Do we think a 1-8x28 is too much scope for a 13.9” general purpose rifle?

[rayrunspdx]

Kind of a philosophy of use question or "what makes sense" in your opinion, is 1-8x28 LPVO too much scope for a 13.9" general purpose AR-15? I am debating between a 1-6 and a 1-8. So far trade offs appear to be:

1-6x24 is lighter, cheaper, and maybe all a rifle like this needs. 1-8x28 has a bigger objective, wider FoV, more top end, but is considerably heavier, a bit more expensive, and is (maybe) too much top end for my effective range and maybe wasted on this application.

What do you guys think?

Read More

 

[solv3nt]

No. Anschutz 22lr, 3-18x Trijicon FFP.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

It all comes down to how you are going to use the rifle. Is this more of a range toy, shoot off a bench type of gun? If you're not going to be carrying it for extended periods, then the added weight is negligible. If this is gun for hiking, long courses, extended periods of use, etc., I'd be more concerned with weight.

 

[American123]

Kind of a philosophy of use question or "what makes sense" in your opinion, is 1-8x28 LPVO too much scope for a 13.9" general purpose AR-15? I am debating between a 1-6 and a 1-8. So far trade offs appear to be:

1-6x24 is lighter, cheaper, and maybe all a rifle like this needs. 1-8x28 has a bigger objective, wider FoV, more top end, but is considerably heavier, a bit more expensive, and is (maybe) too much top end for my effective range and maybe wasted on this application.

What do you guys think?

Pick a distance you consider shooting that gun at and what size target you intend to hit in your imagined scenario, then look at that distance through a red dot compared to your LPVO.

 

[powermad]

I tried a red dot for a while on my 14.7"
Went back with a 1-8 I have.
A bit heavier but the trade off in being able to see better at 100 yds is worth it to me and doesn't seem over scoped.

 

[rayrunspdx]

I tried a red dot for a while on my 14.7"
Went back with a 1-8 I have.
A bit heavier but the trade off in being able to see better at 100 yds is worth it to me and doesn't seem over scoped.

Yeah, I am sure that I want an LPVO over a dot or a dot+magnifier but the debate I posed was between the 1-8x and the 1-6x.

Currently leaning toward the 1-6x24.

 

[powermad]

I got a 1-6x24 after trying the dot magnifier combo.
Then got the 1-8 for my .308

Went to a 4-16 on the .308 and sold off the 1-6 and Romeo5 Juliet 4
Ran the 1-8 for a bit, wanted lighter so used another Romeo5 I have and just didn't warm up to it.
Shot it with the 4-16 and a 2.5-10 as well.
The PA 1-8 works well for me and wasn't much more weight wise than the PA 1-6.

Kinda thought about getting an SWFA 2.5-10x32 for less than $300, with a mount it's still under 1 pound and made in Japan.
Could get a decent small red dot and offset mount for not too much more, Ariska has mounting options for just about anything.

 

[David Jenkins]

Hello! I don't think a 1-8 is too much for the effective range of a 13.9, and I'm honestly trying to work into a quality one for my 14.5 myself (I'm running a nice 1-4 right now which is great, but I'm trying to sell it to fund a higher quality offering). Here are a few thoughts that come to mind when considering this topic and your initial post:


1. Weight - true, 1-6s tend to be lighter than 1-8s when considering apples to apples. However, there are 1-8 options which can transcend those weight related issues with potential tradeoffs. The Primary Arms PLX Compact powermad mentioned above does appear to be one of those options, supposedly with minimal tradeoffs, although I have yet to get my eye behind one. There are many other similar options to consider woth varying degrees of pros/cons.


2. Focal Plane - running a first focal plane will enable you to accurately utilize holdovers at any magnification range. In doing this, you can avoid some of the tradeoffs of very tight eye boxes associated with top end magnifications in 1-8s by running the magnification only as high as you need it when you're really trying to move (perhaps throw the ring roughly to the 1/2 - 3/4 area giving you 4-6X mag). This will preserve (to a certain extent) your FOV and eye box. The 8X can then come in handy for observation purposes or more precision work.


3. Reticle Choice - BDC Reticles are simple and quick. But keep in mind that the holdovers may be a bit off depending on your load (especially considering you're running a 13.9" assuming 5.56). MIL or MOA may or may not be a better option depending on what you're looking for (I'll be getting a BDC for my 14.5 FWIW).

4. Price - I see you started another thread recently looking for suggestions on an LPVO under $1K. In general, it does seem that higher magnification offerings in similar product lines tend to cost more than their lower magnification counterparts, but you may end up happier with the choice to "go big" in the long run due to the above reasons. In addition, you can always flex up or down based on desired quality and your expectations within that.

I could be way off regarding the above assertions and there is certainly more to consider on this topic, however I think powermad's suggestion to start by taking a gander at the PA PLX Compact or similar offerings is sound. It runs right around $1500 and seems to negate some of the concerns mentioned above. It comes with a unique design that allows exposed or capped turrets and has different reticle offerings as described above. If you can stretch your budget to that range, you may really appreciate it, but there are plenty of other options to consider from PA (GLX) and other great companies that may or may not better meet your needs.

I'm open to critique of ideas or corrections

Cheers!
David

 

[Member 53328]

If it's a purpose built rifle that will make a difference…... what's its purpose/goal?

Personally I would go with a red dot. No magnification. You can easily hit out to 300-400 yards with a Micro T2 for example. Depending on how good your eyes are of course.

 

[David Jenkins]

Good point 1775usmc

If it's a purpose built rifle that will make a difference…... what's its purpose/goal?

Personally I would go with a red dot. No magnification. You can easily hit out to 300-400 yards with a Micro T2 for example. Depending on how good your eyes are of course.

That does seem to be a primary tradeoff regarding RDS vs LPVO. Speed at close distances and weight overall. Great post!

 

[Jbsheepdog]

If it's a purpose built rifle that will make a difference…... what's its purpose/goal?

Personally I would go with a red dot. No magnification. You can easily hit out to 300-400 yards with a Micro T2 for example. Depending on how good your eyes are of course.

It can be done, but easily? Depending on how big your target is I guess. I would argue that any defensive rifle or "general purpose rifle" needs magnification for better target, identification, and better accuracy. I've been thinking of getting a primary arms fixed two or three power prism, and putting a Magnifier behind it.

 

[The Heretic]

I would go with (and do - of various types; e.g., m21 Mepro, Leupold 1X prism, etc. on my PS90 and my home defense shotgun) 1X optic of small size weight for CQB and out to 100 meters where fast acquisition is likely.

I would go with 1-4X where I want to at least occasionally go beyond 100 meters out to 200 meters and/or more precise shots - e.g. hunting and SHTF perimeter defense. For this, I would really like to find a pistol scope that started at 1-1.5X with EER and use it as a Scout Scope, but having trouble finding that, so I currently use pistol scopes that start at 2X and go to 7X.

I would go with 1-6x or 1-8X where I want to go beyond 200 meters but want close in capability. E.G. hunting and SHTF reach out. This would not be on a short barreled AR15, but rather one with at least 18-20" or an AR-10 or other 7.62x51 rifle. I think a 14" 5.56 barrel would give up too much range to really need 8X magnification.

 

[Member 34319]

If it works, no. If it doesn't work for what you want, yes.

 

[Member 53328]

It can be done, but easily? Depending on how big your target is I guess. I would argue that any defensive rifle or "general purpose rifle" needs magnification for better target, identification, and better accuracy. I've been thinking of getting a primary arms fixed two or three power prism, and putting a Magnifier behind it.

On a human size torso it's fairly easy if you have good eyes to put rounds on target with a red dot. I'm not talking precision/tight groups per se.

When you can land shots are 500 meters with iron sights it becomes very easy to do so with a red dot. Even more so with any kind of magnification.

Personally I have never gotten the hype of the LVPO. Too big/heavy/bulky for my own preference. Especially on a shorter gun. If it's a DMR style rifle then I would probably run something like a Leupold Mark 5 3x18 with a red dot on top.

That's just me. We all have different experiences/uses for our platforms. We all have different eyes etc. as well. If I were to begin to loose my eye sight I would probably move over to a LVPO.

 

[The Heretic]

On a human size torso it's fairly easy if you have good eyes to put rounds on target with a red dot. I'm not talking precision/tight groups per se.

When you can land shots are 500 meters with iron sights it becomes very easy to do so with a red dot. Even more so with any kind of magnification.

Personally I have never gotten the hype of the LVPO. Too big/heavy/bulky for my own preference. Especially on a shorter gun. If it's a DMR style rifle then I would probably run something like a Leupold Mark 5 3x18 with a red dot on top.

That's just me. We all have different experiences/uses for our platforms. We all have different eyes etc. as well. If I were to begin to loose my eye sight I would probably move over to a LVPO.

25-30 years ago I could hit a human sized target at 500 meters, off-hand (standing), with an AK, in 7.62x39 using bulk ammo - about 50% of the time, using an aperture rear sight and a post front, with a 7-8" sight radius.

Today, my eyesight is failing. I have double vision and "minor" cataracts.

I definitely need magnification beyond 50-100 meters, and prefer it at 25-50 meters. Having to focus with iron sights just doesn't do it for me anymore.

 

[powermad]

At 50 yds I was having trouble with a 6" target and a red dot.
100 yds was wasting ammo.

20 years ago hitting a milk jug at 200 yds, offhand with iron sights wasn't a challenge.
Now I need a spotting scope to see one.

But unlike 20 years ago there are some pretty nifty optics and options out there.
Sometimes you have to give everything a lick to see what works out.

 

[titsonritz]

PID, observation, precision shots on small targets (like planting one in the eye socket with nothing but 1/3 of a head showing at 75-100 yards) and long range shots is where higher magnification really shine. There isn't always a weight penalty, the Vortex Razor 1-6x is 21.5oz, so it the Razor 1-10x. It really boils down to the purpose of the rifle. IMO, there are several other boxes beside high magnification that must be checked first.

 

[Hueco]

6x vs 8x is a fairly "meh" comparison.

What magnification is the scope going to live at? How do they compare there (field of view, eye relief, brightness and clarity)? Are the reticles illuminated on both? SFP or FFP? Do the reticles suit your use case (I wouldn't want a Christmas tree for general use)?

I'll take a few more ounces for a wider field of view and brightness all day long. If you're not really going to use the top end all that often, then compare the performance in the midrange or at 1x.

If you get the 6x and find yourself handicapped by the top end…I guess you now know how important the extra reach is to you.

 

[orygun]

Need to watch my comments as to not be quoted in another thread, but I don't think a 1-6x or 1-8x is too much for an SBR. Like others have mentioned, I don't have the eyesight I used to and appreciate the magnification/clarification a good scope provides.
I need to change the glass on mine. It has a red/green dot 1x. I was hitting a partially obscured gong at 96 yards, but in the evening light at that distance, I couldn't see my target very well. I think 6x would be enough to surpass my needs, especially if it's smaller and of the same optical quality.

This all brings up a question I have, can you co-witness BUIS when the scope is on 1x?

 

[Hueco]

This all brings up a question I have, can you co-witness BUIS when the scope is on 1x?

Staring through an aperture sight works on the same principle as pinhole cameras - use a small hole to block out a whole lot of stray light so as to allow you to focus on what you're focusin' on.

Even on 1x, transmission of light through the scope will be diminished compared to ambient. Cheaper the scope, the worse that transmission.

Trying to stare through a pinhole that's having to deal with reduced light from an optic just seems like a bad time. May work fine during the day, but in twilight, lowlight, or shade? Eeek.

If you're going for the backup, ditch the optic (imo).