Would you buy this scope?

[benconfused]

Today, setting sun, pretty nasty flare conditions.

View attachment 1011718

Pictures are pretty good representation of what was seen- the NF 4-16x ATACR was maybe 10% better in real life than the pictures show, and is also old. It is one of the first that they made. The S2H is very close to what it was in real life- it might have been 5% worse than the pictures. An obvious and noticeable difference.



Both scopes set at 16x


NF 4-16x ATACR-
View attachment 1011713



S2H-
View attachment 1011714



When not looking at the sun, the images between them were similar- sometimes it seems the NF was better, sometimes the S2H seemed better. But, for whatever reason, the S2H controlled glare noticeably better.

That is a significant difference in quality.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I like that reticle. Good lens quality/coatings.

 

[prm]

What is the intended use of the Aim long (or whatever it’s called) circle (1mil below)?

 

[Formidilosus]

What is the intended use of the Aim long (or whatever it’s called) circle (1mil below)?

Of this reticle, or the original THLR?

 

[prm]

This reticle

 

[112Savage]

What is the intended use of the Aim long (or whatever it’s called) circle (1mil below)?

Approximately 300 yard shots quickly without dialing?

 

[khuber84]

This reticle
View attachment 1011829

1 mil square, I'm unsure. Call it the short range "kill box"? Get a shortish range target in the center the box and send it?

 

[Formidilosus]

This reticle
View attachment 1011829

It has specific purpose in the original THLR. And, it still can do that in this version- but it is a very quick, yet unobtrusive way to mark the 1 mil spot.

 

[HuntHarder]

Really building this scope up. I am hopeful it lives up to the hype! Appreciate the glass quality pictures. They look crisp and great clarity.

 

[prm]

Thanks.

 

[BAKPAKR]

With the lighting and the textured wall here it was difficult to get a clear picture of the reticle.

8x
View attachment 1008351

If you get a chance, please post a photo of the reticle on 6X against some outside background. That is what my scope is usually on when I am walking around. Thanks!

 

[tysonES]

With a nominal 6.5cm your 100 yard zero would put the aim long at 280, conversely if you dialed a mil the aim long dot would be at 390 I think the idea is you look at the terrain you're sitting over and dial your most likely distance and then use aim long as a way to rapidly engage further

 

[wysongdog]

Any chance we can take it outside at dusk at the expo and look thru it?

 

[TX_Diver]

Today, setting sun, pretty nasty flare conditions.

View attachment 1011718

Pictures are pretty good representation of what was seen- the NF 4-16x ATACR was maybe 10% better in real life than the pictures show, and is also old. It is one of the first that they made. The S2H is very close to what it was in real life- it might have been 5% worse than the pictures. An obvious and noticeable difference.



Both scopes set at 16x


NF 4-16x ATACR-
View attachment 1011713



S2H-
View attachment 1011714



When not looking at the sun, the images between them were similar- sometimes it seems the NF was better, sometimes the S2H seemed better. But, for whatever reason, the S2H controlled glare noticeably better.

Any chance of some comparison pics to the SWFA 3-9 Milquad at 3 and 9 in the next few weeks?

 

[Formidilosus]

Any chance of some comparison pics to the SWFA 3-9 Milquad at 3 and 9 in the next few weeks?

Sure, what are you looking for?

 

[Formidilosus]

Really building this scope up. I am hopeful it lives up to the hype! Appreciate the glass quality pictures. They look crisp and great clarity.

I hope there is no hype. I’m writing what is happening- if anything trending to be conservative about it.


The 4-16x ATACR has never been super good at sun flare control at low angle, but I was surprised to see how good the S2H handles it. It was noticeably different. Again, it is possible that the NF’s glass is old and showing age.

It has a pretty large range of acceptable focus/clarity and parallax, but because of that it is a bit more touchy to get all parallax removed. When I mean acceptable- it’s easy to get the PA so that the parallax movement when moving your eye to the extreme sides of the scope- to about the thickness of the thin lines- less than 1/2 MOA. But, it’s not so obvious where it needs to be to get all of it removed. Now this is not a functional issue, just noting it- and it probably has to do with how much +/- on the PA knob gets a good image.

 

[benconfused]

S2H-
View attachment 1011714

Man I love that reticle.