The new G3 Razor looks to be a ATACR killer acording to Ilya. I haven't got to play with the new XTR3 Pro with the stupid red shit all over it but those two would be worth a hard look before buying any of the legacy stuff.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes First Nightforce Purchase - any advise or pointers?
- Thread starter amedeo1227
- Start date
Its not an either/or argument. Ive owned 1 G1 razor, 2 G2 razors, and 4 NF's. 1 of which was a 3-15 NXS F1 that i sorely regret trading off, 2 were 5-25 ATACRs, and currently 1 7-35. I was also sponsored by Vortex and shot the razors in competition. I loved them for what they were and still do. They are a great scope. Both razors tracked 100% and were tanks. Their biggest short coming was their inability to cut through mirage here in the SE. Other than that, everything else was just a preference for or against. The NF's were/are equally "tanks" and all tracked 100% and the glass of the 5-25's were right on par with the G2 razors, and the 7-35 is noticeably better at cutting through mirage than all of the above mentioned scopes. Will I ever hit a target with the 7-35 that i wouldn't have with the razors?? IDK.. maybe.. Maybe their ability to mitigate mirage better will catch a hit where the razor wouldn't. With that said, would i feel handicapped while shooting a G2 razor? Hell no. Both are great optics. End of story.
PS. My Minox zp5 has super high quality glass and it tracks 100% and i haven't had any issues with it losing zero or anything of the sort.
These are just my experiences with the mentioned manufacturers. YMMV but i doubt it will be much different.
PS. My Minox zp5 has super high quality glass and it tracks 100% and i haven't had any issues with it losing zero or anything of the sort.
These are just my experiences with the mentioned manufacturers. YMMV but i doubt it will be much different.
Maybe I’m assigning posts from other users to you in my head, but every time the LHT comes up, the GenII is referenced. The implication being that clearly vortex knows how to make a durable scope. My point in regards to that is simply that if they could have all of the features and durability at 22oz, they would never make another 45oz scope again. I’m certainly not saying the GIII should be a lightweight, because I don’t believe Vortex (or any other manufacturer) can make a durable, lightweight, feature packed scope.
As for the marketing thing, Vortex sponsors every TV show, podcast, YouTuber, etc, in the hunting space. Not literally, but pretty god damn close. They didn’t get to be a massive company by pumping out high end optics, they got there by selling hunters cheap scopes by the thousand. I find it hard to believe NF spends nearly as much per scope as Vortex specifically.
As far as the LHT vs LRHS, I absolutely disagree about the reticle. The og 3-12 has a more usable mag range than the LHT or LRHS2, but the donut of death and not having 10 mils of wind and elevation make the LRHS line way more usable at low range and don’t require illumination to use. I expressed all this and more on the other LRHS thread, but we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
Is there a track record of issues with the Vortex LHD? I mean that is what should be compared, its an updated LHD that is FFP, has better reticles, better glass at a similar weight.
I know ALOT of guys who use them on their hunting guns (and I usualy give them shit for running SFP), but they seem very happy with them.
Vortex does not put the name Razor on optics that aren't reliable. Everything else, yea I agree with ya.
Per scope is the important thing. Vortex Sells orders of magnitudes more scopes than NF, but its not comensurate with budget. Its been reported NF spends more in marketing per scope sold (Which is the real number companies care about, its part of COGS) than anyone else. Based on the hype and cult like attitude, its not suprising. Marketing works best at those with lower IQ.
I know ALOT of guys who use them on their hunting guns (and I usualy give them shit for running SFP), but they seem very happy with them.
Vortex does not put the name Razor on optics that aren't reliable. Everything else, yea I agree with ya.
Per scope is the important thing. Vortex Sells orders of magnitudes more scopes than NF, but its not comensurate with budget. Its been reported NF spends more in marketing per scope sold (Which is the real number companies care about, its part of COGS) than anyone else. Based on the hype and cult like attitude, its not suprising. Marketing works best at those with lower IQ.
“NF buyers are low IQ buyers” - man who defends the Razor LHT as a reliable optic.
Out of your 4-16 and the 7-35, which do you use more? I feel like the 4-16 would fit good on a Gladious, a Hunting rifle, and always usable magnification.
I don’t know if the 7-35 might be too much for a do all optic? But I feel like it would alway have a plinking rifle to live on.
My 4-16 lives on my AIAT which is primarily used for crop damage. Shooting deer in the summer on farms via dnr permits. My AT is 308 and used out to 500 yards with great success
The 7-35 is on my AXMC. My personal 7-35 shown below hasn’t seen much use yet. We use the same optic for fclass as well and I’ve been behind that and NF comps in that capacity
The 4-16 is way more compact than the 7-35. I feel you would use the 4X in low light more than the 35X in any light on a hunting only rifle.
My previous scopes for shooting over 500 in crop damage hunting have been primarily 6-24 and 8-32 Sightrons. I found for the longer range identification (we can only shoot does for crop damage) I did appreciate the 24 and 32X for identifying animals without needing to come off the gun to the spotting scope.
These guns are used for open field hunting/targets typically 100-800 yards. I feel for inside 500 the 4-16 is perfect. When I get to the 500 yard range I find more magnification would be nice to have
The low profile locking elevation turret and covered windage on the 4-16 ATACR makes for a bullet proof hunting setup. I use the illumination close to dark if needed depending on background. Generally shooting hours have ended when I can’t see the reticle. But FFP reticles tend to be difficult to see on low magnification in low light
My walking/drag through the woods rifle is a Tikka T3X in 300 WM. That wears a 4.5-14 Burris E1. Which again I feel is a comfortable inside 500 yard setup
If you plan to go over 500 you will appreciate the 7-35. Especially in wide open areas. If you think shots will be closer or field of view will be an advantage than likely 4-16 would be better
The 7-35 took the place of a 4.5-29 Athlon Cronus which I thought was a great magnification to have. And with the rifle and area I used it I found I used 29X to ID at 500-750 yards (typical shots in this area) more than I used the 4.5X due to shooting hours ending
Generally I shoot on 10-16X on the 4-16 and 18-24 on the higher mags for my use
There is a decent size difference between the two
Last edited:
I sold a NXS and got a XTR3 3.3x18. The XTR3 has much better glass. I know the nxs is a old work horse but I'm glad they hold value.
That same XTR3 compared to a 7x35 atacr, wasn't enough difference to justify the extra cost. I'm thinking the new XTR Pro is going to hurt a lot of feelings for those spending $3k plus on glass.
That same XTR3 compared to a 7x35 atacr, wasn't enough difference to justify the extra cost. I'm thinking the new XTR Pro is going to hurt a lot of feelings for those spending $3k plus on glass.
I’m looking at the XTRIII now that illuminated reticle has been added to the newer models
The NXS I had was easily beaten in the glass category by my Sightron SIII’s. I’m not a glass snob however.
To me holding zero and reliability for the life of the optic takes priority over the clearest glass.
Shit I was happy with the Sightron’s and the NF atacr and comp are beyond those easily
Some actual advice...
Ebay (auctions) or the hide have great deals on used, like new, condition scopes. Ar15.com isn't the target audience for 5-25 or 7-35x scopes, but even deals pop up from time to time on there.
Eurooptic demos are probably the best deal if you have to buy from a retailer, but the selection isn't always great, and you pay sales tax. Give them or sportoptics a call and they'll probably give you a decent deal.
Assuming you are patient and can wait for a deal, used prices seem to be: 4-16x42/50 ATACR should cost 1700-1800. 5-25 should be 2200-2400. 7-35 should be 2700-2800. The 4-20x50 is hard to find used, and the prices seem to be all over the place (2200-2600).
I like my 4-16x, sold a 2.5-10x32 that had a nice feature set, but the glass was underwhelming after spending some time with the ATACR. As much as I like my 4-16x, I think I'd like the 4-20, just a bit more. The 4-16, 4-20, and 7-35 make sense to me, the 5-25 doesn't appeal to me once the 4-20 and 7-35 were released.
People are going to complain to you about your scope no matter what you choose... But the ATACRs are generally good performing optics in most categories.
I don't care what people say, buying a scope is a roll of the dice, sample variation and lemons exist. Buy something you are comfortable with and if you don't like it... Sell it and move on.
Ebay (auctions) or the hide have great deals on used, like new, condition scopes. Ar15.com isn't the target audience for 5-25 or 7-35x scopes, but even deals pop up from time to time on there.
Eurooptic demos are probably the best deal if you have to buy from a retailer, but the selection isn't always great, and you pay sales tax. Give them or sportoptics a call and they'll probably give you a decent deal.
Assuming you are patient and can wait for a deal, used prices seem to be: 4-16x42/50 ATACR should cost 1700-1800. 5-25 should be 2200-2400. 7-35 should be 2700-2800. The 4-20x50 is hard to find used, and the prices seem to be all over the place (2200-2600).
I like my 4-16x, sold a 2.5-10x32 that had a nice feature set, but the glass was underwhelming after spending some time with the ATACR. As much as I like my 4-16x, I think I'd like the 4-20, just a bit more. The 4-16, 4-20, and 7-35 make sense to me, the 5-25 doesn't appeal to me once the 4-20 and 7-35 were released.
People are going to complain to you about your scope no matter what you choose... But the ATACRs are generally good performing optics in most categories.
I don't care what people say, buying a scope is a roll of the dice, sample variation and lemons exist. Buy something you are comfortable with and if you don't like it... Sell it and move on.
Surprised you didn't talk them into Zombie Green to be honestStupid red shit..
That hurt my feelings a little bit
I think the ZCO is priced more than it should be. Especially when you can break the internal glass with an improperly tightened arc mount. Haha I couldn’t resist I’ll stick with NF
I got my illuminated 7x34 atacr from euro for 2900 with XT reticle. It’s brand new. It lists for like 3400. ZCO is only worth that much IMO (2900-3k).
Haha, i tried..Surprised you didn't talk them into Zombie Green to be honest
So it happened to one out of thousands
They also learned something new in the process which will benefit them and customers here on out. Occasionally a nearly microscopic burr can cause an issue that is not detectable so if that ever happened again they know what to replace. You shouldn’t try to open Pandora’s box for repairs done to other non-ZCO brands, it might hurt feelings
Last edited:
I know the OP stated Nightforce. But since this thread has devolved into Vortex vs Nightforce. I figured id though in another to the arguement. Why not the S&B PMII ?
That said. I own the NXS 3.5x15 F2 with Mil-R reticle. Nice scope but hefty on weight. Now this is just me and my poor eyes but i cannot tell a difference between the NXS and the Leupold MK4.
Best of Luck on your decision. Whichever you choose I am sure you will be happy with the scope.
That said. I own the NXS 3.5x15 F2 with Mil-R reticle. Nice scope but hefty on weight. Now this is just me and my poor eyes but i cannot tell a difference between the NXS and the Leupold MK4.
Best of Luck on your decision. Whichever you choose I am sure you will be happy with the scope.
Mentioning @Birddog6424 to "strap hang?" No. I mentioned him because he was standing right beside me while we were having the "that's Vortex for you" discussion. LMAO!!
I'll continue to call you out on your bullshit, because I have a knack for doing that and because you have a dizzy fucking opinion regarding many things.
In the meantime, I'll wait on all of your "institutional testing" results. You brought it up, I'm just interested in the results. So either tell us you have not done that, or admit you're full of fucking shit. I'm rolling with the latter for the simple fact that you would have posted it already.
In the meantime, don't worry about me calling JP rifles great guns for whatever purpose you want to engage with them, calling Vortex shit, or saying you're full of shit. I just call them how I see them.
Ouch!!Because we are not in 2010
Who would have thought Schmidt & Bender would ever be the punchline in an optics comparison thread..
It's more directed to the NXS and the Mark 4, but even S&B is releasing a new design.
Soooooo, did Vortex say to make sure not to over tighten the scope rings.......
You got me there. Im still playing catchup. In 2010 i still thought my leupold vx-ii 3-9 was the best thing on the planet. Im a poorBecause we are not in 2010
Haha, I took that photo. I don't think he ever told me what they said. But that's actually the 2nd time he broke that scope. So he sold the replacement and I talked him into an XTR3
He was at least able to finish the match with his 223 AR you see in the backdrop. He did pretty decent with it too. I see him all the time, good dude...
Was it 2 out of thousands? Same guy?So it happened to one out of thousands
They also learned something new in the process which will benefit them and customers here on out. Occasionally a nearly microscopic burr can cause an issue that is not detectable so if that ever happened again they know what to replace. You shouldn’t try to open Pandora’s box for repairs done to other non-ZCO brands, it might hurt feelings
Most of my NF scopes have the MOAR-T reticle. I wasn't able to put that reticle on some of the others because they discontinued some of the models and would not change the reticle for me. Reason I went with the MOAR-T was first because of consistency. Second because when I was on a prairie dog hunt with a scope that had an MOAR reticle, I found that a standing dog beyond 600 yards could hide behind the vertical part if the reticle. So I changed as many reticles as I could to the MOAR-T. I like them all.
Attachments
Last edited:
what if you were just offered a perfect used Kahles 6-24 for the same price as a new NF 4-16 ATACR?
I have absolutely no experience with the Kahles. Someone else may be able to help you with that ?
4-16 ATACR over that Kahles in particular for many reasons.
