Leupold Mark 6 gtg?

[Mr McSimon]

I've been shopping for a higher end LPV, considering glass quality, durability, weight, and reticle among some of the most important factors for me. I'm really hoping to get into a good FFP model, so I keep finding myself looking at Leupold, but I've read about some problems they've had in the last few years. I've also read that they seem to be addressing the complaints, and have been doing better, specifically with the Mark 5 line. As I'm looking for a 1-6 or 1-8 power, I'm considering the Mark 6. Does anybody have any input on these scopes and if they're gtg, or if I should steer clear?

I'm also open to suggestions on a good alternative. I really like the Kahles 16i and may end up going that direction, but really want a FFP. NF NX8 is an option too, but I hate that they left the turrets exposed and read a bad review about the 2 MOA dot at high power that made me think a little bit about the reticle. I like the new Primary Arms Raptor, and may go that route too, but quality of glass is a biggy so I don't want to skimp.

[Zane1844]

I liked my MK6 with the CMR-W. Only got rid of it because I needed the money. Only downside is the illumination flicker, that may or may not be an issue for you. I never used it during the day, so I did not care. I shot out to 500m with it, and the BDC worked pretty well. The wind holds helped a few times as well. The eyebox can be a bit tight for some, but it never bothered me.

[bermise]

I have the mark 6 and Mark 8. Both are well made optics

[sidewaysil80]

For the price imo there is nothing better than the kahles k16i. MAYBE the new ATACR 1-8 but its larger/heavier and more money.

The Razor 1-6 and the Khales k16i have the largest fov and most forgiving eyebox. Glass is better on the Khales plus its lighter and smaller. Both are daylight bright however kahles has better retickrs in my opinion. Eyebox and fov to me are most important on a lpvo due to 1x being most used setting.

[hile]

When my URG ships, I'm going to put a Kahles K16i on it, my first foray into LPVO. I don't mind second focal plane on a 1-6.

[Mr McSimon]

If you all aren't careful, you're going to talk me right back in to the Kahles.

[mgrs]

What's it going on?

I like the mark 6 on a dmr type gun and Kahles for everything else. I'd like to try a swarovski z6, but specs look identical to the k16 but in a different housing/reticle. Now's the time to buy a Mark 6 though; bottom seems to have fallen out of resale. Not uncommon to score a nice used one for $1200.

I have not played with any of the 1-8s other than CQBSS

The illum flicker in the mark 1-6 is not flicker, it only appears to do so if you move your eye around the eyebox. Makes it functionally much smaller than similarly priced SFPs.

[Mr McSimon]

It's going on a BCM 16" ELW MCMR free float rail with a BCM lower, A5 buffer system and SSA trigger, so my Recce/DMR style rifle.

I'm kinda considering the Sig Tango 6 too, but yeah, the big eyebox for the Kahles is the reason I keep coming back to that as a leading option. Plus, that seems to be the #1 recommended scope, so it might be time to do it while I have the funds.

[dontshakepandas]

It's going on a BCM 16" ELW MCMR free float rail with a BCM lower, A5 buffer system and SSA trigger, so my Recce/DMR style rifle.

I'm kinda considering the Sig Tango 6 too, but yeah, the big eyebox for the Kahles is the reason I keep coming back to that as a leading option. Plus, that seems to be the #1 recommended scope, so it might be time to do it while I have the funds.

I'm about to buy an optic for a similar setup. I had it narrowed down to the Kahles and the Nightforce NX8, and have pretty much decided on the Nightforce.

I really like the Nightforce reticle (FFP) and the additional 2x at the top end is nice. The additional durability and better warranty also swayed me a little, especially at a slightly lower price.

I'm not a glass snob so while I'm sure the Kahles does have better glass (I haven't had a chance to try it), that just isn't my priority.

The NX8 seems to be getting a lot of talk about a tight eye box but using it at 1x was effortless for me and I couldn't notice much of a difference between it and the Vortex Razor Gen II when trying them back to back. I can deal with it being a little tight at 8x but I really didn't notice it too much there either.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sidewaysil80]

I'm about to buy an optic for a similar setup. I had it narrowed down to the Kahles and the Nightforce NX8, and have pretty much decided on the Nightforce.

I really like the Nightforce reticle (FFP) and the additional 2x at the top end is nice. The additional durability and better warranty also swayed me a little, especially at a slightly lower price.

I'm not a glass snob so while I'm sure the Kahles does have better glass (I haven't had a chance to try it), that just isn't my priority.

The NX8 seems to be getting a lot of talk about a tight eye box but using it at 1x was effortless for me and I couldn't notice much of a difference between it and the Vortex Razor Gen II when trying them back to back. I can deal with it being a little tight at 8x but I really didn't notice it too much there either.

I'm astonished that you have come to that conclusion, mine was the polar opposite of mine. The NX8 was like looking through a straw compared to the Khales and Razor Gen II. Not to mention the flicker that the MK6/8 has plagues the NX8 as well at higher mag. In my opinion by making it as small as they did and making FFP they shot themselves in the foot and sacrificed the 1x...which is what most people care about in an LPVO. They're usually kept at 1x and then turned up to max for longer range stuff, which completely negates the need for FFP. BUT, by adding FFP it now has an incredibly tight eye box/fov. Jack of all trades and master of none (except size/weight).

In full disclosure I LOVE Nightforce products and use them on my work and personal rifles. I have been waiting for the NX8 for the past year and a half and was obviously disappointed. No way I could honestly recommend it over the K16i.

[dontshakepandas]

I'm astonished that you have come to that conclusion, mine was the polar opposite of mine. The NX8 was like looking through a straw compared to the Khales and Razor Gen II. Not to mention the flicker that the MK6/8 has plagues the NX8 as well at higher mag. In my opinion by making it as small as they did and making FFP they shot themselves in the foot and sacrificed the 1x...which is what most people care about in an LPVO. They're usually kept at 1x and then turned up to max for longer range stuff, which completely negates the need for FFP. BUT, by adding FFP it now has an incredibly tight eye box/fov. Jack of all trades and master of none (except size/weight).

In full disclosure I LOVE Nightforce products and use them on my work and personal rifles. I have been waiting for the NX8 for the past year and a half and was obviously disappointed. No way I could honestly recommend it over the K16i.I didn't get a chance to shoot either of them, only handle them mounted to fake guns at the NRA show, so now I'm thinking maybe I didn't get a realistic impression. Reading that has me doubting myself again.

How is the durability of the Kahles? It is on the upper extreme of my budget so I really don't want to have to deal with paying out of pocket to have something fixed if it goes down. I haven't been able to find anything specific on their warranty other than that it isn't as good as Vortex/Nightforce.

I did like the Razor, but really didn't care for the reticle choices. Which reticle are you going tooth on the Kahles?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[MadAngler1]

FFP in a 1-6x is not that important. I have trigger time behind both the Mark 6 and a Kahles (I own the Kahles), and the Kahles beats the VCOG, Mark 6 and the Razor 2 HD hands down. The SM-1 reticle will give you mil hold overs as well, and the illumination tops the others.

May I ask what gun you are putting this scope on? If you want a 1-8x, then the newer S&B 1-8x or Nightforce ATACR 1-8x34 might be worth a look if you are running a .308 gas gun and plan on shooting regularly out to 600-800 yards. I have my Kahles on my SCAR 17, but I only shoot it out to 300 yards where I live unfortunately.

[MadAngler1]

It's going on a BCM 16" ELW MCMR free float rail with a BCM lower, A5 buffer system and SSA trigger, so my Recce/DMR style rifle.

I'm kinda considering the Sig Tango 6 too, but yeah, the big eyebox for the Kahles is the reason I keep coming back to that as a leading option. Plus, that seems to be the #1 recommended scope, so it might be time to do it while I have the funds.

Get the Kahles. Lord help me if you buy a Sig. I realize the Army thinks otherwise, but the Kahles is better.

[MadAngler1]

I'm astonished that you have come to that conclusion, mine was the polar opposite of mine. The NX8 was like looking through a straw compared to the Khales and Razor Gen II. Not to mention the flicker that the MK6/8 has plagues the NX8 as well at higher mag. In my opinion by making it as small as they did and making FFP they shot themselves in the foot and sacrificed the 1x...which is what most people care about in an LPVO. They're usually kept at 1x and then turned up to max for longer range stuff, which completely negates the need for FFP. BUT, by adding FFP it now has an incredibly tight eye box/fov. Jack of all trades and master of none (except size/weight).

In full disclosure I LOVE Nightforce products and use them on my work and personal rifles. I have been waiting for the NX8 for the past year and a half and was obviously disappointed. No way I could honestly recommend it over the K16i.

I agree with the above assessment. Not sure what compelled Nightforce to make the NX8 the way it is. The Kahles and Razor are better options. If you want a 1-8x, get the ATACR.

[dontshakepandas]

I agree with the above assessment. Not sure what compelled Nightforce to make the NX8 the way it is. The Kahles and Razor are better options. If you want a 1-8x, get the ATACR.I would love to get the ATACR but it's way outside my budget. I just can't justify dropping that kind of coin for something that is essentially a toy for me. If anybody feels like sponsoring an ATACR purchase for me I'll happily accept and let you have naming rights to my first kid. Nobody? I didn't think so.

I'm still leaning towards the NX8 because I think a jack of all trades optic is kinda what I'm looking for out of this rifle. I have other rifles I can grab for up close situations and I think the 8x will get me to the top of the range I'd ever use 5.56 for.

I have no doubt that the Kahles will beat it in many different categories, I just think I may notice/appreciate them because that isn't really what my main focus will be. I've seen a few things that make me question the durability/longevity. It's also the most expensive of the options I'm looking at and would be going over budget slightly, but not enough that I couldn't make it work if it was my absolute favorite.
It just doesn't give me the warm fuzzy feeling that I need to justify the cost.

I'd probably end up going with a Razor if they had a reticle I liked. The cost savings and durability would justify the weight for me. I just dislike all of the reticle options way too much to make that a real contender.

That said, if I end up not liking the NX8 on this rifle I can throw it on an SBR or a lightweight general purpose gun and upgrade in the future.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sidewaysil80]

Some pictures to illustrate 1x and 6-8x respectively

Razor 1-6 (photos from AlamoShooter on tos)

@ 1x
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/AlamoShooter/RazorGenIItargetAug12005.jpg

@ 6x
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/AlamoShooter/VortexRazor1-6Aug-2012012.jpg



NX8 1-8 @ 1x (photos from superset72 on tos)

@1x
https://i.imgur.com/H1gMbgU.jpg

@8x (some people are reporting that 8x is so sensitive they find it unusable and have to dial back to 6/7)
https://i.imgur.com/Q6H7uXL.jpg?1

[dontshakepandas]

Some pictures to illustrate 1x and 6-8x respectively

Razor 1-6 (photos from AlamoShooter on tos)

@ 1x
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/AlamoShooter/RazorGenIItargetAug12005.jpg

@ 6x
http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/AlamoShooter/VortexRazor1-6Aug-2012012.jpg



NX8 1-8 @ 1x (photos from superset72 on tos)

@1x
https://i.imgur.com/H1gMbgU.jpg

@8x (some people are reporting that 8x is so sensitive they find it unusable and have to dial back to 6/7)
https://i.imgur.com/Q6H7uXL.jpg?1Would you mind PMing me the links where you are seeing the feedback about the NX8 if you get a chance?

I'm seeing a lot of positive reviews along with some that say it's tight but usable but haven't seen many people who thought it was terrible.

I'd really love to take in as much info as I can before I make a decision.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sidewaysil80]

By no means is it s bad scope. Just that it is outperformed in EVERY category with the exception of length. Yes its FFP and yes its 8x, but those do more harm then good given its small size. Just check over on tos and snipershide. The negative reviews or complaints seem to come from folks who handled/shot one in person. All the glowing reviews seem to be from people who actually own them...so take that for what its worth.

[gunnerblue]

A NF rep on Snipershide stated (and I paraphrase) that the NX8 should not be compared to the Razor.. He stated that the NX8 was designed with form factor in mind and because of this could not complete with certain SFP 1-6’s in the fields of FOV, etc. The ATACR on the other hand was “built to perform.”

[mgrs]

It's going on a BCM 16" ELW MCMR free float rail with a BCM lower, A5 buffer system and SSA trigger, so my Recce/DMR style rifle.

I'm kinda considering the Sig Tango 6 too, but yeah, the big eyebox for the Kahles is the reason I keep coming back to that as a leading option. Plus, that seems to be the #1 recommended scope, so it might be time to do it while I have the funds.

I have the Kahles, Razor 2, and Mark 6... for your use, Kahles all the way. Razor 2 is 90% of the scope at less cost, but weighs so much more and the zoom ring is very stiff. Kahles is also coming out with a mil-based reticle almost exactly like swaro's BRT-I, which is almost perfect.

The pictures of the Nx8 above look like a lot of thought went into the reticle at least which has the german #4 type crossbars to allow some usability on 1x without illum.

[Mr McSimon]

With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?

[sidewaysil80]

With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?

Typically lpvo’s are ran at 1x and then maxed out for distance shots. In other words, most folks arent using anything between the lowest and highest mag setting and thus FFP is not needed. FFP in these small scopes negatively effects the FOV and eyebox, same thing for higher mag levels. 4-6x is plenty of top end out to 6-700yds. Cramming 8x in there has more of a negative effect than positive, you are sacrificing 1x performance to gain a negligible/unnecessary amount of top end.

It depends how you are going to use it most and what distances/type of shooting. Lpvo’s shine with (in theory) red dot like performance at 1x with the ability to zoom in with usable reticle for distance. If you plan on doing a lot of range estimation and shooting longer range/precision, than sure FFP is an important feature. You’ll probably want a higher mag level as well and probably should be looking at a traditional precision optic.

As far as mils vs moa it preference really. Moa allow for slightly more precise adjustments (.25” vs mils .36”) but its really negligible. To me mils are faster to work with and I prefer them. Here is one of the better articles on the subject: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/ . BUT, I disagree with the author on range estimation with mils. I think inches and still use mil with no issue. Yeah a calculator is needed but it’s likely needed for dividing target size by moa reading as well. Not to mention its a simple formula on both moa/mil.

[mgrs]

With all this talk of the tight eyebox and "flicker", maybe the Leupold isn't the way to go after all. I'm curious as to a few people saying a FFP isn't really necessary on a 1-6, can somebody expand on that a bit? Seems like having all your subtentions accurate at any power would always be a better thing than not.

I had a chance to look through a Kahles and found something that surprised me. On 1x the scale was about 95% or something like that, until I made an adjustment of a few turns on the diopter ring to get the same scale in both left and right eyes when looking through it with both eyes open. It's obviously made that way, but why? Also, speaking of that scope, I like the SI1 reticle, but have read a number of times about people liking the SM1. I think better in MOA, so why would the SM1 be better unless you're skilled at mil calculation, or is it?

I think the the post above kind of summed it up on SFP or FFP. FFP are nice because you can get a decent 1x dot with few distractions and a detailed 6x, but there are tradeoffs- FFP seems to be harder to illuminate well and is more finicky with the illum visibility in the eye box.

SFP are often more coarse on 1x but are more usable without illumination, and are often brighter.

On the Kahles, unless you are tied to the SM1, think about the G4b or even better the new reticle that looks like swaro's BRT-I. Both use center dots that are much brighter than the illuminated portion of the SM1 and also give you some wind holds, which are good to have. SM1 is still a nice reticle, however, and still quite fast/usable with no illum on at all.

[dontshakepandas]

I had a chance to handle a Kahles with the SM1 reticle yesterday and the FoV and eye box seemed definitely impressive, but I ordered the Nightforce NX8 this morning.

My decision was mostly because I really wanted the 8x and FFP. I can deal with the tighter eye box on 8x, but at 1x it is still fine for me when actually mounted to a rifle.

I didn't really like the Kahles SM1 reticle much in person, as I found the outside circle a little distracting and the mil markings a little difficult to track since they aren't numbered. It seemed plenty bright, but I'm not a fan of the 4 hour shutoff feature or the brightness adjustment knob.

I was also a little shocked that the Kahles only has a 10 year warranty. I feel like a $2000 optic should come with a lifetime warranty and I seem to have really bad luck breaking stuff so I want something that will last forever.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sidewaysil80]

What are you using it for mostly?

[dontshakepandas]

What are you using it for mostly?This one will be focused more on mid to longer range stuff. I have a few other rifles with red dots or SFP LPVOs for closer stuff.

If this was my only rifle and I needed it to really excel up close but still be able to reach out a little I would have probably gone with the Kahles.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

I forgot to mention that the NX8 ended up being almost $300 cheaper. Considering this rifle is pretty much just a toy and the NX8 was almost double what I originally budgeted for the optic, spending a little less was nice too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[sidewaysil80]

I’m shooting a 2-Gun match this weekend and will use my buddies NX8. I have enough time behind one via drills/plinking but I’m going to run one on the clock to either upset or reaffirm my initial thoughts.

[mgrs]

Good read, I've wanted to try the NX8 and fully expect sacrifices in a tiny 1-8 FFP.

Illum flicker on higher mags would not bother me, as on 8x I'd be locked into the eyebox tighter and the illum also would not be a critical. If it's as good or better than the Mark 6 on 1x, I'd be fine with it.

Still can't go wrong with the K16...the new 3GR reticle looks about perfect for a GP rifle. The SM1 is also excellent but does not have wind holds.

[Mr McSimon]

Just a quick update. I ended up ditching the Mark 6 as an option, in fact FFP all together, in favor of a Kahles with an SM1 reticle. I missed the one on the EE a few weeks ago, but picked up a show demo for $1700. This reticle will be a good excuse to learn how to use mils properly, and so far I'm impressed with the eyebox and glass, but I haven't mounted it yet.

I'm kicking myself for missing the Geissele sale over Memorial Day Weekend too, so now I'm shopping some more. QD is ok, but not a requirement. What are opinions on the right mount for this nice scope? I can't really afford Spuhr after splurging on the scope, so Geissele at full price? LaRue? Nightforce? Lighter is better, links are appreciated.

[Zane1844]

I had no issue with the MK6 eyebox, which people use to complain about. I have yet to test out my NX8, I will next month. I will be shooting from 0-500yds. If I hate it, I will also get the Khales.

Op, I like bobro mounts. I use them for everything.

[mgrs]

Just a quick update. I ended up ditching the Mark 6 as an option, in fact FFP all together, in favor of a Kahles with an SM1 reticle. I missed the one on the EE a few weeks ago, but picked up a show demo for $1700. This reticle will be a good excuse to learn how to use mils properly, and so far I'm impressed with the eyebox and glass, but I haven't mounted it yet.

I'm kicking myself for missing the Geissele sale over Memorial Day Weekend too, so now I'm shopping some more. QD is ok, but not a requirement. What are opinions on the right mount for this nice scope? I can't really afford Spuhr after splurging on the scope, so Geissele at full price? LaRue? Nightforce? Lighter is better, links are appreciated.

You chose well on the scope. I just sold an SM1 in the EE because I wanted the new 3gr reticle, but the K16 is about as good as it gets, and I have a lot of time with the Mark 6, Vortex, and some other 1-6s. Be sure to give diopter adjustment a chance....work on it until the image is flat rather than only until the reticle is clear like you would with other scopes.

On the mounts, any of the above. LaRue is fine if you aren't worried about split rings; his mounts are tough with steel thread inserts so you aren't going to strip one out. Just be sure the levers are properly adjusted and check them from time to time if you remove it a lot.

[WS6]

I've been shopping for a higher end LPV, considering glass quality, durability, weight, and reticle among some of the most important factors for me. I'm really hoping to get into a good FFP model, so I keep finding myself looking at Leupold, but I've read about some problems they've had in the last few years. I've also read that they seem to be addressing the complaints, and have been doing better, specifically with the Mark 5 line. As I'm looking for a 1-6 or 1-8 power, I'm considering the Mark 6. Does anybody have any input on these scopes and if they're gtg, or if I should steer clear?

I'm also open to suggestions on a good alternative. I really like the Kahles 16i and may end up going that direction, but really want a FFP. NF NX8 is an option too, but I hate that they left the turrets exposed and read a bad review about the 2 MOA dot at high power that made me think a little bit about the reticle. I like the new Primary Arms Raptor, and may go that route too, but quality of glass is a biggy so I don't want to skimp.

I really liked my MK6, but after a while I got some black trash in it. This is very common for the MK6 series, and Leupold fixed it in about 3 weeks, free of charge, and it was flawless. It did not affect performance, but it was very "Tasco" feeling for such a high end optic. I have never before experienced this (even with Tasco).

[Zane1844]

I really liked my MK6, but after a while I got some black trash in it. This is very common for the MK6 series, and Leupold fixed it in about 3 weeks, free of charge, and it was flawless. It did not affect performance, but it was very "Tasco" feeling for such a high end optic. I have never before experienced this (even with Tasco).

What do you mean by "black trash?"

[WS6]

What do you mean by "black trash?"

Just that. Black flakes of junk on the reticle. It's pretty common with them from what I understand. Leupold fixed it and made it flawless though.

How is the NX8 doing for you?

[100]

IMHO, the 3-18x is an ideal scope for long range work in the .308 (the bottom end) and up. The 3 is still sufficiently fast (like the 3-9x for hunting) and likely forgiving of form while the 18x is better for those long range shots. Considering a 1.2 MOA (yes, a rare few shoot better) rifle in 7.62 with POI of 12" on an 18" plate at 1,000 the justification for anything over 15x, surveillance aside, is questionable on this platform as the average shooter will spend most of their time off target and correcting for variables they do not understand. Again, IMHO, the 17s is a battle rifle in 7.62 that can turn some cover into concealment and is thus deserving of an optic of more power than traditional 5.56 carbines. If you have the money to spend, by all means and it is tough to beat Leupold in quality, features, reliability, customer service vs price. For the average guy a 3-9x will get you on any steel you want out to 700 with 7.62, probably why the 4.5-14 and 3.5-15 are so popular in .308. The Mark 6 line really reflects higher powered scopes with a more useful lower end, albeit at a price. If I understand what you are asking, the 17s doesn't need 18x for any reason whatsoever. I have an OBR LT-762 in 18", that is a 1,000 yard rifle capable of stupid tiny groups; it is fitted with an ER/T 4.5-14x 50mm and I have never needed more. For an additional, lighter and more manageable rifle at closer ranges I considered the PredatAR in 7.62 but for the same price the 17s was an easy win. The 17s now sits with a 2 MOA M3 Aimpoint and 3x magnifier. I can hit steel targets all day at 450y while standing, but not so much beyond that due to a lack of holdover. The 1x 2 MOA dot is incredible fast where this rifle was designed to spend most of it's time. The Aimpoint is also extremely forgiving of poor form, position, etc. At the end of the day, it's a civilian (steel ringer) battle rifle.

[mgrs]

Just that. Black flakes of junk on the reticle. It's pretty common with them from what I understand. Leupold fixed it and made it flawless though.


My NX8 had a significant amount of debris like this that became worse the more vibration it was subjected to. I have only experienced this now with Nightforce and Mueller. Any company can have things slip through.

[Zane1844]

Just that. Black flakes of junk on the reticle. It's pretty common with them from what I understand. Leupold fixed it and made it flawless though.

How is the NX8 doing for you?

It is a great scope. Eye box was no issue for me. Reticle is great at 1x. At 350-600yds the reticle worked well there too.

[WS6]

My NX8 had a significant amount of debris like this that became worse the more vibration it was subjected to. I have only experienced this now with Nightforce and Mueller. Any company can have things slip through.

I checked with people who see hundreds of mk6s. It wasnt isolated to a 1 off.

[WS6]

It is a great scope. Eye box was no issue for me. Reticle is great at 1x. At 350-600yds the reticle worked well there too.

Is there "a blurry ring area" on 1x like a donut of fail around the image with the nx8? That's the other complaint I've read, although I've never seen it in the photo of video of the optic I've managed to find.

[mgrs]

Is there "a blurry ring area" on 1x like a donut of fail around the image with the nx8? That's the other complaint I've read, although I've never seen it in the photo of video of the optic I've managed to find.

I would not call it a donut of fail, but the image can not be made to appear as "flat" as a Mark 6. Edge distortion is definitely higher on the NX8 than many others in its price range.