3 new Nightforce 1-8x announced

[Slateman]

Not if a battery is needed to make the reticle visible at 1x. Another downside is that at 20oz, it's heavier than I want

Reticle is etched.

[bleaman225]

Also Jack Leuba has these and has for awhile. He just posted a sick pick of his ACC with an atacr in one of the new KAC high 34mm mounts. Anyways, have these started showing up at dealers yet? NF said this week and next week the NX8s would be filtering in.

I saw that photo. Baller shit.

I just put down a preorder on the atacr 20 minutes ago. Hope they come quick, my newly acquired KAC APC is in need of optics.

[Digital_Damage]

Been a good 6 months since I have posted on here... could not take the not so subtle alt-right tone of the place. Needed to walk away for awhile.

Tried to give you guys the inside scoop on where the industry and .mil was going. Those prototypes are now hitting the public in general. However, it seems people still do not get it.

SFP is dead... the myth was broken a long time ago with a ridiculous amount of testing to the point of Ad nauseam, the same was done with the "too busy reticle people"... FFP and multiplane is the foreseeable future. It is time to adapt.

[sidewaysil80]

SFP is dead... the myth was broken a long time ago with a ridiculous amount of testing to the point of Ad nauseam

Can you post any material for reference? I'd like to read more about it. I particularly prefer SFP for low power variable just so the reticle stays nice and large, specifically things like the segmented circle in the Accupowers. Granted I'm talking about a game gun/low power variable for carbine matches. I fully understand and prefer the benefits of FFP on something that is used for ranging/holdovers at various magnification levels and more of a precision role. But for the lpv optic (at least for my uses) its either on 1x or its max. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean myth wise, it's just preference to larger reticles at 1x.

[JoshNC]

There is a whole lot of complaining about what appears to be a phenomenal optic and (IMO) the most exciting optic coming to market.

FFP is not an issue in a 1-x variable IF the reticle is designed in such a way that it is usable at 1x. Nightforce appears to have done a very good job with the reticles on these 1-8 options. I am very excited to put a 1-8 ATACR on my 308....hopefully one day soon.

[sidewaysil80]

I just neef to get behind an NX8 and see how usable the circle is at 1x.

[gunnerblue]

Can you post any material for reference? I'd like to read more about it. I particularly prefer SFP for low power variable just so the reticle stays nice and large, specifically things like the segmented circle in the Accupowers. Granted I'm talking about a game gun/low power variable for carbine matches. I fully understand and prefer the benefits of FFP on something that is used for ranging/holdovers at various magnification levels and more of a precision role. But for the lpv optic (at least for my uses) its either on 1x or its max. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean myth wise, it's just preference to larger reticles at 1x.

I enjoyed your thread about “which mounts would you like to see tested.” Could you elaborate on why SFP is dead? I see, from experience, the benefit of a readily visible non-illuminated reticle at 1x. I have both a USO SR4C and MK6 TMR-D and, while certainly usable at minimum magnification, are not so visible as my LPV SFP reticles (NF, Bushnell BTR-2 and various #4’s).

[Digital_Damage]

Can you post any material for reference? I'd like to read more about it. I particularly prefer SFP for low power variable just so the reticle stays nice and large, specifically things like the segmented circle in the Accupowers. Granted I'm talking about a game gun/low power variable for carbine matches. I fully understand and prefer the benefits of FFP on something that is used for ranging/holdovers at various magnification levels and more of a precision role. But for the lpv optic (at least for my uses) its either on 1x or its max. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean myth wise, it's just preference to larger reticles at 1x.

Hard copies are sensitive company information.

But...

There was an enormous amount of data collected from a large group of novices and experts engaging various automated targets of various unknown distances.

The data showed
reaction time and rounds on target at close range(25-75) to be more or less equal given the provided thresholds for FFP,SFP and Multi.
reaction time and rounds on target at Med range(75-200) to be more or less equal given the provided thresholds for FFP,SFP and Multi.
reaction time and rounds on target at moderate range(200-350) to be significantly in FFP/Multi favor.
reaction time and rounds on target at long range range(350-800) to be significantly in FFP/Multi favor.

200-800 range SFP showed equal reaction time, but significant uptick in misses.

The consensus was there is no detriment using either SFP,FFP or Multi 25-200, but FFP and multi provided a significant upgrade in capabilities 200-800

If people are only ever going 25-200 there really is no point in acquiring a $1000+ optic, so complaining about them not being SFP is pointless. This grade of optic is not for that demographic or that use case, pick up a $500-$600 and it will be more capable than the intended use.

[sidewaysil80]

Hard copies are sensitive company information.

But...

There was an enormous amount of data collected from a large group of novices and experts engaging various automated targets of various unknown distances.

The data showed
reaction time and rounds on target at close range(25-75) to be more or less equal given the provided thresholds for FFP,SFP and Multi.
reaction time and rounds on target at Med range(75-200) to be more or less equal given the provided thresholds for FFP,SFP and Multi.
reaction time and rounds on target at moderate range(200-350) to be significantly in FFP/Multi favor.
reaction time and rounds on target at long range range(350-800) to be significantly in FFP/Multi favor.

200-800 range SFP showed equal reaction time, but significant uptick in misses.

The consensus was there is no detriment using either SFP,FFP or Multi 25-200, but FFP and multi provided a significant upgrade in capabilities 200-800

If people are only ever going 25-200 there really is no point in acquiring a $1000+ optic, so complaining about them not being SFP is pointless. This grade of optic is not for that demographic or that use case, pick up a $500-$600 and it will be more capable than the intended use.

Thank you for sharing that data, although I think we are talking about two different uses. Your tests seem to focus on precision/unknown distance shooting, I'm referencing SFP vs FFP for uses like carbine matches and 2 and 3 gun where they are immensely popular, as evident by Nightforce marketing NX8 towards that crowd.

[Digital_Damage]

Thank you for sharing that data, although I think we are talking about two different uses. Your tests seem to focus on precision/unknown distance shooting, I'm referencing SFP vs FFP for uses like carbine matches and 2 and 3 gun where they are immensely popular, as evident by Nightforce marketing NX8 towards that crowd.

Same application would apply, testing involved 4 different ranges. 25-75, 75-200, 200-350,350-800. Scores were based the ability to engage the target (time) and the hit percentage (hits vs misses).

Cliff Notes:
It is really hard to miss at rapid pace regardless of FP at 25-200, but data points proved for longer engagements FFP was quicker and more accurate.
Going to shoot under 200? Does not really matter what you choose, spending 1000+ is unnecessary. Going to shoot under 200 and 200+ FFP is the way to go.