Q&A on NF NX6 scope reviews

[Marbles]

You don’t wear goggles and aim through scopes. Even if you could, the focus distance on NVG’s is very narrow- if they are focused so you can can see past a couple of feet, you can’t see your hand in front of your face.





Nah man- clip on night vision. The night vision goes in front of the scope- you look through the scope to see. The only thing you can do is aim with what is in the scope.

Thanks.

Clearly I'm dumber than I thought; face meet palm.

 

[Fireflyfishing]

@Formidilosus @Ryan Avery
So now what? NF gives you these scopes pre-release to test out. You do your initial tests, post your conclusions, and now we have this discussion regarding sub standard reticles from a majority of the RS perspective. Do you guys go back to NF with this info? Do you try to convince them of a better reticle, or at least, more reticle options that already exist with NF?

 

[ddowning]

I have a zp5 with an mr4 from prs type match shooting. The reticle sucks at 5x, but I shot a deer at last weekend at last light, no illumination on 5x. The reticle was not brain pleasing, but it got the job done. My kids want illumination on all thin prs reticles for hunting. Is it just my eyes, or is it people's brains screaming for something easier to see?

I'm not saying there is no need for a thicker reticle. When the shoot2hunt scope gets released, I'm planning to buy 3.

 

[dreamingWest]

I have a zp5 with an mr4 from prs type match shooting. The reticle sucks at 5x, but I shot a deer at last weekend at last light, no illumination on 5x. The reticle was not brain pleasing, but it got the job done. My kids want illumination on all thin prs reticles for hunting. Is it just my eyes, or is it people's brains screaming for something easier to see?

I'm not saying there is no need for a thicker reticle. When the shoot2hunt scope gets released, I'm planning to buy 3.

I'll try the modified THLR when S2H releases their scope. For now, I think I'm going back to SFP for hunting. I believe, for me at least, it will be preferable for 95% of my hunting scenarios. I hunted with the SHV F1 for the last three years. It's been fine. But I moved it to my target/hybrid rifle, and I will look elsewhere for my dedicated hunting scopes.

 

[ddowning]

Mine is just the MOAR reticle, no christmas tree and pretty dang simple. I put two shots into an alaskan caribou this year at 375 yards. Zoomed into 32x and put it in both lungs. He jumped, I zoomed out, found him, zoomed back in and put another one in him even though I didnt need to. I didnt have a spotter. I am just saying there is more than one way to do something. I am pretty meticulous when it comes to getting steady and taking shots. I’ll pass if I don’t feel great about it or get myself in a different situation to where I am steady.

Your results were obviously good, and dead is dead. From a shooting perspective, you probably could have gotten 3-4 shots or maybe more in him in the same time frame had you zoomed in barely enough to see the reticle for the shot you needed to make. There would have been no zooming in and out, only running the bolt and shooting. From a shooting perspective, those would have been better results. More hits in the same amount of time or the same number of hits in a few seconds less.

Obviously, you are a pretty damn good shooter, but I and many others have played with both high and low mag and found what I am laying out above vs what you had to do to get off two shots. The results are demonstrable on a target and targets are much easier as they don’t move between shots.

Again, dead is dead, so this is more of a 1% type argument, but reality is reality and better is better.

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

Your results were obviously good, and dead is dead. From a shooting perspective, you probably could have gotten 3-4 shots or maybe more in him in the same time frame had you zoomed in barely enough to see the reticle for the shot you needed to make. There would have been no zooming in and out, only running the bolt and shooting. From a shooting perspective, those would have been better results. More hits in the same amount of time or the same number of hits in a few seconds less.

Obviously, you are a pretty damn good shooter, but I and many others have played with both high and low mag and found what I am laying out above vs what you had to do to get off two shots. The results are demonstrable on a target and targets are much easier as they don’t move between shots.

Again, dead is dead, so this is more of a 1% type argument, but reality is reality and better is better.

I think Terrain and set up make a huge difference. All my guns shoot, so it comes down to me. My mentality is the first shot should always be a kill shot, so I am picky about set up and don’t need to kill an animal bad enough to take a bad shot. Most of my shots are prone off an atlas bipod. The only time I have put more than two shots into an animal were the moose - they were dead after the first shot, but they are huge animals and just stand there while taking rounds.

 

[Macintosh]

I have a zp5 with an mr4 from prs type match shooting. The reticle sucks at 5x, but I shot a deer at last weekend at last light, no illumination on 5x. The reticle was not brain pleasing, but it got the job done. My kids want illumination on all thin prs reticles for hunting. Is it just my eyes, or is it people's brains screaming for something easier to see?

I'm not saying there is no need for a thicker reticle. When the shoot2hunt scope gets released, I'm planning to buy 3.

You arent the only one. I think it has a lot to do with where and how you hunt. If I lived and hunted elsewhere I'd sing a very different tune. As-is, here's a couple photos--this is during the packout from a hunt this fall. The run with the alders and whips was where we saw by far the most sign. Means when you see them they're close, and one hop and they move from your 11-o-clock to 8-o-clock, so it can be very difficult to pick up the animal, find an opening, decide if its a good shot or not, and take it--all before the animal figures out you're a threat and is gone forever. I'd use a red dot, except the magnification is often really nice to pick a hole through the whips. If this wasnt my every day, having a stupidly bold reticle might be much less important to me. My use for the scope in this thread is to be at least comfortable in this area, but also do a decent job when I travel to hunt elsewhere. Hopefully this makes more sense why some folks make a big deal over it, and some dont see the point.

 

[ddowning]

...and then it comes full circle back to people trying to buy proficiency.

It's annoying when people think they can buy proficiency, never test it, and commence wounding things. I bought all the toys when I was shooting a lot of matches. I did half ass alright in matches. After 2 years of very little shooting, I still have all the gear, but I can't hit shit compared to 3 years ago, and I am slow as hell.

My kids decided they liked bows more than rifles, so my archery has gotten much better. My ability to use a rifle, not so much.

Proficiency cannot be bought.