Why not more love for the Primary Arms GLx 2.5-10x44?

[ChrisAU]

So I have an NXS on my main rifle, 3 Trijicons on others, and an LRTS that just got promoted to a new AR-10 build.

That LRTS left my 6.5 Grendel SBR, so I needed a scope for it. It primarily shoots hogs and whitetail inside of a 100 yards, but also spends a fair amount of time riding in a side by side where hogs may be encountered out to 400-500 yards. I’d like an NXS on it, but not every rifle can have a $1600+ scope.

I had been wanting to try a GLx for a while so I set to looking for a 2nd hand one, and as luck would have it I just happened to check my email one day last week and Primary Arms was having an open box sale. I snagged one for $455, a deal, they quite often go on the secondary market for $550-$600.

Got it a few days ago, and man, I really, really like it.

The series is known to track, can’t find a bad review out there in regards to tracking. I’ll test this one myself in the coming weeks, but it sure checks a lot of boxes.

Mine is the ACSS Griffin MIL. It is one of the most usable FFP reticles I’ve ever seen. At 2.5x it is a large horseshoe with a small chevron in the middle. No doubt poor for group shooting at the range, but for point and shoot hunting I think it will be fantastic. Also has nice illumination, and a grid reticle for holdovers at higher magnifications.

It also has really nice push button lock low profile turrets, elevation and windage. No slop and nice feeling clicks. Reminds me of Mark5 turrets.

And to boot, with the add-on PA flip out throw lever, it’s exactly 23.2 oz.

Surprised I don’t see more love for them here. If they’d drop the chevron and put a floating dot on the 4-16x50 I’d definitely grab one of those as well. As is I think the 2.5-10 range and the reticle were made for each other.

And for those wondering, made in the Philippines.

I’ll post up range results in a couple weeks.

 

[mcr-85]

I have a GLX 4-16x50 MOA on my .22-250ai. I don't have any complaints. I think it's a great scope for a coyote rifle.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Mountainrancher]

Would love to see some pictures of the reticle at different magnifications if you dont mind

 

[ChrisAU]

Would love to see some pictures of the reticle at different magnifications if you dont mind

I’ll get some tomorrow

 

[Bigdave]

I have thought about grabbing one also, I will follow this thread. The guys who work there are great. I live close by and have purchased a lot of AR parts from them through the years.

 

[ChrisAU]

Would love to see some pictures of the reticle at different magnifications if you dont mind

Wrangling the phone adapter without the scope mounted was a bit of a challenge. These are not the clearest photos but give you an idea of overall size, 2.5x and 10x.

 

[Formidilosus]

Wrangling the phone adapter without the scope mounted was a bit of a challenge. These are not the clearest photos but give you an idea of overall size, 2.5x and 10x.

That reticle is the worst of all worlds. Not only do I have to put up with a donut, but also a stupid inverted V which is no better for aiming than a dot, and a tree reticle that isn’t needed. Nothing about that reticle is intuitive or helps someone’s shooting except potentially the donut making it visible on low powers. A straight duplex is a betting reticle than things like this.

 

[ChrisAU]

That reticle is the worst of all worlds. Not only do I have to put up with a donut, but also a stupid inverted V which is no better for aiming than a dot, and a tree reticle that isn’t needed. Nothing about that reticle is intuitive or helps someone’s shooting except potentially the donut making it visible on low powers. A straight duplex is a betting reticle than things like this.

Agree that the chevron is stupid and I'd rather have a dot. I think I can live with it on the 2.5-10 but it'd piss me off shooting long distances with the higher power models. I am wondering how the chevron will perform with the illumination on a low setting creeping around thick woods where at any minute a hog could run out right beneath my feet, which is the intended use for this. Then also, for quick holdovers that don't require dialing, I think a straight elevation reticle would be cleaner. But, I'll also likely be dealing with running targets at longer range if I use that, so the tree could be useful for leading and holding. Not looking for ethical shot placement in that scenario, just hits on target.

 

[Formidilosus]

Agree that the chevron is stupid and I'd rather have a dot. I think I can live with it on the 2.5-10 but it'd piss me off shooting long distances with the higher power models. I am wondering how the chevron will perform with the illumination on a low setting creeping around thick woods where at any minute a hog could run out right beneath my feet, which is the intended use for this. Then also, for quick holdovers that don't require dialing, I think a straight elevation reticle would be cleaner. But, I'll also likely be dealing with running targets at longer range if I use that, so the tree could be useful for leading and holding. Not looking for ethical shot placement in that scenario, just hits on target.

Everything can be shot to some level of skill, but PA’s reticles are designed to swoon ignorant AR15 people. Not trying to be rude, but that’s who and what they cater too. I have shot chevron reticles a lot- hundreds of thousands of rounds. They were a heavy compromise in the first Trijicon scope, and they are a heavy compromise now.

I’ve been asked a few times why I haven’t or don’t use/try PA scopes. And the answer is because everything I have experienced has shown that when a company doesn’t know how to design decent reticles, they also have no idea how to “design” a properly functioning scope.

 

[ChrisAU]

Everything can be shot to some level of skill, but PA’s reticles are designed to swoon ignorant AR15 people. Not trying to be rude, but that’s who and what they cater too. I have shot chevron reticles a lot- hundreds of thousands of rounds. They were a heavy compromise in the first Trijicon scope, and they are a heavy compromise now.

I’ve been asked a few times why I haven’t or don’t use/try PA scopes. And the answer is because everything I have experienced has shown that when a company doesn’t know how to design decent reticles, they also have no idea how to “design” a properly functioning scope.

I agree, and its a shame. This 2.5-10x44 seems to be really nice, save the reticle. As mentioned I think I can make the reticle work for my intended use, but it is far from ideal for the vast majority of uses.