Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Range session went longer than expected. Had an opportunity to run through a shoothouse at the range.
My Vortex 1-6 is impressive for CQB and very swift inside 25 yards. Eyebox is quick to get behind and FOV is judicious. Kind of a benchmark for CQB use.
I ran my 16" 6.5CM through and it was quickly apparent that I gave up absolutely nothing to my Vortex on an URGI upper.
At room clearing distances, you are talking about 5" less FOV compared to the Vortex. The overly generous eyebox of the ATACR and ED glass quality were phenomenal. Red dot was stupid bright due to being about twice as large as the Vortex on 1x. So now, I have a slightly shorter, lighter, more powerful LPV.....I'M IN LOVE!!! NF did a fabulous job with the FC-DM reticle....very well rounded for close proximity and extended range work.
I didn't have enough time to do any work with my NX8 other than a few dry runs, but its obvious that it was not meant to compete performance wise with the ATACR.
Regardless, I love them both. The NX8 fits the bill perfectly for my piggie slayer where I use a clip on thermal full time at night.
The RAZOR 1-6 is a stud of an optic and IMO, SFP 1-6's have primarily owned the LPV space with the Vortex, Kahles and Swaro leading with the Vortex taking the best value category without a doubt.
Having had a Swaro and Kahles, the Vortex won with me for cost to performance ratio; meaning very bright daytime dot, overly generous eyebox and very acceptable FOV. It all equated to rounds on target as fast as an Aimpoint or Eotech.
00bullitt covered some of the virtues of SFP and FFP design limitations earlier in this thread. Considering that, comparing paper specs and then putting rubber to pavement really clarified some things for me in terms of reality. FOV at 100 yards equates to inches at room clearing distance. I typically let paper specs determine what I might be buying.
I think the NF ATACR is in the catbird seat for a FFP 1-8 on par with the SFP 1-6's that have been all the rage.
The advertised spec of the ATACR is 97' at 100 yards. Actual measurement by me was 105'. The Vortex claims 115' and my measurements matched that almost perfectly with me getting closer to 116'
Being that my NF 7-35 actually had 132moa of total travel when they advertise 100moa, leads me to believe NF errs on the conservative side of their specs.
My NX8 had an actual measurement of 108' at 100 yards which was closer to the advertised 106'.
So, in short, it wasn't so much due to cost at all for me as it was measured performance. The Vortex was a benchmark and the ATACR gives up nothing to it in CQB....an area that the Vortex kills in.
Does that make sense and answer your question?
Unfortunately I don't think its all about what costs more, necessarily performs better as much as you get what you pay for. I don't feel like I was overcharged for the ATACR 1-8. Hell, when the CQBSS came out, I don't feel I was overcharged then given it was the first of its kind. I did ultimately abandon it for the Swaro and then a Kahles 1-6 as I wanted a certain level of performance in 3 Gun Competition. 3 Gun is the reason LPVO's are placed where they are in the market today.
The RAZOR 1-6 is a stud of an optic and IMO, SFP 1-6's have primarily owned the LPV space with the Vortex, Kahles and Swaro leading with the Vortex taking the best value category without a doubt.
Having had a Swaro and Kahles, the Vortex won with me for cost to performance ratio; meaning very bright daytime dot, overly generous eyebox and very acceptable FOV. It all equated to rounds on target as fast as an Aimpoint or Eotech.
00bullitt covered some of the virtues of SFP and FFP design limitations earlier in this thread. Considering that, comparing paper specs and then putting rubber to pavement really clarified some things for me in terms of reality. FOV at 100 yards equates to inches at room clearing distance. I typically let paper specs determine what I might be buying.
I think the NF ATACR is in the catbird seat for a FFP 1-8 on par with the SFP 1-6's that have been all the rage.
The advertised spec of the ATACR is 97' at 100 yards. Actual measurement by me was 105'. The Vortex claims 115' and my measurements matched that almost perfectly with me getting closer to 116'
Being that my NF 7-35 actually had 132moa of total travel when they advertise 100moa, leads me to believe NF errs on the conservative side of their specs.
My NX8 had an actual measurement of 108' at 100 yards which was closer to the advertised 106'.
So, in short, it wasn't so much due to cost at all for me as it was measured performance. The Vortex was a benchmark and the ATACR gives up nothing to it in CQB....an area that the Vortex kills in.
Does that make sense and answer your question?
Unfortunately I don't think its all about what costs more, necessarily performs better as much as you get what you pay for. I don't feel like I was overcharged for the ATACR 1-8. Hell, when the CQBSS came out, I don't feel I was overcharged then given it was the first of its kind. I did ultimately abandon it for the Swaro and then a Kahles 1-6 as I wanted a certain level of performance in 3 Gun Competition. 3 Gun is the reason LPVO's are placed where they are in the market today.
Really great review.The RAZOR 1-6 is a stud of an optic and IMO, SFP 1-6's have primarily owned the LPV space with the Vortex, Kahles and Swaro leading with the Vortex taking the best value category without a doubt.
Having had a Swaro and Kahles, the Vortex won with me for cost to performance ratio; meaning very bright daytime dot, overly generous eyebox and very acceptable FOV. It all equated to rounds on target as fast as an Aimpoint or Eotech.
00bullitt covered some of the virtues of SFP and FFP design limitations earlier in this thread. Considering that, comparing paper specs and then putting rubber to pavement really clarified some things for me in terms of reality. FOV at 100 yards equates to inches at room clearing distance. I typically let paper specs determine what I might be buying.
I think the NF ATACR is in the catbird seat for a FFP 1-8 on par with the SFP 1-6's that have been all the rage.
The advertised spec of the ATACR is 97' at 100 yards. Actual measurement by me was 105'. The Vortex claims 115' and my measurements matched that almost perfectly with me getting closer to 116'
Being that my NF 7-35 actually had 132moa of total travel when they advertise 100moa, leads me to believe NF errs on the conservative side of their specs.
My NX8 had an actual measurement of 108' at 100 yards which was closer to the advertised 106'.
So, in short, it wasn't so much due to cost at all for me as it was measured performance. The Vortex was a benchmark and the ATACR gives up nothing to it in CQB....an area that the Vortex kills in.
Does that make sense and answer your question?
Unfortunately I don't think its all about what costs more, necessarily performs better as much as you get what you pay for. I don't feel like I was overcharged for the ATACR 1-8. Hell, when the CQBSS came out, I don't feel I was overcharged then given it was the first of its kind. I did ultimately abandon it for the Swaro and then a Kahles 1-6 as I wanted a certain level of performance in 3 Gun Competition. 3 Gun is the reason LPVO's are placed where they are in the market today.
So the actual center dot is .35mil/1.2moa. The segmented circle is 2mil across(6.875moa). On 1x, the circle changes in relation to the target to form the dot....ala FFP......so the dot is 2mils on 1x and you see the 2mil segmented circle with .35mil dot in center at 8x. Very well designed. Too big for long range precision.....maybe a smidge. 1moa would have been more appropriate, but I think the reflective surface area is why its sooooo freaking bright! Perfect for CQB and ultimate speed inside 200 yards.
The .35mil dot could be too big depending on the target size you are shooting at a specific distance. Its all relative I suppose.
I zeroed today and pushed out to 600 yards on 6" plates and the dot was covering it when I dialed, but holding over with either the FC-MIL or FC-DM was beautiful. Still easy to hit 6" plates at that distance.
I actually pushed out to 1k on 12" plates and was nailing them. The .35mil dot covered it edge to edge perfectly and allowed for excellent windage holdoff.
http://www.nightforceoptics.com/mil-gov
Their program is solid and very beneficial and Sonny is the KING of Customer Service!
anyone have any experience with the nightforce offerings vs the vortex razor 1-6?
Considering switching my sbr from eotech+magnifier to lpvo and cant decide if i want to try the razor or get another atacr.
In all seriousness, I used to think the Razor was the be all in LPV’s.
Yes, I have both. The Vortex is a great scope. It has a fantastic field of view, very clean glass (some of the best in the industry) and it is built like a tank. Now, the downsides: it’s HEAVY....like change the balance of your gun heavy. I never noticed it as much until now, since I’ve been shooting the NX8. Also, the Razor is a SFP. You can decide if that is a positive or negative, I’m not sure either way in only a 1-6. The illumination is NOT as good. It’s daylight bright, but no room to spare. Did I mention it’s heavy?? In all seriousness, I used to think the Razor was the be all in LPV’s. Now that I own both I can say the NX8 outdoes it in most things. The Razor still has better FOV, and you can’t argue about the quality of the glass. That said, the NX8 is 10oz lighter, fantastic illumination, very good glass, FFP, and a 1-8, all in a much smaller footprint.
I won’t sell my Razor....yet, but it’s definitely not on my primary “run and gun” rifle anymore. It’s been replaced by my NX8.
ETA: for an SBR, that’s where the NF would walk away from the Razor. Weight and size would be great on a SBR.
Thanks for the input. Only problem I'm having is spending another $2700 and then $350 for another geissele mount lol, I can do it but my brain is saying $1300 scope and $350 mount then $950 in ammo or reloading supplies. Not sure how I feel about need 8x and ffp on an 11.5 sbr either, I think max shots would be 400 - 500 yds with 5.56. Decisions decisisons.
Yes, I have both. The Vortex is a great scope. It has a fantastic field of view, very clean glass (some of the best in the industry) and it is built like a tank. Now, the downsides: it’s HEAVY....like change the balance of your gun heavy. I never noticed it as much until now, since I’ve been shooting the NX8. Also, the Razor is a SFP. You can decide if that is a positive or negative, I’m not sure either way in only a 1-6. The illumination is NOT as good. It’s daylight bright, but no room to spare. Did I mention it’s heavy?? In all seriousness, I used to think the Razor was the be all in LPV’s. Now that I own both I can say the NX8 outdoes it in most things. The Razor still has better FOV, and you can’t argue about the quality of the glass. That said, the NX8 is 10oz lighter, fantastic illumination, very good glass, FFP, and a 1-8, all in a much smaller footprint.
I won’t sell my Razor....yet, but it’s definitely not on my primary “run and gun” rifle anymore. It’s been replaced by my NX8.
ETA: for an SBR, that’s where the NF would walk away from the Razor. Weight and size would be great on a SBR.
I have been wrestling with the same question/decision on a LPVO. In your opinion, do you think that the reduced weight of the GEN II-E 1-6x would make a big difference in the balance of the rifle when compared to the GEN I?
The MSRP on the NX8 is $1,750; the ATACR 1-8 is $2,800 MSRP
That’s a great question, and one I don’t have an answer to. I don’t know what the new Gen II Razor weighs. Last night I was literally shooting two of my SPR/DMR rifles side by side. One with the Razor, one with the NF. Can’t get more “compare/contrast” than that. Side by side, same night, same target.
At the prone position, I look through my Razor, and still love it. It has VERY little to criticize. BUT, standing up, shooting multiple targets, running drills, moving with the rifle, really “driving” the gun, the NF is much better. My cost on the NF NX8 (LEO) makes the price between it and the Razor VERY close. Because of the similarity in cost, the NF becomes the clear choice FOR ME. That’s just me though. One guy’s opinion.
Long winded answer, sorry. I just think OVERALL, the NF is the best thing going right now.
If the ATACR could get to the brightness of nx8 at 1x that’ll be fine for me. You’re saying it only gets to 5 or 6 though?
which do you think would be best on a 18.5” 308 bolt gun?
This is how I perceive it as well. Shocked to see how much brother the nx8 is. There shouldn’t be a trade off in brightness from the nx8 to the atacr for 1k more. I shouldn’t have to justify “well in a cqb/indoor scenario it’s plenty bright and mid range outdoors it’s not as important” for $2800I have no experience with the NXS but have owned the ATACR for ~2 months. I have to admit being somewhat disappointed in the brightness of the dot, after reading reports that it was "Aimpoint bright". Okay, maybe Aimpoint-at-half-power-bright IMO. I very much like the ATACR so far and making fast shots on 1x is very easy given the great eye-relief. But in very bright light I find it easier and faster to turn OFF the illumination and look for the reticle. YMMV.
-Rainman223