Scope Review: USO-PFI 762C SR-8S

IMGP3029

Pride Fowler Industries and US Optics recently teamed up to offer the US Optics Military Spec series of rifle scopes. The US Optics Military Spec rifle scopes mate a PFI Rapid Reticle with a US Optics SR-8 or SR-6 rifle scope. The US Optics series encompasses two models: the 300BLK SR-6, which features the 300BLK ballistic reticle calibrated for 300 AAC/Blackout, and the USO-PFI 762C SR-8S, which features the 762C Adaptive Combat reticle calibrated for the 7.62×51 cartridge. For testing purposes, The Firearm Blog was provided with the USO-PFI 762C SR-8S model.

IMGP3047

The USO-PFI 762C Rifle Scope. The USO-PFI 762C mates a US Optics SR-8S with Pride Fowler Industries 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle. The USO-PFI 762C is sitting atop my Billet Rifle Systems Ar-15. The rifle pictured is extremely accurate and perfect for precision work.

 

Key Specifications of the USO-PFI 762C SR-8S model include:

  • The USO-PFI 762C rifle scope has Pride Fowler Industries 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle.
  • The USO-PFI 762C is a 1-8 power, First Focal Plane scope. (On First Focal Plane scopes, the reticle will shrink down or increase in size as the magnification is dialed down, or dialed up.)
  • The USO-PFI 762C main body is a US Optics SR-8. The main tube is 30 mm, and features a 24 mm objective lens. The 762C is 12 inches long, weighs 1.5 lbs and has a 3.7 inches of eye relief. The scope is made out of 6061 T6 Type III hard coat anodized aluminum.
  • The USO-PFI 762C has a fixed parallax and an illuminated reticle. Scope adjustments are 1/2 MOA. ( 1 MOA equals 1.047 inches at 100 yards. 1/2 MOA = .52 inches at 100 yards).
  • The USO-PFI 762C was designed for M118LR shot through a 16 inch barrel. (Muzzle velocity of 2440 feet per second. G7 Ballistic Coefficient of .485 – .505)
IMGP3043

USO-PFI 762C Rifle Scope came mounted on an American Defense scope mount. The US Optics SR-8 is an amazing piece of hardware. Visible in this picture are the buttons to turn on the illuminated reticle, as well as increase or decrease the reticle intensity. The illuminated reticle was not daylight visible. (Yes, I did try different batteries)

IMGP3037

The knurling on the magnification adjustment ring allowed quick magnification adjustment.

IMGP3035

American Defense makes a very solid mounting platform. I had no problems with this mount. Unlike my LaRue mount, this mount does not require tools to adjust the quick detach levers.

 

Understanding the 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle

The 762C Advanced Combat Reticle is a ballistic reticle that is configured to shoot M118LR/175 grain, 7.62×51 bullets. Pride Fowler Industries developed the reticle for battle rifles with a 16 inch barrel, notably the LaRue OBR 7.62, LMT .308 and the FNH SCAR 17S. The reticle offers ranging capability, wind holds and takes into account elevation. Pictured below is the 762C Advanced Combat Reticle.

762C Combat ReticleOn the reticle you will notice “>3000 FT” on the left side and “STD” on the right.If a marksman was using the M118LR round as well as a battle rifle with a 16 inch barrel, based off the marksman elevation, he or she would use the numeric hold on the left for shots above 3000 feet, and the numeric holds on the right, for shots below 3000 feet. The small dots near the numbers are for 10 mph wind holds

Ranging with the 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle

The 762C Advanced Combat Reticle features Pride Fowler Industries Rapid Ranging feature. The picture below is a “photo shopped” picture of the 762 Adaptive Combat Reticle. For ranging a human being at 100 yards, the shooter would use the brackets on the center of the reticle. If a targets head filled the circled area, the target would be 100 yards away. If the targets head filled half that space, the target would be 200 yards away. If a target’s head, filled the “T” between the 3’s, the target would be 300 yards away. The red dashed lines I drew, represent 18 inches at 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 yards. Assuming your targets shoulder width is 18 inches, using this feature would give you their range. The 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle also has MIL based hash marks for more conventional ranging.

Rapid Ranging

IMGP3056

My Remington 700. I used the rifle for the majority of testing.

Establishing a good zero

For the 762C Advanced Combat Reticle to work properly, the scope must have a good zero. When compared to a ruler placed at 100 yards, the center dot measured about 2.25 inches. 2.25 inches is not a very fine reference point when trying to zero an optic. For zeroing, I zeroed on the mini dot to the right of the main dot. After getting a good zero, I made 1 click to the left and confirmed a 3 shot 1.25 MOA group.

 

762C Combat Reticle Good zero

Working with the 762C Reticle

Prior to live fire testing, I had Pride Fowler send me some pictures of the 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle. Using some photo editing software, I photo edited some mil hash marks, and placed the hash marks alongside the 762C reticle. Since I was not using a 16 inch battle rifle, nor M118LR, I did not expect the drops to work for my rifle/caliber combination.

 

762C Close

If you are a shooter that is using the USO-PFI 762C, feel free to save this image to your desktop and print it up for your shooting journal/DOPE book.

 

Since the 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle was designed for a 16 inch battle rifle paired with 175 grain M118LR I started to build a simulation to test my photo shopped hash marks as well as the reticle. M118LR has a G7 ballistic coefficient of .485 – .505 and is going to be leaving a 16 inch barrel around 2400 feet per second. Plugging values into my calculator I came up with the following holds.  As you can see from the picture below, the hold values matched the reticle pretty close.

762C M118LR Simulated

  • 100 Yards – 0.0 MIL Hold
  • 200 Yards – 0.6 MIL Hold
  • 300 Yards – 1.5 MIL Hold
  • 400 Yards – 2.6 MIL Hold
  • 500 Yards – 3.7 MIL Hold
  • 600 Yards – 5.0 MIL Hold
  • 700 Yards – 6.5 MIL Hold
  • 800 Yards – 8.1 MIL Hold
  • 900 Yards – 9.8 MIL Hold

 

 

 

(100 yard zero. Altitude 6200 feet. 29.92 InHG. Temperature 45.0 F. No Angle. M118LR 175. G7 BC .505)

IMGP3076

For testing I used Federal XM80. Federal XM80 is a 149 grain full metal jacket boat tail round. For Ballistic calculations I used Knights Armament’s Bulletflight.

 

Field Testing

Field testing was done at the family ranch. The ranch sits at 6200 hundred foot elevation. I was shooting south, and there were 8-10 mph gusts of wind coming from the 2 o’clock position. I was not shooting at an angle. Temperature was around 45 degrees Fahrenheit, and pressure was 29.04 InHG. Zeroing was done at 100 yards on a Shoot-N-C target. My target for actual testing would be an 8×10 inch steel plate. For testing I moved back in 100 yard increments.   Though I do not own a 16 inch battle rifle, nor was I shooting M118LR, I was still excited to field test the USO-PFI 762C rifle scope. For testing I used my Remington 700 SPS tactical and Federal 149 Grain M80. The 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle is calibrated for a projectile flying at 2440 feet per second and a G7 ballistic coefficient between .485 – .505. Using Knights Armament Bulletflight and my photo shopped reticle, I came up with the following holds.

  • 100 Yards – 0.0 MIL Hold762C M80
  • 200 Yards – 0.5 MIL Hold
  • 300 Yards – 1.2 MIL Hold
  • 400 Yards – 2.1 MIL Hold
  • 500 Yards – 3.1 MIL Hold
  • 600 Yards – 4.2 MIL Hold
  • 700 Yards – 5.5 MIL Hold
  • 800 Yards – 6.9 MIL Hold
  • 900 Yards – 8.6 MIL Hold

 

After establishing a good zero, I started working back in 100 yard increments. My calculated holds held true. During testing, the scope was constantly on 8 power and I was using the tiny dots on the reticle to hold for wind. Shooting to 400 yards was very easy. The 500 and 600 yard shots were difficult due to the reticle obscuring my view of the target. My saving grace was wind. Because I had to hold for 8-10 mile per hour gusts, I was using the small circles that are calibrated for 10 mile per hour wind holds. The dots, being very small, allowed me to clearly see my target and make multiple hits out to 600 yards. Since I was shooting a heavy, muzzle braked rifle in the prone position with a heavy load on the bipod, I had no problems calling and observing my shots. Past 600 yards it was very difficult to see the 8×10 inch steel plate. I could still make out the human silhouette target that was setup next to the plate, but observing hits would have been impossible,

IMGP2971

USO-PFI 762C Rifle Scope in the wild.

IMGP2991

My portable target stand. Zombie target with a “Shoot-N-C” as well as a 8″x10″ steel plate.

IMGP2968

The furthest I took the USO-PFI 762C out to was 600 yards. As a personal challenge, I only shot at the steel target.

After three range sessions, 40 rounds of M80, and 20 rounds of XM193 I came to the following conclusions:

  • Since this rifle scope is only a 1-8 power, I would have preferred a Second Focal Plane reticle. The center dot would have been a lot more visible on 1 power.
  • The illuminated reticle is not visible during daytime.
  • On 1X, the cross hair is not visible. The reticle looks like a fuzzy mess and does not lend itself to close range precision shooting. If the reticle were in Second Focal Plane, the center dot would be visible and extremely useful, especially illuminated.
  • The eye relief is adequate for long range shooting. Had the reticle been visible at 1X, I could probably shoot an El Presidente drill just as fast as I can with a red dot.
  • The 762C combat reticle does not lend itself to precision work. This scope is designed to “walk rounds on target.”
  • This scope is designed to engage human sized targets.
  • I would not hunt dangerous animals that charge or pounce with this scope. The reticle is worthless on 1x.
  • My El Presidente drills were faster on 3x then 1x.
  • Observing and calling shots at 600 yards was very easy when the scope was on 8x.
  • US Optics makes a very good scope. The glass was very clear.
  • The American Defense scope mount was an amazing piece of hardware. I would strongly look at that brand for a mount.
IMGP3082

US Optics makes amazing optics. I would use one of these scopes in a heartbeat.

Final thoughts

I am not a fan of ballistic reticles. I like the concept of the 762C Combat reticle but I would prefer something analogous to the Horus series of reticles, or even a simple cross hair with MIL or MOA hash marks.  Reticles in general are a personal preference. Typically what you put in is what you get out. One could make the 762C Combat reticle work with any caliber,  but it would require a technical marksman as well as A LOT of time both plugging values into a ballistic calculator and confirming on the range. If you like to shoot, observe splash, adjust, and then shoot until you hit your target this scope will work just fine. The Horus series of Reticles also compliments that style of shooting. For a 1-8 or 1-6 powered system, a simple MIL or MOA system with a 2 MOA dot in the second focal plane would be more useful. Simply zero the rifle, and build a DOPE book in two thousand foot increments. Start at sea level and go all the way up to 14,000 feet. Include angle data and wind. If you are hunting at 6000 feet, consult your DOPE book, write out your holds on a small piece of paper, tape it to your rifle, and get on with it. Make sure you true your ballistic coefficient. The US Optics scope body was bomb proof. The glass was clear, and the construction is absolutely amazing. I am not excited about the 762C Combat reticle, but this test was my first exposure to US Optics. I found that US Optics makes a superior product, and if you are not interested in the PFI 762C Combat Reticle, US Optics makes some very nice 1-8 scopes with more traditional reticles. Bushnell, Vortex, Leupold, and Schmidt and Bender also have some very nice 1-6 and 1-8 options.

As always, tips, questions, gripes and humor are welcome in the comments below. For those of you going to SHOT this year, US Optics will be at booth 20031. Pride Fowler Industries (PFI) will be at booth 1249.

IMGP2979

Nothing like a nice walk on the range with a good friend and a good rifle.

Phil Note: As with all companies we offer them the opportunity to respond to our articles and state what they disagree with. We want to be fair so as requested the CEO asked that we publish the email he sent me.
We feel the article was fair but then people feel strongly about the products they make which is a good thing for the consumer. With this said the email is just below.

I just read the review on the 762C scope and am profoundly disappointed. In good faith, we sent the optic to get a solid review, and I believe that this is the 2nd time TFB has dinged us without testing the optic as specified by the manual and having a biased author of the review. I am certainly biased in this matter. Absolutely 100%. However, the following reasons are why the review is far from a clean review:

1. The entire test was done in yards when the manual specifically states that the ballistic holds are in METERS.

2. M80 out of a 20” gun at 6500 ft elevation is completely out of spec. If he needed M118LR or 175gr, we would have gladly sent some for the testing. How does a clean test occur if you don’t use the specified equipment in the first place? I know I included a manual in the package. Did it get lost?

3. In daylight in the open, what need is there for illumination? At 1x, there are visible arcs and a bolded center post called Rapid Guide for low magnification impact guidance which was NOT shown in the review. See attached. Further, in low light conditions, the illumination is crisp and clear when illumination is supposed to be used. (ie. Clearing a house, shooting into cover, confined space battles like an alley, or for dusk/dawn)

4. Even further, 1x is NOT for shooting long distance targets, so the reticle being visible is completely unnecessary. I cannot think of a single person that would shoot a 600m target with 1x when they have up to 8x available to them. If the optic is on 1x, more than likely the target is under 300m and even more likely to be under 100. Since the 100m zero is on center, the entire “fuzzy” reticle becomes an “arrow” giving the user a fast reference point for aiming. It is our “ADAPTIVE COMBAT RETICLE” after all. Worthless at 1x? See video in #7.

5. The authored zeroed on the center of the dot. On a 2MOA dot, the 100m impact should be at the top of the dot and the 200m at the bottom of the dot. Note that 100m = 109 yards. If he is zeroing at 100 yards, the zero will be off from the get go.

6. Reviewers who state that they don’t like BDC reticles in the first place, test the equipment improperly and out of spec, and don’t consider or understand the value of a FFP optic probably shouldn’t be testing the optic. If per say, the optic was meant to shoot around targets, how could I possibly do this? https://youtu.be/E-wdSWI9zaQ I don’t exactly shoot around the 900m target or 800m or 700m or 600m or 500m or 400m or 300m, do I? 900m impacts with a 16” gun with a factory barrel on humanoid steel targets. At worst, I could be shooting 2MOA, but my run was 1MOA or better at ALL distances. Sounds like precision work to me.

7. Further, what happens when there is a 20mph wind? These amateur shooters found a way to deal with it: https://youtu.be/fZmTXf62MeY. Why can’t a professional reviewer of optics and weapon systems figure it out using the BDC?

8. Lastly, the review used a 8×10 steel plate and stated that he couldn’t see it clearly at 500 or 600 yards because the reticle was obstructing his view. Well, yeah. That makes sense considering it’s 8×10 which is the size of a human head. For the designed purpose, is this something to note or isn’t it obvious that it should be? However, I find it odd that his second to last bullet point stated that observing and calling shots at 600 was easy.

I am dumbfounded at how our reticle got a fair shake. Again, I am biased, but everything refuted here doesn’t need me to be biased in order to refute. We never received a single phone call or correspondence with any issues or for any advice in regards to the review. I find that quite unprofessional and discourteous considering that we were generous enough to send a $2,000 scope to Mr. Gomez for review without hesitation. I never expected any special treatment nor did I ask for a puff piece. NEVER would I ask for something like that. We build optics with our hearts here at PFI not for compensation. Our entire goal is to put better equipment into the hands of our warfighters so that they can do their job more efficiently and effectively, so that they come home to their families. That’s it. No if’s, and’s, or but’s. So, when I see a piece like this, it feels like a slap in the face when a reviewer can’t do his simple task of testing the equipment with integrity.



Thomas Gomez

Thomas Gomez currently resides in the mountains of central New Mexico. He has an M.B.A, an Ar-15/M16/M4 armorer certification from Specialized Armament Warehouse as well as a Glock armorer certification. Aside from writing for The Firearm Blog he works as a Clinical Analyst for a large Hospital. He spends his free time farming, ranching, hiking, fly-fishing and hunting in the beautiful forests and prairies of New Mexico. He can be reached at LOADTHATBIPOD@gmail.com


Advertisement

  • Wouldn’t it have made more sense to have chosen a reviewer who actually appreciates FFP and BDC? Although, I admit, the lack of daytime-visible illumination does make the FFP reticle less usable.

    • Thomas Gomez

      Hello erwos.

      I appreciate FFP. My Bushnell HDMR is FFP and I love the feature, however I think FFP is worthless for low powered optics.

      I was surprised that the illuminated reticle was not daytime visible. I hope this finds you well.

      • When you post a paragraph about how you don’t like BDC at the end of an article about a BDC scope, it makes me think you’re the wrong person to review a BDC scope. I certainly don’t expect a puff piece, but it also makes me wonder if you weren’t too hard on the reticle _because it utilized BDC_. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable criticism. It was never built for the use cases you’re describing. It excels at other use cases, like, you know, quickly shooting people at 400-600 yards without memorizing a bunch of mil dope.

        On the FFP front, the issue is very much that USO didn’t get it daylight visible. The general premise with FFP 1-X scopes is that you crank up the brightness so that you can find the reticle faster on lower magnification. So, I actually do agree with your criticism about the 1x limitations (especially at the $2100 price point, yeesh).

        I am perhaps being too hard on you here, but after the last time TTAG “reviewed” a PFI scope, I am a little suspicious of bias.

        Note: I have no relationship with PFI or USO, except that I am a satisfied PFI customer, and like their stuff.

        • Vitsaus

          Sounds like some one needs to go to their safe space for a bit.

        • Thomas Gomez

          Hello erwos

          As a writer/journalist I have to keep a very open/impartial mind. With that said I approached this review with a blank slate. My ENDING paragraph stated I did not like BDC scopes, but I did not start my article by advertising that. Even though I did not like the optic, the whole article pretty much revolved around how to maximize it’s use. I also stated that reticles are a personal preference.

          Was I hard on the 762C Adaptive Combat Reticle? Yes. Will it work for shooting at human size targets? Yes. But…what happens if the wind gust kick up to 20 mph? What happens if I am shooting at a 45 degree angle? What happens if I burn through all my M118LR and I have to pick up M80? (That happened to my sniper buddy in Afghanistan) What happens if I find myself at 9,000 feet? What happens if I am at 8,000 feet, shooting at a 30 degree angle and I have to shoot M80? What happens when a storm rolls in and the atmospheric pressure drops and I have to take a 600 yard shot? See what happens there? That reticle then becomes worthless. With a MIL dot scope I can solve all those problems with a basic ballistic calculator after a few hours on the range with a chronograph and a shooting a journal.

          As far as BDC scope, I have spent a lot of time with the Zeiss Z Plex and the Swarovski BRX reticle. (They both offer a ballistic calculator which helps a lot) After hours and hours behind those scope, I “outgrew” them, and found the capabilities lacking for shooting past 500 yards. From personal experience, BDC reticles give hunters and shooters a false sense of security. Most of the hunters I know, never acutally get to the range to test their drops. One hunter I know missed several shots on a New Zealand hunt, due to the changes in altitude from where he zeroed the scope and where he was actually hunting. That particular hunter is now using a Schmidt and Bender PM2 with a Hours H59 reticle.

          Honestly, there are better reticles then the 762C. Even if PFI came out with a reticle for the M80/20 inch barrel, I wouldn’t be interested. It is to specific, and at the end of the day very limited on what it can do.

          This is TFB not TTAG. I don’t know anyone at TTAG and I am not familiar with their writing policies, though I think they do a good job and have good writers.

          I am sorry if my article does not validate your expensive purchase.

          Hope this finds you well.

          • Ben Pottinger

            I tend to agree. When I buy something really expensive it needs to validate that extra expense. I felt like my nightforce was easily worth the extra 50-75% cost increase over comparable options at the time. The USO optics were really nice looking but just needed a level of disposable income I didn’t have (or was willing to part with for the much smaller quality improvement).

            As a reloader I’ve also felt the same way about BDCs. Far to limiting. If all I shot was factory or milsurp I might think differently.

          • Thomas Gomez

            Hey Ben!

            Nightforce optics rock! Which model do you have? I am looking at the Nightforce 4-14 SHV model for my hunting rifles. I am probably going to go with the MOAR reticle. ( I subscribe to the few scopes many rifles theory)

            Thoughts?

          • Ben Pottinger

            So I’m a massive amateur at LR shooting but I can cover what little I know. I have a 3.5-15 NXS mildot that’s about 10 years old. If I could change anything on it I’d make sure it had zero-stops. Zero-stops just make everything easier. Someday I’ll send the scope in for the upgrade. Second: I’d probably consider a different reticle than mildot. I mainly got mildot because I figured it would make it easier to transition between scopes as I accumulated more, but it has a significant learning curve and isn’t as obvious (or as fast) as some of the newer reticles can be. If I hunted (I dont) I’d probably want a lower magnification but I live out east and you clearly don’t so I doubt that would be an issue.

            One thing that surprised me was that the utility of high magnification seems to drop off quickly past 15x. I tried a friend’s 20-22× (I forget) and mirage was a serious issue after just a shot or two at full magnification.

            How do you keep the rifles zeroed if you swap the scope around? I’ve been wanting to build a AR308 for ages but the thought of needing another 1500$+ scope has slowed me down from “pulling the trigger”.

          • I don’t own any of PFI’s ultra-top end scopes, so this review isn’t really validating any of my gear either way.

            Your example of the “problem” with BDC is weird to me. If I’m a sniper and I know there is a chance I’m going to be firing M80 in a pinch, I’m simply going to plug in that load into my ballistics program (Strelok Pro, for example, has many common BDC reticles, including PFI’s), and I’ll immediately find out what all of those BDC hashes mean for that load. Yeah, I ought to test it first to verify… but your own example has you out on the range for hours with your mil scope dialing it in for your new load. You’ve got to keep the comparison apples to apples.

            But, in any event, the problem is not your preference for non-BDC scopes. You don’t need to defend that. I understand! I use them, too! The problem is that this optic never had a fair chance in the analysis portion of the review, because you are not a fan of BDC scopes. Telling me that only your ending paragraph was biased just tells me your thinking from the start was biased. This is basically the same as .45ACP 1911 enthusiast reviewing a Glock 17. It’s simply not going to end well for the Glock 17, because _that’s not a product built for the reviewer’s strongly held preferences_.

            In any event, my rant is not really directed at you so much as your editors. You did a pretty good job with the technical portion of the review, and kudos for verifying the hashes lined up right – I heard the PFI 22lr RR-Evo had some serious deficiencies in that regard.

          • Thomas Gomez

            Hello erwos

            Strelok PRO does not have the PFI 762C reticle in its reticle selection. I do like that Strelok has the functionality to true a ballistic coefficient.

            Once again, I have spent hours and hours and hours behind BDC scopes. If you are a professional or a serious shooter, you will outgrow a BDC reticle very quickly. Plain and simple. If you are a hunter who is never going to shoot something past 400 yards you will probably be okay with a BDC reticle. I have a guide friend who has a rifle with a BDC for his clients to use. Simple and effective to 400 yards. Had this review been a Hunting type optic with a BDC, it would have been completely positive. But, the PFI optic is a combat optic with holds out to 900 yards…very different employment. More stringent review. End users who HAVE TO employ this scope WILL glean something positive from this article.

            My job as a writer is to tell my readers my honest opinion and pull from my past experiences. My opinion is a Horus reticle or a MIL hash reticle like the Nightforce MOAR can run circles around this reticle. Once again, I grew up learning long range shooting with BDC reticles. There are better options. I gave this scope an honest review. Had I done a puff piece the comments section would be filled up with semi-professional/professional marksman telling me I have no business writing while tellling me the limitations of BDC reticles.

            I did say reticles are a personal preference and what you put in is what you get out. Once again, the majority of that article is neutral/positive. I have nothing left to say in regards to me being impartial or lack thereof.

            I would love to see your shot groups at 700 yards with a a BDC reticle. BDC will get you near the target at extended ranges. If you want to be mediocre and make expensive noise, good for you, get a BDC reticle. If you want to hit your target get a Horus or a MIL Hash type reticle.

            You don’t like opinion? Fine. Email Todd Hodnett and ask him his opinion. Email Zak Smith from Thunderbeast and ask him his opinion. Ask Bryan Litz his opinion.

            For the record. The BDC on my Leatherwood CMR is rock solid out to 400 yards. Perfect for coyotes.

            Hope this finds you well.

            Thomas

          • Mrninjatoes

            So you wanted the editor to send the scope to a naive inexperienced writer that doesn’t know his or her way around a rifle scope? What is that supposed to accomplish?

          • It won’t accomplish anything at all. I sent that scope to Thomas because I know he is very knowledgable.

          • Ok so what problem do you have with the editors? By the way I’m a 1911 guy who also happens to like Glocks. It is possible to like and enjoy both. I’m testing the new Vickers Glock now and I may just have to buy it from my experience so far.
            Thomas is not one to draw conclusions based on bias. He said it’s a matter of preference which it is but that doesn’t mean he can’t give another type of reticle a fair run.
            Bryan Litz was part of the opinion and supplied some info. There were also retired Army snipers who were consulted.

  • Kyle

    I’m not seeing a price listed anywhere. Being US Optics I assume it is hilariously expensive.

    • Thomas Gomez

      Hello Kyle.

      PFI wants $2149 for this particular model.

      Hope this finds you well.

      • michael franklin

        If you put that first, no one would continue to read the test

        • Thomas Gomez

          Hey Michael.

          You are probably right!

      • Kyle

        Yup, hilariously expensive for me anyway. Thanks for responding though. I appreciate it.

        • Thomas Gomez

          Cheers bro.

  • thedonn007

    Nice review, and beautiful scenery

    • Thomas Gomez

      Thank you very much. I am very lucky to have such a place to shoot. Chalk it up to parents who worked very, very hard to get where they are at in life.

      I hope this finds you well.

  • NDS

    SFP for 1x-X optics, typically the illumination is brighter and as mentioned the 1x reticle is actually usable. Also, you’re not going to range anything under the (relatively low) max magnification so the reticle scale doesn’t matter.

    FFP for precision rifle optics, so you have fixed MIL (or BDC or whatever) scale across the board.

    Just my experience.

    • Thomas Gomez

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

      I hope this finds you well!

  • A Fascist Corgi

    Adding the elevation markings to the reticle is a really good idea. That makes it even easier for your average infantryman to reliably hit targets at medium to long range regardless of the environment that they’re in. It would be really useful in Afghanistan. All of the people saying that our soldiers can’t hit anything past 200 yards, therefore the 5.56×45 round is more than adequate, need to start looking for another excuse to oppose the transition to the 6.5 Grendel round…

    • Thomas Gomez

      Hey Fascist Corgi

      I see your point. The Trijicon BDC has been pretty successful. Pretty easy to train soldiers with a low powered optic with a BDC reticle. Granted those soldiers are all using the same rifle and same ammo.

      Hope this finds you well.

  • Travis

    I am not sure to even know where to start.

    1. The writer shouldn’t be testing a scope he doesn’t know how to properly use. It’s obvious he is biased.
    The scope is built for a specific purpose with specific ammunition, but YOU, the writer decided in your lack of wisdom to just bypass that and use your own ammunition in a rifle that was not designed for use with the scope in question. If you don’t have the proper equipment to conduct the test, why do a half ass test with just whatever you have lying around. That is foolish and shows your lack of knowledge and understanding of what your doing.

    2. You clearly state you don’t like BDC reticles. Again, a biased statement which concludes that you have no idea how to properly use them to begin with.
    This is proven by the fact that you did not have the proper equipment on hand to conduct a proper test. So you felt you could whizbang it and do some calculations on your computer, draw out a whole new reticle and use that for your conclusions on how well the reticle worked.
    3. Nowhere did Pride Fowler state to use M80 ball? This is also not counting your side experiment of the very inconsistent XM193. Can the reticle be used with other Ammo. Sure it can, but you should chronograph your rounds to make sure your within the parameters of the scopes design, which again you deviated from.
    That’s the purpose of a BDC Reticle which I am sure you are well aware of.

    I find this article inconclusive, and I wouldn’t personally recommend you to test any more optics.
    You have no idea what you are doing and pass bad information. Your lack of knowledge and understanding is clearly noted and anybody who reads this article should take note of your lack of understanding and dismiss this article as well.
    This was not a true or complete test of this scopes capability.

    Bottom line: You sir are an amateur and really should keep to things you know how to do. You lack of shooting skill and lack of understanding optics is clearly relevant throughout this article.
    Just stick with getting up and eating. It’s better suited for you.