The rings are Leupold Mark 4 high rings. The base is a a NightForce 20 MOA base. I haven’t zeroed this yet was hoping to get to the range tomorrow, but life just got in the way of that. However, it should have about 26 mils of elevation. I have not compared it to my Razor. I mounted it, took the pic and put it in the safe. I hope to have sometime to work up some loads for this rifle tomorrow, so maybe then I can pull the Razor out.
Okay, I got a chance to look at them side by side. First, the Razors glass is slightly better than the MPO. The Razors reticle at lower power almost is too thin, which is okay I never use the lowest power. The MPOs reticle looks good at lower power and I am guessing it's their design of the two lines instead of one and on the flip side the highest magnification it still looks good to me as the two line reticle has grown on me. The places were I think the MPO outshines the Razor Gen II is in weight and price. I really don't think you're giving much up as far as the glass goes and with the weight of the Razor Gen II at 48.5 oz compared to the MPO at 35.2 that the MPO is a better buy. Now with that said the Razor Gen II has been out there and is proven where as the MPO is just starting to get out there. Also, there's not much in the way of reviews for the MPO. I can't give you more than that as I have not gotten to the range with my MPO. I plan on bringing both the MPO and Razor to the range when I do get to the range.
Yeah, Although I did not have the glass issues you are seeing, I found a much cheaper scope with better glass and more magnification for 1/3 the price, so I returned mine.Just received my MPO this morning. So far I'm liking it pretty well. First impressions are it is huge with the sun shade... Don't know if I will run that very much... And it feels like a tank. All clicks and controls feel very nice to me.
Negatives / things to note:
-There is some CA for sure.
-I'm only getting like 19.5mils of adjustment (end to end, adjusting it so I am really bottoming out, not hitting the zero stop)
-Torwards the bottom of travel I'm getting some shadowing in the top right (could be normal?)
-There is a decent amount of distortion around the edges but it's really only noticeable in the tree.
-It isn't easy to get behind as my SWFA 20x but my stock isn't set up for it yet...
I have it sitting in some 3d printed test rings to help me determine what height rings I need to order (1.25" should be just about perfect but 1.125" would still clear easily). My stock is a super ghetto Magpul MOE I did a bunch of stuff to, so my head is just floating now which doesn't help testing.
Nothing in particular makes me dislike the MPO but it's not quite up to the standard I was expecting. That might be my fault for expecting too much but I've never had or even shot a scope in this class. I'm not sure yet if I am going to keep it or send it back and get the Optika6 5-30x56.
$300 scopes arent really even worth comparing to $1000 scopes just as $1000 scopes dont compare to ATACRs/ZCO/TT, etc.Yeah, Although I did not have the glass issues you are seeing, I found a much cheaper scope with better glass and more magnification for 1/3 the price, so I returned mine.
The MPO is on the bottom. The one on top is the scope now on my 338LM. Its 6-30x56, BUT SFP versus the MPO FFP.@Sanwizard what did you find? Is there a new Quigley Ford out?
The more I play with the MPO the more I like it honestly. The eye relief is so long compared to the SWFA that it is distracting to me. Oddly I'm really not noticing the distortion nearly as much now? Maybe I was just being hyper sensitive to it before? I might need to edit my last post...
After adding some height to my cheek piece the eye box has gotten a little easier to work with. When you move your head out of position with the SWFA it's almost as if the image sort of fades in to view where the MPO has more of an all or nothing, light switch effect.
Take it all with a grain of salt
View attachment 7240438
23" barrel and this monster covers over half. Lol
I had to check their website because I thought you were joking. You weren't. The company isn't diverse enough to get my business. Where da brothas at?
I spoke with Janet Zhou, who was very nice. I bought this brand after looking at reviews from "Cyclops Joe" and a guy named "Zzzzit" on Youtube.I had to check their website because I thought you were joking. You weren't. The company isn't diverse enough to get my business. Where da brothas at?
I think all the names are fake kinda like when the Indian call center lady answers the phone as Kate.
I asked this question through the Brownells Chat thing. What they said was, since these scopes don't have a revolution indicator, and are geared to newer shooters, the elevation is capped at 2 revolutions (roughly 19 MILs). This is a hard stop built into the turrets. They will be coming out with an upgrade turret that allows full rotation to the internal MAX should you want that.Ok, so I can't shut by brain off when it gets started on a problem. I have determined that my MPO actually has 23.8mils of elevation, not 19.2. The problem seems to be in the post that acts as the hard stop for the zero stop. As the turret revolves it is essentially unscrewing and moving up. The first rotation flips the stop mechanism around and any subsequent complete rotations should clear the post (pictured below). This is how the 3-18 model can have 40mils of elevation, right? I believe the height of the post on my scope is slightly out of spec and does not allow the stop mechanism to clear at the end of the second revolution. The thickness of the mechanism is why it is shy of 20mils (2 FULL revolutions). If mine protrudes too much and is out of spec I want to send it back.
Could somebody with a pair of calipers please check the protrusion of their pin?
View attachment 7240928
They advertise the total internal adjustment, that doesn't mean you have access to all 40 MILs.I wouldn't modify my scope! I talked to several people at brownells and they said send it back (over chat and phone).... What you heard sounds plausible except one thing. Are the 3-18 turrets the same? With 40 mils of travel they would have to travel 4 full rotations. I guess they have to be different....
I think it's kinda shitty to advertise 20 mils and not deliver. BUT YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY TO GET WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SAID YOU WOULD GET!
I guess I just have to decide if I want to:
-Stick with this scope
-Get a replacement which most likely won't fix anything
-Get a refund and buy an Optika6
It seems times are changing. Having compared the Arken EP4 to the S&B PMII, T5xi (now sold) and MK5HD, I found that the Arken ELD glass handled CA much better than all of them and the overall IQ is comparable to scopes well above its price point. It also appears to be very well built, although to be fair, there are some minor first run issues with my copy (super tight power ring and the reticle was missing a couple numbers that didn't get etched on right). Time will tell if it is truly as robust and potentially trouble-free as they initially seem to be.$300 scopes arent really even worth comparing to $1000 scopes just as $1000 scopes dont compare to ATACRs/ZCO/TT, etc.
More mag does not mean anything. I can buy a barska 40x for like $200.
Start comparing eyebox, FOV, tracking, durability, etc. and you'll see.