While trying to decide on a variable optic that could be used for distance shooting/plinking but could also be used for some limited closer in stuff, I found several options, but I kept finding something about each optic option that caused me reservations. My priorities were (mostly in order):

-a mil-based reticule that would still give me .5 mil sub-tensions
-FFP
-weight
-a reticule that wasn't really busy and obscured a smaller target at a given range
-at least 4x
-price

Some finalists were the Elcan Specter DR, the SWFA 1-6 and the MK6. My reservation about the MK6 was the donut on the reticule obscuring the target, but based on some pictures, I figured I'd give it a try since it scratched all the other itches.

Initially I tried to run this on a Colt 6921HB, but I found at 6x, I would get a "haze" in the optic from the front sight post. I never really had that issue with an ACOG, but I'm thinking the increased mag and probably the different sized lens had something to do with that. So I ended up pulling out my trusty Noveske N4 upper that's been criminally neglected lately out of the safe and took off a T1 and put on the MK6 (begin blurry iPhone pic sequence).



This rifle was my first (technically second, but the first was a BCM that just didn't shoot anything well so I sold it) and has been with me since 2011, multiple local action rifle competitions and a carbine course. It has been absolutely trouble free and very accurate. After an initial swag zero at 50 yards, the MK6 and rifle were pretty much set at 100 yards using cheapo PPU M193. Not great groups (about 2.75 MOA), but this isn't meant to be a dedicated SPR. I'll run some SWA, Magtech, and maybe Black Hills 77gr through it at a later time, but for now, PPU and PMC Xtac will be it's main diet over the next few months.

Reticule:

I believe it was SINNER who warned me that the reticule may be too thin based off another Leupold optic. I have not found this be the case for the MK6. At 4x and up, the sub-tensions and reticule have been very easy to read. I do find the donut at 4-6X to be annoying at times, but it really depends on the target I'm shooting at. I haven't had a chance to mess with shooting steel yet (hopefully next weekend), but when shooting a 8" Shoot 'n C target, it does obscure portions of the target (donut is 9" across at 100 yards). Can you overcome it? Certainly, but either more mag (can't happen) or a wider donut would help. Here's another iPhone pic at 6x on a drizzly day.



I would say in reality, your eye sees more magnification than that picture depicts, but all I had was my iPhone and not a SLR, so I captured what I could.

When running the optic at 1x, with or without the donut illuminated, it's fairly easy for your eye to find the cross hair and put it on the target. Here it is at 1x (donut illuminated):



There's much buzz on the internet about how the donut will "blink" out if your eye isn't positioned perfectly, and I found that to be the case for me, as well. My question is, during the day, does it matter? I don't have a firm answer yet, but so far, even when it blinks out, you still have the center of the reticule to use and put on target. More on shooting at 1x shortly.

Image quality:

Obviously a subjective topic. When properly positioned, the image is very clear and bright. I have no complaints other than, for me, 6x isn't quite enough to see all the 5.56 holes at 100 yards. That may have more to do with my eyes than the optic. At 1x, it's pretty much like looking through an Eotech. Clear and almost zero perception that there's a tube of optics in front of you. I did notice that I could see my support hand in the image, which I don't remember seeing in a RDS, but it's not like it blocks the target at all.

One thing that I have found is that image quality drops off when you start to move out of the eye box slightly. Eye relief is great, but I've found that I get some scope shadow very easily if I move my head slightly at the higher mags. Compared to an ACOG, it doesn't seem as forgiving, but again, obviously a different design. At 1x there's more slop before scope shadow become an issue.

Shooting at 1x:

So, can this replace a RDS? Of course not. But how does it stack up? I need more data, but for the first set of drills I ran, I found the rifle to be much more the deciding factor than the optic. I set up a simple test with two targets at 20 yards. At the buzzer, I would engage each target with two shots, and shots needed to land in the A-zone. The times I give aren't meant to be anything special, and I'm sure many here could shoot faster, but I merely needed a standard to compare the two rifles. With the exception of one shot that landed in the C-zone with the MK6 (completely shooter error), all shots on both test rifles were on target. The two test rifles were my Noveske with the Mk6 and the "M4" 6921HB with a PA RDS (pic below). The M4 has a carbine gas system and a Surefire SF3P muzzle device. The Noveske has a Surefire 556RC brake on a mid-length gas system.



Honestly, while it might help slightly, I don't think the gas length is really as big a deal as some make it out to be. But I am 100% sure the muzzle device was important during this test. Anecdotally, I felt slower in acquiring the target and shooting with the MK6, especially if the dot would slip out of the "perfect" eye box and blink off. Meanwhile the RDS goes where you put it. But here's the data (average). I ran the RDS twice, the first time to get warmed up, just to make sure I got comfortable with each rifle. Both runs with the RDS were pretty comparable. Both "official" runs (MK6 vs RDS) consisted of 5 strings each (20 rounds total each).

RDS (no muzzle brake): 2.5s
MK6 (with SF brake): 2.1s

I have to believe the brake was helping. At the moment, the only other 16" Ar I have with a RDS is my 5.45 gun and it has a cheapo RRA brake on it, so I'll have to figure out an apples to apples comparison. Maybe the answer is to just put a suppressor on both rifles so any braking action is nulled.

More testing is needed:

Looking forward to continuing to run this, both at distance and up close. I might end up with access to an Elcan for comparison, which I would be very interested in, but TBD at this point. While not perfect (to me), I'm looking forward to continuing to put this optic through it's paces and I'll add updates here as I go.