the Konus and the NF are astonishing!

[lazyengineer]

The challenge I'm having with all of these is that they are heavy. The whole point of a 12.5" is to be as small, light, and handy as possible, and several inches of barrel were sacrificed for that. To then put a 30mm dia, 16+ oz scope on that, kind of bugs me. Right now, I'm running a Czechoslovakian Meopta aRTeMiS D 4x32 fixed, which is 14.8 oz (impressive, considering the body is steel) with 0.1 MIL clicks; to hold me over until I get something else.

(images snagged off the internet)



I like the larger objective out front, to allow more light gathering at dusk for hunting and such. Heck, I might just keep it on there, but I'm still investigating lighter variable options.

Pity Leupold discountinued their VX2 2-7x line, those weighed 8 oz

[Rangerofthenorth]

[lazyengineer]

For what it's worth, I'm also running two simple 1" rings, rather than the more typical cantilevered 1-piece mount. We'll see if that was a good idea or not, as the front one is actually on the handrail, not the receiver. I went this way (for now) because it's lighter.

Pro-Tip - if you're running a PSA, make sure the bolts on the handguard are super tight, because sure enough, mine came loose and the thing started sliding forward on me. Which didn't help with holding zero on a scope partially mounted to it! Torqued it more properly now, so going forward: we'll see!

It is lighter this way though.

[paulw]

Leupold Mark AR sale at SWFA.
I like this one on light weight ARs:

https://www.swfa.com/leupold-15-4x20-mark-ar-mod-1-riflescope-106667.html

[Bigs28]

Those are about the lightest optic ive found. Ive wanted to put my hands on one for a while.

[lazyengineer]

Out of curiosity I did a little informal test just now - at late dusk hours with quite low-light. Compared a modern 1-4 scope with its modern (and more common) non-enlarged objective (i.e. straight front); many of the low power scopes in this class now come this way. Vs an older Meopta scope, that has a swelled to 32 mm dia objective lens at the front.

Spent some time looking out windows at 50-200 yard objects, and comparing brightness and clarity. Here's the breakdown:

Vortex PST 1-4 scope.
This is a modern >16 oz scope with a 30mm dia body, and a 24 mm objective glass at the end (452 mm^2 of light gathering glass area), with a reticle that is a large dia black circle, and a fine (ish) cross hair. And is 1-4X variable, which can be nice for that <50 yard usage. MOA dials. It's a good scope, and it's the same model theAlice Bull national Trophy winner used a couple years back. I believe these are either 100 or 200 yard parallax set (I think 100?)

Meopta aertemis D 4x32 fixed power, 1/10 mil dials, 1" dia body, and 14 oz (thanks to smaller body and no internals for zoom adjustment). 32mm objective glass gives 804 mm^2 of light gathering glass area, or almost double what the Vortex has. Its parallax set at 100m. An item of note is that larger diameter objective glass is more sensitive to parallax error, than smaller diameter. The good news is that parallax effect is much more pronounced if shooting SHORTER than parallax distance, than it is when shooting longer. And it's only 4X, which isn't a lot; in the end, I don't think parallax will likely ever be a notable factor in either scope.


Light gathering: By just trying to glass stuff, it wasn't obvious to me that either scope was all that much brighter. If anything, the Meopta 32mm was a touch dimmer during the bright day, but seemed to be a touch brighter at night; but not by enough for me to definitively say either wasn't just in my head. I was actually pretty impressed with the Vortex for that, it has half the glass area; and competed with a scope known to have pretty good quality glass in it (for its day I guess!).

Targeting: This is where the difference really showed up. With the Vortex, the cross hairs completely disappeared, and the circle was somewhat there, but only a little. The crosshair of the Meopta 32mm was very distinct and easily visible. I could take a confident shot at low light at 200 yard target with the Meopta, and I wouldn't have felt the same with the Vortex. However, if I had the little battery in there to illuminate the Vortex reticle, that likely would have brought them back closer to parity. That said, I've learned the hard way that any system dependent on a CR2032 battery can have good days and can have bad days.

Thoughts (based on what little I know)
The Leopold Mark AR might be of interest if it has an illuminated reticle, but in general, I value the 32 mm front objective for a general purpose usage rifle. This is why I really liked the VXII 2-7 w/ Pig Reticle. Leupold replaced with other flavors that get heavy now. I like the light weight Mark AR specs in some ways, but it only has 21 mm objective, which is down to just 350 mm^2 of light gathering glass. If it's great quality glass, that will help, so I don't know.

Path forward: Eh, I'm mostly making this up as a I go, but for now, probably just going to stick with the Meopta. If I had to buy a new glass today, I'd probably try to find the lightest weight 1" diameter scope with a 32 mm (or similar) objective I could find, that had a decent reticle (i.e. not just a simple duplex). I like the 2-7 range, as that's plenty of magnification in my experience out to 300+ yards. Maybe the Redfield Revolution 2-7; though I don't know how good their glass really is; I'm a little shaky there as Redfield doesn't carry the name of the likes of Leupold or others. That, and heck, despite my complaints about the battery, in a modern general purpose scope, an illuminated reticle can be pretty useful at late dusk; and that Redfield doesn't have it. I wouldn't get a Vortex PST though, too heavy, and I don't really care for a 30 mm diameter body on a 4X scope that's never going to need that range of elevation adjustment (From what I read, apparently that's the only reason to get a bigger dia-body). That, and the reticle disappears if not illuminated.