Comments

1. On June 10, 2020 at 2:24 am, Georgiaboy61 said:

   @ Herschel

   I have no experience with the Burris RT-6, but I do know Vortex products fairly well. They have just released their Strike Eagle 1-6x with AR-BDC3 (MOA) reticle, along with a 1-8x version, both of which are second-focal plane. The new reticle corrects the primary weakness of the previous generation of Strike Eagle, a reticle lacking in features compared to its competition. Or, perhaps a nicer way of saying it would be that the previous generation of SE was designed for 3-gun, and not tactical or hunting use.

   Vortex makes good products and is responsive to customers. They are a U.S. firm, and stand behind their optics with an excellent warranty and guarantee.
   However, they have lost some market-share recently to a relative newcomer in the low-to-med price optics field, namely Primary Arms, chiefly due to the game-changing ACSS reticle Primary Arms offers in its various lines of optics. The ACSS reticle is so good that no less than Trijicon licenses the design for some of their ACOGs, not having anything as good in-house.

   Frankly, it appears that Vortex was caught somewhat flat-footed by the success of Primary Arms, but they weren’t alone. A lot of firms had to play catch-up, including some pretty big names.

   The ACSS offered features found nowhere else, at any price point. Range-finding, wind holds, a choice of first or second-focal plane, flexibility in use, performance in the field, and all at prices well below the competition. High-quality glass for the money, good build quality. Moreover, Primary Arms will do “custom” analysis of your load, and determine the best set-up to use to get the most from it – i.e., best zero for the BDC, etc. All they need are the data on bullet make,type, BC, and MV. Dmitri can do the rest, time-permitting – and at no extra charge. And Primary Arms, like Vortex, is an American firm calling Texas home and they also stand behind their products.

   A final note of interest: Primary Arms publishes the elevation and windage subtension data for their various reticles, in case the owner should need that data. Trijicon, for example, does not provide this data, despite their optics such as the ACOG costing as much as 4-5x more than those of Primary Arms.

   Lo-and-behold, time passes and wouldn’t you know that Vortex releases a newly-improved Strike Eagle in the same price range as the Primary Arms 1-6x offering!

   It’s a good time to be a consumer of optics for firearms. Competition for business is fierce, and companies are bending over backwards to accommodate their customers.

   A somewhat unheralded firm out in California that does good work is Hi-Lux/Leatherwood Optics. Their CMR line are excellent LPVO choices, and deliver excellent quality for the money. They stand behind their work, and are responsive to consumers. Their optics are superb considering the money they cost. Their basic CMR1-4x with horseshoe BDC (for 5.56/.223/.308) is nearly ten years in age, but it remains a strong competitor in a crowded marketplace.

   All of the above choices come in under $400, sometimes less than $350 if you get lucky and catch a sale. The only exception might be the Vortex 1-8x, since it is new and offers greater magnification than some of the competition. By the time you throw in tax, that one runs maybe $450.

   I do not have experience with them, but IOR-Valdala, the well-regarded Romanian optics firm, are supposed to offer excellent LPVOs. Albeit, ones which come in slightly more-expensive at $450-700/optic. Their glass is reputed to be as good as Zeiss.

2. On June 10, 2020 at 7:10 am, Wes said:

   The Burris RT-6 is a stout piece of gear (had one, sold to friend who does 3-gun). Its BDC is well thought out in terms of intervals, with one exception, and that’s the top-most piece of that reticle, something that is always present in a compromise solution. My opinion is that a lit up dot at close-range will do the same as a lit up horse-shoe. But the horse-shoe is seriously in the way of doing good work at distance, which is why we might use an LPVO, no? There needs to be a more precise aiming point and the horse-shoe occludes too much field of view. (An ACOG’s TA31 chevron is an example of it done right, in my view.)

   It is possible to get a reticle too busy to do good work, when what might be more appropriate is knowing ones load and its hold-offs.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment