JohnJohnson
WKR
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,125
Just mounted my 3-18x50 MIL-C F1 and I already quite like it from messing around with it for a few days while the rings were shipping. Soon as I can find some good scope caps for it it'll be set.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just mounted my 3-18x50 MIL-C F1 and I already quite like it from messing around with it for a few days while the rings were shipping. Soon as I can find some good scope caps for it it'll be set.
Please post a pic of this for us. I'm on the fence, reticle usability at low power is what's holding me back.How is it on 3-5x? Reticle seem ok?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't really know how to take pictures of the reticle well so it's blurry, sorry. Under 3.3 or 3.4 power or so, the scope tunnels and FOV doesn't expand. Which to me is minor in comparison to all the ATACR scopes (other than the 4-16). I renamed the attached pictures with their magnification.How is it on 3-5x? Reticle seem ok?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel like that doesn't look bad. Did you have a 4-16? Thoughts comparing the 2? I know its a touch heavier but that thing is like the goat.I don't really know how to take pictures of the reticle well so it's blurry, sorry. Under 3.3 or 3.4 power or so, the scope tunnels and FOV doesn't expand. Which to me is minor in comparison to all the ATACR scopes (other than the 4-16). I renamed the attached pictures with their magnification.
I didn't have a 4-16, I had a 7-35 ATACR that I sold to buy this NX6 3-18. The 7-35 tunneled below 8.5 power so it was just not enough FOV on the low end for me to use as a hunting scope long term. The 3-18 has over double the FOV on minimum power and the MIL-C reticle is 20% thicker than the MIL-C in the 7-35 as well.I feel like that doesn't look bad. Did you have a 4-16? Thoughts comparing the 2? I know its a touch heavier but that thing is like the goat.
This might have just cost me some decent change.The 3-18 has over double the FOV on minimum power and the MIL-C reticle is 20% thicker than the MIL-C in the 7-35 as well.
To clarify, the NX6 3-18x50 MIL-C is the same thickness (0.04 MRAD) as the 4-20 ATACR MIL-C so I think you're safe from spending money. The MIL-C in the 7-35 (same with the 5-25) is 0.33 MRAD and I wanted it to be a bit thicker. In the below chart stadia thickness is the column B. It doesn't have the NX6 on it yet but I asked EuroOptic and they said 0.04 MRAD for the 3-18x50. Unsure about other NX6 scopes.This might have just cost me some decent change.
I used the 4-20 ATACR mil-c for a season and my main issue was the boldness of the reticle….
When they came out with the NX6 3-18 I was disappointed that they put the “same” reticle in it, but now i know that’s not the case.
I am in fact unsafe, considering I bought one an hour ago hahahaha. Dammit. Oh well, I’ll compare it to the Tenmile when it comes in. I almost bought 3 of them so I could just switch back to MIL, but decided to just buy one at the last second instead.To clarify, the NX6 3-18x50 MIL-C is the same thickness (0.04 MRAD) as the 4-20 ATACR MIL-C so I think you're safe from spending money. The MIL-C in the 7-35 (same with the 5-25) is 0.33 MRAD and I wanted it to be a bit thicker. In the below chart stadia thickness is the column B. It doesn't have the NX6 on it yet but I asked EuroOptic and they said 0.04 MRAD for the 3-18x50. Unsure about other NX6 scopes.
![]()