Rifle Scopes Talk me out of a used Nightforce NXS

[adb77]

Ok, I've got the parts all purchased for my rifle, it will be a 300wm bolt gun used for ringing steel, and western backpack hunting. I have spent hours reading online, and overthinking every possible scenario I can dream up. Talking into account price, reliability, weight, image quality, etc. What would be better than a NXS 5.5x22 for this gun?

 

[deersniper]

NF is awesome. Try and get one with zero stop

 

[Glassaholic]

What is your price point? Do you only want SFP or would you consider FFP? Nightforce makes great scopes, but their poor FOV at the bottom end has always steered me away... Oh, and by the way, you're not the only one who overthinks every possible scenario, welcome to the club

 

[adb77]

What is your price point? Do you only want SFP or would you consider FFP? Nightforce makes great scopes, but their poor FOV at the bottom end has always steered me away... Oh, and by the way, you're not the only one who overthinks every possible scenario, welcome to the club

I definitely want SFP I don't like how thin and hard to see the reticle is at low power in a ffp scope. Especially for lowlight hunting situations. The poor FOV is something I will hafta look into.

 

[rd_kng]

NF NXS is a good scope. Agree with the comment about zero stop and review the reticles to make sure you get what you are comfortable with.

 

[adb77]

Hopefully can find a MILR with zero stop when I get ready to buy.

 

[Hairy Biker]

What poor FoV? Long time owner of multiple scopes/types and have no idea what you are talking about.

Where the NXS is now lacking against the modern competition is its ability to transition from day to night, and the lens will flare and complain if the sun is in the wrong place. They are also heavy when compared with some other current brands.

Comes down to your $$ cost.

 

[Glassaholic]

What poor FoV?

Manufacturer:	Nightforce	Nightforce	Minox	Vortex	Schmidt & Bender	Kahles	Vortex Razor HD
Model:	ATACR F1	NXS	ZP5 (Optronika)	Razor HD AMG	PM II Ultra Short	K624i	Gen II
Zoom range and objective dia.:	5-25x56	5.5-22x50	5-25x56	6-24x50	5-20x50	6-24x56	4.5-27x56
Tube diameter:	34mm	30mm	34mm	30mm	34mm	34mm	34mm
Field of View (100yds):	18.7' @ 5x	17.5' @ 5.5x	22.8' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	23.4' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	25.3' @ 4.5x

Not sure if you were being facetious or not but the Nightforce scopes, by and large, have worse FOV values at the low end of the magnification range than many other scopes within that magnification range. For example the ATACR F1 5-25 gets only 18.7' of view at 5x while the Vortex AMG gets a greater 20.4' FOV at 6x, that's almost 2 more feet at 6x than the Nightforce exhibits at 5x, and the difference is worse when you compare the same 5-25 magnification range to the Minox ZP5 or Tangent Theta which both get almost 23' FOV at 5x showing over 4' greater FOV than the Nightforce. For me personally, I prefer to have greater FOV over magnification because I like to be able to see more and not have to hunt around as much looking for the target. I'm not a competitive shooter but I'd have to imagine that would be really important in a competition as well, this is why I say that Nightforce has poor FOV.

 

[adb77]

Thanks for the info on the FOV of the NXS wjm308. This is he kind of info I was looking for.

 

[Hairy Biker]

That is hardly a "bad" FoV from a practical stand point. Those figures may mean something to keyboard experts but when you are shooting an NXS you are rarely on 5.5 power. It is like saying the scopes used on WWI sniper rifles had such a poor FoV they never hit anything.

 

[USMC 308]

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...-5-10x32-25-moa-mil-dot-zero-stop-illuminated

I don't shoot that caliber but from what I've read, they are good only out to about 300 yards or so.....so the 2.5-10x32 would be a good fit.

 

[SPDSNYPR]

If you buy a used NF, I will personally hunt you down, murder your cat, and make you eat Brussel sprouts for a month while listening to Nickelback music.

There - that's the best I can to do talk you out of it.

 

[digrazir]

The Nightforce NSX line are decent scopes...second focal plane..just not great scopes..Ray

 

[sierracharlie338]

I bought a used NXS F1 and don't regret it for a second. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a second focal plane version either.





Sierracharlie338....

 

[G101489]

LOL damn, makes you wonder how Chris Kyle killed all those people over seas with that shitty 8-32 NSX. OP, nightforce NSX are great scopes for the money. Shop around and you can get a brand new one for $1750. Also, don't get caught up in the "you need FFP" stuff.

 

[ykrvak]

Another +1 on the zero stop and pick through the reticles to get one that suits your needs. I bought my first NXS about ten years ago and currently have 3. Its amazing how even with the dismal fov I've somehow managed to keep filling my freezers with them year after year. I don't know exactly what type of hunting you're doing, but I personally prefer a little less mag on the low end incase things get brushy and up close. I also have the fuzzy pawed brown and black toothy critters around here so that also makes the 2.5 and 3.5 lower ends more appealing to me. They are a great optic for the money used ones are selling for. Certainly not the newest and fanciest, but they are tough and reliable, which is about 98% of what really matters.

 

[etale]

Manufacturer:	Nightforce	Nightforce	Minox	Vortex	Schmidt & Bender	Kahles	Vortex Razor HD
Model:	ATACR F1	NXS	ZP5 (Optonika)	Razor HD AMG	PM II Ultra Short	K624i	Gen II
Zoom range and objective dia.:	5-25x56	5.5-22x50	5-25x56	6-24x50	5-20x50	6-24x56	4.5-27x56
Tube diameter:	34mm	30mm	34mm	30mm	34mm	34mm	34mm
Field of View (100yds):	18.7' @ 5x	17.5' @ 5.5x	24.9' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	25.6' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	25.3' @ 4.5x

I am curious where you are getting this data on the Minox. Their website lists FOV @ 5 power as 7.6 m at 100m, or 22.8 ft at 100 yds, but you give the value of 24.9 ft at 100 yds. Did you measure the FOV on a sample ZP5 yourself, or do you have another source of data, or...? FWIW, a Minox engineer from Germany told me that their published weight of 970g is incorrect (based on early CAD designs), and the actual production weight is 995g (=35 oz), so their tech specs online do have errors. Just wondering if their published FOV is an error as well...


EDIT: I think I see what you did... you likely just converted the 7.6 m spec from Minox to feet, giving approximately 24.9 ft. But the spec is at 100 meters = 109.36 yards,
and NOT at 100 yds as quoted. Similarly, the Schmidt FOV is 7.8 m at 100 m, which is (extremely close to) 23.4 ft at 100 yds, rather than the (amazing) 25.6 ft at 100 yds.

 

[hamstur]

It's clearly a missed calculation, as 7.6m = 24.9 feet ... but to your point, need to divide next by 1.093 yards/meter = 22.8 ft @ 100yd

 

[The King]

Eh - just get the Razor Gen2 unless you NEED it to be lightweight.

 

[Leland22]

I don't shoot that caliber but from what I've read, they are good only out to about 300 yards or so.....so the 2.5-10x32 would be a good fit.

300 WM only good for 300 yards? Not sure if you are joking,or mistaken of what the OP said,and thinking of 300 BO

 

[athanasios23]

Is the gun built to be lightweight? The NXS 5.5-22 is a decent sized scope. I purchased a NXS 2.5-10x42 for a hunting rifle. Haven't mounted it yet but I was super impressed with how compact it is. I have owned a few NF scopes so I know they are great quality, so I bought it without fondling one before hand. When I think NF I think of long, heavy duty optics. I think the NXS compact is going to be perfect mix of ruggedness meets compactness for me. I mention this as your post stated western hunting. Figured you want a lighter rifle if your hiking around all day.

 

[southerngolfer]

I'm on my 3rd NF. Before my first NF NXS, i had a leupold vx-3 as my long range optic. i decided to sell it, and save some money for the nxs, and have never looked back. after buying that, i went and purchased my first FFP optic, NF atacr for ringing steel at PRS style matches. i wanted to try the SHV line by NF for my ar and it's been a great optic. to be honest, the shv and nxs have the same clarity in glass, i personally couldn't see a difference. if you didn't care about the zerostop or illumination, i would personally look at the SHV

 

[USMC 308]

Thought I read 300 BO, not WM. Disregard.

 

[White Mamba]

I would go 3-15, cant tell you how many times ive come around corners and run into bucks , pigs and bears.

 

[Glassaholic]

I am curious where you are getting this data on the Minox. Their website lists FOV @ 5 power as 7.6 m at 100m, or 22.8 ft at 100 yds, but you give the value of 24.9 ft at 100 yds. Did you measure the FOV on a sample ZP5 yourself, or do you have another source of data, or...? FWIW, a Minox engineer from Germany told me that their published weight of 970g is incorrect (based on early CAD designs), and the actual production weight is 995g (=35 oz), so their tech specs online do have errors. Just wondering if their published FOV is an error as well...


EDIT: I think I see what you did... you likely just converted the 7.6 m spec from Minox to feet, giving approximately 24.9 ft. But the spec is at 100 meters = 109.36 yards,
and NOT at 100 yds as quoted. Similarly, the Schmidt FOV is 7.8 m at 100 m, which is (extremely close to) 23.4 ft at 100 yds, rather than the (amazing) 25.6 ft at 100 yds.

Excellent catch etale, I am embarrassed to say that you are correct, I had to go back and re-verify all my numbers in my spreadsheet and feel bad for presenting misleading information, I am usually very cautious about making sure the information I provide is accurate. I have since updated my chart.

Manufacturer:	Nightforce	Nightforce	Minox	Vortex	Schmidt & Bender	Kahles	Vortex Razor HD
Model:	ATACR F1	NXS	ZP5 (Optonika)	Razor HD AMG	PM II Ultra Short	K624i	PM II
Zoom range and objective dia.:	5-25x56	5.5-22x50	5-25x56	6-24x50	5-20x50	6-24x56	4.5-27x56
Tube diameter:	34mm	30mm	34mm	30mm	34mm	34mm	34mm
Field of View (100yds):	18.7' @ 5x	17.5' @ 5.5x	22.8' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	23.4' @ 5x	20.4' @ 6x	25.3' @ 4.5x

In regard to the weight of the Minox ZP5 I can verify the accuracy as I put them on my scale before I put rings on them. The one scope that always seems to be listed underweight is the Bushnell DMR series, they list around 34oz but my scale shows it to be over 35oz. Granted, my scale could be off but it has matched up with the specs from almost every other scope I have weighed.

In regard to the accuracy of any given manufacturers FOV values we are mostly at their mercy, I suppose we could setup some type of measurement device similar to what Killswitch has done with the Humbler where we can verify the values, but I am assuming the manufacture's themselves have the capability to accurately measure and provide that data (as long as they are being honest). The only time I found FOV spec's to appear to be way off was years ago when I had an IOR/Valdada scope, the FOV listed for that scope appeared to be extremely generous for what I could actually see when looking through.

 

[Glassaholic]

That is hardly a "bad" FoV from a practical stand point. Those figures may mean something to keyboard experts but when you are shooting an NXS you are rarely on 5.5 power. It is like saying the scopes used on WWI sniper rifles had such a poor FoV they never hit anything.

Can you point out where I ever said anything remotely close to "It is like saying the scopes used on WWI sniper rifles had such a poor FoV they never hit anything."? I don't think that's fair Hairy, my point was simply that Nightforce optics general have worse FOV numbers than other scopes in the same class of magnification and that with greater FOV you can see more which is an advantage. If you don't think having more FOV is an advantage then we can agree to disagree but I never implied that the Nightforce was not a good scope or was not capable of hitting anything.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I think your running and apples and goats comparison in throwing up those kind of figures. They do not actually mean much in the real world; if you are looking for something the FoV is never static. Even on a square range I am looking around the target for condition shifts and other shooter's fall of shot. Also, the NXS is was developed during a period period of history that is now past, much like WWI scopes. The FoV commentary is a sweet comment for armchair generals but the adaptability of (most) humans makes it a moot point.

 

[darth_ritis]

ATACR (not F1) should be better than NXS in a few areas, not sure if the price difference negates the benefits for you.

 

[nhunt46051]

I have to get my post count up, so I can't post in classifieds yet, they haven't transferred posts over from prev. site either but I have a NXS 3-15 w/ Zero Stop I'm getting ready to sell. mil/mil illuminated in excellent condition with box. PM if your interested. $1400 shipped

 

[cageli]

Let me be the honest one with you: You are wasting your precious time in a NXS thread. This is year 2017 not 2007. There are folks still love NXS and SFP, give them some years and when they come around asking about ATACR F1 vs Razor II vs ZP5 vs Kahles, you will be heard.

Right now, I absolutely think spending $1750 on a NXS is a total waste of money and I will not change my mind no matter what others say.

To OP: I will buy this scope for your scenario: http://bushnell.com/tactical/riflescopes/elite-tactical/lrts-i-3–12x-44mm

And yes, I just wasted bunch of my time too. Now I'm off.

 

[Glassaholic]

I think your running and apples and goats comparison in throwing up those kind of figures. They do not actually mean much in the real world; if you are looking for something the FoV is never static. Even on a square range I am looking around the target for condition shifts and other shooter's fall of shot. Also, the NXS is was developed during a period period of history that is now past, much like WWI scopes. The FoV commentary is a sweet comment for armchair generals but the adaptability of (most) humans makes it a moot point.

I see, so you're saying that FOV has no effect on a scopes performance and doesn't matter whatsoever for someone who actually uses one, I am fine with you holding that position but there is no need to accuse me or anyone else of being an "amrchair general" or "keyboard expert". Most from the Hide do not resort to such childish tactics as name calling but if you feel that's what you have to do in order to support your position then that says a lot. There are times where I am wrong and I am open to admit that, but I still do not agree with your premise that FOV is meaningless, and I don't mind discussing that with you but do not care to continue down this path where you label me as this or that without knowing anything about who I am or my experience. Again, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Hairy Biker]

Instead of belabouring FoV, try to focus (pun intended) on the three issues that would make stop making the purchase a sensible proposition. A. price - what is a sensible price for a second hand NXS these days? B. Weight - they are heavy for size. C. Usability - the ocular turning with the zoom function is annoying, esp if you are using covers. D. Lens light transmission. I was very disappointed to get so much flair in a scope I used to love.

FoV is, as I said, a moot point. Opposable thumbs and binocular vision serve to fill in for those engineering gaps.

 

[etale]

Excellent catch etale, I am embarrassed to say that you are correct, I had to go back and re-verify all my numbers in my spreadsheet and feel bad for presenting misleading information, I am usually very cautious about making sure the information I provide is accurate. I have since updated my chart.

Ah, no worries, it was just a small detail that I noticed. If you knew half of the foolish things I've done, you'd be embarrassed *for me*! Thanks for providing all this info in one place, I know I appreciate it, and have enjoyed reading your thorough and often enlightening reviews on this site.

 

[adb77]

Cageli that Bushnell really looks good for hunting, I don't know if the scope would be do everything I want for shooting steel.

 

[adb77]

My only experience with quality optics is my Vortex razor hd gen1 I run on my 308. I love the optic but it is huge and heavy, I would love a vortex amg but it's outta my price range. Don't know if there is a "perfect" optic for all the things I want.

 

[kukworld]

I have nsx 2.5-10 on my SPR. It has awesome build quality and glass, but I don't like the push button illumation. Otherwise than that, it hard to beat NF.

 

[Glassaholic]

Instead of belabouring FoV, try to focus (pun intended) on the three issues that would make stop making the purchase a sensible proposition. A. price - what is a sensible price for a second hand NXS these days? B. Weight - they are heavy for size. C. Usability - the ocular turning with the zoom function is annoying, esp if you are using covers. D. Lens light transmission. I was very disappointed to get so much flair in a scope I used to love.

FoV is, as I said, a moot point. Opposable thumbs and binocular vision serve to fill in for those engineering gaps.

To that I can wholeheartedly agree. Is FOV the end all be all of decision making on a scope, certainly not, the other areas you mention above are definitely factors and may be greater factors than FOV when deciding on an optic. The OP originally asked for shooters to talk him out of an NXS and all I intended was to point out that Nightforces' designs typically have worse FOV than other competitors on the market, I did not intend my comments to infer that should be the decided factor by any means or that Nightforce was somehow lesser of a scope because of it. Having used many scopes over the years I have noticed that my eyes tend to prefer certain traits, it might be the multicoating, the reticle, the ergonomics and so forth but I do tend to prefer the scopes that have greater field of view and a more comfortable/forgiving eye box, I just find them easier to get behind which makes the optic more usable for me, but that doesn't mean that another optic with different characteristics couldn't get the job done, as you mentioned before, optics have been getting the job done long before we had reliable turrets that matched with mil hash reticles, better parallax control, better optical formulas and so forth.

 

[Threadcutter308]

Hey Bill, thanks for all the work you put into gathering and presenting all the data, appreciated !

 

[samnev]

Let me be the honest one with you: You are wasting your precious time in a NXS thread. This is year 2017 not 2007. There are folks still love NXS and SFP, give them some years and when they come around asking about ATACR F1 vs Razor II vs ZP5 vs Kahles, you will be heard.

Right now, I absolutely think spending $1750 on a NXS is a total waste of money and I will not change my mind no matter what others say.

To OP: I will buy this scope for your scenario: http://bushnell.com/tactical/riflesc...%80%9312x-44mm

And yes, I just wasted bunch of my time too. Now I'm off.

I have 7 Nightforce scopes 1 ATACR 5-25X56, 2 NXS 5.5-22X50, 1 NXS 3-15X50, 2 NXS 8-32X56 AND 1 NXS 1-4X24. In addition 7 Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-.5-21X50 scopes. 4 DMR's and 3 ERS's. As well as 2 Vortex Viper's.and 1 Burris XRT II 4-16X50. But my Nightforce 5.5-22X50 scopes are still my favorites. I think the OP would be well served by that scope.

 

[dmike]

Let me be the honest one with you: You are wasting your precious time in a NXS thread. This is year 2017 not 2007. There are folks still love NXS and SFP, give them some years and when they come around asking about ATACR F1 vs Razor II vs ZP5 vs Kahles, you will be heard.

Right now, I absolutely think spending $1750 on a NXS is a total waste of money and I will not change my mind no matter what others say.

To OP: I will buy this scope for your scenario: http://bushnell.com/tactical/riflesc...%80%9312x-44mm

And yes, I just wasted bunch of my time too. Now I'm off.

Kind of have to agree with this. I've only owned one NF, 8-32 NXS. I like the Nightforce brand and I think they make good scopes. But functionally for dynamic shooting SFP is kind of dumb. Unless you're always at the calibrated power setting, you will chase your tail trying to dial adjustments off observed splash since a mil isn't actually a mil (or an moa isn't actually an moa). I do own a razor gen II and that thing is heavy as shit, not sure if you'd want it on a hunting rifle you're lugging around. Plus they're expensive.

One option that tacticool guys probably won't suggest is Zeiss' Conquest HD5. The rapid Z concept, although a bit of a market flop, is in my mind a brilliant adaptation that turns the weakness of SFP scopes into a strength. If you got a RZ1000, you could probably ring steel all the way out to 1000 yds provided you could hold for wind (you can dial but they aren't tactical turrets). 200yd zero is great point blank zero for hunting to 300 yards at any power. Great in dusk lighting conditions, Nightforce can't touch Zeiss glass. Lightweight, and way cheaper than the NXS. It's definitely not a combat scope like the Nightforce, but it doesn't sound like you need a combat scope.

Just giving a different option since you said to talk you out of it.

 

[Hairy Biker]

Just back from the hunting block and surprised this one still going. I took my March 2.5 - 25 x 52mm SFP out this time to contrast the deer shot I could not see with the NXS 22x. As I feared the March glass was all over the NXS in the same light conditions. Sadly this time the deer was not there. A fox was but that is another story!

 

[G101489]

I foresee in the future NF will make some of NSX line FFP, yet stay in that 2,000 price range leaving other companies left shitting their pants. Just my opinion though.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I'd personally stay away from the 5.5-22. I know a lot of people like them but most of those same people see the light really quick after using something else which is why you see a number of them for sale compared to other models. 22X is too much magnification the majority of the time because of mirage alone and being SFP you're kinda screwed. Yeah, yeah yeah... half power... blah, blah, blah... That's a mind fuck. For starters you have to do some calibration and figure out exactly where half power double value, then you have to set it exactly there every time, then you have to double the values... every time. Been there, done that, no thanks.

The 3.5-15 is a much better option for SFP since the top power where the reticle is true is a much more usable magnification to be "stuck" with. At 15X mirage typically isn't too much of a problem on even most bad days, and 15X is plenty of magnification for most shooting. Aside from that, anything that you would need to use the reticle for holds as far as hunting or casual LR shooting goes, you will be at enough distance anyway where being cranked to 15X and having a tight FOV and exit pupil won't be much a hinderance.

All that being said, I'd still go FFP. If you can find a used 3.5-15x50 F1 (I've got one in the classifieds right now) or a new 4-16 F1 the reticles aren't bad at all in FFP configuration. The 4X erector scopes like these two models don't have nearly the problem with the reticle disappearing at low magnification like the FFP scopes that are 5X, 6X, and 7X+ erectors. I've been using the 3.5-15 F1's for a long time with the MLR, MLR2, and MD2 reticles and I have no problem quickly picking up the reticle on 3.5x. That or a new 4-16 F1 would be my recommendation.

 

[adb77]

Redneckbmxr those are all good points, especially only having correct mil holds at 22x. With mirage seemingly to always be an issue at the worst times. Although the gun will be used on steel year round I am building the gun to hunt with. Spending money to travel plus the cost of tags, I want everything I can control to be the best for those situations. Ffp has huge advantages, has anyone had issues with lower mag not being able to see a ffp reticle at low light?

 

[johnhefley]

I feel like a bum in this rarified group. My NXS 5.5-22X50 is the nicest scope I own, and I love it! It's presently mounted on my Ruger Precision Rifle - all up weight without ammo =15.3 lbs.

I wouldn't use that scope on a hunting rifle in any case. Too bulky, and too heavy. And too much magnification. But for banging steel? Hells yeah!!!

The zero stop is a "must have" feature. And make sure the reticle suits you.

jh

 

[redneckbmxer24]

has anyone had issues with lower mag not being able to see a ffp reticle at low light?

Set the illumination super low so that it just barely illuminates the reticle in low light and it's no harder to pick up than during the day.

 

[EnXCess]

Ok, I've got the parts all purchased for my rifle, it will be a 300wm bolt gun used for ringing steel, and western backpack hunting. I have spent hours reading online, and overthinking every possible scenario I can dream up. Talking into account price, reliability, weight, image quality, etc. What would be better than a NXS 5.5x22 for this gun?

To me the weight of the NXS would be a bit much for backpack hunting, but there is certainly nothing wrong with the optic, and I'm with you on the SFP preference.

 

[NT93]

I am looking for a hunting scope also, Nightforce is an option. I have looked more into the shv than the nxs, This Thread just reinforces my thoughts. A good hunt out west May cost $5,000 all things included, if an extra few hundred dollars could mean the difference between sealing the deal or not , I would rather pay the difference.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

 

[CSTactical]

The Nightforce ATACR 4-16x50mm is also a great Second Focal Plane hunting option and we have them in stock here: http://bit.ly/2oZolrP

 

[atxhorn4425]

I've heard really good things about the Vortex Razor HD LH scopes. Razor quality glass but much lighter. Price is sub-$1000 too.