Printable View
Beat it? Maybe, Maybe not. The Elite tactical line are built like a brick shit house, some of the most robust optics out there, which a track record to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBroussard
It's one of the few optics I would feel comfortable deploying with and betting my life on.
The LRHS has better glass, better turrets, way better reticle and is FFP. Illumination and NVG settings are pointless when you are going to be running a PEQ or Clip on anyway.
A 1992 toyota camary is going to get me from point A to point B, but I would be a fool to pay $20K for one when I can get a current year model that does everything better and more efficient with modern comforts for the same money.Quote:
Originally Posted by samuse
I have to agree with this as well. The ONLY thing the x32 has over the x42 is price. I have used the x24, x32, and x42 on nearly identical platforms, and I have found no differences between the "slimmer" x32 and x42 objectives when carrying or using the rifles. The only time I noticed a profile difference is between the x24 and the other two. I feel the parallax adjustment is worth it. Good work can be done without it, but I can't say I know any precision guys that would turn it down when presented with a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Pilum
Neither the x32 or x42 is a good choice IMO. Both are massively overpriced and lack features that modern tactical scopes should have (FFP, Xmas tree reticle, ZS/.MIl based without having to pay extra for it).Quote:
Originally Posted by pointblank4445
Only way I could justify buying one of the NF compacts is building a clone, and I would be going after an x24 if that was the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Pilum
...I would come to expect nothing less from the internet.
Well if you get out and actually shoot or compete, then you come to realize quickly those features result in more hits, less misses and quicker shots on target.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointblank4445
Needing to be on X power, or doing some complicated math problem in your head, having to dial for windage or losing your place as your crank on the turrets tends to lose its appeal as time is limited and ammo is expensive. Much more so when someone is shooting at you as you don't have the luxury of calling time out to double check your gear, break out a calculator and PDA.
Just about every top end optic made has these features for a reason. It's not 1992 anymore, no need to drive that camary with no ac, no abs, and an 8 track.
How would you rate the LRHS against the ATACR? I'm looking at the ATACR but I don't feel I have done enough research to pull the trigger on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Pilum
The F1 or the Legacy ATACR?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBroussard
The ATACR is going to have better glass, but the legacy model is SFP which is an absolute deal breaker unless you are shooting ELR or some specialized niche where reticle size matters.
NF's biggest problem IMO, is their reticle choices. They flat out suck for the type of shooting we do nowadays. This is the main reason I won't buy nightforce. Lets look at the competition.
Vortex Gen 2 has EBR-2C
Bushnell has G2, G2H and the new G3 that is coming out
Kahles has the AMR & SKMR2
Premier/Tanget Theta has the Gen 2 XR
S&B can be had with the Gen 2 XR
So when it comes down to it, I would rather have a Steiner 5-25 with MSR or S&B 5-25 with MSR than the 5-25NF with Mil-R IF I had to have a non xmas tree reticle.
So back to the LRHS, It has very good glass, a great reticle, very good turrets, zero stop & .mils , has a robust build and comes in at a price that makes it hard to pass up. Head to head, I would take the LRHS over the Legacy ATACR. If you were to give me the choice between a F1 or LRHS, I would take the F1, Sell it , and buy either 2 LRHS or a Gen 2 vortex. Rumor is Bushnell line is getting illumination this year, which is really the only thing holding it back feature wise.
IMO there are much better choices out there than the F1 ATACR in that price range (Kahles, Vortex, Steiner).
It's a big part of my career; and the longer, I do it, the more I realize how much one really doesn't need. FFP has its place, as does 2nd FP. "Xmas tree" reticles aren't for everyone. Military sniping, LE observer, and Tactical/PRS shooting are all very different disciplines that are all under the "tactical" umbrella. Saying that a "tactical scope" must have x,y, and z is arrogant bulls**t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primus Pilum
Please, I'm dying to hear more of your insight about having people shoot at you and your resume.
No you are just discounting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointblank4445
FFP is such a huge advantage that every top end tactical scope is FFP without a SFP option, Why is this?
The Military is already moving towards Xmas tree reticles, Any LE marksman/spotter worth a shit is using FFP/XMAS in both their scope and spotter. Why is this?
Most tactical/ PRS shooters are using a Xmas tree reticle and virtually all of them are using FFP. Some people may be using MSR but most are using G2, EBR-2C SKMR2/AMR or 2XR. EVERY year this number is growing as well.
If you shoot on a square range, and have all day to ensure you are set at the right power, make calculations , read wind ect, then you still be a fool to not see the benefit.
As someone who does "math" and numbers for a living, with a very strong math education and aptitude, reducing the calculations and processes is a HUGE benefit, and I'm able to do most of the math in my head.
10 Years Army Combat Arms Combat Vet, 2 Years deployed in a combat zone, was dual tasked as an armorer and wrenched on all of our organic weapon systems. Shoot just about every weekend , take a few courses each year and compete at the local level. How about you?