Nightforce Review sort of.

[Nards444]

Looking for a new scope and am down to NF, Zeiss, and Trijicon. Got lucky in my travels and cabelas has NF yesterday and Zeiss, never seen a NF in person.

Compared a Zeiss V6 and NF NX8 in 2.5-20 and 4-32. Was just inside a very large cabelas probably was able to look about 100 yds.

The Zeiss was noticeably brighter and vibrant, no doubt. However the Zeiss had the black ring on the edges and when handling both scopes you could tell the NF was better made.

Now between the NF 2.5-20 and 4-32 I’ve read the 4-32 is better glass and a better eye box, but I found the 2.5-20 to have a better eye box. But I’ve also read people having mounting issues with the 2.5-20.

One issue with the NF was I looked at the F1s. I couldn’t see the cross hairs worth a crap at low power in a light up store and I have great vision. So I’ll be getting the F2

So now I’m done to trijicon or NF

 

[Nine Banger]

I think you will regret getting the f2.

I have a 4-16 mil c sitting in the safe because as you noticed you can’t see the hash marks until 9-10x.

If you can reduce your magnification goal choices open up.

Maven RS 1.2?

Or 4-16x42 F1 Mil R?

 

[Nine Banger]

PS: if you really need the magnification beyond 10x then the reticle will work fine in F1 on those Nightforce scopes.

I imagine that’s where you will be cranked up when using it over 12x.

 

[Nards444]

I think you will regret getting the f2.

I have a 4-16 mil c sitting in the safe because as you noticed you can’t see the hash marks until 9-10x.

If you can reduce your magnification goal choices open up.

Maven RS 1.2?

Or 4-16x42 F1 Mil R?

I’ve considered everything, down to these and really don’t want to go down any more rabbit holes.

With that said not sure I need or want ffp, I don’t use mil or do holdover. I dial and shoot. My current SIG is ffp and not sure I like it.

Curious why a 4-16 F1 you would be able to see cross hairs better at low power then 2.5-20 or 4-32

 

[Nards444]

PS: if you really need the magnification beyond 10x then the reticle will work fine in F1 on those Nightforce scopes.

I imagine that’s where you will be cranked up when using it over 12x.

Yes they were fine a high power. But they were about useless at low power in a store, can’t imagine real world conditions.

 

[ElGuapo]

Yes they were fine a high power. But they were about useless at low power in a store, can’t imagine real world conditions.

You’re not wrong. I shoot only F2 scopes, and have never, ever had a problem killing stuff. The cult of long range shooters here on RS will have you convinced that things are only one way.

 

[Nine Banger]

Curious why a 4-16 F1 you would be able to see cross hairs better at low power then 2.5-20 or 4-32

Mil-R is more useful at low power than Mil-C.

 

[Doublefork]

I ordered a Nightforce NX8 today from Cabelas 15% off

 

[SDHNTR]

F2 is fine as long as you limit your magnification somewhat. A 24x F2, for example, does far more harm than good, but a 10-12x max in F2 is fine, imo. FOV matters.

It’s just a shame more f1 reticles aren’t useable at lower power. Shop models with 3-5x erectors. 8x is too much. Can’t make it visible at 4x without making it too fat at 32x.

 

[Nards444]

F2 is fine as long as you limit your magnification somewhat. A 24x F2, for example, does far more harm than good, but a 10-12x max in F2 is fine, imo. FOV matters.

It’s just a shame more f1 reticles aren’t useable at lower power. Shop models with 3-5x erectors. 8x is too much. Can’t make it visible at 4x without making it too fat at 32x.

Yeah most scopes probably wouldn’t be shooting at that mag power really.

I have a ffp sig that’s not as bad as nightforce at Low power. Just crazy they were about worthless in a store unless they cranked up

 

[wind gypsy]

Yeah most scopes probably wouldn’t be shooting at that mag power really.

I have a ffp sig that’s not as bad as nightforce at Low power. Just crazy they were about worthless in a store unless they cranked up

Yes, most of their reticles are made around shooting at targets with good lighting and are on the thin side for field use.

 

[Nards444]

Yes, most of their reticles are made around shooting at targets with good lighting and are on the thin side for field use.

How’s the F2. I can’t get my hands on one

 

[wind gypsy]

How’s the F2. I can’t get my hands on one

I wouldnt consider a 20 or 32x f2 scope so can’t say. I’m sure the crosshairs are more visible at lower magnifications than the f1.

 

[SDHNTR]

How’s the F2. I can’t get my hands on one

Nightforce’s F2 reticle? It’s totally fine. I just won’t go beyond the 3-15 NXS in F2. And even that is pushing it. The 2.5-10 NXS is excellent.

 

[Nine Banger]

How’s the F2. I can’t get my hands on one

I had MOAR on a 5-25x56 atacr.

It’s loud and clear.

 

[Southern Lights]

Scopes with huge mag ranges are all compromises in FFP. The reticles will almost always be hair thin and hard to see at lower powers commonly used for hunting. Or you'll have some issue with critical eye relief at one end or the other on the mag range.

If you insist on a FFP scope, I'd advise keeping the ranges in that 4-16 max area. Even then, the reticle will likely be poor in dim conditions in the critical 4-6X range that most hunting shots will use. Illumination won't really help and it's just one more thing to go wrong.

FWIW, I use the NF NXS 2.5-10 an SHV 3-10 scopes on most of my rifles. They are SFP, dial reliably, and the reticles are not great, but at least visible in most backgrounds if you want to stick to NF scopes. If I'm shooting long, I'm at 10X anyway so the reticle scale is correct if you really need it.

 

[Nards444]

How is the atacr in comparison to the NX8? Almost ready to buy but just having a hard time with the glass quality on the NX8. Definitely wasn’t as nice as the Zeiss v6, and was at a buddies this weekend looking at his vortex venom, although not a side by side felt like his venom was all of the NX8. I know it’s more then glass quality, just have this sticking feeling spending 2k on average glass

 

[Bubblehide]

My understanding is that the glass on the NX8 and the ATACR is the same. However, the design differences of the ATACR vs. the NX8 make the ATACR slightly better. I've used both but never compared them side by side. Both are plenty good throughout legal shooting hours, if your vision is good. Sure, there is better glass, but it's a matter of diminishing returns that typically give up reliability. But, to each there own.

 

[AC300PRC]

I’m an old school F2 guy. I just don’t like F1 scopes on hunting rifles. And I’m too old to change. I have a couple F2 2.5-20 NX 8’s in MIL, and I love them. Perfect hunting scope for me. I have a F2 4-32 MIL as well, and I just prefer the 2.5-20, especially for hunting. The 4-32 reticle is a bit busy to my eyes. I have an ATACR 4-16x50 F2 Mil that doesn’t get out of the house as much anymore because of the NX8’s.

 

[JohnJohnson]

My understanding is that the glass on the NX8 and the ATACR is the same

I think they say the ATACR glass is coated a bit differently. And as you said, the ATACR uses a longer objective which ends up making things look better.

How is the atacr in comparison to the NX8?

Depends on which ATACR you're thinking of. The 7-35 is the best image quality NF has to offer, especially in that 12-18 magnification range that most long range shooting happens in. The 5-25 is seemingly the weakest of the ATACR line as far as image quality. The others are all somewhere in between with people seeming to like the 4-16 a lot. They also have varying degrees of tunneling on low power. The 4-16 doesn't tunnel as far as I'm aware but the 5-25 is actually a 7-25, the 4-20 is actually a 5.5-20, and the 7-35 is actually an 8-35.

Edit: At the end of the day it depends what comparison you're asking about. The ATACRs all have the dumb rotating eyepiece for instance while the NX8 does not. If you're wondering about the "glass" then it depends since that word doesn't really mean anything. Depth of field, field of view, resolution, contrast, low light ability, etc are all real things about how we perceive glass.