SWAT rifle scope

Zero comp 4-20 with mpct1x reticle?

Not apples to apples, but the nxs 2.5-10x42 is one of my favorite hunting scopes. Dead nuts reliable and made in the USA. Has taken plenty of deer head and high neck shots to 200yds are so.

We use the NF NXS 3.5-15×50. Never had any complaints.

I went throught this on our team and was able to settled on all of our scopes being Nightforce 2.5-20 NX8 (Big win with Admin getting 5 new scopes ) https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescopes/nx8/nx8-25-20x50-f1/ .... However I have thought the 4-32 would be an excellent choice. Their is a slight downside; which is the reticle at low range. I can elaborate more if you would like.

We have provided a number of SWAT teams with optics, and the facts seem to bear out that unlike military snipers, most PD SWAT teams take aim from much closer positions, counter-sniper teams being the exception. One of the more popular choices has been the Nightforce NX8 1-8x. It is compact, gives you true 1x and quick zoom to 8x, which covers 300 to 400 yards nicely, which is most SWAT team distances. It is less expensive than the ATACR, as the ATACR has large ocular lens that is not needed (like for point and shoot tactical). SWAT teams tend to have a cheek weld and aim, which the NX8 does really well.

@Terry Cross probably has some real world experience selecting optics and could provide real answers for you.

I was invited into the thread by @Jbuck88.

Yes!
Also super important to not losing sight of your target during recoil and spotting your own impact/shot result from a crappy position. Short range time of flight is super quick so you can't get away with small FOV and hope to see your impact.


SFP is the only way to fly for just about any L.E.
Actual negatives with FFP in most situations.

NXS 2.5-10 and 3.5-15 are still super solid scopes with EXCELLENT mechanical robustness. *They are only making the 3.5-15 in MOA now.

Only NX8 I would consider is the 2.5-20 in SFP but all of the NX8s can get weird with the resolution around the edges on low X and all have more critical exit pupils than I like. The NX8 also has a shallow depth of focus at any given range compared to others. It is one of those scopes that I want to like but can't. I would go with the NXS over the NX8 for this.

The ATACR 4-16x50 is available in SFP and is a tier one scope. Bunch out there and they are solid. Obviously less FOV on 4X than your others on 2 or 3X though.

I have a Leupold Mk5 2-10x30mm in SFP but I don't think they are going to make it available as a standard item. I think it would be just about the ultimate L.E. scope.


Leupold makes their Mark 4HD 2.5-10x 42mm in SFP with their TMR reticle. The glass on these scopes is the same as on the Mark 5 HD line with the exception of one extra anti-scratch coating that the Mk5 required for a Mil contract. Like the Mk5, the Mark 4HD also has a more robust erector spring design. This would be a very good choice.


**Whatever you get, be sure to budget for rings with known good performance. I would recommend the NF X-Treme Duty Ultra Lights.
Also budget a diving board type 1913 rail accessory (RAPi) in case you have the opportunity to purchase WMLRF and/or IR Illum in the future.

This is just our opinion based on seeing them in use. Hope it helps.

Work safe,
Terry

Stay in your lane

Hey Terry I haven't got to get behind the NXS 2.5-10 so how is the eyebox on it. Is it easy to get behind? As a sidenote I have SWFA's and they are just okay. Maybe Leupold VXII glass quality. They are tough and not Chinese scopes, but I wouldn't recommend them for an agency. Besides they aren't really shipping out scopes much since they've restructured their business model. The last agency I helped out decades ago used ACOG's for perimeter teams and 3.5-10X Mk4's for their sniper rifles.

For police sniper you want FOV and low light capabilities plus rugged
Being all American about kills most off
I would pick a scope with adjustable para.
If you get a Mil Spec Nightforce the 3-15x50 has always been an excellent scope
My old department we had mk4 3.5-10 and 4-14’s. They were good enough but the NXS was better
On my similar rifle I am running a Vortex 3-18 razor and really like it but it’s Japan made

To add on to Terry Cross's comment (He knows what he is talking about)... In our team I wanted the extra high power to be able to look at License plates and other things that may pop up. We had an incident where a kid was threatening to shoot people and he was cornered in the town square. Luckily he never pointed his very realistic pellet gun. (ended peacfully) But I feel that if the snipers were there during the negotiation they would have been able to ID the weapon as fake and then de-escalate, or at least take leathal off the table. Which is why I like the high end magnification. FOV is important, but if your agency is not forthcoming on the money for a good spotter maybe the high magnification is all you will have.

Yes. They have LARGE exit pupils and FOVs.

Here is a piece of a chart I put together for a couple of agency customers. That NXS is the first one listed.


Look at how tiny the exit pupil gets on the NX8s.

The glass on the NX8 line is a step up from the NXS line but it's a moot point if you can't get behind it when you are forced into a fucked up position or trying to get a sight picture while wearing your gas mask.

Yes sir. The entire Mk4 line was exterminated and only recently totally re-designed and reintroduced. Completely different scopes now and for the most part, better than before.

Good that you brought this up.
This is one of the things me and Derrick have different philosophies on. We are both pretty stubborn on our stances even sitting side by side at symposiums.

Derrick pretty much recommends solving the need for PID (objects as well as faces) via higher magnification.

I absolutely do not and think it is dangerous.
I think high X comes with some serious penalties so I always push users to concentrate on resolution over magnification. They are NOT the same.

I know good and well you have looked through scopes with high X magnification and couldn't resolve shit because that piece of glass had a butt load of X but poor glass quality, poor optical design, wasn't adjusted for your vision or a combination of these.

I argue that with high quality glass THAT THE USER ACTUALLY TAKES TIME TO ADJUST THE DIOPTER ON and knows how to quickly tweak the image with the adjustable parallax, the user can absolutely resolve very, very well inside 300 to 400 yds which is realistically your max deployable coverage except in an extreme case.

This is AMERICA dammit so if you give a dude a scope with high X on the magnification, that knuckle dragger is going to keep it up on that end most of the time. **(If I had a magic wand, I would take half of the magnification from every LE scope in the country without even looking at it.)

Everybody is over-scoping their work guns. I'm just a backwoods peon and I am aware of at least 5 instances where officers rolled into a fight with their scopes cranked all the way up and only figured it out after struggling mightily and after the incident concluded. So there must be a bunch more out there I am not privy to.

When under stress, a rifle driver will always remember to put on more X if he really needs it but will almost never remember to take it off when he needs it off.

I have a couple of great real world stories where great glass quality at 10-12x trumped the shit out of good glass quality at 16 -20x, especially in poor light (night with blue overheads behind the gun and target at about 90 yds) but would junk up this thread even more than I'm already doing.

Whatcha think?

**Edited To Add: This is not a knock against Derrick. He is a huge wealth of knowledge and experience in the L.E. lane. If I was in court, Derrick is who I would want my attorney to get on the stand if needed.

Not junking. Helps. I'm not anything that would ever need the info but love to read the discussions. Just like that thread that was in members area about bullet selection for work guns (no longer have access to that one since the Hide.tv change).

Just to play devils advocate because I like reading your writing: I bet you don’t

LOL.
Kiss my inbred, redneck ass.


Sorry. My context sucked on that post.
The "Watcha think?" was meant for @35L4S SOTIC to see if my take on things made any sense.

I will try to give one example back to this thread later tonight.

Again Terry has a point and yes makes sense... I vehemently insist that after every use of the rifle it gets set back to zero which includes the magnification. In no way do I know everything and am simply responding to what I believied to be right for my agency at the time. We needed to have all our scope in the same graduated system and wanted to have wide FOV along with high magnification for PID or intell gathering. What we came up with was the NX8 2.5-20.... Not that it was the best but that it would work. I totally agree about the resolution. A long time ago I had a 4-16 that could see bullet holes in paper better than some scopes on 25x. My glass was much better. I just feel that the Nightforce is a good balance for the job (resolution, cost, magnification, etc). The other thing I have not addressed is that I am in Idaho and we had the potential of needing to look farther away than maybe expected in the East.

Resolution beats magnification....

One of my first hand experiences that was the most "in my face" lesson learned:

Somewhere around 2002'ish, there was a 2 man team sniper competition in Harlingen, TX just off the border. I think Jacob Bynum and Thomas Blanik (sp?) was running it so this was before Rifles Only came into existence.

I went with one of my partners Jim Clark. It was a long trip. We were attacked by indians twice and one of our horses died.
Everybody was slinging .308 Win. I had a pretty new Leupold 6.5x20 with the new 30mm tube and side parallax. I had Premier Reticles add M1 turrets and an upgraded Mil-DOT reticle. It was pretty much a hot shit scope at that time. That was too much magnification for LE work but we were shooting a comp with some stages to 1K so it went on my gun.

Jim's scope shit the bed (I don't remember what kind now. Perhaps a Burris ) about a week before the match and a gun friend of his lent him an S&B 3-12 x 50mm. Maybe a PMII. Not sure. Anyway, that's what he had on his rifle.

On day 2, we had a night stage. Range was about 90yds. Target was a paper target with a partially exposed shoot face mostly obscured by a hostage face. The target was similar to this but maybe a little bit less scoring area.


Each 2 man team was assigned a target backer with 2 of those targets posted. Each target had your shooter number written with a black Sharpie in the top corner. Ours was 7A and 7B. There was no light on the range except for a single patrol car about 20 feet behind the line with the blue light bar on top in a constant strobe.

They put all the teams into a prone position and on the command, everybody on the line made their guns hot. Over the next 30 minutes the R.O.s would walk up and down the line. When one of them would randomly kick your foot, you had 3 seconds to fire one shot on your target. This was repeated totally at random until every team member had 3 commands to fire. It took a while.

So while we were waiting to get kicked, I was struggling to ID my shooter number. I could not positively read the numbers and repeatedly tracked left to the first target backer and counted back to the 7th one, . . . probably. I couldn't make out my number or any of the numbers clearly and for sure was struggling with the borders on the faces. I was constantly trying everything from 8-10x up to 20X and constantly trying to tweak focus via my parallax. Note that I was a fair bit younger then and my eyes were still pretty darned good then.

When they kicked my heel, I fired, racked the bolt and got back on target because they may kick you again immediately or maybe not.

Me and my partner always communicate. A lot.
That was always one of our strengths but we didn't realize it yet in those early days.
So Jim is laying about 10 inches to my right and after I shot he says, "Well?" while staying glued to his own target.

I told him, "Well,. . . . I shot the shit out of SOMEBODY'S target." He asked if it was a good shot? I told him I it felt great but I had no clue on the result. Jim waiting until the closest RO walker passed, said "Let me look." So he swung to my paper and said "Oh yeah! Perfect! Do that two more times!"

I said "You are so full of shit. I know good and F'ing well you can't see F'ing holes in the paper"
To myself, I'm thinking "What a great partner! He's can't see shit but he's cheering me on!"

Fast forward and we got all 3 of our rounds off on command. Not everybody did.
I told him that when they called the line cold, I wanted to roll over on his gun for a second.

I rolled onto his scope and HOLY SHIT! I could see holes. I could see faces. I could read numbers. HOLY SHIT!
The S&B he was using was set between 10 and 12X.

Boom! Resolution over magnification. He shot great and I shot super lucky. We tied 2 other teams for high score on that stage.


Lucky for us, in 2024 we now have several mainstream scopes that have comparable glass to those older Schmidts.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jim passed after an epic battle with stomach and throat cancer in 2015.
He is missed terribly.

Which mainstream scopes (brand / model) are you referring to?

-Stan

I agree with Terry... resolution over magnification.

Another example is when I was in WY in 2018, we were hunting Mule Deer but one guy had an Elk tag. We spotted Elk right at 1600 yards way up the mountain. With my Leupy 12x binos and his Burris Eliminator II scope, we could see Elk, but they looked like cows and he was ready to move on. When I put up my Leica 2400 monocular 7x range finder..... I could tell him which bull had the best rack.

Not LE, but experience with military SKTs and reading the listed requirements. My initial reaction was NXS 2.5-10.

But….

What about the new Kahles K18i-2? Unorthodox to run an LPVO on a sniper rifle, but it may best meet these LE needs:
* Incredible field of view: 150ft on 1x, 18.6ft at 8x
* SFP with an easy to use reticle (dial-able turret available)
* Glass is likely better than NXS

That said, it does have downsides:
* ~8mm-3mm exit pupil is better than 2.5-20 NX8, same as 1-8 NX8, but worse than NXS. Should be easier to get behind than the 1-8 NXS.
* Max mag is lower (but may be more clear, anybody look through a K18i-2 yet?)
* Smaller objective may not be as good in low light (again, anybody look through one yet?)
* Lack of stadia on the horizontal crosshairs may be a deal killer since you’re not using the tree
* Fixed parallax may be a concern with shots closer than 50 meters, maybe not

That said, I would still think the NXS 2-5-10 meets the requirements the best, but throwing another option out there for consideration/discussion.

A-freakin-men on that.

Yeah....leave the team.

Usually people like this think that Springfield XD's and all Vortex's are "American". Being both ignorant and stubborn is a dangerous combo and one might not want to be around if he's unlucky enough to have it backfire in a critical incident.

I used:
Rem 40x w/ Leupold 4.5-14x (used a 3.5-15x50 nxs SFP in the times with the Leupold was down...which was often)
AI AWP w/ S&B 4-16x42
AI AX w/S&B 3-20US

For other purposes I had:
Colt w/16" Noveske w/ S&B 1.1-4x20 Short Dot
Daniel Defense w/ S&B 1.5-6x20 Short Dot
Centurion/High Calber SPR w/ NF 2-10x42
HK 416 w/ S&B 1-8x24CC
Daniel Defense w/ NF 2-10x32 (would later change to NX8 1-8)
(There might've been a BCM/Razor 1-6 in there for a hot minute too)

KAC ACC w/ CQBSS (and later 1.5-8x26mm S&B).

ALL had pro's and con's


In my tenure, our role changed from where old swat cops went to "retire" to where the best/brightest went to do high-speed shit.

It REALLY depends on what your mission and skill sets are. As our roles changed, our equipment had to be adapted to meet certain criteria. In the early days, we were robbing Peter to pay Paul on some stuff.

If you're here and asking, that's a really bad sign IMHO.

Our team has NX8 2.5x20 with Mil-XT reticles on our bolt guns, Not a bad scope but we have parallax issues a lot, and the turret screws dont hold in place very well after a few years of service. We have 2 in FFP and 2 in SFP. For being an LE sniper with 20 years on the job and 7 on the team, SFP is the way to go. Especially on low X on a close target in low light.

I’ve read over this thread a lot. I have a question on your last line of your post. I am admittedly a FFP fan, so my opinion is biased. Our work guns have Leupold MK5HD 3.6-18 scopes, PR-1 illuminated reticle FFP so I’m looking at this from my experiences.

On lowest mag, in low light on a close target… what does a full size SFP reticle provide you that the FFP illuminated reticle doesn’t? Being I know my weapon system, I know my holdovers, mover leads and I’ve trained in a fashion to know how much of my reticle covers a human face on my lowest mag at varying distances. I’m comfortable knowing my shot would go where I intend it should I have to take it.

This is 1000% not meant to be argumentative. Simply looking at the information here (a lot of it) and trying to understand it.

The argument that always jumps out at me is your putting 100% on the performance of a battery and electronics. If the battery fails you can't see the reticle. If the electronics fail you can't see the reticle.

Not a huge problem in a static range, but the chance isn't 0% they will fail.

I have found the answer to be the Trijicon Credo 2.5-15. I run the 56mm objective lens.
I wish they had a 50mm, but the 44mm would likely be sufficient.
Massive FOV, excellent reticle and very good glass. Capped windage, zero stop.
Elevation adjustment is not as crisp as the windage, due to the extra environmental protection for the exposed turret.
SFP, it is the only way to go for an LE system.

Why?

Before they answer, please relate why you would choose FFP for pure domestic US L.E.
I would like to see if your reasons line up to what we discuss in classes.

I will. Thank you for chiming in and I was hoping you would do so. I recognize the knowledge you carry in this area and I’ll post up here shortly for the discussion.

I'm also going to preface my answer by stating that in no way, shape, or form, have I ever been involved in LE or sniping. I do have more than a year or two and deployment under my belt though. I am probably still highly unqualified to answer here:

I look at the SFP side of the argument through the lens of 'Murphy's Law'. When the illumination shits the bed at the worst possible moment in low light...are you going to pick up the reticle better with a SFP or FFP reticle? It is a rhetorical question.

My 2023 rifle buck was shot with a 3-12 FFP scope at 3x in low light. Thank goodness for illumination...so I see your point.

For domestic LE uses, the benefits I see to a FFP optic are

1. The obvious that sub-tensions are always the same value across the board. While I see the obvious that we can mark the 1/2 value (or in Leupolds case, it is marked), I see the value in FFP reticles when approaching any type of moving target. Anything can be trained and learned of course, but I personally find a FFP easier for the basic cop like me. What I see is what I get, no worrying about where I sit on the mag range.

2. I find that the point that’s made about having a full size reticle when at minimum magnification isn’t that important to me. I only speak for myself but I have trained to know how many mils covers a human head/torso. If I am extremely familiar with my weapon system and know my holds, a small reticle doesn’t matter much. I’m not milling at low power so seeing finite subtensions doesn’t serve a purpose. In low light situations, I’ve never found that finding my reticle is a problem due to using illumination. I do acknowledge a previous post about relying on the illumination/battery. That is 100% a valid argument but I don’t think one that sways the pendulum the other way for me. I maintain my system regularly and batteries are changed. NOTHING is full-proof. I admit that and anyone that would make the point otherwise is foolish.

3. I’ve personally trained myself to shoot magnified optics with both eyes open and actually find the smaller reticle at lower power more pleasing to my eye. Again, the reticle is still visible and usable for me. When we’ve trained extreme short range drills, this has worked well for me. The scope essentially becomes a LPVO.

4. If a quick deployment & engagement is required, and I want to quickly dial up magnification slightly by way of a simple turn of the hand (just turning up to zoom in some, nothing scientific here), I don’t want to be concerned with what my sub-tensions should equal, I’d want the reticle to be true and know my hold is accurate since in a hasty situation, dialing wouldn’t be feasible (or at least it wouldn’t be preferred in my eyes). I keep my rifle stowed at minimum mag, parallax set for 100, turrets on zero & bolt forward on empty with full mag inserted for reference.

5. When mainly being used for observation and if I’m on my rifle vs a spotter/binos for whatever reason, I’d prefer the smaller reticle in my view instead of powering all the way down and still having a full size reticle when utilizing the scopes widest FOV.

With all of that said, I don’t think SFP is “wrong” or “useless” by any means. Anything can be trained. I just personally see benefits of FFP for my uses in my experiences thus far. I also think this could be reticle dependent. One reticle may be better on lower powers than another. For instance, the PR-1 in my scope is rather thick and could lend itself to be better on lower power than the Mil-C, which is a great reticle but is thinner in design.

I like having the higher top end mag range on my scope and I train accordingly to know my reticle so that it can be useful when staying in the lower ranges as well. I think my biggest gripe has always been the “we’ve always done it this way” style of justification that is commonly used. I haven’t found many people actually willing to validate their reasoning.

My experience is far less than yours and I like to explore all the options to be the most informed. So feel free to rip my points apart, I appreciate good discussion.

As for the FFP, I don't need to range anything with my reticle in our standard deployment ranges, I have a range finder. I don't want to rely on the battery going out on a mission because they have. We make it a point to gear and battery check prior to leaving the staging area or HQ and all have spare batteries in our kit.

It's tough to see the reticle on low or 2.5x even in the day light when aiming at targets or people within 20 yards (I am a little older) A SFP is just easier to pick up and I can concentrate more on what's down range or my suspects actions.

All in all, it's personal choice. Use what you want and use it to the best of your abilities. Some one's life may depend on it and or a career.

I used to believe much like you do.
I tried a couple of FFP options.
I also tried scopes with way too much magnification. 2.5-15, 3-15 or 18 are where it's at. FOV is critical, a well defined aiming point at 2.5 power is critical.
I now carry a rifle with a SFP scope because it gives me those things.
Average engagement range is 51 yards, most are shorter, there are outliers that happen on occasion.

I have been in my FP at 30 yards, longest was just over 100.
If you do utilize a holdover or lead, it is on a body part, you're not holding out in space. Even leads for a walking suspect at a 90 degree angle.
There is nothing that FFP brings to the table that is applicable in an LE scenario. Mil snipers are a different story, depending on AOR.
Match the tool to the job.

I agree with you on magnification range and FOV. Our Leupold 3.6-18 provide that and I believe the NX8 2.5-20 seems like a sweet spot there too. And both of their respective reticles (PR-1 or Mil-C) still provide that positive aiming point at 3.6 or 2.5. No matter the size of the reticle, both vertical and horizontal still intersect in the middle in FFP and provide a good aiming point, no high magnification needed.

I think the more I look at this, the more I think it’s a preference thing over which is “better”. If you prefer SFP, then that’s what you should go with because you’re comfortable with it and it will yield the results you wish for you. Both have their benefits and drawbacks. To say FFP brings nothing to the table for LE use is a definitive statement that Id personally not make. I’m not sure there is a “wrong” answer here.

If it were me, I’d be trying to find an older NF NXS 3-15 SFP and roll with that.

In my tenure, I think the use of an appropriate reticle (thickness) is paramount for use in domestic LE. P4F, MIL XC and some of that stuff is a no-go. Getting a good FFP down to where the viability at the bottom end is a challenge but not impossible.

One problem with SFP is that it automatically reduces options and takes a lot of great optics off the table despite being viable. And you're left with....a credo.

All this being said, I can think of few if any of our incidents that couldn't have been solved as easily with a 6920, Razor 1-6 and a 62gr TSX. But that's a whole other ball of wax....

Policing is regional; and the role of the Domestic LE sniper/observer/DM/sharpshooter/whateverthefuck can be VASTLY different from team to team. Jurisdiction and geography play a part. We changed a few command personnel and overnight, our team when from where duffers went to retire to the tip of the spear so to speak. Like you said, match the tool to the job. In this role, the scope (no pun intended) of the job can very greatly.

The Zeiss s3 4-25 has a great fov and the best illumination I’ve seen on anything not lvpo. The reticle is useable at 4x.