MTAC 1-4x24 vs 1.5-6x40

[pmt]

For roughly the same money, is there any reason not to go with the 1.5-6x40? I've seen the 1-4 go for $375 & the 1.5-6 for $380. I know there are better out there for more money, but right now this is my budget.

[MarkCO]

The 1x is much more useful, and more often than, 6x.

[mlmiller1]

For me personally, the extra ability to go to 6x works better for me. I went from the 1-4x to the 1.5-6x & am glad I did. Some people have trouble with not having true 1x on the low end. My eyesight is so weird, it doesn't make any difference to me.

[Why1504]

FWIW, I think it depends on the usage. IMO, in 3 Gun comps a 1-4x is better and I struggle with vision issues. Most of the club 3 Gun matches I shoot will have 80-90% of the rifle shots inside of 50 yards. With my old eyes, magnification is useful above 50-75 yards. I can and do shoot 150 yards with an eotech regularly but for me accuracy and speed improves with magnification.

With a 1x you can run the rifle with both eyes open.

Off the clock, the 6x might well be better but a that point, I would prefer a 3-9x.

[pmt]

The 1x is much more useful, and more often than, 6x.

With both scopes having the same reticle, I don't see how the 1.5 would be any less useful than the 1x for close up targets. I'm currently using a very old cheap Bushnell 1.5-4.5x20

I was more concerned about having the 6x as our local matches shoot out to 250 - 400 yds.

[MarkCO]

At 1x, you WILL be able to shoot faster, not have to hunt for targets, more safely shoot on the move...all provide better scores from about 75 yards on in. At 1.5, just can't see what you need to see fast enough.

If targets are 3 MOA or better, which they should be, then you don't need anymore than 1x per 100 yards. It is not "seeing" the target that is tough, it is hitting them. I get to shoot with Casanova a lot and he has outright won long range stages shooting the Pris (1x). I run the 1-4 and get all my long range hits and I actually do better at long range stages with less magnification, and I don't have great eyesight by any stretch. On the long range stage at RM3G, I had 3 or 4 extra shots at the targets past 300 yards, and it was all position, not magnification.

[bushmeat]

If you go out to 400 yards, I'd get the 6x. It will show you where you're missing and allow you to correct. That can be enough to offset the disadvantage of 1.5x up close.

[MarkCO]

If you go out to 400 yards, I'd get the 6x. It will show you where you're missing and allow you to correct. That can be enough to offset the disadvantage of 1.5x up close.

IMHO, not even close. I see impacts at 600 yards. But if you are missing, I guess you might want to see them bigger.

[thegunnerd]

I would spend the extra 100 bucks and get the original vortex razor 1-4x . I sold my mtac for the one reason that it's dots are too big once you are zoomed in. Hard to get decent shot placement . I had the 1.5-6x mtac btw

[mpeltier]

Have you considered the primary arms 1-6? It seems to compare very similarly to the Mtac and s a 1-6 for only about $300.00.

[pmt]

Have you considered the primary arms 1-6? It seems to compare very similarly to the Mtac and s a 1-6 for only about $300.00.

Yes, i did see that. It appears to be what I'm looking for, 1x for fast acquisition and 6x to see my misses bigger........and within budget.

Edited September 28, 2013 by pmt

[Jesse Tischauser]

The 1x is much more useful, and more often than, 6x.

1.5X on the low end is doable but a sacrifice. My suggestion would be to pick up a uses Burris Tac30 for $250-275. I found several at that price when I bought mine. Even got a throw lever on one for that $. Then save your $ for a true 1-6x.

[Alaskapopo]

Try the new Primary Arms 1-6 in the sub $300 market heck after looking through it and a MTAC I would take it over the MTAC.

https://www.primaryarms.com/Primary-Arms-1-6X-Scope-with-ACSS-Reticle-p/pa1-6xrbd.htm

Edited September 29, 2013 by Alaskapopo

[Shooter116]

Does the Primary hold up to being tossed in a barrel on the way by though? The MTAC is pretty durable. I shot one for the first year in 3 gun before going to a Swaro and a Pris. Mark is right about 1x. I bought the Pris after shooting Ozark with him and James and I can fairly consistantly hit 500+ with two or three shots with it and its fixed 1x. Sometimes less is more....

[S&W627shooter]

I started 3-gun with a Leupold CQ/T 1-3, and the 1x was clear and easy to use on close targets. However, 3x was not good enough for the far targets with my eyes. I switched to an MTAC 1.5-6x scope, and I love it! I was afraid that 1.5x would not be as fast on close targets, but it is not that bad. Besides saving a few seconds on close targets is not as valuable as being able to see the far ones and hitting them in under 100 seconds! LOL

[MetropolisLake]

I recently got an MTAC and used it in my first match. What I found was that it was perfectly fine for longer distance targets, meaning 240-330. However I'm used to 3x9's with a fine crosshair so it did cover the targets a bit more than I would like and the BDC markings were busier and not nearly as accurate as I had imagined at distance.

I do like it on the low end, at least in action. It does have a fish bowl effect at 1x that is unpleasant but if you're actually using it and not just notpicking you never notice. The reticle is large and bright so it's pretty much like having an EOTECH.

What did suck while in action was adjusting the magnification. You really need a throw lever! In my opinion if you don't have one yet have to switch, then there's no need in getting a 1x, because you will end up wasting all your fast gains by dinking with the zoom. It is hard and slow. Start off hosing targets at 1x then switch to long distance and you'll probably stand there and waste time. I got to where I just left it on 4x and called it good, took too long to switch.

My only other complaint is that it's not a good night scope. You can go out in the middle of the night with an ACOG without a flashlight and things are bright and the reticle is plenty visible but not distracting. The MTAC's light transmission is nowhere near as bright, and the reticle even on level 1 is too bright plus it is quite large. It's $1,000 cheaper than an ACOG too though. It's obviously a daytime or flashlight usage scope, which is fine. I just have my own land and end up out in the field at night so I notice such things.

Edited December 4, 2013 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters