Rifle Scopes Nikon Black FX1000 vs PST gen ii

[Matt_3479]

Looking to try out either the black fx1000 6-24x50 or the pst gen II? What’s your thoughts on the Nikon?

 

[Diver160651]

Just remember, you really want 25yard or closer parallax.

The PST genII checks that box

 

[Friday]

Hard to say honestly I’ve had 2 PST scopes both took dumps spend a little extra and get an SHV nightforce or Athlon ETR

 

[INMY01TA]

PST gen2. Better reticle and 5X magnification. I’ve looked thru both and the Nikon is nice but I prefer the vortex. The Nikon is rediculously huge too.

 

[koshkin]

PST Gen 2 is a better scope, although it is generally a more expensive scope too.

ILya

 

[Sled]

I'm back and forth between these two scopes as well, FX1000 6x24 and PST Gen 2 5x25-and it seems to come down to who you ask. Both have people swearing by them, both have people swearing at them. I believe they both have unlimited lifetime warranties. I like the reticle in the Vortex better, but not sure I like it 200 dollars better. I'm in analysis paralysis, but am leaning towards the Nikon.....

 

[darth_ritis]

I have the 4-16 FX1000 and have had a 3-15 PSTg2. The nikon has really nice glass and good build quality for the price. The turrets are definitely usable and track well but have an odd feel. The nikon reticle is OK, not really my cup of tea but it works. Overall, worth the money but not stellar IMHO.

The PSTg2 has a much better reticle and much better turrets and will focus down to 25 yards, but costs something like 80% more. If you budget allows the Vortex, you'll be happy. If not, I'd compare the Nikon to the Athlon Midas TAC and see which you like better.

 

[chavezz556]

I've had both and prefer the Nikon, especially in the glass department

 

[Matt_3479]

Thanks everyone! Basically I was set on trying to get another nxs but budget is a little tighter right now so figured I could test out the newer pst gen II 5-25x50. Once budget allows I’ll just throw the pst on my varmint rig which will need a scope update soon ish and pick up the nxs just cause I’m use to the nxs.

But a good buddy of mine reps for Nikon and wants me to try one for a much much cheaper price. Just wasn’t sure if they were worth the try or not. I figured if I didn’t like that one I could put together a little 22lr practice rig with the Nikon.

 

[cb4017]

I considered the same scopes along with the Athlon Ares BTR. The Ares is on sale and cheapest of the three. Tempting but I have a Athlon Argos that is underwhelming and could not get excited about another Athlon.

The Nikon looked pretty good and is on sale at Nikon. Solid reviews. The only thing I came across is some have double clicks on the turrets.

I ended up going with the Viper PST Gen 2. It has consistently good reviews. I have a couple of lesser Vipers and they have been solid scopes. Icing on the cake was a great price from one of the board vendors. It should arrive next week and will be going on a 6.5 Creedmoor RPR.

 

[Flop]

To the OP, I have a Nikon FX1000 6-24x50 and a Vortex PST Gen2 3-15x44. The Vortex is a MUCH sharper and clearer lens. I was really excited to get the Nikon but after using it a few times I regret not returning it inside of the 30 day window. I've moved it to one of my less important rifles and the PST went back on the rifle I bought the Nikon for.

I'd have to get the Nikon for a pretty serious discount to consider it again.

Tempting but I have a Athlon Argos that is underwhelming and could not get excited about another Athlon.

I have an Athlon Argos also, 6-24 iirc. I thought the same thing as you until I found an Ares BTR 2.5-15x50 for a price I couldn't pass up. The Ares is a much better scope than the Argos in every way and now I own two of them. I think the Ares BTR has better glass than the Nikon mentioned above and seriously competes with the Vortex PST Gen2.

I'd actually compare the Nikon fx1000 6-24 with the Athlon Argos in terms of glass quality alone. The Nikon obviously has better features than the Argos but it's only slightly better quality glass imo, and I was a fan of Nikon glass before this!

Edit: I'm a commercial photographer and I use high quality glass every day for a living. I have a pretty good idea of what good glass should look like.
I also shoot at least one of my rifles weekly, during the day and night so I see what they can do in less than ideal settings. Comparing lenses in a store under bright lights isn't a good test imo.

 

[Sled]

To the OP, I have a Nikon FX1000 6-24x50 and a Vortex PST Gen2 3-15x44. The Vortex is a MUCH sharper and clearer lens. I was really excited to get the Nikon but after using it a few times I regret not returning it inside of the 30 day window. I've moved it to one of my less important rifles and the PST went back on the rifle I bought the Nikon for.

I'd have to get the Nikon for a pretty serious discount to consider it again.



I have an Athlon Argos also, 6-24 iirc. I thought the same thing as you until I found an Ares BTR 2.5-15x50 for a price I couldn't pass up. The Ares is a much better scope than the Argos in every way and now I own two of them. I think the Ares BTR has better glass than the Nikon mentioned above and seriously competes with the Vortex PST Gen2.

I'd actually compare the Nikon fx1000 6-24 with the Athlon Argos in terms of glass quality alone. The Nikon obviously has better features than the Argos but it's only slightly better quality glass imo, and I was a fan of Nikon glass before this!

Edit: I'm a commercial photographer and I use high quality glass every day for a living. I have a pretty good idea of what good glass should look like.
I also shoot at least one of my rifles weekly, during the day and night so I see what they can do in less than ideal settings. Comparing lenses in a store under bright lights isn't a good test imo.

Serious question, can you really compare glass in a 6x24 scope with glass in a 3-15 scope? I would think lower magnification covers up any defect in glass that higher magnification would reveal? I looked through an FX-1000 6x24 and a PST Gen2 5x25 the other day at the store, side by side. While if I had to pick, I would give a slight edge to the glass in the Vortex, although I may not have gotten the Nikon diopter adjusted all the way. Either way, the difference was minute, and not worth the cost difference in the scopes. I will be picking up the Nikon this week.

 

[Flop]

Serious question, can you really compare glass in a 6x24 scope with glass in a 3-15 scope? I would think lower magnification covers up any defect in glass that higher magnification would reveal? I looked through an FX-1000 6x24 and a PST Gen2 5x25 the other day at the store, side by side. While if I had to pick, I would give a slight edge to the glass in the Vortex, although I may not have gotten the Nikon diopter adjusted all the way. Either way, the difference was minute, and not worth the cost difference in the scopes. I will be picking up the Nikon this week.

I think it's fair to compare the sharpness of scopes with different magnification levels. If I take a photo with a big zoom lens, I can't tell my client "sorry it's only blurry because it was zoomed in". The image need to be sharp at any focal length and all of my lenses are. One of my sharpest lenses is actually one of my longest lenses. Glass is glass, whether it's in a lens or a scope.

I'm just talking sharpness here, brightness is a different matter. To make a high magnification scope brighter you need a larger objective lens, which the Nikon has in this case anyway. But brightness didn't matter when I compared them because it was a clear blue-sky day.

The Nikon FX1000 6-24x50 was nowhere near as sharp as the PST Gen2 3-15x44. When I shot the rifle with the Nikon, several times I caught myself going to the Vortex to check my shots like it was a spotting scope. That's really bad in my opinion. What's the point of a higher magnification scope if you can see better with the 3-15? I even backed the Nikon out to the 15-18x range, which was better but the Vortex was still noticeably sharper.

 

[Dev L]

The PST Gen II feels a LOT heavier. It has better turrets. It has a better reticle. Glass seems similar... both are good, but not great. The Nikon has an annoying central body where it is smaller than the turret. This requires you to remove the windage knob to use a leveling wedge when installing to get a flat surface. Unless weight is a priority or money is tight, I prefer the PST Gen 2.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Comparing a $700 6-24 to a $1000 3-15 is not apples to apples.
The zoom lens “I can’t tell my client” comment does not apply.

I’m pretty sure there aren’t many who have plenty of eye time behind top-tier high powered (24 to 30 max mag) scopes that would expect a variable power entry level FFP to beat the clarity of the same level scope in a midrange magnification of the same build quality/cost. Higher mag clarity (esp in variables) takes pricier glass and build quality.

 

[ToddM]

Comparing a $700 6-24 to a $1000 3-15 is not apples to apples.

A little shopping will get you a 5-25 PST II for $800 at more than one vendor.

 

[Flop]

Comparing a $700 6-24 to a $1000 3-15 is not apples to apples.
The zoom lens “I can’t tell my client” comment does not apply.

I’m pretty sure there aren’t many who have plenty of eye time behind top-tier high powered (24 to 30 max mag) scopes that would expect a variable power entry level FFP to beat the clarity of the same level scope in a midrange magnification of the same build quality/cost. Higher mag clarity (esp in variables) takes pricier glass and build quality.

The Nikon fx-1000 6-24 Retail price is $800, not $700. The PST 3-15 gen2 retail price is now $900 which is only $100 more than the Nikon. If you're talking sale prices, the PST 3-15 gen2 was $675 at Midway for about a month which is much cheaper than the Nikon.

I know what good glass looks like. The glass in a lens and a scope both do the same job, which is transmitting light. I've used some extremely expensive lenses and scopes before. I was never comparing either of these scopes with a top tier scope. I'm simply saying the sharpness on the Nikon (even at 15x) is not even in the same ball park as the vortex.

You can blame it on the magnification all you want and bring up price ranges to defend it. The fact remains I had to use the vortex 3-15 as a spotting scope for the Nikon 6-24 at 100 yards. Yes they're different magnification levels but honestly what's the point of buying a 6-24 scope if you can get a MUCH sharper 3-15 that let's you see a clearer image further away for less money?

I think the sale probably ended by now but even if I paid retail price I'd still pay the extra $100 for the PST gen2 3-15.

 

[fdkay]

SIGHTRON siii

 

[sobrbiker883]

Mr Flop,
Type all you want, but I’ve been around once or twice. All I’m saying is that in the under $1k range of FFP variable scopesone will always have a better chance of being happy with the optical clarity if you select a 4-16/3-15 etc than if you pick a 6-24, 5-25 etc.

For all we know, with your given example you may have had to spot for a 5-25G2PST with your 3-15G2PST.
We’ll never know since your sample size is one.
My opinion after playing this game for a couple days: Until you hit top tier glass, high magnification in a FFP variable is a crap shoot.
I don’t foresee any thread on a forum convincing me differently.

To the OP’s direct question: I personally had a 6-24 FX-1000 and it has been returned and is being replaced with a 4-16 FX-1000. The particular sample I received was poor enough on the clarity/eyebox that I was assured that it must be defective or damaged.
I should have first hand info on the 4-16 this week.
I can say so far that Nikon’s CS has been top-notch.

 

[SwiftScope]

I got my Nikon FX1000 4-16x50 for $570 shipped. I'm happy with it

 

[ToddM]

I'd disagree partly in that the $1000 5-25 scopes are "worse" optically than similar priced 4-16/3-15x scopes. Keeping in mind that as power increases eyebox usually gets more critical, brightness suffers at higher power, doesn't matter if it's $1000 or $4000, physics still applies. What I will agree with is that most of the 5-25's have show more noticeable optical degradation at 25x than a 3-15 or 4-16x does at 15/16x, of course it's giving you 10x more magnification. That said, most of the 5-25's I've compared from the same scope model are better optically at 15/16x in the middle of their power range, than their sister 3-15/4-16x scopes are at the max of their power range.

So to me if the size/weight/price are similar and in many cases today they are, I'd rather have a 5-25 that's better optically at 15-16x, even if it's worse at 25x, than a 3-15 to 4-16x that looks worse at 15-16x, but provides no option to go from 17-25x at all. You can always dial a 5-25x down to 15x but you can't dial a 3-15 to 20-25x. The PST ii is a good example, the 3-15 is 3oz lighter, 1.5" shorter, and $150 cheaper. I'd be hard pressed to buy the 3-15 over the 5-25 unless I really really needed 3x and was willing to give up 10x to get it. Now if it was half the price and 8oz lighter that would be different, but it's almost never the case.

 

[Proxemus]

FYI if your looking for the Nikon Black fx1000(non illuminated ret) 4x16x50 its 449$ + a 10% off making it 405$, or you can go with a the vortex PST Gen 2 3x15x44 for 699 with 10% off making it 630$. I own both scopes and here are my .02... Nikon Is physically bigger, reticle is a tiny bit thicker but imo its a nicer reticle (MRAD) Glass is ever so slightly better just crisper, Turrets arnt bad but arnt great and the scope is 10000x more durable then vortex, and it comes with a sunshade for 430$ after taxes you cannot beat it. Now the vortex.. The good, Glass is really sharp I find the colors are a little brighter then the Nikon but I find the Nikon to be sharper ( if that makes sense) Reticle is thin but I could careless for all the holdover on the EBR-2C MRAD reticle ( I have a Schmidt and bender w a P4L fine reticle and I think that's my fav reticle ever made so far... ) Turrets feel really good on the pst compared to the Nikon I think that's the biggest downfall of the Nikon. 44mm obj vs 50 ( if you wanted a smaller obj) Only thing I did not like about the vortex was the build quality. After about 6 months on my xcr-l (223) I notice that it started to lose its zero and then it just got unusable. shipped it back and got it warrentied... Loose reticle???? but I dunno. I have my Nikon on a ACR DMR (223) and I have yet to screw around with it yet. Vortex 8.5/10 build quality is the biggest down fall, Nikon 9/10 weird feeling turrets

Vortex PST GEN ii 3-15x44 SPECS
Magnification 3-15x
Objective Lens Diameter 44 mm
Eye Relief 3.4 inches
Field of View 41.2-8.6 ft/100 yds
Tube Size 30 mm
Turret Style Tactical
Parallax Setting 20 yards to infinity
Length 14.3 inches
Weight 28.1 oz

Nikon Black FX1000 4x16x50
Magnification 4-16x
Objective Lens Diameter 50 mm
Eye Relief 3.6 - 4 inches
Field of View 27.2 - 6.8 ft/100 yds
Tube Size 30 mm
Turret Style Tactical
Parallax Setting 50 yards to infinity
Length 14.8 inches
Weight 23.3 oz

 

[CSTactical]

This Nikon promo ends on 07/29/19 and we have one left

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...f-illuminated-fx-mrad-599-95-on-sale.6938998/

 

[Garett73]

Ive had the nikon, and looked through the vortex a few times. The vortex liked described above has better turrets but the nikon beats the vortex in just about every other aspect... And for the prive they are at now you really can't beat them

 

[jsurfdog]

I own 4 Nikon scopes, but not an Black FX: Monarch 3 2.5-10x50, an older Tactical 4-16x50, and two 4-20x50 Monarch 5s. I can only vouch for the robustness and optical clarity of the Nikon scopes. I compared the tactical model ($1,000 circa 2001) to a friend's Swarovski and it was a dead heat. (It's a shame they aren't produced anymore - this was made in Japan. The glass is awesome). It is still one of the best scopes I own, both optically and mechanically. The 4-20x 50s were recent purchases, at the price I feel they were the best choice available. Newer Nikons are produced in the Philippines, if I am not mistaken, hence the lower price point. Burris, Sightron, and a few other rifle scope manufacturers have factories in the Philippines now.

Having said all that, I recently purchased a PST genII 5-25x50. As a first focal plane scope it compares well to my $1700 Athlon Chronus 4.5-27x56. I got the PST new for $699.99 on sale, couldn't turn it down. As much as I love Nikons, if you are looking for a FF high power scope below $1000, I would go for the PST genII. The glass is on a par with the Nikons, they have a better magnification range, and the turrets and reticles are beyond reproach. I considered the Black FX but didn't like the fact the magnification range was 6-24 compared to 5-25 for the Vortex.

Not to hijack this thread, but since I am on the topic of Nikon optics, if anyone is looking for a range finding binocular, the new Nikon's are absolutely awesome. They beat my $2600 Leicas in the field, ranging much better in foggy conditions, returning accurate ranges in much less time than it took for the Leicas. I prefer the Leicas because of the ballistic calculator built in, but the $1200 Nikons compared favourably to my mate's $3000 Swarovski range finding binos.

 

[Mark Watson]

I own 4 Nikon scopes, but not an Black FX: Monarch 3 2.5-10x50, an older Tactical 4-16x50, and two 4-20x50 Monarch 5s. I can only vouch for the robustness and optical clarity of the Nikon scopes. I compared the tactical model ($1,000 circa 2001) to a friend's Swarovski and it was a dead heat. (It's a shame they aren't produced anymore - this was made in Japan. The glass is awesome). It is still one of the best scopes I own, both optically and mechanically. The 4-20x 50s were recent purchases, at the price I feel they were the best choice available. Newer Nikons are produced in the Philippines, if I am not mistaken, hence the lower price point. Burris, Sightron, and a few other rifle scope manufacturers have factories in the Philippines now.

Having said all that, I recently purchased a PST genII 5-25x50. As a first focal plane scope it compares well to my $1700 Athlon Chronus 4.5-27x56. I got the PST new for $699.99 on sale, couldn't turn it down. As much as I love Nikons, if you are looking for a FF high power scope below $1000, I would go for the PST genII. The glass is on a par with the Nikons, they have a better magnification range, and the turrets and reticles are beyond reproach. I considered the Black FX but didn't like the fact the magnification range was 6-24 compared to 5-25 for the Vortex.

Not to hijack this thread, but since I am on the topic of Nikon optics, if anyone is looking for a range finding binocular, the new Nikon's are absolutely awesome. They beat my $2600 Leicas in the field, ranging much better in foggy conditions, returning accurate ranges in much less time than it took for the Leicas. I prefer the Leicas because of the ballistic calculator built in, but the $1200 Nikons compared favourably to my mate's $3000 Swarovski range finding binos.

I guess everyone's eyes see things differently, but I have a pst gen ii on my trainer and it doesn't compare to my Cronos or ETR for that matter. Imo the Cronos beats my gen 2 Razor. .

 

[jdodd]

Having fondled both I would vote for the PST Gen 2

 

[MakeSawdust]

Sample variation causes a lot of different opinions in glass until you get to the high dollar index matched lenses. My $.02 worth. If you get lucky, low end glass can be pretty damn impressive for the money. If you are not lucky, you will begin to wonder who stacked coke bottles inside your scope tube.

 

[jdodd]

Sample variation causes a lot of different opinions in glass until you get to the high dollar index matched lenses. My $.02 worth. If you get lucky, low end glass can be pretty damn impressive for the money. If you are not lucky, you will begin to wonder who stacked coke bottles inside your scope tube.

Yes, it can be hit or miss the lower in the price point you go. Thats one of the things you get with higher dollar optics is lot to lot consistency.

 

[nockhunter]

I think Nikon uses their own glass, even if the FX1000 is made in the Philippines.

Mike

 

[jsurfdog]

True that. The two Nikon Monarch 5's (4-20x50) I have are exceptionally clear, have ED glass. Second FP, but pretty awesome for the price. One is on my 300 WBY, the other on my son's 7 mm Rem Mag. Just about perfect for hunting the South Island NZ. Already responsible for a Tahr and 15-point Red Stag

 

[jsurfdog]

BTW, the 5-25x50 Vortex PST Gen II are still selling for $699 on Eurooptic - this is the mil version.

 

[Sutherlandsd]

I have 3 of the pst2's have owned the btr and etr ares. The etr is a better scope in most cases, the btr not close. The Nikon fx that I have had experience with were not good one didn't track for shit the other looked like a monet painting at anything over 18x. Put them together and it was a little less nice than the pst2. At $699 or less its a no brainer.

 

[308pirate]

Serious question, can you really compare glass in a 6x24 scope with glass in a 3-15 scope? I would think lower magnification covers up any defect in glass that higher magnification would reveal? I looked through an FX-1000 6x24 and a PST Gen2 5x25 the other day at the store, side by side. While if I had to pick, I would give a slight edge to the glass in the Vortex, although I may not have gotten the Nikon diopter adjusted all the way. Either way, the difference was minute, and not worth the cost difference in the scopes. I will be picking up the Nikon this week.

If the guy is a pro photographer, I'd take his word for it.

In fact I'd take his word over anyone whose optics resume is limited to "being around the block"

 

[KitchenMartin]

I own a Vortex diamondback tactical 4-16x44, a Nikon Black FX1000 4-16x50 and a Vortex Viper HST 6-24x50.

As far as resolution/sharpness (the ability to distinguish fine detail) the HST is best, not far behind is the diamondback and the last is the Nikon, which the image is not blurry, but each time I use it, I blink my eye to make sure there's nothing in there… and no! My eye is not the problem! It's really not that bad, but when you are used to the HST and roll back to the Nikon, you can see the difference between both.

Because I live in Canada, the Nikon was a bargain at 750$ compared to the PST gen2 3-15x44 FFP at 1300$ or the 5-25x50 FFP at 1500$. That's why I choose the Nikon over the pst gen2. The PST isn't worth twice the price of the Nikon!

As far as chromatic aberration, the viper is not perfect, almost as much as the Diamondback, I see yellow and blue lines on contrasty background (on the edges of a white house on black background for example). The Nikon is similar but the colors I see are red and green lines… (***Note that the chromatic aberration appears when you move your eye from the optical center of the scope, and is more perceivable on high magnifications and contrast colors***)

That's where my ability to compare glass stops... I'm not a photographer, but I can see those differences in the glasses I use!

 

[scatterbrains]

I have both the Nikon will be replaced by end of year it's a nice scope but it's very dark above 12x. Between the 2 I'd choose the vortex

 

[Average guy]

Thanks everyone! Basically I was set on trying to get another nxs but budget is a little tighter right now so figured I could test out the newer pst gen II 5-25x50. Once budget allows I’ll just throw the pst on my varmint rig which will need a scope update soon ish and pick up the nxs just cause I’m use to the nxs.

But a good buddy of mine reps for Nikon and wants me to try one for a much much cheaper price. Just wasn’t sure if they were worth the try or not. I figured if I didn’t like that one I could put together a little 22lr practice rig with the Nikon.

I really like the FX1000 6/24. The glass is very good for the price point. Great scope for the average guy

 

[JBattles]

I was going back-and-forth between these exact two scopes and ended up with a Vortex. I think you will have better resale value if you choose to get rid of it and your warranty will be better as well. More people seem to want to Vortex than the Nikon in this class. For the price, I don’t think you could go wrong with either.

 

[Georgedubya]

Hard to say honestly I’ve had 2 PST scopes both took dumps spend a little extra and get an SHV nightforce or Athlon ETR

Strongly agree on SHV. I had the exact same experience with PST.

 

[jroberts1968]

The best bange for your buck in this range is a Used SHV 4-14x50 F1 used. I bought one off of LRH for 750.00 and another for 800.00.

I have had nothing but failures with Vortex.... My last one was a PST II 1-6 with dead Illumination out of the box.... I have owned several PST-1's and they all went back multiple times. I will trade glass for reliability any day of the week. I was looking at trying a Black 4-16 but I think I'll just wait and buy another SHV .

 

[Georgedubya]

I have to agree with this. I have had a Vortex PST 2, two AMGs, and a PST 1. All but the PST 1 needed servicing and I ended up selling them. I also have two SHVs and they’re awesome. I love the glass. They’re very durable too. I’m a big NF fanboy.

 

[Liftman101]

This is a tricky game trying to make the best choice. I have 3 high end scopes, A Razor Gen II, a Athlon Cronus BTR, And a Nightforce Atacr 7-35. All are far better than the sub $1000 scopes. No comparison.

I had a Vortex Viper HST 6-24. I wanted to upgrade my long range AR rifles rifles to FFP. I bought the Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27 at Midway for $425 plus $29 for the sunshade. I have not bought covers yet. I bought the Nikon Black FX 1000 6-24 at Cabelas for $539 at Cabelas. Not much price difference when you factor in sunshade and covers.

The Ares and the FX-1000 are clearer and brighter than the Vortex. Both resolve detail at 200-300 yards better than my Vortex. I suspect A PST 2 would be very similar if not better.

I am no expert. I like the Ares reticle better. The extra range of the Ares on both sides is nice but I mostly shoot paper and steel at 200-400 yards. I am trying to set this rifle up for a Prairie Dog hunt. I struggle to compare the glass. Both have some deterioration in their image at higher magnification. Right now I am leaning toward the Nikon because the eye relief seems more tolerant especially at higher magnification. I do not have to shift around to get the image right. The Nikon also is far less picky about the parallax setting. I constantly had to refocus the Athlon as I moved around to different range targets.

I only have 1 range day so far but the Nikon seems to win the ease of use category.

 

[Hunt]

I just purchased the FX1000 4-16x50 FFP Illum. I've always had good luck with Nikon scopes and for the $$, I figured it couldn't hurt. It'll be replacing a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40 M1 which has never tracked consistently. We'll see how this new Nikon performs.

 

[North Island]

I have owned both the scopes mentioned by the OP. The Vortex PST 5x25 gen 2 had the elevation turret come right off the scope while I was shooting. Sent it back and had it fixed at no charge. The problem was I had completely lost faith in the product. My time out shooting is very valuable to me and wondering about the reliability of my equipment is unacceptable. It had to be sold, cheap and fast. No problem there. I let the Buyer know the history

I still own the Nikon ... it's on a 6.5 AR 10. The reticle is kinda basic but the colour transmission is excellent! I can recommend Nikon .

 

[XLR308]

A friend of mine just got one of the Fx1000 Illuminated ffp 6-24x50 yesterday.
He is going to mount it on an unbraked sporter weight 300RUM so anyone wanting to know the durability of these I will update when he has had a chance to put some rounds down range.
If that rifle doesn't rattle anything loose or break something on it I will be impressed.