Leupold's new Mark 6 1-6x24 34mm Tactical scope - review at SHOT 2012
- Thread starter Sititunga
- Start date
The 1-6X is not a "sniper" scope. The guy who is carrying this stuff is not going to sit at a position, wait and "mil" out the targets. If the guy's job involves doing that, he will have a real sniping system and a spotting scope. Guys who are getting a hard on at these 1-8X and 1-6X should be aware that at the maximum magnifcation with these scopes, it is like looking through a straw. Consistent cheek wield and eye relief are critical. If you are looking to using 8X or 6X all the time, it is probably better to get something else.
The point is not to "mil" out targets, its to use the reticle the same way you use those BDC reticles, without being tied to one specific caliber with one specific load. If the magnification is not adequate to use a mil-based reticle for elevation and wind hold-overs, then it certainly isn't adequate for any of these BDC type reticles either. The fact that they're offering those (and the mil-based H27D on the 1-8x) says that it is adequate. I know that it is adequate because I regularly use my Gen2 XR reticle down to 3.5x for that purpose on my AR.
This:
Is used in the same way as this:
IOR Reticle at 1x:
IOR Reticle at 5x:
It works just fine if you make the graduations 1 mil, instead of 0.5 mil like they are on the sniper scopes. That is what that BDC reticle is graduated in on the verticle crosshair, so why would it be any more usable?
Note that the dot is on the second focal plane so that it is still visible at 1x.
1x with illumination:
This:
Is used in the same way as this:
IOR Reticle at 1x:
IOR Reticle at 5x:
It works just fine if you make the graduations 1 mil, instead of 0.5 mil like they are on the sniper scopes. That is what that BDC reticle is graduated in on the verticle crosshair, so why would it be any more usable?
Note that the dot is on the second focal plane so that it is still visible at 1x.
1x with illumination:
Last edited:
I don't care for these type reticles, too much going on. Maybe it is great in high contrast environments like the desert but when it gets semi dark in the woods all the fine lines muck up, at least to me.
I do like the wide power range though if the 1x is real close to actually 1x and not 1.5 or more.
I do like the wide power range though if the 1x is real close to actually 1x and not 1.5 or more.
Illumination solves the issue of dark crosshairs on dark backgrounds. Premier's 1-8x has a feature that automatically switches the illumination between just the dot and the entire crosshair when you cross the 3x mark. When you get below 3x, you're using it at close range and don't need the reticle.
March has a new SFP 1-10x that only weighs 18 oz. The IOR is also 1-10x, but unfortunately weighs 33 oz... It isn't the FFP that is adding all that weight btw, Bushnell's new 1-6.5x is offered in both SFP and FFP. The difference in weight is trivial.
March has a new SFP 1-10x that only weighs 18 oz. The IOR is also 1-10x, but unfortunately weighs 33 oz... It isn't the FFP that is adding all that weight btw, Bushnell's new 1-6.5x is offered in both SFP and FFP. The difference in weight is trivial.
Horus reticle is around $300 for Leupold to put it in each scope, plus around 50-80k to design it to fit in a specific scope.
I am sure if someone handed Leupold either a requirement for a .gov system, and/or $100,000 they would give you a 1-6 with the H27D
The 1-6x was designed for a dual use (commercial and military). The Army does not beleive that the average soldier can effectively implement the Horus reticle.
As much as I dont like BDC reticle, they are fast and easy for the soldier to use -- the issue of atmospherics playing with the range dope is a bit of a misnomer, as it only works that way IF you have a known range, and very few small units have integral LRF's, or find enemies on the KD.
You can always adjust your fire to account for such.
I mean the ACOG reticle was calibrated at sea level -- its still usable in 10,000ft in Afghan -- its just not as accurate on the range -- but how good is the Mk1 eyeball with a 4-6x scope and the stadia ranging in the reticle.
I am sure if someone handed Leupold either a requirement for a .gov system, and/or $100,000 they would give you a 1-6 with the H27D
The 1-6x was designed for a dual use (commercial and military). The Army does not beleive that the average soldier can effectively implement the Horus reticle.
As much as I dont like BDC reticle, they are fast and easy for the soldier to use -- the issue of atmospherics playing with the range dope is a bit of a misnomer, as it only works that way IF you have a known range, and very few small units have integral LRF's, or find enemies on the KD.
You can always adjust your fire to account for such.
I mean the ACOG reticle was calibrated at sea level -- its still usable in 10,000ft in Afghan -- its just not as accurate on the range -- but how good is the Mk1 eyeball with a 4-6x scope and the stadia ranging in the reticle.
I suspect their military custom is buying the CQBSS with a Horus reticle for SF and not RF for that reason.
Leupold might not do it, but other companies that are now staring to offer scopes with this style of reticle are going to catch on and follow suit in their lower power optics. This year's offerings are just a stepping stone to that. It took a while before they started offering them in the sniper scopes, but they eventually came around...
Leupold might not do it, but other companies that are now staring to offer scopes with this style of reticle are going to catch on and follow suit in their lower power optics. This year's offerings are just a stepping stone to that. It took a while before they started offering them in the sniper scopes, but they eventually came around...
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Well there's your problem right there - interjecting logic into the discussion obviously won't do at all...
Well there's your problem right there - interjecting logic into the discussion obviously won't do at all...
The other poster simply does not know the reason behind it and post a question -I do not see any arguement here. It is just part of the knowledge sharing.
If people do not ask the questions, how do we share the answers?
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Sorry GT, I wasn't slamming the other poster and can't put smilies in when posting from my phone. I was just pointing out the Kevin has a way of distilling things down to the simple level needed by most of us.
Example - explaining the whole reticle cost and whatnot. Most of f us think "hey - I'd like to have that reticle in this scope" without really thinking about how that happens of the financial investment piece behind it. That's all...
blake
Example - explaining the whole reticle cost and whatnot. Most of f us think "hey - I'd like to have that reticle in this scope" without really thinking about how that happens of the financial investment piece behind it. That's all...
blake
As I have said in previous posts I think this is a game changer. I certainly think the Mk6 1-6 will impact 1-8 sales both commercial and military/leo, especially makers who are selling north of $3k, and as said before I also think and agree that S&B's 1-4 Short-Dot is dead in the water at the new price point of $2800, possibly along with Swaro's 1-6 Zi. This type of optic is definitely the way forward - two sights in one, but I think it still remains to be seen whether this system is faster to use than a dual sighting system - scope plus offset red-dot.
[youtube]xBwDCbybnCA[/youtube]
[youtube]xBwDCbybnCA[/youtube]
For three gun etc. the dual optic may be faster. However under real stress the body default back a the known muscle memory -- thus a Single Optic that can do both is better.
Remember the whole ACOG/Dr Optic combo -- this went away in units that could afford the Short Dot...
The Short Dot came out of the CAG's deployment to Somalia (and elsewhere) that showed the problem of the Aimpoint in getting PID in a confusing environment where both combatant and non combatant where intermixed.
You leave those scopes on 1 (or 1.1) and dial up as needed.
This is the whole reason the US Army is now chasing the SCO (Squad Common Optic) which will be a 1-6x or 1-8x optic...
Remember the whole ACOG/Dr Optic combo -- this went away in units that could afford the Short Dot...
The Short Dot came out of the CAG's deployment to Somalia (and elsewhere) that showed the problem of the Aimpoint in getting PID in a confusing environment where both combatant and non combatant where intermixed.
You leave those scopes on 1 (or 1.1) and dial up as needed.
This is the whole reason the US Army is now chasing the SCO (Squad Common Optic) which will be a 1-6x or 1-8x optic...
The CQBSS is selling for $4k. Vendors are saying that this one will be between $1500 and $2000. While they may lose a few customers to this scope, they will gain many more who can't affort the CQBSS.
Several companies are releasing scopes similar to this that are true 1x to 6-to-10x with the short range aiming feature either on the second, or designed such that it remains visible at 1x. USO and S&B are both releasing 1-8x dual focal plain optics. March has one that is 1-10x and only weights 18 oz. Bushnell and SWFA also released similar 1-6x scopes priced ~$1300 at the show.
Several companies are releasing scopes similar to this that are true 1x to 6-to-10x with the short range aiming feature either on the second, or designed such that it remains visible at 1x. USO and S&B are both releasing 1-8x dual focal plain optics. March has one that is 1-10x and only weights 18 oz. Bushnell and SWFA also released similar 1-6x scopes priced ~$1300 at the show.
I know, but S&B's, Premier's and USO's are priced at $3.5k and March's 1-10 and IOR's 1-10 don't have Aimpoint bright reticles. I guess my point is that these scopes are designed ultimately for M4s and maybe DMRs and that a good 1-6 power scope would probably serve very well on both. I think the Brits are using 6 power Acogs on their LMTs. Is the 1-8 given its cost and size worth the marginal magnification gain you'll get?
The March weights the same or less than most 1-6s. This is just the first generation. There will be more and the next ones will have better reticles, and will weight less. I would ideally prefer a 1-10x and be able to use the optic for more applications. 8x is sort of a compromise, but I put more value on true 1x than on the added magnification.
I don't mind paying for a top quality optic, but only if it has the features I want. Until these do, there are cheaper options to get by with.
I don't mind paying for a top quality optic, but only if it has the features I want. Until these do, there are cheaper options to get by with.
Leupold designed the 1.1-8x for a specific weapon program.
The customer wanted the best scope - and can afford the price tag.
The 16" 7.62mm gun can take advantage of the 1.1-8x in the required range band for the use of it.
Leupold never expected to have a large market for that scope - and the cost of the system and the R&D involved result in an expensive platform.
That said it is a TON cheaper now (at least to units and Military OEM Customers) that it was in the past due to the much larger demand for the gun than was expected previously.
I know people think that the Leupy scopes are pricey of late - but the lens, coating and internals are really top notch -- Remember I used to be Mr. S&B, but in my experience Leupold is delivering a much superior product these days - at a cheaper price point to boot.
The Mk6 line up (1-6x and 3-18x) and Mk8 line (1.1-8x and 3.5-25x) are truly ahead of the competition, especially when you factor in Night Vision -- the lenses and coatings are designed from the ground up to work with NV systems. Most Military needs of these scope are night related - and as such they are way out ahead of the competition.
V/R
Kev
The customer wanted the best scope - and can afford the price tag.
The 16" 7.62mm gun can take advantage of the 1.1-8x in the required range band for the use of it.
Leupold never expected to have a large market for that scope - and the cost of the system and the R&D involved result in an expensive platform.
That said it is a TON cheaper now (at least to units and Military OEM Customers) that it was in the past due to the much larger demand for the gun than was expected previously.
I know people think that the Leupy scopes are pricey of late - but the lens, coating and internals are really top notch -- Remember I used to be Mr. S&B, but in my experience Leupold is delivering a much superior product these days - at a cheaper price point to boot.
The Mk6 line up (1-6x and 3-18x) and Mk8 line (1.1-8x and 3.5-25x) are truly ahead of the competition, especially when you factor in Night Vision -- the lenses and coatings are designed from the ground up to work with NV systems. Most Military needs of these scope are night related - and as such they are way out ahead of the competition.
V/R
Kev
Couldn't agree more. I've also not liked Leupold for a long time because they refused to adapt to changing times and changing technology. They're only really doing so because they saw their Mark 4 SFP mil/MOA mismatched abominations being replaced by newer and better options by their military customers. But, they have really taken a leap to the front of the pack with those Mark 8 scopes.
