LPVO Options?

[alamo5000]

I know the ACSS reticles are well regarded, but I don't think I could ever convince myself to spend over $1,000 for something with the PA name on it. I know it's irrational and just branding, but....PA. And I'll say it again, that closeout Razor gen II 1-6 for $900 is a steal.

I did stumble on this Athlon which might interest you. 1-10x with Christmas tree reticle for under $1k street. I've never looked through an Athlon. https://athlonoptics.com/product/are...fp-ir-mil-uhd/

I agree with you 100%. I have heard good things about PA optics (on the internet only) but let's say they are not my first choice.

That Athlon scope is something to investigate more. The reticle seems like it's an option! Who knows... at first glance it's a viable option for sure.

[UWone77]

I know the ACSS reticles are well regarded, but I don't think I could ever convince myself to spend over $1,000 for something with the PA name on it. I know it's irrational and just branding, but....PA. And I'll say it again, that closeout Razor gen II 1-6 for $900 is a steal.

I did stumble on this Athlon which might interest you. 1-10x with Christmas tree reticle for under $1k street. I've never looked through an Athlon. https://athlonoptics.com/product/are...fp-ir-mil-uhd/

For a guy that kept harping that a lowers with different roll marks were gucci, I find this amusing as hell... welcome to the dark side my man.

[BoilerUp]

For a guy that kept harping that a lowers with different roll marks were gucci, I find this amusing as hell... welcome to the dark side my man.

Fair point, considering the PA and the Razor are probably made in the same factory in Japan. But, hey, I admitted it was irrational. Those PA PLx scopes get really good reviews and the fact that Trijicon licensed the reticle for their use says something.

[UWone77]

Fair point, considering the PA and the Razor are probably made in the same factory in Japan. But, hey, I admitted it was irrational. Those PA PLx scopes get really good reviews and the fact that Trijicon licensed the reticle for their use says something.

Which is funny right... because I've gone the opposite direction and have been using more budget brands because they are often made in the same factory. Plus it's less painful on the wallet if I break it.

[alamo5000]

Which is funny right... because I've gone the opposite direction and have been using more budget brands because they are often made in the same factory. Plus it's less painful on the wallet if I break it.

What is your take (and general consensus) on the Athlon Ares ETR 1-10x that Boilerup posted a link to earlier?

It checks many of the boxes for me based around specs and so forth. Specs on paper and real life though typically are not equals.

[SINNER]

I'm generally not a fan of any 1-× optics but this one changed my opinion. At 1x it's like using a red dot.

[UWone77]

What is your take (and general consensus) on the Athlon Ares ETR 1-10x that Boilerup posted a link to earlier?

It checks many of the boxes for me based around specs and so forth. Specs on paper and real life though typically are not equals.

I don't have any time with Althon optics. I've heard decent things about them, but I can't give you an opinion either way.

[alamo5000]

I said screw it and placed an order for the Athlon. I've read and seen lots of positive things about their optics in general albeit limited (but still good) reviews of the one in question. I am pretty sure it will more than meet my needs.

Now I need to look for a 34mm cantilever mount.

[alamo5000]

I know the ACSS reticles are well regarded, but I don't think I could ever convince myself to spend over $1,000 for something with the PA name on it. I know it's irrational and just branding, but....PA. And I'll say it again, that closeout Razor gen II 1-6 for $900 is a steal.

I did stumble on this Athlon which might interest you. 1-10x with Christmas tree reticle for under $1k street. I've never looked through an Athlon. https://athlonoptics.com/product/are...fp-ir-mil-uhd/

Thank you for posting this up. I appreciate all of you guy's input a lot. I typically dislike buying things sight unseen but I just placed an order.

In any case I might be totally off base with my way of thinking about LPVOs so I reserve the right to further change my mind again at some point in the future. As I learn more I tend to evolve so I might be using a BDC a few years from now. Who knows. If I decide to change later on (or if I ultimately decide I don't like it) at least I am not in too deep money wise.

[alamo5000]

Follow up question for everyone.

I am putting that scope on an AR. What would be the approximate height of a mount that I would need/want? I am most likely going to use a cantilever mount.

(Sorry, my brain isn't in gear today. I went to the dentist today and now that the stuff has worn off I have a headache and sort of an upset stomach so I am pawning off my brain questions for now)

[Default.mp3]

Follow up question for everyone.

I am putting that scope on an AR. What would be the approximate height of a mount that I would need/want? I am most likely going to use a cantilever mount.

(Sorry, my brain isn't in gear today. I went to the dentist today and now that the stuff has worn off I have a headache and sort of an upset stomach so I am pawning off my brain questions for now)

Depends on how you're using the rifle, your head, and your optic's performance. 1.54" was the norm for a very long time. Then 1.93" came into vogue, and everyone jumped on it for the more heads-up position it gave. Then 2.04" came out, because then you could just use a half-inch riser under a CNVD to use that with the optic (since there was no reason to 1.93" besides the fact that it cleared a PEQ-2 while using an S&B 1.1-4x20 PM Short-Dot, as discovered through iterative changes done by LaRue). Then 1.70" came around as a compromise height, to give you a more heads-up position than 1.54", but still allowed you to get a better cheekweld than 1.93" when prone.

[gatordev]

Are you talking only about the FC-DM, or are you including the FC-DMx in this assessment?

FC-DM. I hadn't seen the FC-DMx. That could potentially change my calculus on the ATACR vs Razor 3 conundrum I'm in. Although even with the military discount, between availability and price, the Razor may still win.

[BoilerUp]

FC-DM. I hadn't seen the FC-DMx. That could potentially change my calculus on the ATACR vs Razor 3 conundrum I'm in. Although even with the military discount, between availability and price, the Razor may still win.

That military discount from Vortex makes you work extra hard to justify the price jump to competitive scopes. Now that I'm registered with Griffin Armament it will likely be the same challenge for suppressors for me going forward.

Alamo,
Regarding height, I personally find the standard AR height stuff just fine. The higher mounts were originally designed to clear other pieces of equipment but some folks just like the more "heads-u" position that D.mp3 mentioned. Personally, my view is that if you just bring the rifle up to your eyes instead of scrunching down behind the rifle you'll be fine. And I have a huge head. But, we all have our preferences and our preferences are subject to change over time as we experiment, practice, learn, and grow. But, IMO, it's kind of like a buffer. Start out with carbine until you have a reason to switch. Start out with standard 1.5" height unless you have a reason to switch.

All that said, I really can't recommend Bobro QD mounts enough. They are awesome and have perfect cantilever for an AR (see my pic above in post #6).

[VIPER 237]

Depends on how you're using the rifle, your head, and your optic's performance. 1.54" was the norm for a very long time. Then 1.93" came into vogue, and everyone jumped on it for the more heads-up position it gave. Then 2.04" came out, because then you could just use a half-inch riser under a CNVD to use that with the optic (since there was no reason to 1.93" besides the fact that it cleared a PEQ-2 while using an S&B 1.1-4x20 PM Short-Dot, as discovered through iterative changes done by LaRue). Then 1.70" came around as a compromise height, to give you a more heads-up position than 1.54", but still allowed you to get a better cheekweld than 1.93" when prone.

Same. 1.70 is my preferred height.

[gatordev]

That military discount from Vortex makes you work extra hard to justify the price jump to competitive scopes. Now that I'm registered with Griffin Armament it will likely be the same challenge for suppressors for me going forward.

In the past, the Vortex discount was off of the MAP and not off the street price, so you ended up paying about what you would for a street price. If you bought from a vendor, you'd get the street price plus what you'd get discounted by the vendor. I never bothered with a Vortex military discount because of that. Has that changed? I'll have to poke around on Vortex's site.