These are good little scopes. I love Trijicon TR24s, but for a few ounces more this glass looks perhaps a little bit better and much better reticle. Gotta figure out what to mount it on but I’ll be on the lookout for more used.

And I’ll save some of yall some time, “with all the 1-X options out there nowadays, I see no reason for a 1-4”. There that’s out of the way.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OttoSig,

And the P4xi is (very close if not) a true 1x at the low end, unlike most LPVOs whose lowest is more like 1.5x or so.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
unlike most LPVOs whose lowest is more like 1.5x or so.

I don't think that's true, at least not in those optics developed in the last 15 or so years.

For instance, my two Trijicon Accupower 1-4 are true, both-eyes-open 1x optics, as is my Kahles K16i.

I can't recall encountering any LPVOs of recent design that have not been true 1x. I suppose that very inexpensive LPVOs might fail the test, but, you get what you pay for.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can't recall encountering any LPVOs of recent design that have not been true 1x. I suppose that very inexpensive LPVOs might fail the test, but, you get what you pay for.

I own relatively inexpensive LPVOs from Primary Arms and Vortex. They are not true 1X - maybe 1.1X or at most 1.2X, and I'm OK w/ that.

I've owned ones that aren't true one 1X for sure. But I think both of ya'll are correct.

I too have owned multiple TR24s, those, my Kahles 1-6, and this Steiner all appear to be true 1X. Probably other quality 1-X as well. I really like my Leupold Firedots which are advertised as 1.25x

What I really like about it is that like the Kahles, the eyepiece basically disappears when viewing the reticle. I don't know the term for that, maybe related to parallax? But you just have the faint black ring when focused on the reticle.