Ya that does suck especially since if you’re outside, you have to run it on max power to get the dot bright enough
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes *JUST RELEASED* Nightforce NX8 FFP 1-8x24mm 30mm Tube & ATACR F1 1-8x24mm 34mm Tube Models
- Thread starter redneckbmxer24
- Start date
Ya that does suck especially since if you’re outside, you have to run it on max power to get the dot bright enough
I'm going to chime in on this conversation again. @VegasHKShooter mentioned me a few posts ago, I do a fair bit of shooting with him, and we went out one day to compare my Minox ZP8 1-8 to his NF ATACR 1-8, so I'll add my thoughts to piggyback onto his.
First off, I was from day 1 a huge fan of of the ATACR and NX8, and that has not changed. I've got two NX8s in hand and on guns right now, with a 3rd on the way from NF. I will be picking up an ATACR later this summer when $$ permits. With that being said, I will not be getting rid of my Minox like I had initially anticipated, and here is why:
In this wonderful day and age where sub-moa gassers are the more commonly the norm instead of the exception, I think NF did a disservice to these optics by throwing a center dot that is 1.25 MOA in size in there. On 1x, that center dot isn't visible anyways and shooters are picking up the illumination being reflected by the much larger quarter-circle segments that surround that 1.25 MOA dot. But on 8x, that 1.25 MOA dot covers up a lot of real estate and makes precision shooting more work that it should be. In order to hold a somewhat consistent point-of-aim with this reticle, I find myself gravitating towards larger targets and then using the quarter-circles to bracket that larger target. I feel that my 1/2 MOA-capable rifles are limited, precision-wise, by the reticle. Smacking 1 MOA plates at 300 and 400 with MK262 is more of an exercise in frustration than fun, even though the rifle and ammo are more than capable of hitting those targets. The reticle's size, coupled with the rather course .2 mil adjustments in the NX8, make me look at that scope as being more suited to stuff primarily in the CQB realm, while still having the ability to do SPR/DMR duty if needed. That the NX8 is smaller and lighter than the ATACR further reinforces, in my mind, that it's place should be on a SBR 5.56.
I mentioned to my buddy that I felt the ATACR was more suited to the DMR more due to #1 - having noticeably better glass than the NX8, and #2 - having the ability to further refine your rifle's zero with the .1 mil adjustments instead of the .2 mil adjustments found on the NX8. I couldn't tell a difference in terms of glass clarity and quality between VegasHK's ATACR and my Minox. Obviously, the ATACR is lighter and smaller than the Minox, and the illumination is definitely brighter as well. However, I really dig the Minox's uncapped but lockable turrets, and the dimmer illumination isn't a big deal, as it is still daytime bright. I just have to go to 10 on the illumination knob on the Minox instead of 6 or 7 on the ATACR. What really set them apart for me was the reticle. I don't know the exact spec on the Minox reticle, but it's center dot is NOTICEABLY smaller, which I really prefer over the larger one found in the ATACR. My Minox rides on a SR-25 that is .5 MOA capable with the right ammo, and I can shoot to the rifle's full capability with the reticle in the Minox. Both the ATACR and the Minox have wind dots, so that part is a wash, but that center dot is pretty much a deal breaker in the NF reticle for me. On a DMR rifle, and when I say DMR rifle I'm envisioning a 16"-18" 5.56 or 7.62 rifle oriented towards long range precision instead of CQB speed/handling, I want to be able to shoot the ass off of a gnat at 500 yards with the right wind call, and I don't think the reticle in either the NX8 or the ATACR allow for that.
If NF could reduce the size of the center dot for the both the NX8 and ATACR, and the accompanying wind dots in the ATACR, from 1.25 MOA down to say .5 MOA, that would push me away from the Minox completely. VegasHK hit the nail on the head when he said that we live in incredible times in terms of rifle and optics selection and performance. The NX8 and ATACR have, I think, redefined what a LPVO is capable of in terms of a complete overall package. Size, weight, durability, daytime illumination, FFP, these scopes are full of win, win, and more win. That the ATACR is 1.5" shorter and 3.5oz lighter than the Minox while having the same glass quality and better illumination is a testament to the capabilities of that scope. On the flip side, the fact that I can narrow my decision criteria primarily to the reticle speaks volumes about how great the Minox is as well. I don't recall when that optic was released, but I know it's been out for a while, and I'm surprised it isn't more popular.
Just my $.02 after continuing to get time behind these optics.
First off, I was from day 1 a huge fan of of the ATACR and NX8, and that has not changed. I've got two NX8s in hand and on guns right now, with a 3rd on the way from NF. I will be picking up an ATACR later this summer when $$ permits. With that being said, I will not be getting rid of my Minox like I had initially anticipated, and here is why:
In this wonderful day and age where sub-moa gassers are the more commonly the norm instead of the exception, I think NF did a disservice to these optics by throwing a center dot that is 1.25 MOA in size in there. On 1x, that center dot isn't visible anyways and shooters are picking up the illumination being reflected by the much larger quarter-circle segments that surround that 1.25 MOA dot. But on 8x, that 1.25 MOA dot covers up a lot of real estate and makes precision shooting more work that it should be. In order to hold a somewhat consistent point-of-aim with this reticle, I find myself gravitating towards larger targets and then using the quarter-circles to bracket that larger target. I feel that my 1/2 MOA-capable rifles are limited, precision-wise, by the reticle. Smacking 1 MOA plates at 300 and 400 with MK262 is more of an exercise in frustration than fun, even though the rifle and ammo are more than capable of hitting those targets. The reticle's size, coupled with the rather course .2 mil adjustments in the NX8, make me look at that scope as being more suited to stuff primarily in the CQB realm, while still having the ability to do SPR/DMR duty if needed. That the NX8 is smaller and lighter than the ATACR further reinforces, in my mind, that it's place should be on a SBR 5.56.
I mentioned to my buddy that I felt the ATACR was more suited to the DMR more due to #1 - having noticeably better glass than the NX8, and #2 - having the ability to further refine your rifle's zero with the .1 mil adjustments instead of the .2 mil adjustments found on the NX8. I couldn't tell a difference in terms of glass clarity and quality between VegasHK's ATACR and my Minox. Obviously, the ATACR is lighter and smaller than the Minox, and the illumination is definitely brighter as well. However, I really dig the Minox's uncapped but lockable turrets, and the dimmer illumination isn't a big deal, as it is still daytime bright. I just have to go to 10 on the illumination knob on the Minox instead of 6 or 7 on the ATACR. What really set them apart for me was the reticle. I don't know the exact spec on the Minox reticle, but it's center dot is NOTICEABLY smaller, which I really prefer over the larger one found in the ATACR. My Minox rides on a SR-25 that is .5 MOA capable with the right ammo, and I can shoot to the rifle's full capability with the reticle in the Minox. Both the ATACR and the Minox have wind dots, so that part is a wash, but that center dot is pretty much a deal breaker in the NF reticle for me. On a DMR rifle, and when I say DMR rifle I'm envisioning a 16"-18" 5.56 or 7.62 rifle oriented towards long range precision instead of CQB speed/handling, I want to be able to shoot the ass off of a gnat at 500 yards with the right wind call, and I don't think the reticle in either the NX8 or the ATACR allow for that.
If NF could reduce the size of the center dot for the both the NX8 and ATACR, and the accompanying wind dots in the ATACR, from 1.25 MOA down to say .5 MOA, that would push me away from the Minox completely. VegasHK hit the nail on the head when he said that we live in incredible times in terms of rifle and optics selection and performance. The NX8 and ATACR have, I think, redefined what a LPVO is capable of in terms of a complete overall package. Size, weight, durability, daytime illumination, FFP, these scopes are full of win, win, and more win. That the ATACR is 1.5" shorter and 3.5oz lighter than the Minox while having the same glass quality and better illumination is a testament to the capabilities of that scope. On the flip side, the fact that I can narrow my decision criteria primarily to the reticle speaks volumes about how great the Minox is as well. I don't recall when that optic was released, but I know it's been out for a while, and I'm surprised it isn't more popular.
Just my $.02 after continuing to get time behind these optics.
I agree, this is a very informative post on some of the best LPVO's on the market!
Hi KimberGuy,
Great post with some well articulated points. I would like to provide some counter-points for discussion, but before I do that let me say that I too would prefer smaller center dots in both the NX8 and ATACR reticles as a matter of personal preference. It is one of the reasons that I am still a big fan of the CQBSS with H27D even though I also love the new ATACR (and NX8). It is as noted the reason you like your Minox still as well.
Despite my personal preference as noted, NF developed the scopes and reticles with specific missions in mind, and without speaking for them, we have to assume the reticle was best balanced for whatever those were/are. Also in use I have not really had any big issues with the center dot (see below).
So here are my thoughts on a few of the things you noted (and I am going to focus on the ATACR here):
Number 1: Dialing for a shot.
I am sort of on the fence on dialing with the ATACR as the prime means of adjusting elevation vs. holding (at least the currently available version with capped turrets). The turret works well, but is capped (and I leave it capped in use), so if I wanted to dial I would have to uncap it. Not a big deal but not ideal either. Further, once uncapped it is not as visible as say the turret on the 4-16 with the bold numbers and easily seen marking line, nor is it as large and "grippable", so the dialing and double checking is a bit more of a chore than with a dedicated uncapped turret. Make no mistake the turret is still good and dialing does work no problem. Dialing also has the upside of keeping you on the main crosshair line for your wind hold where the subtensions are easier to interpret.
The downside would be if you have a "no wind" call where you are stuck using the large center dot and it may in some cases be too large to just center on a target as it obscures the whole thing. However, if your wind call is as small as .175 mil, you can use the edge of the dot so visibility is no longer a problem. Any larger wind calls put you on the "regular" part of the reticle so no problem there. Typically on 16" 7.62 or most 5.56 guns (I would say the target platforms for the ATACR 1-8 instead of a larger "precision" gas gun platform where something like the 4-16 might make more sense), I think you can expect to be holding enough wind most of the time for a precision shot at distance to get you off dead center of the dot.
Number 2: Holding for a shot.
I think it is fair to say the reticle promotes rapid identification of semi-coarse holds (.5 or 1.0 mils) for rapid shots in general on reasonably sized targets. If you take a bit more time or the target is smaller, you can certainly refine the hold and further visually breakdown and apply that hold. Further, the dots on the grid/tree are thankfully a bit smaller than the center dot on the reticle (though not mentioned on the subtension sheet they are almost for sure .2 mil diameter, as they appear both visually in the scope and looking at the spec sheet). As well the first .5 mil off the main reticle line in either direction at each whole mil going down is marked with a regular line, giving you good hold options overall for most target distances/sizes when using the tree/dot-grid.
I hope that all is fairly clear.
In conclusion, I think that although the center dot is a bit hefty for smaller targets with "no wind" where you have dialed or are otherwise holding center, I think that in application it really is not a problem. Would I personally prefer a finer center dot or even just a standard cross in the center? Maybe. Do I encounter issues with the center dot when actually out shooting? Rarely (if ever). To be clear I love my ATACR 1-8 and use it on a very accurate 14.5" 5.56 AR where it has excelled for me (target/steel shooting and small/medium game). I would also be happy putting it on a 16" 7.62 gas gun or similar small/short bolt action rifle.
Everyone has a different set of criteria and also of course different common shooting conditions/distances/targets/locations that may push their preferences one way or the other. If the center dot is often hurting you on longer shots, or if longer small target shots are the norm, then maybe the ATACR 1-8 just isn't the the right tool for the job for those specific circumstances. Hope that makes sense and added another point to the discussion. I am happy to see plenty of posts in here from people that actually own and have shot a bunch with these optics. Have a good one!
-TSean
P.S. I absolutely understand that in your case (KimberGuy) the center dot size was a hindrance, but I just wanted to express my experience where it generally was not a problem as another data point.
I was out plinking with my NX8 the other day at 500. The center dot is almost exactly the size of this rifle/ammo combinations cone of accuracy. It was interesting to realize that (minus wind) all my shots should fall inside the dot.
I did want a little more refined aim point for a few shots, so I just dialed up 1 mill less than I needed and held at the first horizontal below the center. A bit goofy, but it worked well enough.
I did want a little more refined aim point for a few shots, so I just dialed up 1 mill less than I needed and held at the first horizontal below the center. A bit goofy, but it worked well enough.
Anyone notice on the NX8 when dialed up 6-8x and you turn the illumination to 6 or up that the illumination bleeds through the mil numbers. But it’s not lighting up the whole number it’s super blotchy almost like spots?
Here’s a picture to my post above. If you zoom in your can see. The picture is good to how it looks on person.
Attachments
Every single illuminated scope does this when the illumination is higher than appropriate for the ambient lighting conditions. If you turn it down or go to a bright area, this becomes undetectable.
I understand it bleeds through. But it comes in as dots on the numbers. Not just red throughout the whole number
Etched reticles are given a surface treatment to cause the illumination to precisely reflect to the shooter's eye. Untreated reticle features like numbers won't reflect this light with the same even presentation as those with a surface treatment.
Are you serious with this?? It’s a by product of the extremely bright illumination the scope is capable of. That is FAR brighter than you would ever use the illumination. And yes, I have an NX8, AND an ATACR 1-8 that I could probably get to do that..... but, as stated before....who cares?? Just turn the illumination down.
It’s a bonafide non issue.
It’s a bonafide non issue.
I am serious and I do care? I bought a $1800 product and want it to be correct. I turned illumination up in the picture so you can actually see it. In person I can also see it dialed down to 3-4. Instead of acting like I’m dumb why not provide a picture where yours does the same at a reasonable illumination level. NF customer service didn’t think it was a right or a non issue.
I do have an NX8 that looks exactly like yours with the illumination turned up. I don't have a loose reticle and microscope to show the difference between the center portion that properly reflects the light vs the other portions that don't.
If you're concerned enough to have NF CS look at it, I'm confident they will be happy to check it out. I'm glad to have folks like them to make sure everything is right.
Thank you. That’s kinda what I was looking for. After taking it outside I notice it much less. I just kinda thought the red light coming through as red dots on the numbers was off instead of filling the whole number.
Here you go.
Illum level 9, which is still overkill for that lighting. 8x mag.
Illum level 9, 8x, even darker conditions.
Illum level 3, 8x, same dark conditions.
As it was already explained to you, all reticles will have bleed through when you’re using more illum than necessary for the ambient lighting. You bought an $1,800 product THAT IS FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY. You might want to spend more time learning how to use your optic and less time on the forum arguing with people that have already given you the correct answer, like this one:
Can anyone who owns or has a great deal of time with the Mark 6 1-6 and NX8 1-8 speak to a direct comparison- specifically eye box, edge to edge clarity, glass brightness/color rendering, and generally how easy they are to get behind at 1x and 6x (or 8x). Seems pretty decisive that the NX8 has brighter 1x illumination and I'm fine with a little illum bleed and a big center dot.
Have a Mark 6 and wondering if NX8 is really worth trying.... it kind of falls into a similar price range as the high-end euro SFP 1-6s, which I thought were a big step up from the Mark 6 in real usability and speed.
Thanks
Have a Mark 6 and wondering if NX8 is really worth trying.... it kind of falls into a similar price range as the high-end euro SFP 1-6s, which I thought were a big step up from the Mark 6 in real usability and speed.
Thanks
My replacement atacr 1-8 came in. This one is the real deal. Probably 1 to 1.5 clicks brighter than the previous one. After using the nx8 extensively for the past few weeks, I can say that this particular unit is def bright enough in direct sunlight. It is much easier to get behind at 1x, min easier to maintain don’t picture during dynamic movement, and much clearer at 8x from edge to edge. I’m now leaning toward selling my nx8, and two Aimpoints and keeping the atacr.
I was really looking at putting one of these on my scar 17 but now I’m kind of hesitant after some of the above reviews. Maybe just have to alternate between a 1-8 and my Ultra Short depending on what I’m using the gun for.
I’m not sure what would make you not want it. I am super comfortable saying that they are the two best LPV’s on the market right now. Are they PERFECT, no......but very close. The NX8 is super compact, 17oz., nuclear bright reticle, very usable mil or MOA reticle, FFP (which is a plus in a 1-8 I feel), and excellent glass.
The downside: the reticle dot is a touch bigger than I would prefer. IF I could change anything, I would take the center dot down to .5 MOA. However, they are both silly fast up close.... like red dot fast, and both are super capable of man sized hits out to the limits of the 5.56 or the 7.62x51.
I have shot them daytime, nighttime, close, far, you name it. Shot my NX8 on 2 or 3 different 5.56 guns, and my ATACR on a 5.56 and a 16” .308. Made solid hits out to 825 with my .308. Very capable for what they are.
The only other downside is cost. Let’s be honest, $1700 or so for the NX8 isn’t chicken scratch. That’s a decent amount of money. For ME, and MY uses, it’s worth it. When I was working overwatch at Game 1 of The Stanley Cup Playoffs, knowing I had the ATACR 1-8 on my rifle, gave me tremendous confidence in my gear. That was one less thing to worry about while doing my job. I can understand if folks don’t want to, or just flat cannot spend that kind of money. I get it.
If you can, I say these two scopes, within the parameters that they are built for, are phenomenal.
All of this is simply my opinion, based on my uses. YMMV.
Vegas,
I’ve got the NX8 in a Geissele 1.93 Mount. I’ve seen you say that it works better in a standard mount...just wondering if you’ve done any side by side comparisons (or just used both at different times) to come to that conclusion? Is the difference significant?
I really haven’t gotten to run it through the paces yet, so haven’t formed much of an opinion for myself as of now.
I’ve got the NX8 in a Geissele 1.93 Mount. I’ve seen you say that it works better in a standard mount...just wondering if you’ve done any side by side comparisons (or just used both at different times) to come to that conclusion? Is the difference significant?
I really haven’t gotten to run it through the paces yet, so haven’t formed much of an opinion for myself as of now.
I have not run it in a mount that high. I would really struggle with a cheek weld mounted that high. With these LPV’s, the initial “snap in” is super important. I feel like in order to be fast....like red dot fast.....the snap in speed of your scope mount makes all the difference. I think the reason I like them as much as I do is that when I snap it up the dot is RIGHT there. I would genuinely say that in order for you to enjoy the benefits that the NX8 can offer, you MUST get a lower mount. Short of running NODS, a 1.93 is far too high. YMMV.
I'm brand new to the forum and have been looking for as much info as I can on this new NF ATACR 1-8. I love all the feedback I've read and am thinking. If I were to put this on my .308, the only time I would ever use that center dot is to get a 100m zero and for CQB. If the glass is high quality like NF has always been in my opinion, and the windage dots are good and accurate, I would hold for any shot beyond 100m. I realize holdover is virtually 0 out to 300, but at that close the dot should cover about 4 inches of the target. I am used to the Horace reticle and its variations, but this optic seems like a great solution for something like the SCAR heavy. I realize anything designed to do both jobs will do neither perfectly, but I was hoping that this could be a good solution for an all around home defense, hunting, range gun. Since Uncle Sam is no longer buying my toys I'd like to get something high quality and covers most applications. Does anyone have any experience using it this way? Also, any thoughts about zeroing closer (25 or 50) to bring that red dot off center mass at distance? This would also be more practical for CQB applications. Only problem I could see here is nearing the bottom of your glass for shots out at distance. Thoughts and comments?
That you for your thoughts and perspective. I received my NX8 today but won't be able to use it until it comes back from RMA at NF.
Otherwise it looks like this is an impressive combination of features with incredible illumination that does not suffer from the "flickering" evident as you move your eye around a Mark 6 or CQBSS.
I think it is important, however, to understand the compromise that this optic seems to be. Optical clarity, how it handles edge distortion, color rendering and low light performance, FOV, and eye box are going to be an adjustment if you are coming from any of the similarly priced, or even some cheaper, SFPs.
It's still an incredible product that offers a mix of performance at price that no one else touches.
Perhaps this is premature and my opinion may change once I am able to use it.
Last edited:
I got my NX8 a few days ago and mounted it up in a Geissele mount. First thing I noticed is how bad ass bright the reticle is on 1x.... As mentioned above, this thing is nuclear bright. I might say its brighter than my Aimpoint T2! Love the scope, except the only thing that bothers me is mine has some significant fish eye and edge distortion. I have played around with the ocular adjustment and it helps a little, but the edge distortion on this scope at 1x is worse than any other optic I currently have. For close range work it almost makes you dizzy trying to shoot both eyes open which I had no problem doing with my Mark 6. Am I missing something here? Anyone else notice this or have any problems or did I get a bad sample.
I got to look though the NX8 and ATACR aside from the glass the biggest difference I noticed between them was that the ATACR's finish is beautiful compared to the matte black finish on the NX8 all and all the ATACR is a more visually appealing scope than the NX8. I own a CQBSS and I was really looking to compare them to it. To my eyes the CQBSS glass is resolution city and offers higher resolution than any other LPV including the ATACR and NX8. I perfer the H27D by a landslide over the NX8's reticle and I also perfer the H27D over the ATACR's reticle which was better than NX8's. The H27D is a much finer reticle that allows for more precise points of aim without getting in the way. The turrets on the MK8 work better for me as well. I didn't notice any differences as ease of use as far as red dot use on 1x they all seemed about the same in this department. At $1700 I wouldn't expect an NX8 to compare to a $3,000 MK8 but from what I saw the ATACR didn't either.
Last edited:
I hate the magnification on the Trijicon MRO. I think the MK8 would drive me insane.
...and all of them were either larger, heavier, not 8x, or all of the above. The NX8 brings incredible capability when you consider what it is, but it is a compromise.
Being a NF product, hype and expectations were high. I think its impressive, but would have a tough time buying another one when the the street price on a K16, for example, is there with the NX8.
True, and I’m aware of the compromises in the design of the scope. I just expected the distortion in the optical compromises to come on the top end, not the 1x end. That’s what made me wonder if there was something wrong. I’ll try and get a photo up today.
These very lightweight yet sturdy Scalarworks mounts would make a fantastic option for the NX8
Just 22.48oz together
Just 22.48oz together
I’ve played around with the diopter settings for hours, that was the first placed I looked. Unfortunately no joy... it seems like something is “off”. What I also noticed is at 1x it appears that the image through the scope is significantly smaller than it should be. I can move the magnification ring towards 2x and it dials in to where it should be right between the 1x and 2x. To me this all but confirms there is something up with my scope. It’s headin in to get checked out later this week.
How do you set your diopter? On 1x or 8x? Clearest picture or clearest reticle? What else should you look for?
I follow a fairly different protocol than when setting up a long range scope.
When setting up LPVOs, I always start at 1x and adjust to bring the image to unity with the world around me, holding both eyes open. (Using the continuing lines of a roof are great for this.) After a short rest for my eyes, I'll determine if I can mount the gun and have the reticle present clearly without waiting for my eyes to focus. If it's good at 1x, I'll check it at 8x. If no tweaks are needed, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll work to find a balance between 8x clarity and 1x performance.
Unless your eyes just don't play well with a particular scope, a true 1x scope usually won't have issues at max magnification. If you try this on something that's 1.1x or 1.25x, you'll never be happy.
Question...what is "Exit pupil" and "Eye relief" in relation to "Eyebox"? Are they always directly linked, or are there other factors that skew the equation?
The reason I ask, is t hat noone bitches about the Swarovski Z8i's eyebox, while some people are complaining about that of the NX8.
The Z8i has an exit pupil on 1x of 8.1mm, and on 8x of 3.1mm. It has 3.74" eye relief.
The NX8 has an exit pupil on 1x of 7.9mm and on 8x of 3.0mm. It has 3.75" eye relief.
Both of these datasets were taken from manufacturer website.
Does this mean that the Z8i has an identical eyebox (nearly) to the NX8? Or does the FOV (much larger on Z8i) negate the near identical exit-pupil and eye-relief statistics? If so, why do people even care about exit pupil (aside light transmission at low light) like it's some almighty measure of an eyebox?
Would love to hear from people who have looked through both and compared eyeboxes.
The reason I ask, is t hat noone bitches about the Swarovski Z8i's eyebox, while some people are complaining about that of the NX8.
The Z8i has an exit pupil on 1x of 8.1mm, and on 8x of 3.1mm. It has 3.74" eye relief.
The NX8 has an exit pupil on 1x of 7.9mm and on 8x of 3.0mm. It has 3.75" eye relief.
Both of these datasets were taken from manufacturer website.
Does this mean that the Z8i has an identical eyebox (nearly) to the NX8? Or does the FOV (much larger on Z8i) negate the near identical exit-pupil and eye-relief statistics? If so, why do people even care about exit pupil (aside light transmission at low light) like it's some almighty measure of an eyebox?
Would love to hear from people who have looked through both and compared eyeboxes.
For those of you that have tested them side by side, which would you prefer between the NX8, K16, & Razor II-E if price wasn't a factor between the 3? Im not a fan of BDC reticles, much prefer Mil substensions (does that eliminate the Kahles? I can't find a descritpion of their reticles). It also needs to be bulletproof - this is my "go-to" do-all AR and I don't need to be worrying about failures on the optic.
Uses are on a 5.56 AR:
Uses are on a 5.56 AR:
- close & fast (75 yds & under)
- Far (600-750 yds) on about 1.5 MOA steel
Last edited:
I'll be happy to go over the Pros and Cons of each of those solid LPVO's, please give us a call at 916-670-1103
I have both the ATACR 1-8 and the NX8. I sold the Razor 1-6 to fund the NX8, so I had the Razor for years. You have to understand the limitations of FFP vs SFP to get the differences between the Razor and the NF.
The Razor, being a SFP is going to have the bigger appearance when you look through it. The whole “it just disappears at the edges” of the Razor is a by product of the position of the reticle in the assembly. With a 30mm tube, the Razor will appear “wider” than the NX8. But digging deeper we see that the NX8 is a FFP, a 1-8, and has a mil or MOA reticle that’s extremely good and very usable. The reticle is FAR brighter in the NF offerings. Being FFP has its advantages to some, disadvantages to others. I tend to really like it, but it’s a product of the reticle being very good in the NX8. Now let’s look at size: the NX8 is 17oz, and MUCH smaller. On a 5.56 gun, the NX8 is significantly smaller and better managed. Add all the features up, it’s NX8 for me over the Razor.
Now, the ATACR is another scope all together. It is a precision scope, shrunken down to a 1-8. Its a 34mm tune, FFP, awesome reticle, far brighter, STILL LIGHTER than a 30mm 1-6 Razor.....but, it’s more $$.
In the end, the features have to be worth it to you. For me, I may use my rifle as a real DMR/SPR. Lives may depend on it. I know that sounds all dramatic, and I don’t mean it to, but FOR ME, the juice is worth the squeeze, the NF are what I own. I also use my gun to teach classes, shoot 3 gun, and hunt. They get USED. Potentially banged around, definitely shot OFTEN. I don’t want to ever worry about reliability or durability. NF has that in spades over most any other brand.
In the end.....only you can decide what’s worth your $$$.
In every test or comparison the Swarovski Z8i beat all competition, it is used by all the 3-gunners so to say they are rugged would be an accurate statement, Plus I have a Swarovski Z6i and it is the best scope I have ever owned, I am not saying that the Nightforce 1-8x24 are not good scopes because they are awesome but the Swarovski Z8i is still the king.
Similar threads
