Discussion - Is there such a thing as “too much” high-end magnification on a LPVO?

[rudukai13]

My brother recently purchased a 9” 300BLK pistol (Sig MCX Virtus) and has been talking with me about what optic he wants to put on it. He purchased the gun with the intent to use it as a general-purpose range/HD/hunting gun, so I suggested he should consider getting a LPVO to be able to utilize the full capable range of supersonic 300BLK loads out of the 9” barrel. Some suggestions I’ve mentioned to him included 1-4x, 1-6x, 1-8x, and even the more recently available 1-10x scopes. He seemed to balk at the idea of anything with a higher magnification range than 6x as he felt it was “too much” magnification for his purposes and the performance capabilities of the 300BLK cartridge.

This got me to thinking - Assuming whichever LPVO has a true 1x magnification on the low end, is there such a thing as “too much” high-end magnification on an intermediate cartridge SBR/pistol? I have plans to build a similar 9” 300BLK general-purpose SBR/pistol for myself, and it always seemed to make sense to me (budget allowing, of course) that it would be beneficial to have the widest magnification range possible while still maintaining a true 1x low-end magnification. Perhaps the 1-8x and 1-10x would be slightly more powerful than is truly necessary for the performance envelope of most supersonic 300BLK loads, but it always made sense to me to err more on the side of “over-scoping” the platform as opposed to “under-scoping” it and having the optic be the limiting factor of the overall system. This supposition has been bolstered recently from seeing many examples of 300BLK bolt-action pistols and SBRs commonly equipped with higher range 1-8x and 1-10x LPVO scopes.

So, I’d like to hear what everyone has to say; Does a higher magnification range on a 1-Xx LPVO become detrimental, or is it helpful (or at least not specifically problematic) to have a scope that can allow you to see at further distances even if the chambering of the platform can’t fully utilize the highest level of magnification?

 

[Chriscanbreach]

In my opinion the magnification is for information not shooting. 500 yard shots can be made on 1X without trouble but seeing it’s someone you should shoot is made far easier with magnification.
So short answer is all things being equal. No you can’t have too much variable magnification.

 

[user12358]

While you are correct that in a perfect world with identical low power performance and weight you would want the additional magnification as it allows you to see more and seeing more means a greater ability to make decisions. However, there is no free lunch and none of the 1-8x scopes can really compete with the 1-6x scopes at low power which is where you will be spending most of your time, especially on a 9" 300BLK. The best one-to-one comparison of this is the Swarovski Z6i and Z8i (probably the best 1x on a 1-8x scope) the 1-8 is heavier and also has a much more finicky eye box on the low end compared to its older brother the Z6i.

 

[Chriscanbreach]

Just because you’re going to spend most of your life in bed with a 4 doesn’t mean you you’d turn down a 10 I hope.
It’s like lumens right? Remember when a 3x magnifier had people asking why? What are you some kinda sniper?

 

[pointblank4445]

This is just an opinion, but I think there are a lot of people out there getting WAY too hung up on the eye box thing (and I hazard a guess that some new to optics don't get what it really is). That's not to say that it is not an issue with some 8x LPVO's but I don't think it's fare to label all of them. As I noted in another thread regarding focal plane that FFP LPVO's don't come into their own until 8x or more. The Short Dot offerings, the CQBSS and the Swarovski (and I'd be willing to chance the Steiner and inbound Hensoldt into the same) are completely usable at 8x.

Where I think people get hung up on this is trying to hold the weapon/optic up as they would on 1x and they go "Aww...man this sucks" and they talk shit about eye box. This is where Precision/PRS/LR/ELR guys have the advantage over those that don't understand the discipline of position building. I KNOW I can not take an off hand shot with my magnification much beyond 4x...so I don't care if I can't run a snap shot on 8x from standing. That 8x is not going to enter the game until I have a steadier position built and I can achieve a more positive cheek weld to utilize that slightly less-forgiving setting (if I need it). This is of course speaking to exceptionally small targets or targets at distance. Not to say that you can't run into problems. I feel the NX8 on 8x is one that could be too unforgiving to justify over another optic....at least the one I have in a 1.93" mount is giving me fits.

Again, as stated before, there are 2 ways to look at LPVO's. There's the 1-6 SFP's like Kahles and Razor HD II that are the new standard to replace red dots and magifiers for your standard carbine use that can be stretched at distance. Then there are the 1-8x's like what I mention above that can allow one to do "precision" work and have decent close-up capability. With either, I would not be without an alternative sighting system. FOR ME, I'm now of the mind that the 1-8x with offset RMR as a secondary/back-up is the path.

Consider: a Buck Doyle class AAR on how he does business vs. the Presscheck Consulting DMR AAR and the philosophies in weapon setup. I'm not saying one is more correct but there are decisions one is going to have to make about rifle employment and task.

And with respect to the above reference to 500 w/ 1x.... A little bit of wind (especially w/5.56) is going to make that a VERY frustrating day.

 

[user12358]

FOR ME, I'm now of the mind that the 1-8x with offset RMR as a secondary/back-up is the path.

Would you still say this is the path for an 9" 300BLK, instead of a 14.5" 5.56?

 

[pointblank4445]

Would you still say this is the path for an 9" 300BLK, instead of a 14.5" 5.56?

If you're going to get more out of the "bigger scope" style features of the respective 8x, then yeah...why not. For example pushing past the limits of the 6x SFP reticle with that slower, heavier bullet.

Regardless of the LPVO, I've been leaning heavily toward this. Default's Presscheck AAR pretty much sealed it for me in making sense. I hate irons...especially the offset options and with better companies in the game like Reptilia (in addition to things like Spuhr), it's pretty easy to fill-in the cracks of any LPVO short-comings on the low end magnification. Case in point my old 1.1-4 Short Dot that I like but is not a true 1x.

Can't remember if I said it here or on my rolling optics thread on LF, but the deeper I dug into this LPVO thing and the more options I tired the more I came to realize there won't ever be a good one-size-fits-all option. Embrace the options you must have and accept the shortcomings that come with it.

 

[user12358]

If you're going to get more out of the "bigger scope" style features of the respective 8x, then yeah...why not. For example pushing past the limits of the 6x SFP reticle with that slower, heavier bullet.

Regardless of the LPVO, I've been leaning heavily toward this. Default's Presscheck AAR pretty much sealed it for me in making sense. I hate irons...especially the offset options and with better companies in the game like Reptilia (in addition to things like Spuhr), it's pretty easy to fill-in the cracks of any LPVO short-comings on the low end magnification. Case in point my old 1.1-4 Short Dot that I like but is not a true 1x.

Can't remember if I said it here or on my rolling optics thread on LF, but the deeper I dug into this LPVO thing and the more options I tired the more I came to realize there won't ever be a good one-size-fits-all option. Embrace the options you must have and accept the shortcomings that come with it.

I use a Reptilia 12 o'clock mount on a 14.5" 5.56 gun but that is simply to give a passive option under NODs without having to bring a clip-on or mess with Tasiers and focal distance too much. While I agree that everything has shortcomings it seems to me that the extra pound and a half of an LPVO and a RDS doesn't buy you too much on a 9" blackout compared to a T-2 and a pocket monocular. That being said we all do different things with our guns and you certainly have squared away kit and much more of a precision focus than I do. I follow your same train of thought off FFP 1-8 with dot for large frame ARs but jump off the train much sooner than you do as the calibers and guns get smaller.

On my personal 6.75" MCX I just have the T-2 and a light for using as a truck gun that is pushing 110 gr TSX rounds just fast enough to expand properly up close while not being too concussive with a K can.

 

[midnite1911]

i thought FFP scopes be the best performer for tactical dynamic shooting? why would a SFP 1-6x be superior to a FFP 1-6X?

 

[LukeNCMX]

i thought FFP scopes be the best performer for tactical dynamic shooting? why would a SFP 1-6x be superior to a FFP 1-6X?

Because the full size/detail SFP reticle at 1x is a lot easier to shoot fast up close. And because if you need hold offs you’ll likely be at max magnification anyways with something that tops out at 6x.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pointblank4445]

i thought FFP scopes be the best performer for tactical dynamic shooting? why would a SFP 1-6x be superior to a FFP 1-6X?

Some will talk bad about FFP eye box at higher magnification, but my understanding (by way of someone actually in the optics industry) is that increases in magnification will make the exit pupil smaller and cause eye box issues no matter what the focal plane. I've had SFP 1.1-4x24 Short Dot LE's that were less forgiving than my FFP 1.1-4x20 Short Dots. Optic quality, construction dimensions (tube length, tube diameter, objective/ocular lens size, etc.) will also factor in as much if not more than mere focal plane.

The problem with FFP scopes on 1-?'s is that reticle design will require some forward thinking to give you an image that isn't completely dependent upon electronics/illumination. Also, your "flash dot/short dot" will likely increase in size along with your reticle which can be a problem. Granted, most don't need the dot on higher magnification but it's a nice option. A few have tried to blend a FFP reticle with a SFP dot, but it's tricky and expensive.

For proper holds/subtensions, you usually lose visibility of them in the reticle around 2.5-3x so that's a very limited range of use provided the subtensions are stupid thick at max power. So not much is lost in that respect in 6x and below. If you're up into 8x and beyond that down to say 3-4x is more than 1/2 of your adjustment range so that's not as impractical if you intend to use your optic in that manner.

And while I'm a weirdo that uses my full magnification ranges, most practical shooting where a 1-6x SFP would be ideal is likely done with holds that wouldn't take the reticle completely outside the margins of the target or at the vary least are referenced off the target and not the reticle (Hold: 6" above target rather than hold 0.# mils high). Likely no BDC or dialing.

 

[rudukai13]

All excellent information and opinions everyone, thank you! Keep ‘em coming if anyone has anything additional to mention!

 

[user12358]

i thought FFP scopes be the best performer for tactical dynamic shooting? why would a SFP 1-6x be superior to a FFP 1-6X?

SFP has two significant inherent advantages and a few market advantages that make it far superior to FFP if your are going to FISH. The two biggest advantages are the reticle designs are much more usable at 1x for the most part because they don't have to design for it to change size and with a SFP optic you can still see the reticle even with very heavy scope shadowing from improper head placement which gives a far greater effective "eyebox" at 1x that is still more the good enough to make solid upper thoracic hits at 0-15m distances.

The market advantages are that the SFP Kahles and Swaro SFP twins have a FOV that is unmatched and the only scope that comes close is the FFP Minox with most others a good 10-15 ft behind them. While eyebox at 1x seems to have triggered some people it is noticeable at 1x when acquiring the sight picture while moving, with a mask on, or in less than ideal positions and the Kahles and the much cheaper Vortex Razor have a clear advantage when you put the time in behind them as well as some of the FFP competition.

Couple all that with the fact that usually the optic is on a gun that has MPBR of around 250-300m and hits Mach 1.2 before 750m and the advantages of FFP holding true at all magnifications doesn't really shine as bright. This is only for a FISH gun and different scopes will be better if you have different goal such as chasing small groups where a FFP with a fine reticle or even Horus lite, or better yet 4-16x/3-18x, with an offset dot will serve you much better.

 

[JLL2013]

This all comes down to application.
There's someone with an EOTech on a M107 right now....match the optic to the role. If the gun is for "general-purpose range/HD/hunting gun" an LPVO is a perfect match, regardless of the weapon's caliber. However, this LPVO has to have a bias towards 1x performance. Would 10X on the high end be great? Yes, but there's no free lunch in the real world.
Slapping a Razor or Khales 1-6x on that rifle would be a very viable option, especially as you're going to need some form of elevation hold at any real distance with a 300blk. As Chuck Pressburg said "your Razor is a heavy, expensive Aimpoint 99% of the time." I think that's where this rifle is going to live.

 

[rudukai13]

This all comes down to application.
There's someone with an EOTech on a M107 right now....match the optic to the role. If the gun is for "general-purpose range/HD/hunting gun" an LPVO is a perfect match, regardless of the weapon's caliber. However, this LPVO has to have a bias towards 1x performance. Would 10X on the high end be great? Yes, but there's no free lunch in the real world.
Slapping a Razor or Khales 1-6x on that rifle would be a very viable option, especially as you're going to need some form of elevation hold at any real distance with a 300blk. As Chuck Pressburg said "your Razor is a heavy, expensive Aimpoint 99% of the time." I think that's where this rifle is going to live.

All great points, thank you! An LPVO made the most sense to me from the application use as well. Anything from point blank to medium range shooting where even a small amount of magnification can be beneficial for target identification

 

[JLL2013]

All great points, thank you! An LPVO made the most sense to me from the application use as well. Anything from point blank to medium range shooting where even a small amount of magnification can be beneficial for target identification

If the shooter is serious about the 300blk game he's going to inevitably want a reticle in eithe MOA or Mils to accurately apply dope for the wide variety of ammunition out there also.

 

[Medic_Mak]

It also depends on the terrain in your region. Where I live in the mountains, there are almost no locations where I could ID a target more than 150 yards away, let alone take a shot. For that reason my go to guns almost exclusively still rock either an Eotech EXPS or and Aimpoint micro, with enough room behind for my QD Eotech 3x magnifier.
I can’t speak to LPVOs or any detrimental characteristics in their function, but three things I do take into consideration are the ratio of cost to function, weapon-mounted weight, and size. Two of my rifles are set up for more magnification, one has a Trijicon TA-31 4x32 Acog with a piggyback RMR, and the other rocks a 2.5-8 power scope. Again, these are the decisions I’ve made based on where I live and shoot, YMMV.

 

[Mike_IA]

So match the optic to your intended job and eye and roll on.

for my eyes I need 2x of magnification for every 100yards I want to engage a precision target. A precision target is defined to me as a 6” circle. I use that guidance to get general ideas of what I want to look for for magnification range.

From there I look at what I want the gun to do and what ranges/environment it needs to work best in. My 13” heavy gas gun needs to take a precision target out to around 400-500 where I loose expansion velocity on the designated round and beyond that it’s all just bonuses for flat range or incidental use so it got a CQBSS with Horus (this is a 2013 gun).

Around the same time I built an 8” 300BLK that got a 3-12x scope. I was using it to cull animals on ranches so I needed a much better magnification ratio to score animals and tell a button buck from an antlerless. The gun was short to get into blinds and carry through the brush and only ate 120ish grain TSX rounds.

The examples can go on and on. The point is develop a methodology to base your decisions and follow it through. Any good methodology should account for your eyes, your intended use, manufacturer capability, and SME experiences/guidance. Doyle, Pressburg, McPhee, and Galli for example all have different guidance based on their experiences, doesn’t make any right or wrong, they just have different focuses.

 

[Chriscanbreach]

So we’re all in agreement there can’t be “too much” high end magnification on a variable scope. If a true 1 to 24 could be built rock solid and weighed 8 oz we’d all have it on our guns.
Sweet.

 

[Mike_IA]

@Chriscanbreach you forgot NODs capable illum.