Q&A on NF NX6 scope reviews

[sndmn11]

@Macintosh @Chris in TN have you guys tried an lrhs2?

I'm curious how close that gets to solving some of your eastern dilemmas.

 

[Chris in TN]

@Macintosh @Chris in TN have you guys tried an lrhs2?

I'm curious how close that gets to solving some of your eastern dilemmas.

6 mrad of windage is ~20moa.

I want 10 tops. Prefer 6-8. The maven moa-2 is the closest thing I’ve seen, it’s just a bit extra for my tastes.

 

[Macintosh]

@sndmn11 Ive never seen an lrhs in the wild, never had an opportunity to look thru one. I’m a little more comfortable bitching about nightforce reticles because I’ve had a chance to use several of them that belong to folks I shoot with.

 

[Gstew1930]

There’s a very good reason for why most of us do what we do in shooting, and it has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with how to be effective.

No one is taking the new NF Christmas tree reticle and making a first round hit in the vitals while dialed all the way down at any considerable distance or in low light.

No one is using the standard duplex reticle and consistently making first round hits in the vitals at distance in the wind with Kentucky windage.

No one is making consistent, fast follow up shots wile shooting at 20-32x power.

You may think you are, but it’s not demonstrable under any form of testing or stress.

The take on the UM scopes reticle being a marketing ploy to sell scopes of f’ing laughable.

well said!

 

[43.6N]

No one is taking the new NF Christmas tree reticle and making a first round hit in the vitals while dialed all the way down at any considerable distance or in low light.

No one is using the standard duplex reticle and consistently making first round hits in the vitals at distance in the wind with Kentucky windage.

No one is making consistent, fast follow up shots wile shooting at 20-32x power.

You may think you are, but it’s not demonstrable under any form of testing or stress.

That’s the honest truth right there.

One more time for effect:

You may think you are, but it’s not demonstrable under any form of testing or stress.

And I would add: people are at different stages of embracing change. Some are precontplative, and haven’t seen a reason to change. That’s fine.

But to argue your methods (not calling anyone out in particular, just the counter argument in general) are just as efficient, and just as effective as what marbles is stating, will take some very convincing evidence to make us turn away from a proven effective shooting mentality.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's my point. You get guys saying "that explains it" or constantly just want to convince you of their way. It turns into a large echo chamber. They can't fathom that anyone could do it differently.

Do you know what an echo chamber is? You like others that say that on here- have no idea what an echo chamber is, which why you say it.

Just because you hold a position or opinion that is based on feelings, likes, or beliefs; does not make it in echo chamber when people use logic, reason, and data to counter what is said.

 

[sndmn11]

6 mrad of windage is ~20moa.

I want 10 tops. Prefer 6-8. The maven moa-2 is the closest thing I’ve seen, it’s just a bit extra for my tastes.

What about the rest of it? You seemed to be focused in your prior posts on hypotheticals where a bold reticle was paramount, without illumination. From your perspective, is halving the open space of windage making it more versatile or specialized?

@Macintosh you should keep an eye out for a used one, the ring of death might be a winner for you.

 

[Formidilosus]

You tell’em @Rock’N Tacos!

These are fantastic reticles to aim with! These fools don’t know what they’re missing- 32x at 200 yards- yah baby!







And definitely these pictures taken 15-20 years ago, were all a marketing ploy to sell scopes two decades later-

 

[HuntHarder]

Do you know what an echo chamber is? You like others that say that on here- have no idea what an echo chamber is, which why you say it.

Just because you hold a position or opinion that is based on feelings, likes, or beliefs; does not make it in echo chamber when people use logic, reason, and data to counter what is said.

I do.. Everyone's experiences are different. I and other's, clearly don't use the reticles for what some of you do. Just different styles I'd say. Great to have different options.

Fwiw, I do see the benefits of what S2H is going to accomplish with their reticle. I don't care for the entire reticle, but do like the thicker posts at lower power to give an aiming point. Not a mil guy, but might try 1 out. I prefer better glass than most on here. Just a preference tho.

 

[streamerfish]

You tell’em @Rock’N Tacos!

These are fantastic reticles to aim with! These fools don’t know what they’re missing- 32x at 200 yards- yah baby!
View attachment 1004628

View attachment 1004629




And definitely these pictures taken 15-20 years ago, were all a marketing ploy to sell scopes two decades later-
View attachment 1004635


View attachment 1004633

Wait, wait, wait......hold on here. I've never seen a nightforce scope in person. Are these pics seriously a good representation of what they look like in the field?? People hunt with scopes that look like that??

What range and scope power for the first 2 pics?

Lord...I'm going to cabelas today, I need to see this stuff in person.

 

[Formidilosus]

I do.. Everyone's experiences are different. I and other's, clearly don't use the reticles for what some of you do. Just different styles I'd say. Great to have different options.

Hold on- you said it was an echo chamber, now it’s just differing experiences?

Fwiw, I do see the benefits of what S2H is going to accomplish with their reticle. I don't care for the entire reticle, but do like the thicker posts at lower power to give an aiming point. Not a mil guy, but might try 1 out. I prefer better glass than most on here. Just a preference tho.

This above is a conversation. It can engaged with, it can be argued- there is a discussion that can happen. You can get to logical thoughts and reasoning- to say nothing of observable performance and information. Why do you not do this, instead of what you wrote in the last quote I did?

 

[Formidilosus]

Wait, wait, wait......hold on here. I've never seen a nightforce scope in person. Are these pics seriously a good representation of what they look like in the field??

Yes. That is what they look like in person on low power.

People hunt with scopes that look like that??

Yep.

What range and scope power for the first 2 pics?

Sub 100yards and approx. 150 yards; 3x for both.

Lord...I'm going to cabelas today, I need to see this stuff in person.

Oh it’s so much worse in the woods than they are in the store.

 

[Jake Larsen]

You may think you are, but it’s not demonstrable under any form of testing or stress.

.

This is the point I think people most often miss. It’s not that we haven’t all tried “doing it a different way” It’s that we have. Then we learned new ways, tested them under time/duress and found out the truth for ourselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dårlig jeger]

Yes. That is what they look like in person on low power.




Yep.




Sub 100yards and approx. 150 yards; 3x for both.




Oh it’s so much worse in the woods than they are in the store.

Do nightforce and the like just assume illumination fixes all of that? Is that their logic?

 

[Formidilosus]

This is the point I think people most often miss. It’s not that we haven’t all tried “doing it a different way” It’s that we have. Then we learned new ways, tested them under time/duress and found out the truth for ourselves.

They don’t miss it; it’s that they have no concept of it.

 

[BAKPAKR]

@Macintosh @Chris in TN have you guys tried an lrhs2?

I'm curious how close that gets to solving some of your eastern dilemmas.

I hunt in the East, and I have a 3-12 LRHS and a 4.5-18 LRHS2. I also have a couple SWFA 3-9s. I don’t have a Nightforce but I have looked through and shot a few. For my hunting, the reticles on the Bushnells and the SWFAs beat what Nightforce has to offer, by a large margin, as they are visible at low power and they are still perfectly usable at the top end.

I would have liked to have seen Nightforce take the MLR2.0 reticle, make the outer, thicker part of the crosshair solid, and make the thin part of the crosshair a tad thicker.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do nightforce and the like just assume illumination fixes all of that? Is that their logic?

The manufacturers logic? No. The might say- “just use the illumination”, but they have no idea. They have no concept of the issue, because they do not, by and large, use the optics for general, all-around hunting.

No one with any grasp to reality would walk out, look in the woods with these reticles and say- “yep, that’s good”.

 

[HuntHarder]

Hold on- you said it was an echo chamber, now it’s just differing opinions.

Absolutely. Maybe "Echo Chamber" is what bothers you. Reticle preference is purely differing opinions based on past or present experiences or use case.

 

[Formidilosus]

I would have liked to have seen Nightforce take the MLR2.0 reticle, make the outer, thicker part of the crosshair solid, and make the thin part of the crosshair a tad thicker.


View attachment 1004639

Would have been a perfectly usable reticle. Was asked for repeatedly for years.

 

[sndmn11]

I hunt in the East, and I have a 3-12 LRHS and a 4.5-18 LRHS2. I also have a couple SWFA 3-9s. I don’t have a Nightforce but I have looked through and shot a few. For my hunting, the reticles on the Bushnells and the SWFAs beat what Nightforce has to offer, by a large margin, as they are visible at low power and they are still perfectly usable at the top end.

I would have liked to have seen Nightforce take the MLR2.0 reticle, make the outer, thicker part of the crosshair solid, and make the thin part of the crosshair a tad thicker.


View attachment 1004639

I think that would have been nice, I'd not find it lacking. I ended up buying an SHVf1 before they disappear because I think I am the weak link it shooting results at this point.

Is the non illuminated LRHS solid on the outer portions or open? I know the LRTSi was solid and the LRTS was open.