Rifle Scopes First Nightforce Purchase - any advise or pointers?

[amedeo1227]

I keep jumping around on which model. I have the cash, and I'm excited to get something new.

I am set on Nightforce, but I need help with real world knowledge from experienced shooters. I don't shoot as much as so many people on here or as much as I used to. I know some people on here can tell the difference between so many scopes, and I can on extreme differences (a Nikon P22 vs Razor G2). The reason I'm set on NF is because of a comment Frank made on a podcast recently, he says, "when in doubt, just buy a Nightforce". And that's where I'm at. I can think of 8 different scopes I would consider buying, and I would probably be happy with any of them, honeslty.

I have a Razor Gen 2, and looking for similar glass, or better. My dad has an older NSX on his rifle, but I don't spend enough time behind the rifles to remember which one is better. No offense.

I do believe in "buy once, cry once", and I don't want to waste money. I do need some help trying to figure out which NF to get and reticle.

Currently leaning toward NX8 4-32x50 F1 in Mil-C

Will mostly be sitting on a Origin with 308 or 6CM barrel in a bravo for punching paper, and might see a hunting trip in the mountains on a TL3 with 65PRC barrel on it. Got a manners on order for next hunting season.

The Razor I have is a 3-18x50 with the Christmas tree reticle. Its heavy too. Its nice, no complaints, and will probably never sell it. Got a Bushnell LRTHi 4-18. Im considering getting the Mil-XT reticle, and considering going to an ATACR if it is "THAT MUCH BETTER". Heard on the Just-Fn Send it podcast the H59 and TRMR is too busy, and that's why I was leaning towards Mil-C. Also, the NX8 has less clicks per rev and lighter. Am I considering too high of magnification?

So, after all that rambling, hopefully I was put you in a vantage spot to shoot advice from (pun intended).

Considering NX8's and ATACR's in F1 Mil configurations. Currently looking at 4-32x50 F1 Mil-C or Mil-XT

Obligatory pix:

 

[jinxx4ever]

i have both the NX8 4-32 and ATACR 7-35 , both with mil-xt. Use the heck out of both of them. Will b picking up another 7-35 hopefully in the near future. The mil-xt reticle is everything you need without being to much

 

[Helislacker]

Mil C is a good, clean reticle if you prefer minimalism and will be dialing elevation. Also, if you’re mostly hunting or want a primarily field optic it’s a great choice relative to the other FFP reticles on the market. If you’re primarily shooting matches the MilXT is something to consider.

As far as scope choice, NightForce just works. They’re the Toyota of optics and are IMO the best option on the market if having a reliable optic that will retain zero is your number one priority, which it should be. Unfortunately, the greater market seems to place a greater emphasis on largely subjective qualities like “glass” and “turret feel”. For an aiming device, nothing is more important than durability, tracking and ability to retain zero. NF is the standard in this area even compared to German alpha glass (or Canadian alpha glass, but I won’t get into that), and myself and many others have learned this the hard way. Many will disagree with me, and that’s fine. This is entirely anecdotal, but the truly legit guys I know and hunt with that possess the fitness/skills to get into tough areas and hunt in tough conditions almost exclusively use NF. This is not coincidental.

The NX8 does have some quirks due to its zoom ratio and overall design, but the 4-32 alleviates many of these issues when compared to the 2.5-20.

Personally, the 4-20 ATACR is a great choice for an Alpha level Utility optic. It can do hunting or matches with ease. It’s a little smaller, with better glass than the 5-25. It’s a new optic but with a proven design and just works.

If you’re okay with going larger, and want an optic for matches only, the 7-35 is the best choice by far.

 

[amedeo1227]

Mil C is a good, clean reticle if you prefer minimalism and will be dialing elevation. Also, if you’re mostly hunting or want a primarily field optic it’s a great choice relative to the other FFP reticles on the market. If you’re primarily shooting matches the MilXT is something to consider.

As far as scope choice, NightForce just works. They’re the Toyota of optics and are IMO the best option on the market if having a reliable optic that will retain zero is your number one priority, which it should be. Unfortunately, the greater market seems to place a greater emphasis on largely subjective qualities like “glass” and “turret feel”. For an aiming device, nothing is more important than durability, tracking and ability to retain zero. NF is the standard in this area even compared to German alpha glass (or Canadian alpha glass, but I won’t get into that), and myself and many others have learned this the hard way. Many will disagree with me, and that’s fine. This is entirely anecdotal, but the truly legit guys I know and hunt with that possess the fitness/skills to get into tough areas and hunt in tough conditions almost exclusively use NF. This is not coincidental.

The NX8 does have some quirks due to its zoom ratio and overall design, but the 4-32 alleviates many of these issues when compared to the 2.5-20.

Personally, the 4-20 ATACR is a great choice for an Alpha level Utility optic. It can do hunting or matches with ease. It’s a little smaller, with better glass than the 5-25. It’s a new optic but with a proven design and just works.

If you’re okay with going larger, and want an optic for matches only, the 7-35 is the best choice by far.

“They’re like the Toyota of optics…”

That resonates. I like that.

So, do you think the 4-16x42 ATACR or 4-16x20 ATACR would be a better fit than a 4-32NX8?

What issues are the NX8’s having? Forgive my ignorance

 

[high right]

I'm a Niteforce fan boy. Have 5x25, 7X35 ATACRs and a nx8 4x32. My experience comparing them is the 7x35 has a bit better glass than the 5x25. Both have better glass than the nx8. The nx8 4x32 is on my AR because of its size. Perfect for it's intended use. All have better glass than my gen2 Razor. It definitely has a tighter eye box, you'll be using the parallax more too. 5x25 or 7x35 depending on your budget.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

I can only speak to the NX8, and I am very happy with its performance. I also have the Mil-XT, and it is a fantastic reticle.

 

[M8541Reaper]

I have an NXS F1, ATACR F1 4-16x42 w/ Mil-R, and the ATACR F1 5-25 w/ Mil-XT. I've never used the NX8 line.

The Mil-XT is amazing and everything you'd want in a grid reticle without being overkill. If you don't like grid reticles, then go Mil-C. If you've never used a grid reticle, then get the Mil-XT. If you like grid reticles, then get the Mil-XT. lol

I've been really happy with NF, both on my personal and (former) work guns. They've just always worked on command. If anything happens, NF customer service is solid. One downside is that they stopped doing the reticle swap service, which was disappointing. Would love to have swapped my Mil-R to a Mil-XT.

All that being said...I was planning on swapping my 5-25 for a 7-35 but now that ZCO is releasing an 8-40, I'm going to side step from my main NF chick and try this new girl out. If ZCO didn't announce that, I'd have gone ATACR F1 7-35 w/ Mil-XT. If I don't like the ZCO, then I'll swap it for the 7-35.

Regardless of which ATACR you choose, you won't be disappointed. ...Especially with the Mil-XT.

 

[Helislacker]

“They’re like the Toyota of optics…”

That resonates. I like that.

So, do you think the 4-16x42 ATACR or 4-16x20 ATACR would be a better fit than a 4-32NX8?

What issues are the NX8’s having? Forgive my ignorance

NX8 suffers from a quirky eyebox and reticle usage issues given the massive zoom ratio. Basically, above 20x, it’s not particularly usable for a field or hunting optic. Many of the other “issues” are subjective and often overblown.

The 4-16x42 is a great choice for the low profile turrets and sleeker package for a primarily hunting rifle. The 4-20 is a better choice for a utility “do-all” scope because of the extra magnification on the top end. Whether the ATACR is a better choice entirely depends on whether you’d sacrifice extra weight/money for increased optical performance.

 

[Glassaholic]

So, do you think the 4-16x42 ATACR or 4-16x20 ATACR would be a better fit than a 4-32NX8?

Either... the ATACR line is "better" than the NX8 line. Yes, the NX8 has great specs on paper and wow's a lot of people with its 8x erector, but using an 8x erector has consequences when you're trying to meet a particular price point. The ATACR is built using a 4x and 5x erector and yet costs more than the NX8 - in the optics world the general rule applies that you "get what you pay for" and if you see something with "lesser" specs that costs more, there is probably a good reason and that reason is usually with the quality of the product both optically and mechanically. That being said the NX8 has one thing going for it that the ATACR series does not - it is lighter in weight. Granted, if you do not need a large objective the 4-16x42 makes for a very sleek package that doesn't require workout routines

What issues are the NX8’s having? Forgive my ignorance

Helislacker explains above. The 2.5-20 suffers a lot more in optical compromises due to the shorter design than the 4-32, many view the 4-32 as an excellent 4-20 with the option to go above 20x knowing the IQ may suffer a bit more and I think for a lot of NX8 4-32 owners this convenience is a benefit. As long as you don't mind the less tactile turrets and have set your expectations on performance above 20x then the 4-32x50 may be an excellent choice. I personally do not like all the compromises made in the 2.5-20x50 but many owners are very happy with them in spite of the compromises, it is really one of those situations where you need to see it.

 

[Badjujuu]

I have both ATACR 7-35 and NX8 4-32 both with Mil-Xt reticle..

Obviously the ATACR is heavier which can cause balancing issues if that's what you're into.

Mil-Xt is the way to go IMO.

NX8 has less forgiving eye box and sometimes the parallax knob without distance marking is a little pain on the clock.

If $ was a factor I'd go NX8 4-32 again... Or used Gen2 razor

 

[Shootnwrench]

I’ve got great eyesight and optically I much prefer my 7-35 ATACR over my 4-32 NX8, even if both only used to 20-22x power. Turrets are better of course on the ATACR, I for one also don’t mind the entire ocular rotating, it’s easy to just palm it and I shoot a lot with gloves.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

The vortex LHT is a better overall optical package than the the NX8. Better Glass, Better Reticle, Lighter and much cheaper. If you like the LRHS there is also the new Gen 2, but owning both, I like the Vortex More.

The ATACR is not much of an upgrade from a G2 razor unless you jump to the 7-35. You may not be that impressed by it, I know I wasn't both times and quickly sold both 5-25s.

NF has great marketing, they make a good scope but so do many others. Much better options at similar price points, especially when you can get a used Minox ZP5 at a similar price.

Ask IdahoSpud about his NX8 experience if you want to see how great Night force is.

 

[Helislacker]

The vortex LHT is a better overall optical package than the the NX8. Better Glass, Better Reticle, Lighter and much cheaper. If you like the LRHS there is also the new Gen 2, but owning both, I like the Vortex More.

The ATACR is not much of an upgrade from a G2 razor unless you jump to the 7-35. You may not be that impressed by it, I know I wasn't both times and quickly sold both 5-25s.

NF has great marketing, they make a good scope but so do many others. Much better options at similar price points, especially when you can get a used Minox ZP5 at a similar price.

Ask IdahoSpud about his NX8 experience if you want to see how great Night force is.

Except the Vortex isn’t nearly as reliable as the NX8 or ATACR. It comes down to priorities I guess. If you’re willing to roll the dice on the LHT to save some oz go ahead. The LHT is an unreliable optic, and the number of threads regarding these reliability issues with this optic isn’t an anomaly. Does anyone actually believe that the affordability and weight savings of the LHT are made without sacrifices? Further, I’ve personally owned two Minox scopes and had issues with both, they have great glass but are generally unreliable optics. Great for trunk to range shooting like most guys clamoring about Minox, but that’s about it.

Advice like this is great if your priorities are weight, glass, and price. If your priorities are zero retention, durability, and tracking, this is poor advice. I’m sure many will disagree, but that’s fine. No amount of arguing will convince people that believe NF is a rip-off and their much lighter/optically superior Minox, Kahles, Zeiss ,Vortex, or Swaro is just as reliable as NF. These people are wrong. At the end of the day though, it’s for you to choose and decide what’s the #1 priority for you.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Except the Vortex isn’t nearly as reliable as the NX8 or ATACR. It comes down to priorities I guess. If you’re willing to roll the dice on the LHT to save some oz go ahead. The LHT is an unreliable optic, and the number of threads regarding these reliability issues with this optic isn’t an anomaly. Does anyone actually believe that the affordability and weight savings of the LHT are made without sacrifices? Further, I’ve personally owned two Minox scopes and had issues with both, they have great glass but are generally unreliable optics. Great for trunk to range shooting like most guys clamoring about Minox, but that’s about it.

Advice like this is great if your priorities are weight, glass, and price. If your priorities are zero retention, durability, and tracking, this is poor advice. I’m sure many will disagree, but that’s fine. No amount of arguing will convince people that believe NF is a rip-off and their much lighter/optically superior Minox, Kahles, Zeiss ,Vortex, or Swaro is just as reliable as NF. These people are wrong. At the end of the day though, it’s for you to choose and decide what’s the #1 priority for you.

That is bullshit. The Razor Gen 2 and ATACR are comparable in durability and reliability.

People bitching about the LHT is mostly noise. Look in there and its the same people regurgitating the same shit. The NX8 is also not as durable as the above mentioned. There are more examples of NX8 failing than LHTs if you really want to get into the weeds. What we do know is when someone has an issue with Vortex, they bend over backwards to make it right. We have numerous examples of NF blaming everyone else but themselves and trying to weasel out of admitting fault in their products.

That really doesn't mean much unless its a work gun. People have no problem winning PRS or killing big game with Leupold, Vortex, NF, TT, ZCO, Minox or Bushnell.

NF is like a cult and when anyone bring up the chinks in their armor, they get irrational. They make good shit but its living on a reputation earned when their only competition was Leupold and S&B. Not hard to shine there. Also most of those optics used in the military were glued together, something they never did on civilian optics so they could service them if they needed to. Having owned everything mentioned in this thread other than the NX8, to be frank there is always a better option than a NF, no matter the requirement. ZCO eats their lunch in LR optics and Vortex eats their lunch in LPV and hunting optics.

 

[Helislacker]

That is bullshit. The Razor Gen 2 and ATACR are comparable in durability and reliability.

People bitching about the LHT is mostly noise. Look in there and its the same people regurgitating the same shit. The NX8 is also not as durable as the above mentioned. There are more examples of NX8 failing than LHTs if you really want to get into the weeds. What we do know is when someone has an issue with Vortex, they bend over backwards to make it right. We have numerous examples of NF blaming everyone else but themselves and trying to weasel out of admitting fault in their products.

That really doesn't mean much unless its a work gun. People have no problem winning PRS or killing big game with Leupold, Vortex, NF, TT, ZCO, Minox or Bushnell.

NF is like a cult and when anyone bring up the chinks in their armor, they get irrational. They make good shit but its living on a reputation earned when their only competition was Leupold and S&B. Not hard to shine there. Also most of those optics used in the military were glued together, something they never did on civilian optics so they could service them if they needed to. Having owned everything mentioned in this thread other than the NX8, to be frank there is always a better option than a NF, no matter the requirement. ZCO eats their lunch in LR optics and

That is bullshit. The Razor Gen 2 and ATACR are comparable in durability and reliability.

People bitching about the LHT is mostly noise. Look in there and its the same people regurgitating the same shit. The NX8 is also not as durable as the above mentioned. There are more examples of NX8 failing than LHTs if you really want to get into the weeds. What we do know is when someone has an issue with Vortex, they bend over backwards to make it right. We have numerous examples of NF blaming everyone else but themselves and trying to weasel out of admitting fault in their products.

That really doesn't mean much unless its a work gun. People have no problem winning PRS or killing big game with Leupold, Vortex, NF, TT, ZCO, Minox or Bushnell.

NF is like a cult and when anyone bring up the chinks in their armor, they get irrational. They make good shit but its living on a reputation earned when their only competition was Leupold and S&B. Not hard to shine there. Also most of those optics used in the military were glued together, something they never did on civilian optics so they could service them if they needed to. Having owned everything mentioned in this thread other than the NX8, to be frank there is always a better option than a NF, no matter the requirement. ZCO eats their lunch in LR optics and Vortex eats their lunch in LPV and hunting optics.

No they’re not. Razor Gen 2’s generally track 100% and are certainly durable but have well documented issues with zero retention, something NF does not have. Jury is still out on the Gen 3. There are more than a few high level shooters who will verify what I’m saying here due to similar experiences with zero retention. Very few shooters will actually induce zero shifts because they shoot their 2lb razors at the range and the occasional match. Most travel from the safe to car to bench and don’t even notice minor zero shifts. In summary, the experience of the majority of folks means nothing. I’m not saying my experience is conclusive either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t share it with OP. I’m also saying this because I would love more optic companies to focus on durability and zero retention than “alpha glass” and weight for aiming devices. We can’t fix the problem until we acknowledge there is one.

I’m not a NF cultist by any stretch. From my anecdotal experience, the hunters and shooters that I trust and put themselves into tough conditions because they have the fitness and technical knowledge to do so almost all exclusively use NF. This is not by accident. I have used/owned Vortex, Minox, etc. and none are as boringly reliable as NF. Again, my experience is anecdotal but shared by many others.

As far as ZCO goes, I would mostly agree. The guy who is behind them was also behind NF, although he was also behind Kahles (which have a mixed reliability track record). ZCO is a better optic in most areas, but the jury is still out on long term reliability and zero retention (which are the most important factors IMO).

As far as Vortex goes, they eat NF lunch only if your priorities are price, weight, and warranty (which you will likely use if you spend alot of time in the field). If your priorities are zero retention, durability, and reliability then there is no contest.

At the end of the day, this is stupid. My anecdotes vs yours mean nothing. I’m just here to share my experiences so other people don’t make the same mistakes I have. Ultimately, I wish you luck with your Vortex LHT and hope it doesn’t lose zero or give you issues when it counts.

 

[amedeo1227]

I’m set on NF for this round. I appreciate the notes about Vortex, and I’m not mad at them.

I’m thinking about a Kahles for my next one after this.

I was just trying to find out if the ATACR is worth that much more, and if 32x is stupid. Not sure. Figured I would ask before I spend the funds.

 

[Aftermath]

I have 4 NXS scopes, an SHV and an NX8.
There are 2 sorta negatives for the NSX's, 1) weight 2) the stupid way the entire ocular rotates when zooming.
SHV...definitely their low end scope but for what it's on, it's fantastic
NX8...I haven't had this one very long but I am very satisfied.

I also have scopes made by Swarovski, Zeiss, Kahles, Burris, Leupold, Bushnell and a Colt scope that I'm not sure who made. The Swaros have some very clear glass but my eyes have a tough time seeing the difference between the NSX and the Swarovski scopes.

You will not go wrong with NF.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I’m set on NF for this round. I appreciate the notes about Vortex, and I’m not mad at them.

I’m thinking about a Kahles for my next one after this.

I was just trying to find out if the ATACR is worth that much more, and if 32x is stupid. Not sure. Figured I would ask before I spend the funds.

Yea the ATACR is worth the price over the NX8 IMO. I am not a NF hater, just trying to be clear since people get emotional about them. I would never buy an NX8, they are turds IMO.

The 7-35 has better glass than the 5-25 if you care about that. The 4-16x42 is a nice little optic if you want to keep the weight down. They are really nice on gas guns and on hunting rigs being kinda short and about 30oz. I was excited when they announced the 4-20 but it weighs almost as much as the 5-25. Problem with 7-35 is you are into ZCO territory and its honestly a tier above at similar price.

 

[Helislacker]

4-20 arguably has the best glass of the three. Better than the 5-25

 

[Jefe's Dope]

I’m set on NF for this round. I appreciate the notes about Vortex, and I’m not mad at them.

I’m thinking about a Kahles for my next one after this.

I was just trying to find out if the ATACR is worth that much more, and if 32x is stupid. Not sure. Figured I would ask before I spend the funds.

I have both. The parallax on the Kahles is stupid forgiving. I rarely need to adjust it IF I'm not going from 100-800 etc. I don't miss the Kahles when using the NF. I DO miss the NF's Mil-XT reticle when using the Kahles SKMR3. But I do like both. I had a chance to trade the NX8 and cash for a ZCO. I was then going to sell the Khales to complete the funding of the ZCO and just switch scopes back and forth. I decided not to. Clearly the ZCO would have been superior. But I really like both my NX8 and Kahles and didn't want to do the scope dance.

32x is not stupid. I rarely use it in competition but for looking a groups for .22lr or spotting, it's great. I didn't buy it for the 32x, it's just an option and I fully accept you're going to give up something to get an 8x erector and a reliably tracking scope for sub $2000. There's literally a brand new one in the PX right now for $1850 shipped.

Edit: The NX8 and the ATACRs are NOT in the same league. The ATACRs are much better optically, eye box, etc.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I was very disappointed with my nx8 4-32
The eye box was stupid tight making it about impossible to stop my own shots.
The parallax thing was something else, no matter how much I fiddled with the stupid adjustments I could never get a really clear image.
My mk5 absolutely killed it optically so off it went.
I'd get a good old NXS over the nx8 even if it cost more

 

[Hesperidins]

...many view the 4-32 as an excellent 4-20 with the option to go above 20x knowing the IQ may suffer a bit more and I think for a lot of NX8 4-32 owners this convenience is a benefit.

Well said. I am glad to have my 4-32 F1 Mil-xt.

 

[phlegm]

I'm heavily invested in NX8s and ATACRs, so my bias should be obvious. It sounds like the 4-32x would be a good fit for your use.

If you still want to research in person, Interstate Guns is in Hammond. They have a solid selection of plenty of optics in this category, so a drive over there might be very informative.

 

[Chickentoast]

Don't buy one. I bought a lot of scopes only to sell or return them. Simply, the NX8 and ATACRs are 1K more expensive than they should be. Glasswise, NX8 is below an Ares ETR, and ATACR is like an MK5. If you are spending money, buy ZCO or TT. If not, Burris XTR3 - soon to be either 3i or Pro, is the best value.

 

[Tyler Kemp]

If i had to beat someone to death with a scope, I'd choose a NF. Their glass is always disappointing for the price level though IMO.

 

[Chickentoast]

If i had to beat someone to death with a scope, I'd choose a NF. Their glass is always disappointing for the price level though IMO.

^Not Valdata?

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Not even IOR cant stand with this:

 

[Chasingpro]

Brother I’m in the same boat as you. Just waiting to pull the trigger.

 

[Devildog]

I think if you can swing it I’d step up to the Atacr series. Only you can decide which reticle and what mag range you need. I have a couple 7-35’s in Mil-c. I like the cleaner reticle myself. I don’t compete and therefore I have time to dial elevation & I hold wind. Good luck

 

[amedeo1227]

Are you hunting with it? Or just punch paper?

Leaning towards 4-16 ATACR in the 42 or 50 objective.

Only reason the 42 is because of a locking zero turret. If that was available for the 50, or others, I wouldn’t go with the 42.

 

[James Abram]

NF fan boi here. Whichever model you choose please, please, please remove the quality control sticker and the red caps. Nothing screams NF nube like leaving these on!

 

[Helislacker]

Don't buy one. I bought a lot of scopes only to sell or return them. Simply, the NX8 and ATACRs are 1K more expensive than they should be. Glasswise, NX8 is below an Ares ETR, and ATACR is like an MK5. If you are spending money, buy ZCO or TT. If not, Burris XTR3 - soon to be either 3i or Pro, is the best value.

“ATACR is like an MK5” - really? Your main evaluative point is glass, which is problematic but the ATACR is superior there anyway. Also, while Athlons tend to track, they are generally less reliable than an NX8 or any comparable NF. While I agree the glass quality is close, glass in this range is generally subjective and always secondary to zero retention and durability, the NX8 stomps on both of these in this area. They’re not even in the same conversation.

While the MK5 is the best optic Leupold has ever put out, it’s still too hit or miss on tracking and durability to even be placed in the same conversation as an ATACR. They’re closer to an NX8, but still lack comparatively in durability, tracking consistency, and zero retention despite having better glass. Overall, this is bad advice if priorities are what they should be for an aiming device. Unless of course the OP wants to primarily use his scope between his truck and the flat range, while saving a few bucks over the ATACR.

 

[Chickentoast]

“ATACR is like an MK5” - really? Your main evaluative point is glass, which is problematic but the ATACR is superior there anyway. Also, while Athlons tend to track, they are generally less reliable than an NX8 or any comparable NF. While I agree the glass quality is close, glass in this range is generally subjective and always secondary to zero retention and durability, the NX8 stomps on both of these in this area. They’re not even in the same conversation.

While the MK5 is the best optic Leupold has ever put out, it’s still too hit or miss on tracking and durability to even be placed in the same conversation as an ATACR. They’re closer to an NX8, but still lack comparatively in durability, tracking consistency, and zero retention despite having better glass. Overall, this is bad advice if priorities are what they should be for an aiming device. Unless of course the OP wants to primarily use his scope between his truck and the flat range, while saving a few bucks over the ATACR.

My post actually says, "glasswise" before the rest, but I stand by my post regardless. Unless you get a lemon, essentially all decent modern scopes track and hold zero, just as almost all modern rifles shoot sub-moa. The main differentiating point is glass, followed by turrets and overall construction. I will admit that NF does have nice construction, but it doesn't matter if the glass is sub-par for the price point.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Yea those MK5, Razors, Burris, Minox, Kahles and Bushnell are pieces of shit that don't track.

That's why guys in PRS and NRL are winning matches with them cranking on the turrets more in a match than most "field shooters" do in a year. Would the best shooters in the country trust a scope that doesn't track and is not durable?

NF cult gives Scientology a run for their money.

 

[FALex]

That is bullshit. The Razor Gen 2 and ATACR are comparable in durability and reliability.

People bitching about the LHT is mostly noise. Look in there and its the same people regurgitating the same shit. The NX8 is also not as durable as the above mentioned. There are more examples of NX8 failing than LHTs if you really want to get into the weeds. What we do know is when someone has an issue with Vortex, they bend over backwards to make it right. We have numerous examples of NF blaming everyone else but themselves and trying to weasel out of admitting fault in their products.

That really doesn't mean much unless its a work gun. People have no problem winning PRS or killing big game with Leupold, Vortex, NF, TT, ZCO, Minox or Bushnell.

NF is like a cult and when anyone bring up the chinks in their armor, they get irrational. They make good shit but its living on a reputation earned when their only competition was Leupold and S&B. Not hard to shine there. Also most of those optics used in the military were glued together, something they never did on civilian optics so they could service them if they needed to. Having owned everything mentioned in this thread other than the NX8, to be frank there is always a better option than a NF, no matter the requirement. ZCO eats their lunch in LR optics and Vortex eats their lunch in LPV and hunting optics.

LMAO!! Says the guy who calls JP rifles "Untested/game" guns. I'm still waiting on you to post up all of your institutional testing and all the other bullshit you attempted to call me out on back in the KAC/JP thread.

I have owned so many Vortex products that I'm not even going to get into it anymore, the majority had problems. They have their unlimited lifetime warranty because you're going to need it.

I have been shooting competitions for over a decade. I can't begin to recount how many Vortex products I have seen go down during matches. I was one of those victims many moons ago.

I've owned three G2 Razors. 2/3 had some issue. I've got a 7-35, have used it quite a bit, never an issue.

Have people had problems with NF? Absolutely. Is it to the magnitude of Vortex? Not even close. I would trust my life to NF. I wouldn't even trust a fucking deer hunt with a Vortex.

Here's a sweet ass pic of a brand new G2 PST where the dude was spinning his elevation and the turret just sheered right off the entire assembly. Guess when that occurred? In the middle of a match.

I am never good at taking photos of things when they occur, but @Birddog6424 and I were standing there watching this poor fella, and I thought it might be good to start documenting these for some guys. Birddog has his fair share of observing Vortex products bomb too, but I digress...

I used to say that Vortex was an okay optic for game guns (even untested one's!), but when they started the commie donating bullshit, I can't even do that anymore.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

LMAO!! Says the guy who calls JP rifles "Untested/game" guns. I'm still waiting on you to post up all of your institutional testing and all the other bullshit you attempted to call me out on back in the KAC/JP thread.

I have owned so many Vortex products that I'm not even going to get into it anymore, the majority had problems. They have their unlimited lifetime warranty because you're going to need it.

I have been shooting competitions for over a decade. I can't begin to recount how many Vortex products I have seen go down during matches. I was one of those victims many moons ago.

I've owned three G2 Razors. 2/3 had some issue. I've got a 7-35, have used it quite a bit, never an issue.

Have people had problems with NF? Absolutely. Is it to the magnitude of Vortex? Not even close. I would trust my life to NF. I wouldn't even trust a fucking deer hunt with a Vortex.

Here's a sweet ass pic of a brand new G2 PST where the dude was spinning his elevation and the turret just sheered right off the entire assembly. Guess when that occurred? In the middle of a match.

I am never good at taking photos of things when they occur, but @Birddog6424 and I were standing there watching this poor fella, and I thought it might be good to start documenting these for some guys. Birddog has his fair share of observing Vortex products bomb too, but I digress...

I used to say that Vortex was an okay optic for game guns (even untested one's!), but when they started the commie donating bullshit, I can't even do that anymore.

Institutional testing of JP guns? We dont have that info for the same reason we don't have PSA or Delton. Its not worth the effort when you know whats going to happen. We are talking about NF so lets try and stay on subject instead of dragging your asshurt feelings in here.

Vortex sells probably 50 times as many optics as Nightforce does. Its why half their marketing is low key jabs at them. Razors probably outsell all NF optics 5 to 1. No shit there are going to be more issues. We are talking about the Razor, not the cheap imports like the vipers and other junk made in countries without indoor plumbing. Try to keep up.

If you want to talk about customer service we can talk about numerous examples where NF left the user/owner out to dry. I don't think I have ever heard as bad Vortex customer service story, and according to you its used so much, that is pretty amazing. When you have to sue a company just to get them to provide warranty service, that tells you all you need to know. I have used warranties from just about every major company from Bushnell to S&B, and never experienced anything remotely as painful.

You can try and namedrop JA in here to strap-hang, last I checked he doesn't shoot NF. He shoots one of those brands that the NF cult like to shit on for being unreliable and not durable. Stop trying to change the subject comparing a $800 scope to a $3000 one. Your arguments are weaker than baby shit.

 

[Helislacker]

Yea those MK5, Razors, Burris, Minox, Kahles and Bushnell are pieces of shit that don't track.

That's why guys in PRS and NRL are winning matches with them cranking on the turrets more in a match than most "field shooters" do in a year. Would the best shooters in the country trust a scope that doesn't track and is not durable?

NF cult gives Scientology a run for their money.

Most track fine. The main issue is zero retention which often gets chalked up to the mount or conditions, or shooter error when in reality it’s just the optic. And funnily enough, Burris and some higher end Bushnell tend to be quite reliable. After having owned Minox, I wouldn’t own another, but many guys would for the optical quality. Personally, I wouldn’t trust one on anything but a plinker. Also what PRS/NRL guys are using is meaningless given sponsorships and actual use. Which is basically plopped on top of a bag which is plopped on top of a barricade - hardly an indicator or reliability.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I'm still running a Nightforce 12-42X Benchrest that I bought new in 1998. It works like a champ.

I have a couple NXS and an ATACR. All work great.

For a while I switched to Vortex but I've come full circle. My old 1-4X Razor has been a good scope but I've seen a couple failures on Gen II Razors lately and I've got a PST that is flaky. Nobody is perfect but the pain for the savings just isn't worth dealing with.

 

[HousePlant]

My recommendation is to buy an ATACR Mil-XT for me also. PM me for the address. I'll send you back some homemade cookies made by my little Italian lady neighbor. Value is equal.

 

[Helislacker]

Institutional testing of JP guns? We dont have that info for the same reason we don't have PSA or Delton. Its not worth the effort when you know whats going to happen. We are talking about NF so lets try and stay on subject instead of dragging your asshurt feelings in here.

Vortex sells probably 50 times as many optics as Nightforce does. Its why half their marketing is low key jabs at them. Razors probably outsell all NF optics 5 to 1. No shit there are going to be more issues. We are talking about the Razor, not the cheap imports like the vipers and other junk made in countries without indoor plumbing. Try to keep up.

If you want to talk about customer service we can talk about numerous examples where NF left the user/owner out to dry. I don't think I have ever heard as bad Vortex customer service story, and according to you its used so much, that is pretty amazing. When you have to sue a company just to get them to provide warranty service, that tells you all you need to know. I have used warranties from just about every major company from Bushnell to S&B, and never experienced anything remotely as painful.

You can try and namedrop JA in here to strap-hang, last I checked he doesn't shoot NF. He shoots one of those brands that the NF cult like to shit on for being unreliable and not durable. Stop trying to change the subject comparing a $800 scope to a $3000 one. Your arguments are weaker than baby shit.

This is a bad argument for a plethora of reasons. And no, you’re absolutely paying for that warranty. The Razor is not a fragile optic by any means (unless you’re talking LHT), but it still isn’t on par with NF in that department and likely never will be unless Vortex changes their priorities. This is unlikely given the success they’ve had

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

This is a bad argument for a plethora of reasons. And no, you’re absolutely paying for that warranty. The Razor is not a fragile optic by any means (unless you’re talking LHT), but it still isn’t on par with NF in that department and likely never will be unless Vortex changes their priorities. This is unlikely given the success they’ve had

And? I can get or could until recently get a G2 razor for $1600 new. NF is closer to $3k with not great and shitty reticles. I actually like the G2 glass better than ATACR5-25 but not everyone agrees. Everyones eyes sees things differently. Even with a mil discount its still around $2500 for a 5-25 ATACR. Need to go to a 7-35 to get good glass but now you are into ZCO territory and its stomps the shit out of the NF in every area.

Terry Cross recently said that ZCO was the only optic that is as reliable as the NF and Gen 2 razor. Think about that for a second.

NF Cult = Scientology

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Most track fine. The main issue is zero retention which often gets chalked up to the mount or conditions, or shooter error when in reality it’s just the optic. And funnily enough, Burris and some higher end Bushnell tend to be quite reliable. After having owned Minox, I wouldn’t own another, but many guys would for the optical quality. Personally, I wouldn’t trust one on anything but a plinker. Also what PRS/NRL guys are using is meaningless given sponsorships and actual use. Which is basically plopped on top of a bag which is plopped on top of a barricade - hardly an indicator or reliability.

This is another bullshit argument.

Do you think someone would use an optic that does not track, cant hold zero and is not reliable? Yea guys may preffer to shoot something nicer like a ZCO or TT, but the optic 100% has to be functional, which is tracking, holding zero and being repeatable. If its not, you will not hit shit and sure as shit will not be placing in national matches.

Some of the best shooters in the world are running MK5, US Optics, Razors, Bushnell,ect. When a 15 year old kid beats you with a Mk5 or a Gen 2 Razor are you going to tell them how unreliable their optics are.

Get over yourself.

 

[CSTactical]

I keep jumping around on which model. I have the cash, and I'm excited to get something new.

I am set on Nightforce, but I need help with real world knowledge from experienced shooters. I don't shoot as much as so many people on here or as much as I used to. I know some people on here can tell the difference between so many scopes, and I can on extreme differences (a Nikon P22 vs Razor G2). The reason I'm set on NF is because of a comment Frank made on a podcast recently, he says, "when in doubt, just buy a Nightforce". And that's where I'm at. I can think of 8 different scopes I would consider buying, and I would probably be happy with any of them, honeslty.

I have a Razor Gen 2, and looking for similar glass, or better. My dad has an older NSX on his rifle, but I don't spend enough time behind the rifles to remember which one is better. No offense.

I do believe in "buy once, cry once", and I don't want to waste money. I do need some help trying to figure out which NF to get and reticle.

Currently leaning toward NX8 4-32x50 F1 in Mil-C

Will mostly be sitting on a Origin with 308 or 6CM barrel in a bravo for punching paper, and might see a hunting trip in the mountains on a TL3 with 65PRC barrel on it. Got a manners on order for next hunting season.

The Razor I have is a 3-18x50 with the Christmas tree reticle. Its heavy too. Its nice, no complaints, and will probably never sell it. Got a Bushnell LRTHi 4-18. Im considering getting the Mil-XT reticle, and considering going to an ATACR if it is "THAT MUCH BETTER". Heard on the Just-Fn Send it podcast the H59 and TRMR is too busy, and that's why I was leaning towards Mil-C. Also, the NX8 has less clicks per rev and lighter. Am I considering too high of magnification?

So, after all that rambling, hopefully I was put you in a vantage spot to shoot advice from (pun intended).

Considering NX8's and ATACR's in F1 Mil configurations. Currently looking at 4-32x50 F1 Mil-C or Mil-XT

Obligatory pix:
View attachment 7798528View attachment 7798526View attachment 7798527

Feel free to give us a buzz at 916-670-1103 and we can discuss all these options with you

 

[Helislacker]

And? I can get or could until recently get a G2 razor for $1600 new. NF is closer to $3k with not great and shitty reticles. I actually like the G2 glass better than ATACR5-25 but not everyone agrees. Everyones eyes sees things differently. Even with a mil discount its still around $2500 for a 5-25 ATACR. Need to go to a 7-35 to get good glass but now you are into ZCO territory and its stomps the shit out of the NF in every area.

Terry Cross recently said that ZCO was the only optic that is as reliable as the NF and Gen 2 razor. Think about that for a second.

NF Cult = Scientology

I didn’t say the Razor wasn’t reliable. I just said the ATACR is more reliable. $1400 is worth the cost in knowing the likelihood of a zero shift or loss is insignificant if I’m hunting.

It seems the ZCO may be on par with the ATACR in this regard, but time will tell. You should ask Terry what his thoughts are on durability/reliability comparison between the Razor and ATACR.

 

[hafejd30]

I’ve owned 3 vortex, 4 NF and about 5-6 Sightron SIII and several Burris models from Fullfields to XTRII and Athlon Cronus

The Sightrons and Burris have been around the longest. They are still going strong.

NF have been excellent optics from the NXS, (2) ATACR and NF Competition I own. Among many others I’ve shot or shot next to. I personally recommend the ATACR. Mine are the 4-16 and 7-35

My success rate with vortex was not very good. I owned several PST’s and HS model. 2/3 failed with less than 50 rounds of 308. I also watched a team members golden eagle crap out at a Fclass practice

Vortex does have a great warranty though

 

[Helislacker]

This is another bullshit argument.

Do you think someone would use an optic that does not track, cant hold zero and is not reliable? Yea guys may preffer to shoot something nicer like a ZCO or TT, but the optic 100% has to be functional, which is tracking, holding zero and being repeatable. If its not, you will not hit shit and sure as shit will not be placing in national matches.

Some of the best shooters in the world are running MK5, US Optics, Razors, Bushnell,ect. When a 15 year old kid beats you with a Mk5 or a Gen 2 Razor are you going to tell them how unreliable their optics are.

Get over yourself.

This is another bullshit argument.

Do you think someone would use an optic that does not track, cant hold zero and is not reliable? Yea guys may preffer to shoot something nicer like a ZCO or TT, but the optic 100% has to be functional, which is tracking, holding zero and being repeatable. If its not, you will not hit shit and sure as shit will not be placing in national matches.

Some of the best shooters in the world are running MK5, US Optics, Razors, Bushnell,ect. When a 15 year old kid beats you with a Mk5 or a Gen 2 Razor are you going to tell them how unreliable their optics are.

Get over yourself.

As your certainty in your argument increases so does the stupidity in your argument. I concede I could be outshot significantly by a good comp shooter with a less than reliable optic, no doubt about it. You lost the argument though as soon as you mentioned US optics in the same conversation as reliable optics though, I’d say we’re done here.

Just to finish though, again, optic use in barricade matches involving rifle - bag - barricade are not indicative of anything besides sponsorship, much less reliability. An optic attached to a rifle strapped to a pack and used in tough conditions requires a capable person with a high level of fitness, something very few competitive shooters outside of competition dynamics shooters have unfortunately. If you can’t get into and put yourself into those conditions with your gear, your opinion is irrelevant to me. What optic some random PRS dude who goes from truck to range in an enclosed case is using means nothing.

 

[HaydenLane]

Stop trying to change the subject comparing a $800 scope to a $3000 one. Your arguments are weaker than baby shit.

Says the guy who brings up the Gen II every time LHT reliability is questioned, as if doubling the weight and cost is meaningless.

If the LHT is as reliable as optics that again, double it in weight and cost, what is their excuse for the Gen III? If they have the magic sauce to make what no other optics company ever has, the Gen III should be 32oz and $2500 tops.

Obvious answer: compromises are made to keep weight and cost down.

For the record, I have 3 LRTS/LRHS scopes. Haven’t had any issue with any so far. Have had a couple Vortex scopes, nothing great, just PSTs. Sold both. Had to rezero both a couple times for no apparent reason. Cost between them was close, but the Bushnell’s were all heavier with less features. Probably not a coincidence. I still like my Vortex bino’s for a truck/backup pair. Glass/ergos are decent for the money. I’m just not trusting their scopes on a hunt until I see substantial evidence that they can make a reliable hunting weight scope.

NF reticles are definitely shitty for field use. Illumination is a bandaid for poor reticle design, and every NF needs it.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Says the guy who brings up the Gen II every time LHT reliability is questioned, as if doubling the weight and cost is meaningless.

If the LHT is as reliable as optics that again, double it in weight and cost, what is their excuse for the Gen III? If they have the magic sauce to make what no other optics company ever has, the Gen III should be 32oz and $2500 tops.

Obvious answer: compromises are made to keep weight and cost down.

For the record, I have 3 LRTS/LRHS scopes. Haven’t had any issue with any so far. Have had a couple Vortex scopes, nothing great, just PSTs. Sold both. Had to rezero both a couple times for no apparent reason. Cost between them was close, but the Bushnell’s were all heavier with less features. Probably not a coincidence. I still like my Vortex bino’s for a truck/backup pair. Glass/ergos are decent for the money. I’m just not trusting their scopes on a hunt until I see substantial evidence that they can make a reliable hunting weight scope.

NF reticles are definitely shitty for field use. Illumination is a bandaid for poor reticle design, and every NF needs it.

I brought it up once. I never said its as reliable as the G2 razor or comparable optics that weight & cost twice as much. Its a great little scope for the money, but its not designed to survive a toss down the mountain......like just about every other hunting scope in its class, which there are not many of. Its more in common with the LTD than a LRHS or AMG. That's why it cost $1200 and not $2500.

Like you I love the LRHS/LRTS. They are getting long in the tooth but still solid, rugged little optics. The LHT has MUCH better glass , a better reticle and is signifcantly lighter with a better eyebox. I will trade a little durrability for those features for a LW hunting optic.

Nightforce ATACR would be a great $15-1800 optic. That is where it should be priced, just like the Razor and Kahles. All comparable and similar quality/glass/features. I would love to know how much money NF spends in marketing for every scope sold. I bet its significantly more than the competition.

Why should the G3 razor be cheaper and lighter? Every top end optic is heavy. There is a reason for this. Look at a TT or ZCO. They aren't 32oz. The package ZCO brings to the table is actualy pretty remarkable for its price considering what it weighs and how it performs. You can buy a brand new G3 razor 3-36 right now for under $2400. That is the real price. From the one I played with to people who I trust who have been running them, its a legit contender and probally going to be the best sub $3K optic you can buy by a wide margin. My Magic 8 ball says NF market share is going to plummet as people move to optics above and bellow its price bracket. There is nothing they bring to the table someone else doesn't do better, cheaper or for more value.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I’ve owned 3 vortex, 4 NF and about 5-6 Sightron SIII and several Burris models from Fullfields to XTRII and Athlon Cronus

The Sightrons and Burris have been around the longest. They are still going strong.

NF have been excellent optics from the NXS, (2) ATACR and NF Competition I own. Among many others I’ve shot or shot next to. I personally recommend the ATACR. Mine are the 4-16 and 7-35

My success rate with vortex was not very good. I owned several PST’s and HS model. 2/3 failed with less than 50 rounds of 308. I also watched a team members golden eagle crap out at a Fclass practice

Vortex does have a great warranty though

When looking at vortex you throw out everything not Razor or AMG. Might as well be a different company because they quality is night and day. When you look at the razors and the sheer numbers that have been sold, its one of if not the most proven mid/higher end optic out there. If it wasn't reliable, did not track, did not hold zero or any other significant issues it would not have sold the way it has since introduction.

 

[hafejd30]

When looking at vortex you throw out everything not Razor or AMG. Might as well be a different company because they quality is night and day. When you look at the razors and the sheer numbers that have been sold, its one of if not the most proven mid/higher end optic out there. If it wasn't reliable, did not track, did not hold zero or any other significant issues it would not have sold the way it has since introduction.

I’m sure the razors are just fine

My next purchases based on my use would be a Burris XTRIII, NF ATACR or ZCO. Depending on what I wanted to spend and reticle/zoom etc

I’m 95% sure I’ve owned my last vortex optic. Just a personal choice based on what I’ve seen and read about from others over the years