The issue for me is the TMR reticle, that thing was outdated in like 2010. The line thickness sounds good for the magnification but the reticle just blows. If it doesn’t have some form of a tree I really have no interest in it.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Which Crossover Scope would you choose?
- Thread starter Glassaholic
- Start date
The issue for me is the TMR reticle, that thing was outdated in like 2010. The line thickness sounds good for the magnification but the reticle just blows. If it doesn’t have some form of a tree I really have no interest in it.
T
Funnily enough if it'd have a reticle like you've described the guys on Rokslide would be pissed.
The new Maven R1.2 2.5-15 isn't far off your specs but doesn't have a reticle like that. A bit of info about ot over on Rokslide.
Funnily enough if it'd have a reticle like you've described the guys on Rokslide would be pissed.
It really suffers from the lack of numbered stadia, but it is nice to have a simple mil-hash reticle as an option. I like having a non-tree reticle that doesn't clutter things up on a more hunting focused scope. It is absolutely dated and I wish they tweaked it, but it's definitely a workable reticle and it's nice to have the thick stadia.
My ideal would be something like a 4-20x50 30mm tube (27 oz or less) exposed turrets. Full tree reticle. Good illumination.
I’m just learning to settle for things and accepting it because nobody is making what I want and I’m not going to hold my breath.
I ended up ordering one of those Leica Amplus close outs after some garage beers over the weekend and will probably pick up another for this same type of use if they’re as nice as the feedback indicates. It checks all the boxes except being FFP but in a 2.5-15 that’s not the end of the world. It’s got a decent 5 mil tree reticle (10 would be nice but ohh well), enough elevation, great FOV and exit pupil (and hopefully generous eye box by design), illuminated, under 30oz, and not made in a third world country or sweat shop. Hopefully it doesn’t suck.
I ended up ordering one of those Leica Amplus close outs after some garage beers over the weekend and will probably pick up another for this same type of use if they’re as nice as the feedback indicates. It checks all the boxes except being FFP but in a 2.5-15 that’s not the end of the world. It’s got a decent 5 mil tree reticle (10 would be nice but ohh well), enough elevation, great FOV and exit pupil (and hopefully generous eye box by design), illuminated, under 30oz, and not made in a third world country or sweat shop. Hopefully it doesn’t suck.
Apex optics has a really nice Hunter 3-15 that checks all your boxes. I've been contemplating one for a while, If it was a 4-20 and a 50mm obj I'd own one for sure. I have their Rival scope and it's awesome
That doesn’t look bad but I’m definitely not going to roll the dice with a company that’s been around like two whole years and I’ve never heard of. I hope it’s a hell of an optic and catches on but it’s too early for me.
That's fair, as a Canadian I am compelled to support them and hope they catch on also.
I've only heard positive things so far
I feel similar, but to be honest, the scopes we have today compared to 12+ years ago are incredible so "settling" today is much better than in years past.
I missed out on the Leica Magnus closeout a while back, so beers or not I think you made a good choice
I feel similar, but to be honest, the scopes we have today compared to 12+ years ago are incredible so "settling" today is much better than in years past.
I missed out on the Leica Magnus closeout a while back, so beers or not I think you made a good choice
Yeah that’s a good point, there’s a lot of good scopes but I sometimes wish the old OG NF F1 was still on the menu. Those things don’t even pop up used hardly anymore.
I think so too but if I had waited about 2hr longer I could have saved about $250 because some guy listed listed a used on on LRH for $800 shipped and Euro had already shipped it on a Saturday. That’s how it goes though.
Unfortunately it seems like new/smaller companies and going to be the best way forward for these niche products.
Vortex doesn't think a FFP version of the LHT will sell, hence the 4.5-22. Bushnell isn't intended in this market as they don't think its big enough to worry about.
Leupold looks like they are kinda trying to get into this market, and Nightforce appear to have intention of getting into it.
Maybe, but not if they’re putting .25mil thick center dots in the damn things. Most of the newer companies are pumping out Chinese junk too that cater to the masses. Like every year a few new ones pops up pushing the same crap with their name on it. Apex appears to be doing Japanese OEM at least but that’s non typical.
I’m still not going to roll the dice with a new company and product though. If I’m going to settle for something I’m going to settle for something from a well established company and buy a product that’s known that will at least have decent resale value.
I did see that one not to long ago, I want one to sit on top of an 18" criterion barreled AR-10, so it's a specific use case. Currently running a 4.5-22x50 vortex lht and it's been good, but would enjoy a bigger FOV, lower mag and a better reticle on lower power.
That .25 mil dot is massive, I missed that. but you know how hunters are with ffp reticle. “It’s to fine” so is guess they just trying to cater to the majority. I feel companies get lost in building optics. I’ve got an Athlon ares BTR 4.5-27 on my hunting rifle. My only complaint about it is the clicks are trash, so soft. The ETR and Cronus are so much better
I just checked this Toric out, Ilya. To my mildly understanding eye, the specs look quite good for the dollar. (It is only the last couple of weeks that I am catching on to Tract as a company. They seem to be existing somewhat quietly in the bustling scope business and chat.) The FOV is there with the NX8 2.5-20, and it weights only a wee bit more. And it focuses down to ten yards, a biggie for me. The 44mm objective may put some off, but not me. In my mind, I am comparing it to the Nightforce 2.5-20, and at only just over half the price. The Toric has a smaller mag range, of course. But this could be a benefit to IQ?? Have you done any writing or video on this scope?
Also, I own the Ares ETR 3-18, and while it is too heavy—and whatever else it may not be—for this crossover category, I wonder how you would rate it next to the Toric and NF 2.5. I am particularly interested in IQ. Thanks. F7
I spend a good bit of time behind crossover rifles, both Bolt and AR. What I have settled on is a couple of the old bushnell 3-12 lrhs
And nighforce 2.5-10x40, 4-16x42
I would be pretty happy with the 4-16 ATACR for everything if it could go on a bit of a diet.
One of my pet annoyances is heavy scopes mounted high on light rifles. For me at least i find the rifle becomes a pain to carry/transport, and just doesn’t handle nearly as well when shooting unsupported.
A 50 or 56 mm scope on a 20 Moa base is too tall imho.
And nighforce 2.5-10x40, 4-16x42
I would be pretty happy with the 4-16 ATACR for everything if it could go on a bit of a diet.
One of my pet annoyances is heavy scopes mounted high on light rifles. For me at least i find the rifle becomes a pain to carry/transport, and just doesn’t handle nearly as well when shooting unsupported.
A 50 or 56 mm scope on a 20 Moa base is too tall imho.
All my crossovers are around 3-15. 3 provides enough FOV but 4 does not. 15 is sometimes low for longer shots on small targets so 3-20 would be perfect as long as optical quality is high. So far of the scopes I have tried that have more than 5x mag don’t have the optical quality and eye box forgiveness so I’ve stayed with 3-15.
Good lineup... Toss in a Kahles K318i SKMR3 in that list. It's not that much heavier than the others.
The 4-20 could also go on a diet, 264win. I have looked at the 4-20 because of the parallax going down to 11 yards. I am not precisely sure why, but NF has the 4-20 and the 7-35 parallax at 11 yards, and the 4-16 and 5-25 at 45 yards. I am sure there is a reason, but I don’t know it. Otherwise, I would have the 4-16 in mind. I have heard someone say that the 4-16 is the best ATACR NF has made. Care to comment? Thanks. F7
I think a good way to summarize the 4-16x42 ATACR is that it out performs its specs. It is one of their best scopes, imo.
I appreciate you doing this. This chart is very helpful. I’m in the middle of a search for a 20” precision large frame gas gun optic that could pull double duty on hunting rifle. I know your criteria in the above chart is 30oz or less, but wondering if you’d have time to add the ZCO 420 to the list as a comparison benchmark as many consider this the best do all optic. I can’t get behind many of these optics so reading reviews and info like this is really helpful. Thanks again.
Last edited:
One thing with your chart:
Why is the Element’s FOV cell colored green (i.e. “good”) when it only has roughly 1.2” inches more FOV than the NF 4-32? (4.7ft = 56.4in, 4.6ft = 55.2in).
And worse, the Element’s FOV is calc at 25x while the NF4-32’s is calc at 32x? At 25x the NF 4-32’s FOV will likely be massively more than the Element’s.
I know the NF 4-32 does some trickery with their FOV vs some other scopes.
Because I'm not perfect and make mistakes man
It was a copy error, often when I put in a new column for a new scope I copy data from another column and forget to change values and highlighting. Take a look at the AFOV value right now and you'll see the big difference. Thanks for pointing this out, I will correct that.
With lots of help, I did eventually figure out an excel-based (ok, Numbers for Mac) solution to estimate FOV throughout a scope’s range. But there’s something sneaky going on with the NF4-32:
Rifle Scopes - Does scope FOV scale linearly throughout the mag range?
(Edit to subject line to be more precise) First, imagine a graph with feet on the y-axis and magnification on the x-axis. If one was to plot a scope’s field of view on this graph, would it be sufficient to take the low mag:feet@100 yds point and draw a straight line to the high mag:feet@100...
www.snipershide.com
I wish someone would make a google-type calc like their CM to inches version, only for FOV.
MISTAKES NOT ALLOWED NOT APPRECIATED lolBecause I'm not perfect and make mistakes man
Me too, I think it was Kiba who taught me algebra and I was able to plug in the calculations into Excel and come up with proper AFOV numbers. I only run my numbers at the top magnification as bottom can often be different and affected by various things least of which would be tunneling. NF ATACR tends to have pretty horrible bottom mag AFOV, but quickly picks up and increases as you increase mag.
NX8 is an interesting animal, they have some of the widest FOV's on the market but I think they are pretty valid unlike ZCO who's FOV numbers are not correct even though the image looks super wide.But there’s something sneaky going on with the NF4-32:
Rifle Scopes - Does scope FOV scale linearly throughout the mag range?
(Edit to subject line to be more precise) First, imagine a graph with feet on the y-axis and magnification on the x-axis. If one was to plot a scope’s field of view on this graph, would it be sufficient to take the low mag:feet@100 yds point and draw a straight line to the high mag:feet@100...
I'm always using my browsers conversion from metric to standard
I know, I know...
In all seriousness, there have been times where I have been a purveyor of misinformation which causes me shame, but I do my best to correct those things when I can and not make the same mistake again.
Veracity PH | Burris Optics
www.burrisoptics.com
For the past year I've been using the Vortex LHT line. The 3-15x42 SFP with HSR-5i and their 4.5-22x50 FFP and XLR-2.
I'd really like to blend the two optics into a 3-18x44 FFP. For the reticle, I'd like to keep elements of the HSR-5i, but make it FFP. To aid in low magnification usability I would add the thick black post to the bottom starting at about 5 MILs. Then make the entire mil hash portion of the reticle Illuminated. At low magnification it would look a lot like Nightforces IHR reticle. You could even hollow out the thick black bars like the IHR to "clean" up the reticle more.
Depending on scale the bold black lines could dissappear at 18x... something like this:
View attachment 8346579
View attachment 8346577
0.5 Mil, and 1.0 Mil hash marks keep it clean for hunting. Bringing in some features from the EBR-7C and including 0.2 Mil wind holds would certainly help the crossover role.
View attachment 8346993
View attachment 8346994
Locking Elevation, capped Windage, with a dial for Illumination built into the parallax.
Leupold nailed the size/form factor in the Mark 6 but missed the tracking and decent reticle:
View attachment 8346517
The 3-15 LHT is 19.1oz and the 4.5-22 LHT is 21.7oz, so shoot for 20oz on this one.
I'd really like to blend the two optics into a 3-18x44 FFP. For the reticle, I'd like to keep elements of the HSR-5i, but make it FFP. To aid in low magnification usability I would add the thick black post to the bottom starting at about 5 MILs. Then make the entire mil hash portion of the reticle Illuminated. At low magnification it would look a lot like Nightforces IHR reticle. You could even hollow out the thick black bars like the IHR to "clean" up the reticle more.
Depending on scale the bold black lines could dissappear at 18x... something like this:
View attachment 8346579
View attachment 8346577
0.5 Mil, and 1.0 Mil hash marks keep it clean for hunting. Bringing in some features from the EBR-7C and including 0.2 Mil wind holds would certainly help the crossover role.
View attachment 8346993
View attachment 8346994
Locking Elevation, capped Windage, with a dial for Illumination built into the parallax.
Leupold nailed the size/form factor in the Mark 6 but missed the tracking and decent reticle:
View attachment 8346517
The 3-15 LHT is 19.1oz and the 4.5-22 LHT is 21.7oz, so shoot for 20oz on this one.
Last edited:
That's a great design, until...
some retard who shot his 20in 308 at >1200 yards one day,
complains that he need 30 mils of hold-over and
±15 mils of windage...each side
(sorry couldn't resist)
some retard who shot his 20in 308 at >1200 yards one day,
complains that he need 30 mils of hold-over and
±15 mils of windage...each side
(sorry couldn't resist)
Your FOV estimations are off. On 18x, the FOV of most scopes is almost double of that. Generally, the reticle you are describing is conceptually similar to the LRH reticle in Tangent's TT315H https://armament.com/tt315-long-range-hunter/, except they took plex as a baseline rather than #4.
The original concept I suggested for the reticle that became Vortex' G4-BDC, was similar to use since I wanted mrad subtensions.
ILya
The original concept I suggested for the reticle that became Vortex' G4-BDC, was similar to use since I wanted mrad subtensions.
ILya
Nothing I threw on paper is to scale, it's just to illustrate an idea.
I'll leave the details to the professionals.
I'll leave the details to the professionals.
A few thoughts on this. It's only MOA/MOA so they lost my interest until they come out with MRAD/MRAD. The next issue is price, with electro optics you get what you pay for and with integrated HUD this scope is pretty cheap which means they had to compromise somewhere which I'm guessing is in the glass.Although designed for hunting, these new Burris Veracity optics may need to be in the crossover conversation. Will be looking for reviews.Veracity PH | Burris Optics
I like the concept in general just as I've always liked the idea of Revic. Steiner has their own integration with IFS but going from Burris Veracity PH to Steiner M7Xi IFS is like going from a Toyota to a Ferrari... sure would be nice if they had something in the middle. Maybe a new Burris XTR IV line will emerge and offer PĒK (Programmable Elevation Knob) in an MRAD/MRAD design to give Revic some competition at this mid-tier level.
Until then I am a bit hesitant to consider the Veracity PH in the crossover conversation.
I’ve been researching an optic for a JP large frame gas gun (that could also be moved to a hunting rifle if needed) and found @C_Does (best YouTube optic reviews IMHO) review of the NF ATACR 4-16. @ 33:38 he does a through the glass comparison of the ATACR and the ZCO 420 (he also compares the Leupold Mk 5HD 3.6-18 in the vid @ 30:36, which helped me rule it out). This was incredibly helpful and given these three optics are both in the cross over discussion I thought I post his video review here. Enjoy.
Wow, that was an impressive video and review. Is C_DOES on the Hide does anyone know? I liked his through the scope shots and have tried to do similar with my camera but the alignment never seems to be quite right.
Brilliant job on the reviews mate, it's rare that I find someone on YouTube as thorough as you and not blowing smoke out of... I thought the video tracking tests died when KillSwitchEngage stopped doing those years ago. Keep up the good work!
I LOVE My MST-100. I think that the modernized version should be developed. Its fast and intuitive, a pure sniper scope. It should include a 34mm tube, side parallax focus,
Elevation that goes to 12 or 1200 yds an elevation fine tune of 4 min up and 4 min down in 1/4 min increments, 10 min windage left and 10 min right, 50mm objective, and calibrated for arguably the 2 most popular calibers in the U.S.......308 win, and 6.5 Creemore.
Elevation that goes to 12 or 1200 yds an elevation fine tune of 4 min up and 4 min down in 1/4 min increments, 10 min windage left and 10 min right, 50mm objective, and calibrated for arguably the 2 most popular calibers in the U.S.......308 win, and 6.5 Creemore.
