View Full Version : Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 review
Absolutely digging this new Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 !
They did a fantastic job:
- Dig the new MilR reticle.
- Outstanding glass.
- Illuminated reticle works extremely well for ultra low light usage.
- Built in cattail for easy magnification changes.
- Power range is perfect for a precision hunting scope.
- Compact and light.
http://tacticalgunreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nightforce-2.5-10x42-on-Wilson-Combat-6.8.jpg
http://tacticalgunreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nightfore-2.5-10x42-on-Wilson-Combat-6.8-close-view.jpg
SFP.
Easily the most non-useful review ever. I can see pictures on Google.
ICANHITHIMMAN
01-06-14, 06:54
Man what have they got against ffp? I see a bushnell lrhs in my future.
Have you used an ffp reticle in this magnification range? At 2.5x the crosshair is so tiny that it's nearly useless. To counteract this the manufacturer can enlarge it, but then it isn't fine enough at 10x.
It comes down to personal preference, but I have actually used the vortex 2.5-10x32 and prefer my nightforce specifically because the reticle is sfp.
For range estimation below max magnification ffp is nice, but I rarely find myself doing that as it is. However, I do shoot quite often at 2.5x magnification, so I like an easy to see reticle.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ffp doesn't work for me on a 2.5-10 optic.
VooDoo6Actual
01-06-14, 09:13
Have you used an ffp reticle in this magnification range? At 2.5x the crosshair is so tiny that it's nearly useless. To counteract this the manufacturer can enlarge it, but then it isn't fine enough at 10x.
It comes down to personal preference, but I have actually used the vortex 2.5-10x32 and prefer my nightforce specifically because the reticle is sfp.
For range estimation below max magnification ffp is nice, but I rarely find myself doing that as it is. However, I do shoot quite often at 2.5x magnification, so I like an easy to see reticle.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ffp doesn't work for me on a 2.5-10 optic.
Bingo.
PatrioticDisorder
01-06-14, 09:35
Have you used an ffp reticle in this magnification range? At 2.5x the crosshair is so tiny that it's nearly useless. To counteract this the manufacturer can enlarge it, but then it isn't fine enough at 10x.
It comes down to personal preference, but I have actually used the vortex 2.5-10x32 and prefer my nightforce specifically because the reticle is sfp.
For range estimation below max magnification ffp is nice, but I rarely find myself doing that as it is. However, I do shoot quite often at 2.5x magnification, so I like an easy to see reticle.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ffp doesn't work for me on a 2.5-10 optic.
What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is it seems everyone seems to need/demand a FFP 1-6/1-8 that has a daylight bright dot/reticle, yet conventional wisdom is 2.5-10 in SFP is good to go.
On a long range/tactical type of scope I absolutely want FFP.
I do not like FFP for lower power ranges for the reasons mentioned above.
To me it is all about intended uses.
What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is it seems everyone seems to need/demand a FFP 1-6/1-8 that has a daylight bright dot/reticle, yet conventional wisdom is 2.5-10 in SFP is good to go.
That's because you're looking at completely different use cases, plus different illumination technologies. I see people demanding ffp and some manufacturers responding, but it's hard to quantify a need for it. In any case, a 1-6 or 1-8 with daylight bright illumination can be useful in ffp because the illumination makes it usable at low magnification where the reticle basically disappears.
I can't think of a good 2.5-10 off the top of my head that has daylight bright illumination, so when you run it at 2.5x the reticle is going to be too small in ffp, and there won't be illumination to make up for this problem.
Man what have they got against ffp? I see a bushnell lrhs in my future.
I, personally, think FFP is no good on anything less than 5 or 6 power. anything lower than this and you can't range with it and obviously reticle specific, but in my experience at the low end it's not useful as an aiming point. even illuminated, the FFP scopes I have seen are dim enough that they don't help much and certainly not daylight bright, as most around here think of them...
Have you used an ffp reticle in this magnification range? At 2.5x the crosshair is so tiny that it's nearly useless. To counteract this the manufacturer can enlarge it, but then it isn't fine enough at 10x.
It comes down to personal preference, but I have actually used the vortex 2.5-10x32 and prefer my nightforce specifically because the reticle is sfp.
For range estimation below max magnification ffp is nice, but I rarely find myself doing that as it is. However, I do shoot quite often at 2.5x magnification, so I like an easy to see reticle.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ffp doesn't work for me on a 2.5-10 optic.
sorry, didn't read this before posting...
That's because you're looking at completely different use cases, plus different illumination technologies. I see people demanding ffp and some manufacturers responding, but it's hard to quantify a need for it. In any case, a 1-6 or 1-8 with daylight bright illumination can be useful in ffp because the illumination makes it usable at low magnification where the reticle basically disappears.
I can't think of a good 2.5-10 off the top of my head that has daylight bright illumination, so when you run it at 2.5x the reticle is going to be too small in ffp, and there won't be illumination to make up for this problem.
seems it's unanimous...
:cool:
PatrioticDisorder
01-06-14, 14:33
I, personally, think FFP is no good on anything less than 5 or 6 power. anything lower than this and you can't range with it and obviously reticle specific, but in my experience at the low end it's not useful as an aiming point. even illuminated, the FFP scopes I have seen are dim enough that they don't help much and certainly not daylight bright, as most around here think of them...
I had a chance to look through the Leupy Mk6 1-6 today for the first time and I have to say I'm impressed. It was daylight aimpoint bright and the reticle seemed usable at 4x and up. I had read all the accounts saying the illumination is underwhelming but not from what I observed and there wasn't any of the illumination flicker that I'd seen on a review video of the Mk 8 CQBSS 1-8 H27D (and apparently the mk8 will be available soon with the CMR-W reticle). So it seems my thinking that FFP wasn't necessary for a 1-6 was made moot by the Mk6!
I can't stand any 1-x optic. They generally aren't very good scopes nor red dot solutions.
Someone a long time ago gave me the advice to get a 2.5-10x with an offset RDS. I would have save a lot of money had I listened way back then.
The CMR-W reticle isn't very good for precision shooting, IMO. If stuck with Leupold, I like their TMR reticle MUCH better. For 3-gun type stuff where having two optics would place you into another class I can see the advantage of a 1-6 with the CMR-W. There generally isn't much of a precision requirement either, just bang steel.
Have you used an ffp reticle in this magnification range? At 2.5x the crosshair is so tiny that it's nearly useless. To counteract this the manufacturer can enlarge it, but then it isn't fine enough at 10x.
It comes down to personal preference, but I have actually used the vortex 2.5-10x32 and prefer my nightforce specifically because the reticle is sfp.
For range estimation below max magnification ffp is nice, but I rarely find myself doing that as it is. However, I do shoot quite often at 2.5x magnification, so I like an easy to see reticle.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but ffp doesn't work for me on a 2.5-10 optic.
Exactly. I think most of the folks that think they need a FFP in a LPV, have never used one.
FFP is really retarded to use under 8x in most scopes.
Good to hear the positive feedback ccoker.
Looks like I will be buying this exact model for my incoming LMT MWS :)
I am pleasantly surprised by the glass quality.
I have a Kahles and a SB I compared this against as well as a Leica 3-12x50
ICANHITHIMMAN
01-08-14, 09:08
OH the million dollar question "have you used one", it begs the question "SIR ARE YOU AN IDIOT?, WELL ARE YOU?" Yes used and owned bla, bla, bla. Still want what I want, and cant afford some of the other options out there even with mil pricing.
Say what?
haha.... must be an encrypted message
OP, why the 42 and not the 32 model? I would think that the smaller 32mm tube on a 16" Reece type rifle would be preferred to that of the bigger 42mm tube?!?
OP, why the 42 and not the 32 model? I would think that the smaller 32mm tube on a 16" Reece type rifle would be preferred to that of the bigger 42mm tube?!?
the 42mm is still lo-pro in my opinion....and it weighs 20 ounces....that's pretty compact, especially for all of the awesomeness you're getting. Digital Illumination (red or green, comes with both) and Parallax Adjustment....it's clearly a winner IMHO. and the Mil-R equals Winning.
And forgot, as ccoker pointed out below, better lowlight performance.
Why 42?
Better low light performance
NF likes f**king with all those who hold the 2.5-10x24 holy.....didn't need green illumination....didn't need parallax adjustment....didn't need a huge bell, and larger overall profile size. The compact mil dot has always been winning :)
That said, I'd own this particular scope in a heartbeat.
NF likes f**king with all those who hold the 2.5-10x24 holy.....didn't need green illumination....didn't need parallax adjustment....didn't need a huge bell, and larger overall profile size. The compact mil dot has always been winning :)
That said, I'd own this particular scope in a heartbeat.
you really cannot say that this scope is not better in every way.
42mm is hardly big.
The new SHV line with 56mm is big.
42mm isn't big in regards to some of the larger optics out there but to me it's pushing it for a 16" carbine host.
Did they flat out stop making the 2.5-10x24 or is it indeed a military only product now? I would much rather have the smaller, more compact 24mm than the 32mm.
I really can say that the x42 isn't better in every way......the x24 delivers absolutely everything I could ever need from 5.56/.308 precision based AR cofigurations, all the while doing it in a world beating compact size, profile, and weight. The performance:size ratio is off the charts imho w/ the x24. This is just based on it vs. the significantly larger x32 model.
The x32 model already beats the x24 in every major optics performance category, just like the x42 will beat them both in those same categories. If it's not broke why fix it. Bring back the x24!
The x32 vs. x24 is a big size difference in my book, and the x42 just takes it another step bigger.
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00616-1.jpg (http://s888.photobucket.com/user/trident1982/media/DSC00616-1.jpg.html)
To each his own my friend :)
nice Rigs btw.
I had planned on putting the new 42mm on a KAC LPR, but decided to go ahead and get into an LMT MWS. I think it will be perfect for that platform.
I really wasn't trying to Dog the 24 or 32....both awesome scopes, and really the best in their class in my opinion.
Thanks, and I agree that there's no wrong answers here, just different opinions among friends:)
I'll reiterate the fact that I'd love to add a x42 to the collection, and my confidence in Nightforce is unmatched in the optic world. I just can't spend the money on a x42 when I know luckily at least for the moment, I can still find a like NIB or NIB x24 floating around. Why NF just can't continue the x24 line if only on a really small release bases, I have no clue and will forever chap my ass until the optic comes back on the market. Just way, way to much demand for it imho.
Any NXSc is the perfect match for a .308 MWS.....you'll have a real blast w/ that combo. Hopefully you have a lot of real estate for that rifle to chew up. That combo is good all the way past 1000yds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQtP8B03XuM
I should disclose I've never used a 24 before, only seen them new in a store. Now I see what your talking about it being uber compact and sized for a 16" or SPR setup.
Who made yer barrels for those MRP chassis btw? Details on those?
And yeah, I should have about 1K to stretch out its legs, but even when I used to shoot out to 1K with my long gone GAP 24" Bartlein .308, it was no easy feat haha!!! Wind is a beast! especially with MOA steel targets.
I'm actually curious to see how a 175gr SMK will do coming out of the 16" tube at roughly 2500-2540 FPS...
will watch yer video when I get home. thanks for that!
u think a 3.2-17 FFP USO would be outa place on the MWS? I've never even seen one in person.
Absolutely digging this new Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 !
They did a fantastic job:
- Dig the new MilR reticle.
- Outstanding glass.
- Illuminated reticle works extremely well for ultra low light usage.
- Built in cattail for easy magnification changes.
- Power range is perfect for a precision hunting scope.
- Compact and light.
http://tacticalgunreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nightforce-2.5-10x42-on-Wilson-Combat-6.8.jpg
http://tacticalgunreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nightfore-2.5-10x42-on-Wilson-Combat-6.8-close-view.jpg
Wow, that's nice.
HD1911.....pm sent brother.
I finally sold my x24 because I couldn't get used to the NP-R2 reticle... I had all the ballistics worked out for my load and it worked great but it was hard to tell the lines apart sometimes... I still miss that scope though!
VooDoo6Actual
01-09-14, 20:19
I really can say that the x42 isn't better in every way......the x24 delivers absolutely everything I could ever need from 5.56/.308 precision based AR cofigurations, all the while doing it in a world beating compact size, profile, and weight. The performance:size ratio is off the charts imho w/ the x24. This is just based on it vs. the significantly larger x32 model.
The x32 model already beats the x24 in every major optics performance category, just like the x42 will beat them both in those same categories. If it's not broke why fix it. Bring back the x24!
The x32 vs. x24 is a big size difference in my book, and the x42 just takes it another step bigger.
this X a Gigaparsec as it pure truth.
@ 9.9" & 17 ozs. there is no other peer for what it does. "Ne Plus Ultra".
When your pinging steel on a 16" @ 1038 yds. you are pushing the envelope of launching a missile out of any tube on that rounds' apogee. ;-/
But hey, people still want to argue Obama was born in America, go figure.
As you know Trident if someone in the industry pimps it, it must be true
Geez, I wonder why the MIL model (24mm) is still inventoried, oh well what do they know.
Guess I better get a MagPul BAD Lever for all my M4's as well....
Here is a video review of this scope. I don't care for scopes with overly tight eye boxes on the top end, no matter the price or who's name is on it. This scope is said to have a very generous eye box compared to some of the other NF NXS compact models, and probably all of the 1-8x or 1-10x scopes out there. IMHO, for the minimal weight and size gain you get with this scope, its more than made by its upgraded glass/coatings, better eye box, better low light performance and its other new features. As for its magnification range, 2.5-10x is perfect for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BNFORBRg8
I posted my full review on my site.
But in short, I agree with Frank
It has a generous eyebox and is easy to get behind, the parallax is not finicky either.
It have ran this on 3 rifles, my 6.8, 308 and 280 Ackley bolt guns.
It may very well replace my beloved S&B 1.5-6x42 Flashdot 9 on the 6.8
The glass isn't quite as nice as the SB or a Swarovski, etc.. But it isn't that far behind either.
Overall it is just a damned nice package all things considered.
Another picture for size comparison purposes... Here is the NF 2.5-10x42 on my Centurion MK12 with 18" barrel. It is actually a fraction shorter and only 1.5oz heavier than the x32. Seems to me they should bring back the x24, keep the x42 and drop the x32.
22650
VooDoo6Actual
01-10-14, 20:27
BTW, Lets be crystal clear & break it down when we say "Generous Eye Box".
NF's Eye Relief specs say: 24mm = 3.5" or 88.89 mm vs. 32mm / 42mm = 3.7" or 93.98mm or a difference of 5.09mm which is basically 13/64" fractional or .203125.
If those NF are true & accurate numbers, 5mm differentiating a "Generous Eye Box" ?
For reals people ? OK....
BTW, Lets be crystal clear & break it down when we say "Generous Eye Box".
NF's Eye Relief specs say: 24mm = 3.5" or 88.89 mm vs. 32mm / 42mm = 3.7" or 93.98mm or a difference of 5.09mm which is basically 13/64" fractional or .203125.
If those NF are true & accurate numbers, 5mm differentiating a "Generous Eye Box" ?
For reals people ? OK....
I don't think eye relief is exactly what people mean when they say generous eye box. I am under the impression that they mean the x42 is more forgiving in the ability to get your eye properly positioned to see through the scope. The x24 can be finicky for some people.
VooDoo6Actual
01-10-14, 21:23
I don't think eye relief is exactly what people mean when they say generous eye box. I am under the impression that they mean the x42 is more forgiving in the ability to get your eye properly positioned to see through the scope. The x24 can be finicky for some people.
Never had an issue w/ it OCONUS or did others on our QRF TEAM who had them. Funny how now it's a problem. It's not.
Beware of marketing hype.
Are there any quality flip caps that fit this bad boy?
The rubber ones that came with the scope are sort of crap. They flop around and don't stay open.
Are there any quality flip caps that fit this bad boy?
The rubber ones that came with the scope are sort of crap. They flop around and don't stay open.
I would contact these folks, if they do not have any for it yet, I am betting it will not be long before they do. http://www.aadmount.com/Caps/Caps.html
http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/214140-aadmount-flip-up-caps-scope-request-measurement-thread.html
IMHO, nothing is so good it cannot be made better or improved upon. Look at the evolution there has been in free float rails, ARMS,LARUE, DD, CA, Geiselle, BCM. The same goes for optics, ammo and about everything else. You either improve upon and change your product line, or die on the vine so to speak.
I mean the scope is not finicky with regards to eye position. Not how far away your eye van be from the scope, i.e.," eye relief"
I am not comparing this against the 24mm version not saying it is improved in that regard.
Been too long since I have tried one and I would really need to do a direct A/B comparison to be fair.
This is just my understanding of the optical properties, so feel free to step in and correct me. With that said, I think most people are referring to a combination of the forgiveness in eye relief and also the exit pupil when they talk about a "generous eye box."
The eye relief specification given by a scope manufacturer is just the distance from the rear element to your eye where the image is visible. What they don't specify is how much leeway you have for your eye position either closer or further from this point. A scope with a more forgiving eye relief might allow you to place your eye at least an inch closer or further from the specified eye relief and still see the image without trouble.
The exit pupil determines the amount and diameter of the cone of light leaving the scope. Your eye dilates depending on ambient light, and if the exit pupil is smaller than your eye's pupil it results in a much darker and narrow feeling view through the scope. One can also loosely think of the exit pupil as the side-to-side or up/down allowance for your eye behind the scope before the image is no longer in view. A smaller exit pupil means your eye must be more perfectly aligned in order for the cone of light to be seen.
The size of the exit pupil is generally a function of the objective lens divided by the magnification. You can also measure the actual exit pupil by shining a flashlight through the front of the optic and measuring the size of the light disc that comes out the other end (place a flat object behind the scope at the appropriate eye relief measurement, etc). Depending on the optical design of the scope, the actual exit pupil will probably be at least a little different than the calculated one.
Based only on the objective lenses you'd end up with the following exit pupils on the three NF 2.5-10 scopes:
2.5x magnification, 24mm objective = 9.6mm
10x magnification, 24mm objective = 2.4mm
2.5x, 32mm = 12.8mm
10x, 32mm = 3.2mm
2.5x, 42mm = 16.8mm
10x, 42mm = 4.2mm
Thus, when it's dark outside and your eye's pupil opens up to ~7mm, all of the scopes are going to give you a darker image at 10x and feel like the eye box is very tight. However, the 42mm *should* be slightly brighter, simply because more light is passing through due to the exit pupil being larger. In bright light your eye's pupil may close down to 2mm, in which case all the scopes will have plenty of light transmission to be used at 10x without any problem, but you'll be able to move your head a teeny bit more side to side or up and down and still see the image with the 42, since the exit pupil is twice as large at the 24.
Obviously this is all subjective to your personal eye sight. I only have trigger time behind the 32mm, but I can say that the side to side "eye box" feels pretty tight at 10x, even in bright day light. The eye relief is very forgiving though, as I can move forward and back without any trouble.
I mean the scope is not finicky with regards to eye position. Not how far away your eye van be from the scope, i.e.," eye relief"
I am not comparing this against the 24mm version not saying it is improved in that regard.
Been too long since I have tried one and I would really need to do a direct A/B comparison to be fair.
Absolutely, I'd make the case that the x42's biggest advantage by far is the fact that it's a vastly more forgiving for end users, and doesn't require any kind of steep learning curve to get adjusted to in regards to head positioning...i.e. eye box positioning. I've never understood why folks chase the elusive ultra low light transmission optic....especially on optics with a x50 bell or smaller. I've seen several deer miserably wounded because a cpl. hunters I knew thought their new $2-3k swaroskis w/ huge bells were essentially starlight scopes...they just needed a bit of moon light, and they were gtg. If you want low light capability in a compact variable optic w/ a smaller bell.....than you need GenIII clip on NVDs. So I guess my point above is that NF didn't really do the world a favor by increasing the low ligth ability with x42 over x32...but rather made a much more forgiving optic for the vast majority of shooters....i.e. not serious tactical/mil/leo type end users, but rather the average joe looking for a awesome piece of glass for his bolt action .308 whitetail rifle.
The x24 is the most unforgiving optic I've ever extensively used....has a huge learning curve in terms of fully utilizing all it's mag range, and ultimately is harder to obtain then hen's teeth. That said, it's no doubt the best AR precision optic I've ever found by a long ways. The sweets never sweet w/o the bitter as they say.
Never had an issue w/ it OCONUS or did others on our QRF TEAM who had them. Funny how now it's a problem. It's not.
Beware of marketing hype.
The great thing about the x24 unlike just about any other modern day variable powered optic outside of the older leupy MK12 models....is that folks like Voodoo above, and all the Seals who've carried NAVSPECWAR SPRs have put the x24 through the most harsh conditions a rifle/optic can be used in, and all the while received nothing but stellar feedback for years, and years now. With that said, a friend at NF told me several years ago, that the x32 is being requested by the military end users as much as the x24 if not more so. They still have access to both x24s, and x32s. I even heard some end users have the new velocity reticle in both the 2.5x line, and 3.5x lineup. In very recent times, I've seen a few SOF w/ SCAR Hs...both 2.5-10 x24 and 32s were represented. A SME pal on here sent me a cpl. pics of his work SCAR H, and it was sporting a nxsc 2.5-10x32 w/ secondary RMR.
VooDoo6Actual
01-11-14, 14:27
I mean the scope is not finicky with regards to eye position. Not how far away your eye van be from the scope, i.e.," eye relief"
I am not comparing this against the 24mm version not saying it is improved in that regard.
Been too long since I have tried one and I would really need to do a direct A/B comparison to be fair.
You are correct. Good on ya' for being intellectually honest.
I sold my 32mm & replaced it w/ a 24mm so it's not like I have not used em both professionally or I have not seen the light.
The Ocular Diameter of this scope is 40mm vs 33mm on the 2.5-10 x 32 scope. This scope weights only 1.5 oz more yet is .100"of an inch shorter in length than the 2.5-10 x 32 scope. This scope is also 2" inches longer than the 2.5-10x24 NXS yet weights only 3.5 oz more. If the extra oz's of this scope are a deal breaker for anyone, I would recommend you look into getting one of the new super lite BCM rails that are on the verge of being released any day now and take back that 3.5 oz's of weight gain and then some.
I would contact these folks, if they do not have any for it yet, I am betting it will not be long before they do. http://www.aadmount.com/Caps/Caps.html
http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/214140-aadmount-flip-up-caps-scope-request-measurement-thread.html
IMHO, nothing is so good it cannot be made better or improved upon. Look at the evolution in free float rails, ARMS,LARUE, DD, CA, Geiselle, BCM. The same goes for optics, ammo and about everything else. You either improve upon and change your product line, or die on the vine so to speak.
Whoa, thanks brother. Never seen those before. These look very high quality.
Serpico1985
01-31-14, 16:28
TRIDENT82 or anyone else with experience with the nightforce 2.5-10 models,
When you shoot at extended ranges like you do in your youtube videos 600 yards and beyond, how much parallax is present with the scope?
The eye piece is used to focus the reticle to your eye. Adjusting the parallax can make the target appear crisper correct? Any issues with blurry targets at extended ranges with the 2.5-10x24 or 32?
Adjusting the parallax removes parallax.
Parallax is removed when the reticle doesn't move in relation to the target with slight movement of the shooter's head.
The target should appear crisp.
The best thing about the x42 was that it gave mildly dyslexic people hope that Nightforce was bringing back the x24 for a few seconds.
People still want the best SPR scope not on the market and will pay a premium for it over their current offerings. Pesky customers, can't you tell the "improved" scopes are so much better? Have you no shame?
Still trying to grasp why NF will not sale the 24mm version to us "plain folks"... Not trying to be a spec-ops wannabe, I just think it would fit my needs quite nicely.
These scopes are still in production, so what is the deal?
Why do they make two dozen variants of the same boat anchor scopes and a 1-4x that nobody buys?
You see more 2.5-10x24's on AR's than all the short dots, USO's, Leupold 3.5-10's, meoptas, super snipers, and their other "compact" scopes combined.
I won't buy a x32, bad form factor if you aren't putting in on a bolt gun, I'll wait for a x24 to come along with an FC2 reticle one of these days. Rather have new production, but they won't shut up and take my money without an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract that has them by the ball sack.
How many people private purchased x24's for serious use? A shit load.
How many people private purchase x32's and x42's for serious use? (Crickets)
Anybody still buying the "everyone stopped ordering them" BS? Nobody in the AR community stopped ordering them until they were discontinued, now we have to order them off the EE like dogs waiting for a bone.
VooDoo6Actual
02-05-14, 10:16
Why do they make two dozen variants of the same boat anchor scopes and a 1-4x that nobody buys?
You see more 2.5-10x24's on AR's than all the short dots, USO's, Leupold 3.5-10's, meoptas, super snipers, and their other "compact" scopes combined.
I won't buy a x32, bad form factor if you aren't putting in on a bolt gun, I'll wait for a x24 to come along with an FC2 reticle one of these days. Rather have new production, but they won't shut up and take my money without an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract that has them by the ball sack.
How many people private purchased x24's for serious use? A shit load.
How many people private purchase x32's and x42's for serious use? (Crickets)
Anybody still buying the "everyone stopped ordering them" BS? Nobody in the AR community stopped ordering them until they were discontinued, now we have to order them off the EE like dogs waiting for a bone.
Stop preaching the truth. People are inculcated to the marketing fool-aid. Besides I don't wan't any more competition when I get my 4th NF NXS 24mm. The marketing "ELF waves" are everywhere & virally permeating society. It's beyond a fix & the scope of topical's or anti-biotic marketing antidotes. Saw another one for sale yesterday after the first one was bought by a savvy M4C member who has been circling the INTEL here like a White Shark. The optic is certainly one of the best all time certainly top 3 RECCE / Assault Scout type optic's ever designed. Bright, light (17 oz.), compact small form factor (9.9"), can be mounted LOW on rails due to Obj. size (24mm), metric poopload of Ret.'s available.
This one is still available @ $1450.00 w/ a really nice LV Ret. & of course it was a premium priced $400.00 north of the 32mm
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_7_163/1274369_WTS___Nightforce_optics.html
The other one went for $1350.00 or under ?
Why do they make two dozen variants of the same boat anchor scopes and a 1-4x that nobody buys?
You see more 2.5-10x24's on AR's than all the short dots, USO's, Leupold 3.5-10's, meoptas, super snipers, and their other "compact" scopes combined.
I won't buy a x32, bad form factor if you aren't putting in on a bolt gun, I'll wait for a x24 to come along with an FC2 reticle one of these days. Rather have new production, but they won't shut up and take my money without an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract that has them by the ball sack.
How many people private purchased x24's for serious use? A shit load.
How many people private purchase x32's and x42's for serious use? (Crickets)
Anybody still buying the "everyone stopped ordering them" BS? Nobody in the AR community stopped ordering them until they were discontinued, now we have to order them off the EE like dogs waiting for a bone.
I am curious (in seriousness) as to why the x32 is bad form factor for applications other than bolt guns.
Also, as far as I have seen there are a decent number of privately purchased x32's out there, and while not as many (partly due to being relatively new) also x42's, including myself.
Why the strong dislike for the x32 and x42?
But, yes, I am also perplexed why they stopped selling the x24's, despite continuing to produce them.
The 2.5-10x24 is the same size, if not smaller and lighter than many 1-4x scopes (not to mention 1-6x's), which are a good fit for an AR in general. The extra 20% in length and weight forward is not worth a negligible performance increase on the x32. They're also easier to use with clip on night vision if rail space is limited.
For someone who wanted more magnification on an AR in a compact package, they were a no brainer buy. Why did they sell more x32's? Probably because it was a 2.5-10 that looked like a 2.5-10 rather than a CQB optic and this appealed to fudds and precision shooters more, and of course for the last four years the x32 was the only option for a new scope or if you wanted a newer reticle design and NVG compatibility without the expense of both an optic that cost more AND a $600 trip back to the factory. The performance boost with the x32 isn't much, so that's the only logical conclusion.
Why did they discontinue it? Better question is why the 1-4x remains in production? I've never seen hardly any examples in the wild. I know one guy that still owns one and two of the very few other guys I've ever seen running them to any extent are posting in this thread and no longer own them.
VooDoo6Actual
02-08-14, 01:15
The 2.5-10x24 is the same size, if not smaller and lighter than many 1-4x scopes (not to mention 1-6x's), which are a good fit for an AR in general. The extra 20% in length and weight forward is not worth a negligible performance increase on the x32. They're also easier to use with clip on night vision if rail space is limited.
For someone who wanted more magnification on an AR in a compact package, they were a no brainer buy. Why did they sell more x32's? Probably because it was a 2.5-10 that looked like a 2.5-10 rather than a CQB optic and this appealed to fudds and precision shooters more, and of course for the last four years the x32 was the only option for a new scope or if you wanted a newer reticle design and NVG compatibility without the expense of both an optic that cost more AND a $600 trip back to the factory. The performance boost with the x32 isn't much, so that's the only logical conclusion.
Why did they discontinue it? Better question is why the 1-4x remains in production? I've never seen hardly any examples in the wild. I know one guy that still owns one and two of the very few other guys I've ever seen running them to any extent are posting in this thread and no longer own them.
All true & to answer the why's .....
Why would people vote for Hillary Clinton ?
People would smear Deer Feces or Preparation H on their faces if they thought it would make an improvement.
Manufactured marketing consent & hype at it's finest like all the rest out there is. It has gotten that bad.
Again, getting a 1x4 vs a 2.5x10 w/ all the Micro RDS at minimal 1.5 ozs. w/ all the added attributes makes as much sense as Obamacare.
Not having a large objective is also important for clearance of lasers/illuminators and sling mounts added to the top rail of a handguard.
MK6 and SR8 have gained a fairly sizable following and much praise as optics that optimize the 5.56 and .308 AR's for a reason.
2.5-10x24 was one of the legendary optics that put NF on the map. Soldiers and contractors shelled out their own hard earned coin for them for a long time. Guess they've just got to scrounge the EE's like a dog begging for a bone because some fudds and paper punchers wanted a non-compact, uh compact scope (weren't other companies already been making those?) Now that the even better x42 is out, maybe the x32 ain't long for the product lineup?
VooDoo6Actual
02-08-14, 09:49
Not having a large objective is also important for clearance of lasers/illuminators and sling mounts added to the top rail of a handguard.
MK6 and SR8 have gained a fairly sizable following and much praise as optics that optimize the 5.56 and .308 AR's for a reason.
2.5-10x24 was one of the legendary optics that put NF on the map. Soldiers and contractors shelled out their own hard earned coin for them for a long time. Guess they've just got to scrounge the EE's like a dog begging for a bone because some fudds and paper punchers wanted a non-compact, uh compact scope (weren't other companies already been making those?) Now that the even better x42 is out, maybe the x32 ain't long for the product lineup?
Your too much. Sure let's do a 52mm for more light next year. We NEED more light. We need daytime bright Illum. Ret.. We need, need, need then after they have suckered many & all the $ they can. Behold a new technology of Plasma Lasers will be ready for the trailing civilian market. But, oh we were so busy infighting w/ Objective scope sizes & weapons of mass distraction .....
David Thomas
02-08-14, 10:19
... The optic is certainly one of the best all time certainly top 3 RECCE / Assault Scout type optic's ever designed. Bright, light (17 oz.), compact small form factor (9.9"), can be mounted LOW o!n rails due to Obj. size (24mm), metric poopload of Ret.'s available.
Just curious what the other two are in your top 3.
VooDoo6Actual
02-08-14, 12:57
Just curious what the other two are in your top 3.
If it was only 3:
NF 2.5x10x24
S&B Police & Marksman II 5-25x56
S&B 1-8x24 PM ShortDot
lahunter57
04-28-14, 17:40
Another picture for size comparison purposes... Here is the NF 2.5-10x42 on my Centurion MK12 with 18" barrel. It is actually a fraction shorter and only 1.5oz heavier than the x32. Seems to me they should bring back the x24, keep the x42 and drop the x32.
22650
Would you mind telling me what height your rings are?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Requested my LE Price list today from Nightforce and tried to see if they'd sell the 2.5-10x24 to LE and a no go unfortunately I'm gonna keep looking for above optic for awhile if anyone has a line on one please post it here. Price is reasonable on the 2.5-10x32. I am however in no hurry so hopefully Pegasus will turn up...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.