3 new Nightforce 1-8x announced

[Digital_Damage]

IMHO, if you only shoot from 0 to 300-400yds, a SFP scope is not needed. Past 400 yds a FFP scope comes into its own, but then so does a larger caliber rifle , IMHO

In testing from a performance stand point 200 and under it did not matter much if it was SFP, FFP or multi. 200-800 was significantly in favor of FFP or multi.

In all honesty this was not one of my favorite projects, long days and having to repeat the instructions to new group of people every day was a pain.

[sidewaysil80]

IMHO, if you only shoot from 0 to 300-400yds, a FFP scope is definitely not needed. Past 400 yds a FFP scope comes into its own, but then so does a larger caliber rifle , IMHO

This has been my experience as well.

[Biggy]

From the exit pupil spec the atacr 1-8x should have a huge eye box, which is a good thing as long as one doesn't get too sloppy with your eye alignment. If the reticle is sized correctly, and you have 20/20 vision, the reticle could be a good compromise at both 1x and 8x. The 21oz weight and the 96.1 ft FOV at 1x at 100 yds and 13.1 ft FOV at 8x at 100 yds, are what they are and will just have to be dealt with.

[RHINOWSO]

I really dislike the FFP aspect. Not to beat a dead horse but on an optic that (lets face it) is not a long range precision optic but rather a general purpose/gaming optic (ie picture of gamer on website), FFP is quite a hinderance. At 1x you give up a lot of usability and speed that a 1moa dot w/ larger segmented circle would offer. I'm a huge fan of their optics as my work rifle wears an ATACR, but I'm very apprehensive of the dot's usability at 1x. I need serious brightness with a 2moa dot and I'm really hoping this delivers just that. Not to mention the exit pupil is small...like REALLY small, 7.9mm @ 1x. My current game gun has an accupower 1-4 and I'm perfectly content with its magnification out to 600, but I would always like more. I'm just not sure if the optical quality or speed of the segmented is worth the trade off.

When has NightForce ever catered to the Gamer Crowd? Yes, they have some precision competition / benchrest models, but the ATACR / NSX are pretty much pointed at .mil / .gov / .le markets and I see these 1-8x models as no different.

[bp7178]

Was not metric we were asked to track, I'm guessing many had on the low side then switched. The FOV between targets was fairly wide, they were not just asked to engage a single target. There were multiple targets in each envelope and they were asked to engage them as quickly as possible.

For the point you're trying to make that's a pretty important stat. If the scope is on max power, what different would it make if it was SFP or FFP?

[Digital_Damage]

For the point you're trying to make that's a pretty important stat. If the scope is on max power, what different would it make if it was SFP or FFP?

It is somewhat inconsequential given the objective and requirements we were given. The large volume of data on performance was the quantifiable result. FFP and multi performed just as well as SFP at shorter ranges and significantly better at longer ranges, providing a better overall result strongly in favor of FFP and multi.

The stated goal was not "does SFP perform just as well as FFP while at max?", the state goal was "what focal plane performed better at the given envelopes and which performed better over all".

[sidewaysil80]

When has NightForce ever catered to the Gamer Crowd? Yes, they have some precision competition / benchrest models, but the ATACR / NSX are pretty much pointed at .mil / .gov / .le markets and I see these 1-8x models as no different.

I'm not saying Nightforce caters only to the gaming crowd. I insinuated that LPVO's in general are typically used as a gamer optic or general purpose close to midrange optic (which they are). I merely pointed out the picture of a 3-gunner using the NX8 on Nightforce's website and the fact they themselves declared the NX8 to be a close to midrange optic. Not to mention the 1-4 NXS model that was redesigned with the FC-3G (which stood for 3 gun) reticle and in its literature had pictures of competition shooters using it. Based on all of the above it seems they are trying to get into the 3-gun/competition market with their NXS/NX8 LPVO's and who can blame them, that market dominates the LVPO field.

The stated goal was not "does SFP perform just as well as FFP while at max?", the state goal was "what focal plane performed better at the given envelopes and which performed better over all".

If you sprinkled several targets at 25yds reticle size would likely not play a significant role and I don't think (just like your study showed) a difference would be recognized. However, I do think if you setup some drills/courses of fire at CQB distances or those similar to 2/3-Gun stages that the larger reticle (SFP)would have outshined the smaller reticle (FFP) at 1x. Maybe not for your experienced shooters but I think it would have shown with the inexperienced crowds. Also, I hope you know I'm in no way trying to start an e-pissing match or for 1 second think I know more than you. I have learned a lot from your posts and know you are very knowledgeable within this industry. Also, my entire SFP vs FFP is based on my assumption that the SFP in question has a larger reticle at 1x and its being used for CQB distances. Any other scenario and I don't think a benefit of SFP exists.

[sidewaysil80]

double.

[Digital_Damage]

I'm not saying Nightforce caters only to the gaming crowd. I insinuated that LPVO's in general are typically used as a gamer optic or general purpose close to midrange optic (which they are). I merely pointed out the picture of a 3-gunner using the NX8 on Nightforce's website and the fact they themselves declared the NX8 to be a close to midrange optic. Not to mention the 1-4 NXS model that was redesigned with the FC-3G (which stood for 3 gun) reticle and in its literature had pictures of competition shooters using it. Based on all of the above it seems they are trying to get into the 3-gun/competition market with their NXS/NX8 LPVO's and who can blame them, that market dominates the LVPO field.


If you sprinkled several targets at 25yds reticle size would likely not play a significant role and I don't think (just like your study showed) a difference would be recognized. However, I do think if you setup some drills/courses of fire at CQB distances or those similar to 2/3-Gun stages that the larger reticle (SFP)would have outshined the smaller reticle (FFP) at 1x. Maybe not for your experienced shooters but I think it would have shown with the inexperienced crowds. Also, I hope you know I'm in no way trying to start an e-pissing match or for 1 second think I know more than you. I have learned a lot from your posts and know you are very knowledgeable within this industry. Also, my entire SFP vs FFP is based on my assumption that the SFP in question has a larger reticle at 1x and its being used for CQB distances. Any other scenario and I don't think a benefit of SFP exists.

It is certainly possible that at less than 25 it might show a difference, I could not sit here in good conscience and debate with certainty the outcome of that situation since I have no data to analyze. I would theorize that it would be a push in a large sampling.

I can also say that in speaking with groups that often have to engage in situations of less than 25 that they will not be moving forward with SFP. Not sure if that is purely a pragmatic given their situation or if there is something else at play.

[gunnerblue]

There is a short review of the ATACR model in the current issue of Guns & Ammo. Pretty basic info but two things stuck out to me- the first being mention of reinforcement of the lenses within the tube to ensure that they don’t move when magnification is being adjusted (two pairs of followers for the lenses in the erector assembly). A scope’s internals interest me and seem to be overlooked by most reviewers. The second mention is the illumination. The author states that the ATACR is illuminated by focusing “all” of its LED light on the center of the reticle rather than using fiber optics or the more conventional reflection. To me it sounds very similar to the method used in the Leupold Mark 6 line (and possibly Mark 8?). If so, I wonder if the ATACR will suffer from the same “flickering” issue that seems to bother so many. Personally I’ve never been bothered by this as I find by the time the flicker occurs I am out of the scopes usable eye box anyway. The author didn’t mention shooting the scope, which was a shame as I’d like to hear more about reticle and eye box performance.