Nightforce NXS 1-4, still relevant?

[Unobtanium]

I have eyeballed the VCOG, K16i, Z6i, and Vortex Razor II. Never looked through a Nightforce before, until I attended on of Frank Proctor's classes. He beats the hell out of that rifle of his, and I was curious what optic he had on it, because it surely must be a beast! I also don't know Frank Proctor's money situation, but I bet he can afford whatever he wants, regarding a scope. Just a hunch. So I was doubly curious. Easy going and polite guy that he is, he let me handle the rifle, and I saw that it was an NXS 1-4X. I REALLY! liked the big, easy-to-find reticle. It is daylight fast and usable without illumination. The compact length of the scope I guess made it balance exceptionally, as it did not feel "heavy" at all (may have also been that BCM stock and KMW rail...).



Anyway, my question is, money aside, Is the NXS 1-4X still "relevant" in this "day and age", presuming that the shooter does not need anything over 4x? How durable are the NXS 1-4X scopes? Is it in the same league as the newer one's like the K16i, MK6, etc? Does it have "known flaws" such as loose battery contacts, fogging up, or any sort of "Yeah...but watch out for..." type "buyer beware" caveats?



I did a quick search on here, but most of the reviews and comments are from pre-1-6X optic times. The 1-4's seem to be losing popularity to them, but for my purposes, the extra 2X is superflous. I can live with it, or without it.

[ranger]

I would buy a Nightforce NXS 1-4 in a heartbeat for my AR if I could afford that scope.

[GJM]

I have two, that I have moved between a SCAR H, various 5.56 AR guns, and even a .375 H&H. Still ticking.

[JM Campbell]

I have one a 9" 300BLK upper and enjoy shooting it very much. Best trade I've made in years. I'm extremely new to rifles and scopes but enjoy shooting it as much as my Bushnell tactical elite 1-6x

[JV_]

I had one for my AR, in a Bobro mount. It was a dandy little scope. I only sold it because I don't shoot ARs and I could be just as happy with an Aimpoint Pro and $1000 in my pocket.

FWIW: I'm a huge NF fan.

[JHC]

I've read that 1-6 scopes suffer vs good 1-4 scopes in the area of a most forgiving headbox. Is that valid? If it is I might weigh that heavier than 2 more power in a heavier scope.

[joshs]

I've read that 1-6 scopes suffer vs good 1-4 scopes in the area of a most forgiving headbox. Is that valid? If it is I might weigh that heavier than 2 more power in a heavier scope.

It really depends on the scope, but most of the 1-6+ scopes suffer from eyebox issues at the top end of the magnification range, so that isn't really comparable because at 4 power they still have a more forgiving eyebox.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[JodyH]

For a 16", 5.56 general purpose rifle (0-400Y) I'm a fan of the 1x4 variables.
I have a Meopta Meostar K-Dot on my 16" BCM.

[rifleshooter]

I have a NF 1-4- I like it

Also love the 2.5-10 on a gas gun

[JHC]

It really depends on the scope, but most of the 1-6+ scopes suffer from eyebox issues at the top end of the magnification range, so that isn't really comparable because at 4 power they still have a more forgiving eyebox.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

4 vs 6 oh. Yeah. :o

[SLG]

I run NF on almost all my long guns. There is no tougher scope, period. The 1-4 is tougher than any of the scopes you listed. There are no "flaws" with it whatsoever. Its limitations come from being a 4X, but if you don't need more magnification, that's not a flaw. The illum isn't a real daylight option, but as you mentioned, its not really needed. I keep it on so that when I go indoors I can still use it. None of the 1-6's or 1-8's are as light and well balanced. Some of them have a nicer picture due to more modern glass prescriptions, but I don't find the NXS compacts to be bad in that regard.

Also, and though this is less important on the 1-4 compared to the more LR oriented optics, what sets NF apart from almost everyone else is the fidelity of their turrets and reticles. When you dial a correction, you get that correction, every single time. That is much more important to precision than a nicer color picture. Though again, their newer stuff has a newer prescription and the BEAST is pretty peerless in picture as well.

NF is releasing some impressive new scopes at SHOT this year, so you might wait till then to see if something else floats your boat, but I assure you, you can't go wrong with the 1-4 on a GP carbine.

Did I make it clear that I like NF a ton?:-)

[Unobtanium]

I run NF on almost all my long guns. There is no tougher scope, period. The 1-4 is tougher than any of the scopes you listed. There are no "flaws" with it whatsoever. Its limitations come from being a 4X, but if you don't need more magnification, that's not a flaw. The illum isn't a real daylight option, but as you mentioned, its not really needed. I keep it on so that when I go indoors I can still use it. None of the 1-6's or 1-8's are as light and well balanced. Some of them have a nicer picture due to more modern glass prescriptions, but I don't find the NXS compacts to be bad in that regard.

Also, and though this is less important on the 1-4 compared to the more LR oriented optics, what sets NF apart from almost everyone else is the fidelity of their turrets and reticles. When you dial a correction, you get that correction, every single time. That is much more important to precision than a nicer color picture. Though again, their newer stuff has a newer prescription and the BEAST is pretty peerless in picture as well.

NF is releasing some impressive new scopes at SHOT this year, so you might wait till then to see if something else floats your boat, but I assure you, you can't go wrong with the 1-4 on a GP carbine.

Did I make it clear that I like NF a ton?:-)

Will they release any more 1x- optics or evolve this one?

[SLG]

I'm not at liberty to say, but yes. :-)

[Unobtanium]

I'm not at liberty to say, but yes. :-)

Will I know after shot? Will whatever they do increase cost exponentially?

[SLG]

Will I know after shot? Will whatever they do increase cost exponentially?

I really can't talk about what they intend to release other than to say they have some pretty nice new scopes that take advantage of all the latest technology. Nonetheless, the 1-4 is tough to beat. Built like a 16oz hammer and is very shootable.

As far as cost, there is no free lunch, but NF seems to do a good job of keeping costs comparable to there historic lines, and when they do raise them, they don't seem to be too bad. They have a mil/le program, if you are able to take advantage of that. However, do not expect to see the kinds of discounts that a company like Bushnell can provide. There is a world of difference between how those scopes are made.

[Unobtanium]

I really can't talk about what they intend to release other than to say they have some pretty nice new scopes that take advantage of all the latest technology. Nonetheless, the 1-4 is tough to beat. Built like a 16oz hammer and is very shootable.

As far as cost, there is no free lunch, but NF seems to do a good job of keeping costs comparable to there historic lines, and when they do raise them, they don't seem to be too bad. They have a mil/le program, if you are able to take advantage of that. However, do not expect to see the kinds of discounts that a company like Bushnell can provide. There is a world of difference between how those scopes are made.

Understood. Verified through NF that only 3 new scopes are coming out, none in 1X. Already announced the specs for them, etc.

Not MIL/LE, and don't try to skim their discounts. I'm in the part of the service industry who gets discounts on cell plans and cars, lol (Healthcare). Sadly, not on firearms, ammo, etc. That said, the guys at Sport Optics that I am friends with treat me very fairly.

[SLG]

I didn't realize they had released the data on the new ones already. I'm quite sure there will be a 1X-more than 4. It is a military contract requirement. May not be released at the same time, but it is ready, so probably not long after. I'll ask if I can share a bit more about it later today.

[Unobtanium]

I didn't realize they had released the data on the new ones already. I'm quite sure there will be a 1X-more than 4. It is a military contract requirement. May not be released at the same time, but it is ready, so probably not long after. I'll ask if I can share a bit more about it later today.

This is all public info:

ATACR 5-25x56 F1
ATACR 4-16x42 F1
SHV 3-10x42

That is all that I am aware of them releasing. Of course, I am not connected. So I don't know anything that the rest of the world doesn't and they may well be holding back on what you're talking about, but thus far, this is all they have said is going to be shown at SHOT. Hell, it's just a few days away, anyway. I can wait and see.

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10863982_822254364483112_7586342105425981210_o.jpg
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s480x480/1004562_822254177816464_2779215863222584867_n.jpg? oh=923e87ae5c9f2f21878a1a96372b8dae&oe=5534EC08
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/10869376_822254141149801_2429986092216713375_o.jpg

[SLG]

The 1-XX scope will not be released at SHOT. Sorry.

[Unobtanium]

The 1-XX scope will not be released at SHOT. Sorry.

Fair enough. NRA, or likely not this year?

[SLG]

I've been asked not to say. I will say though, it will be worth it.

[Unobtanium]

I've been asked not to say. I will say though, it will be worth it.

Will it---whatever it is---be larger or smaller than the current nxs 1-4? That's part of why I like it. I promise. Last wheedling question.

[SLG]

Larger, but as far as size and weight, barely.

An option would be to get a 1-4 now, and when this other unobtanium :-) becomes available, either switch to it or add it. NF scopes hold their value well if you decide to sell it.

Also, the 1-4 will very shortly have an upgrade.

[taadski]

Larger, but as far as size and weight, barely.

An option would be to get a 1-4 now, and when this other unobtanium :-) becomes available, either switch to it or add it. NF scopes hold their value well if you decide to sell it.

Also, the 1-4 will very shortly have an upgrade.



Daylight visible illumination? Daylight visible illumintaion? Tell me it's daylight visible illumination!!! :D

[joshs]

Daylight visible illumination? Daylight visible illumintaion? Tell me it's daylight visible illumination!!! :D

While it's certainly a good feature, I don't really think it is a necessity like I used to. This is especially true when the reticle has a very good, bold aiming reference like the Nightforce FC reticles. Daylight visible illumination can also lead to getting rid of really handy reticle features. E.g., USO 1-4 DFP segmented circle was an awesome reticle with or without illumination, but the reticles in their newer scopes are dependent on illumination for the close range aiming feature.

[Unobtanium]

Larger, but as far as size and weight, barely.

An option would be to get a 1-4 now, and when this other unobtanium :-) becomes available, either switch to it or add it. NF scopes hold their value well if you decide to sell it.

Also, the 1-4 will very shortly have an upgrade.

*sigh*
Shortly...as in SHOT? NRA?

Will it truly be an upgrade, like the Aimpoint T1 to T2 price-wise, or will it be like the T1, T2, where it "spawns another model"?

[Unobtanium]

While it's certainly a good feature, I don't really think it is a necessity like I used to. This is especially true when the reticle has a very good, bold aiming reference like the Nightforce FC reticles. Daylight visible illumination can also lead to getting rid of really handy reticle features. E.g., USO 1-4 DFP segmented circle was an awesome reticle with or without illumination, but the reticles in their newer scopes are dependents on illumination for the close range aiming feature.

This is what draws me to the NXS, in addition to the size and weight and reputation for being bomb-proof. Even without illumination, it's extremely useful. In fact, so much so, that while hefting Frank's rifle, I never even turned the illumination on, much to my current dismay at not having seen it for myself in person.

[shane45]

I like my S&B Short dot a lot. It sits on my SR15. But a scope worthy of mention is the new dual focal plane scope from US optics. Nice daylight usable dot in the second focal plane, and a reticle in the first focal plane.

[SLG]

*sigh*
Shortly...as in SHOT? NRA?

Will it truly be an upgrade, like the Aimpoint T1 to T2 price-wise, or will it be like the T1, T2, where it "spawns another model"?

I'm sorry, I really can't say anything else. However, it is possible that someone else in this thread may have already spilled the beans.

[Unobtanium]

I'm sorry, I really can't say anything else. However, it is possible that someone else in this thread may have already spilled the beans.

Fair enough. If it's not out after NRA, I'll buy the NXS F3G 1-4X unless my mind changes...again. Like you said, NF seems to hold value. I'll just sell and consider the $100 or so lost "payment for rent"! if the new one is that much better. Thanks again!

[JM Campbell]

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/27036

On sale for $999.99

[Unobtanium]

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/27036

On sale for $999.99

Tempting! Inside info says I'm waiting on what NF has in the works though (no, not from anyone on this board.)

[El Cid]

Tempting! Inside info says I'm waiting on what NF has in the works though (no, not from anyone on this board.)

They also list it as a clearance item which would seem to confirm a newer model/version is on the way.

[ASH556]

Ok, follow-up to this thread:

I've just bought a 14.5" mid length BCM with a KMR13. The intent for this rifle is 3gun and as a "recce" rifle for anything that fits in between the capabilities of my MK18 (Inside, vehicles, close and fast) and my .308 bolt gun, so basically a 400-600yd capable gun with 0yd capability as well. I thought I was sold on the Vortex 1-6, but I have two reservations:
1) Weight
2) The reticle is useless for close up of the battery/illumination fail.

Meanwhile, the NXS 1-4 isn't daylight bright, but doesn't need to be to be useful with either the FC-2 or 3G reticles. It's also a known entity (although I guess the Vortex is too). Price is roughly the same on them. I have a mount and am trying to keep things as close to $1200 as possible (less is better, I've seen some used NF 1-4's under a grand!).

I guess this video from Proctor makes me think the Nightforce is still at least capable, if not the better choice. Thoughts and which NF reticle do you prefer for the NXS 1-4?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GF4NTr4Ag

[Failure2Stop]

One thing that I've learned on this topic is that the individual performs best when he sees what he wants to see when the reticle hits the target. There are different camps on this, and things that I believe are better, but personal preference is highly influential. The problem is that our past experience and bias will likely not prepare us for the unknown, and that which once seemed crucial may suddenly become moot, and that which was once scoffed may suddenly become central.

[ASH556]

One thing that I've learned on this topic is that the individual performs best when he sees what he wants to see when the reticle hits the target. There are different camps on this, and things that I believe are better, but personal preference is highly influential. The problem is that our past experience and bias will likely not prepare us for the unknown, and that which once seemed crucial may suddenly become moot, and that which was once scoffed may suddenly become central.

I sense great wisdom behind this post and know from our conversations elsewhere on the same topic at least a little bit of what your thoughts on the matter used to be. I want so badly to know which things have become moot and which are central. I know you've written somewhat recently about daylight brightness not being a requirement so long as the optic has the correct reticle. As far as what my eye likes to see, I've always thought it was a single, bright dot, ala Aimpoint. However, just Tuesday of this week I installed my first Eotech (EXPS 3-0) on my rifle and am enjoying it greatly thus far. I feel it's faster/more precise than an Aimpoint up close because I just put the bottom of the ring where I want the bullet to go vs guessing at holdovers up close with the Aimpoint. I also feel the 1MOA center dot on the Eotech makes longer distance (100 yd+) shooting easier.

[GJM]

However, just Tuesday of this week I installed my first Eotech (EXPS 3-0) on my rifle and am enjoying it greatly thus far. I feel it's faster/more precise than an Aimpoint up close because I just put the bottom of the ring where I want the bullet to go vs guessing at holdovers up close with the Aimpoint. I also feel the 1MOA center dot on the Eotech makes longer distance (100 yd+) shooting easier.

Suggest you take cover from imminent incoming fire.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Not to slam...but as a former Eotech owner, and a guy with some basic grasp of where bullets go:

Aren't you just guessing about when the 65 MOA ring stops being more applicable than the center dot? What if you're at 5y? How about 14y? 32y? 40y?

I like the Eotech reticle (although personally I'd rather run it in a Shield CQB which is a better sight) but if you have two options for point of aim and one works at distance A and one at distance B, then unless you're shooting at one of those particular distances, you're guessing about POI.

[Unobtanium]

Ok, follow-up to this thread:

I've just bought a 14.5" mid length BCM with a KMR13. The intent for this rifle is 3gun and as a "recce" rifle for anything that fits in between the capabilities of my MK18 (Inside, vehicles, close and fast) and my .308 bolt gun, so basically a 400-600yd capable gun with 0yd capability as well. I thought I was sold on the Vortex 1-6, but I have two reservations:
1) Weight
2) The reticle is useless for close up of the battery/illumination fail.

Meanwhile, the NXS 1-4 isn't daylight bright, but doesn't need to be to be useful with either the FC-2 or 3G reticles. It's also a known entity (although I guess the Vortex is too). Price is roughly the same on them. I have a mount and am trying to keep things as close to $1200 as possible (less is better, I've seen some used NF 1-4's under a grand!).

I guess this video from Proctor makes me think the Nightforce is still at least capable, if not the better choice. Thoughts and which NF reticle do you prefer for the NXS 1-4?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8GF4NTr4Ag
Proctor is dabbling with optics. Just T&E. He is at this very second using a vortex razor hd 1-6 instead of that NF.

that said I want "the same optic" you seem to be after.

I got a better feel for the vcog a few weeks ago. Swfa let me play with one. I adjusted the diopter on 3x and the shift to 1x and 6X was not bad at all. Honestly the kahles k16i spoiled me. It's as flat as a granite table top. The vcog diopter shift seemed similar to the leupold mk6. Really I think my issue was user error. I was used to adjusting diopter on 6X with the kahles and it's optical superiority allowed me to get away with it at 1x. The vcog is not as forgiving. Need to be smart adjusting diopter.

the eyebox on the vcog isn't bad either. It's about like the vortex. Illumination is not 100% daylight effective, but the reticle manages to be very useful with or without it at 1 or 6x.

Long story short, aa battery, integral mount have about made the vcog a wash with the k16i, for me, as far as "which to buy".

I'm definitely curious what some others think of it, but those are my hands on impressions.

I'd wait for the next NF optic though. The worst case is it drives the 1-4 price even further into the dirt.

[ASH556]

Suggest you take cover from imminent incoming fire.

Over the Eotech thing? No, I get it about reliablility, battery life, etc. still, it's not without its own benefits.

[ASH556]

Not to slam...but as a former Eotech owner, and a guy with some basic grasp of where bullets go:

Aren't you just guessing about when the 65 MOA ring stops being more applicable than the center dot? What if you're at 5y? How about 14y? 32y? 40y?

I like the Eotech reticle (although personally I'd rather run it in a Shield CQB which is a better sight) but if you have two options for point of aim and one works at distance A and one at distance B, then unless you're shooting at one of those particular distances, you're guessing about POI.

I understand your point but with any sight there are distances for which you are not zeroed/have holds for. I'm also not saying Eotechs are great and Aimpoints suck. Just that I appreciated having the closeup true hold vs guessing at holdover.

[Failure2Stop]

I understand your point but with any sight there are distances for which you are not zeroed/have holds for. I'm also not saying Eotechs are great and Aimpoints suck. Just that I appreciated having the closeup true hold vs guessing at holdover.

I spent a significant amount of time using POA/POI references inside reticles, and ultimately determined that for most applications a consistent hold-over referencing zero was superior.
An aspect of this revolves around POA/POI intersection. With 5.56, the consistency of a 100 meter zero ballistic "slope" at 0 to 50 meters (1 inch difference in POI), and 40 to 150 (dead-hold), worked better than worrying about the significant difference between 3 and 10 meters if using the bottom of the EoTech ring.
The ring works well if everything is inside a specific envelope, which has made quite a few people feel that the EoTech is faster, but when distances are less well defined, users tend to revert to their comfort level, and shots go other than where intended.
If the user is familiar and comfortable with driving the dot about 1.5" above the desired impact point from 0 to 50, he will easily hold within a head anywhere inside that. If the user is familiar and comfortable with using the bottom of the circle as POA/POI at 7 yards, he will be over the head at 25. One could easily argue that the shooter should then know to hold 1.5 high if outside room distance, however, this is now expecting the user to master two reticle references instead of one. You and I might have the time and motivation to learn and apply a few different reticle references in a violent encounter, but it still forces a mental decision as to what reticle reference to use based on the estimated distance/environment.

[jc000]

If I'm understanding correctly, the NXS reticle is designed around a 200 yard zero. If I use a 100 yard zero, should I look elsewhere?

[SLG]

Which NXS reticle? I use 100 yards on all my NF scopes...

200 on my aimpoints.

[jc000]

Which NXS reticle? I use 100 yards on all my NF scopes...

200 on my aimpoints.

Sorry, the FC3G. From their literature:


Created specifically for our 1-4 x 24 NXS and rifles with 16″ barrels, providing accurate holdovers to 600 yards. 200-yard center dot zero

[SLG]

Gotcha. Truthfully, I don't use the hold overs much, but the nice thing is that with a 100 yard zero, all I have to do is dial to a 200 yard zero and then everything lines up again.

[breakingtime91]

slg, why a 200 on your aimpoints?

[SLG]

With the aimpoint, I want maximum point blank zero.


With the scopes, I can set them for most likely used distance, and then dial for other stuff. For GP use, they are often just set to 200 as well... OUt to 250 or so I'm good, just like an aimpoint. If I want more precision, I just dial that specific distance.

With precision optics, you want to zero no further than 100 yards. Dialing makes your zero more accurate these day, rather than fighting position and wind at greater than 100 yard distances.

[breakingtime91]

so, I am thinking of picking up a 1-4x now, feel like they are more versatile then a red dot.. anyone else got some more info on the nxs

[Unobtanium]

so, I am thinking of picking up a 1-4x now, feel like they are more versatile then a red dot.. anyone else got some more info on the nxs

Bump for more opinions/info/data.

Basically, is the Nightforce's bomb-proof reputation enough to offset the daylight bright illumiation offered by the likes of Swaro/Kahles?

[Failure2Stop]

so, I am thinking of picking up a 1-4x now, feel like they are more versatile then a red dot.. anyone else got some more info on the nxs

Now that I have a few matches under my belt with it, I find that I do like it as much as initially.
I would like it better if it was set up for a 100 meter/yard zero, and would prefer the FC3G's BDC to be graduated for meters, but those are minor criticisms.
I would like higher intensity illumination, but I don't use it in this optic anyway during daylight and it hasn't hurt me any.

Overall, I like it an recommend it if the size/weight of a 1-6 or 1-8 is not conducive to the application.
I'm going to drop mine on an 11.5.

[Unobtanium]

Now that I have a few matches under my belt with it, I find that I do like it as much as initially.
I would like it better if it was set up for a 100 meter/yard zero, and would prefer the FC3G's BDC to be graduated for meters, but those are minor criticisms.
I would like higher intensity illumination, but I don't use it in this optic anyway during daylight and it hasn't hurt me any.

Overall, I like it an recommend it if the size/weight of a 1-6 or 1-8 is not conducive to the application.
I'm going to drop mine on an 11.5.

I'm leaning hard towards it over the K16i simply because it is a PROVEN solution. I have literally never heard of one breaking. Also, won't the 200 yard zero simply be the ever-popular 50 yard zero?

[EVP]

I have been looking to pick up a used Nightforce 1-4.

The main thing that attracts me to the Nightforce nxs 1-4 is the robustness and toughness of these scopes

[Failure2Stop]

I'm leaning hard towards it over the K16i simply because it is a PROVEN solution. I have literally never heard of one breaking. Also, won't the 200 yard zero simply be the ever-popular 50 yard zero?

Not really.
A 50 yard zero will be pretty close to a 200 meter zero, if everything is perfect, with certain constants applied.
A 200 yard/meter zero is only attainable with certainty at the exact range, especially if a BDC is tied to the zeroing scheme.
Confirmation at distance is critical if you expect the level of performance implied by a $1500(+) optic.
There are lots of reasons to confirm at actual distance, and I'm not saying that anybody has to do anything I say, but I can say that you will get better performance at midrange if you know where the bullets are going out there if you have targets smaller than full-size IPSC.
The 50 zero is an initial intersection zeroing scheme that lets folks get a "good enough" zero to start training.
Anyway, I could go on for a while about this, but will leave with this simple observation: those that know their drops and hold-overs, regardless of initial zeroing scheme distance, perform at higher levels than those that simply bust some caps at a specific distance and never confirm their data.

[Unobtanium]

Not really.
A 50 yard zero will be pretty close to a 200 meter zero, if everything is perfect, with certain constants applied.
A 200 yard/meter zero is only attainable with certainty at the exact range, especially if a BDC is tied to the zeroing scheme.
Confirmation at distance is critical if you expect the level of performance implied by a $1500(+) optic.
There are lots of reasons to confirm at actual distance, and I'm not saying that anybody has to do anything I say, but I can say that you will get better performance at midrange if you know where the bullets are going out there if you have targets smaller than full-size IPSC.
The 50 zero is an initial intersection zeroing scheme that lets folks get a "good enough" zero to start training.
Anyway, I could go on for a while about this, but will leave with this simple observation: those that know their drops and hold-overs, regardless of initial zeroing scheme distance, perform at higher levels than those that simply bust some caps at a specific distance and never confirm their data.

Can't disagree with any of the above! Very true. Thanks for the reality!

[00bullitt]

I'm leaning hard towards it over the K16i simply because it is a PROVEN solution. I have literally never heard of one breaking. Also, won't the 200 yard zero simply be the ever-popular 50 yard zero?

It is often a misconception that a 200 yard zero equates to a 50 yard zero. The truth is that there is a first intersect point in the line of sight that is at a closer range and can be figured using a ballistic solver. In the past, I think I calculated it to be 43 yards and yu can use that for a rough zero but as F2S mentions, it should always be confirmed.

My zero method is to zero at 100 yards but to set POI at 1.25" above my POA. That equates to the 200 yard zero that the reticle requires for proper calibration. I can then confirm at 200 and other yard marks.
I shoot a 69gr. SMK going 2807fps out of my 16" barrel and it lines up perfectly to 600 yards with the FC-3G.

When possible too, if you are shooting a round that does not line up perfectly, you can usually tru it up and bring it more in line with the reticle by truing it up at 300 or 400 yards. I then go back to confirm where my POI is at 100 for future reference.

BDC reticles are not for everyone as they have their list of shortcomings. When you have methods for dealing with those shortcomings, they become more manageable.

F2S is very familiar with MIL holds and bullet drop in MILS. He has a comfort level that makes that easier for him to work it in his head and has a preference for that and I can totally understand. The MIL holds can always be adapted to any environment. The BDC takes some manipulation.

[Failure2Stop]

My zero method is to zero at 100 yards but to set POI at 1.25" above my POA. That equates to the 200 yard zero that the reticle requires for proper calibration. I can then confirm at 200 and other yard marks.
I shoot a 69gr. SMK going 2807fps out of my 16" barrel and it lines up perfectly to 600 yards with the FC-3G.

This is exactly what I did on Saturday in prep for a match on Sunday (put the NXS 1-4x back on my LPR to replace a 3-18x).
My POI at 100 is a little higher, but my MV is a bit lower.



When possible too, if you are shooting a round that does not line up perfectly, you can usually tru it up and bring it more in line with the reticle by truing it up at 300 or 400 yards. I then go back to confirm where my POI is at 100 for future reference.


Absolutely agreed on this point as well (frankly, I agree with everything 00 posted, just noting that this is a particularly relevant part).

Don't take my preference for mils/meters to push you away from an optic, it certainly didn't for me.
The most important things are to understand the reticle, have a good zero, and build good data. Ballistic calculators are only as good as the data you feed them.

[00bullitt]

Ballistic calculators are only as good as the data you feed them.

Damn good point......Garbage in, Garbage Out (GIGO). Having known dope allows you to true your ballistic algorithm so that it is accurate for your round. Without ballistic verification, a solver is only going to be close.

[Unobtanium]

Damn good point......Garbage in, Garbage Out (GIGO). Having known dope allows you to true your ballistic algorithm so that it is accurate for your round. Without ballistic verification, a solver is only going to be close.

I have found ballistic calculators confusing. I input the sight height (2.5"), I input actual chronographed velocity and BC, and they are all sorts of off. I am about 2-3" high at 100 yards with a 50 yard zero, ever time. The BC says I should be a hair over an inch. Why? What am I missing? BC, height, zero, velocity...

[rainman]

I have a NXS 1-4, but with the NP-1 reticle. My next NXS will be ordered with the FC-3G, but would like to get some opinions on the NP-1. Is it a total non-starter for carbine class / SHTF? If so, is it worth sending to Nightforce for reticle replacement or best to sell at a loss and buy another?

I have taken a class with this scope and it worked well, but most stuff will when it's sunny and 75 degrees.

Thanks in advance.


-Rainman

[00bullitt]

I have a NXS 1-4, but with the NP-1 reticle. My next NXS will be ordered with the FC-3G, but would like to get some opinions on the NP-1. Is it a total non-starter for carbine class / SHTF? If so, is it worth sending to Nightforce for reticle replacement or best to sell at a loss and buy another?

I have taken a class with this scope and it worked well, but most stuff will when it's sunny and 75 degrees.

Thanks in advance.


-Rainman

Both of my Nightforce 1-4's were upgraded to the FC-3G. One was the older FC-2 and the other the NP-1. Both worked fine as they were but the FC-3G is much better.

You can send your current optic to NF for a reticle exchange. The price was not unreasonable and the scopes came back like brand new.

[00bullitt]

I have found ballistic calculators confusing. I input the sight height (2.5"), I input actual chronographed velocity and BC, and they are all sorts of off. I am about 2-3" high at 100 yards with a 50 yard zero, ever time. The BC says I should be a hair over an inch. Why? What am I missing? BC, height, zero, velocity...

External ballistics is a science that not everyone enjoys trying to understand as it can be very confusing due to the variables that affect spin stabilized projectile flight. Muzzle velocity as measured by chronographs that rely on light source and shadows are rarely ever even remotely accurate and BC's are usually far from true.

Once you can learn to properly manipulate a ballistic solver, you will appreciate their capability more.

Most likely your chronographed velocity was off by as much as 10% as was the BC of the projectile you were shooting.

[Unobtanium]

External ballistics is a science that not everyone enjoys trying to understand as it can be very confusing due to the variables that affect spin stabilized projectile flight. Muzzle velocity as measured by chronographs that rely on light source and shadows are rarely ever even remotely accurate and BC's are usually far from true.

Once you can learn to properly manipulate a ballistic solver, you will appreciate their capability more.

Most likely your chronographed velocity was off by as much as 10% as was the BC of the projectile you were shooting.

At 100 yards though, from a 50 yard zero, that should not result in over an inch-2 inches of deviation, I wouldn't think. In fact, I shot multiple loads to the same POI deviation from 50 to 100 yards, some of which arrived several hundred FPS slower at 100 yards, yet they did not drop any more from the same POI at 50 yards, so I can't see it being a velocity deviation issue?

[00bullitt]

What solver did you use?

[Unobtanium]

What solver did you use?
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

[rob_s]

I have found ballistic calculators confusing. I input the sight height (2.5"), I input actual chronographed velocity and BC, and they are all sorts of off. I am about 2-3" high at 100 yards with a 50 yard zero, ever time. The BC says I should be a hair over an inch. Why? What am I missing? BC, height, zero, velocity...

Skip all that "solver" computer BS and go shoot at 200. Then shoot again at 100 and 50 (and 300 if you can) to be sure.

Best solution, and only sure thing.

[Unobtanium]

Skip all that "solver" computer BS and go shoot at 200. Then shoot again at 100 and 50 (and 300 if you can) to be sure.

Best solution, and only sure thing.

I agree 100%, I just don't know why it's so bloody inaccurate.

[00bullitt]

I guess if you are not shooting to beyond 300, then the solver really does not show benefit. I shoot some of my 5.56 AR platform rifles to 600 and other rifles to a mile and sometimes more. The solver is a necessary tool in my kit.

[rob_s]

I agree 100%, I just don't know why it's so bloody inaccurate.

Which is the problem with such things.

Personal, I have no interest in learning some new widget, software, whatever. Rounds on paper is how I figure out where I am and should be zeroed.

Which, as listed above by others, until you shoot at distance X you aren't really sure where a round is gong to hit at that distance.

Randy Cain's carbine course gets you a solid 200 yard zero. How you get there is part of the I structin and training in the course. But you don't just stop at 200, you work back in and check to see where you are now. I've seen people think they are "on" at 50 (which, according to the internet means they are dead nuts at 200) and get out to 200 and be 6" off left or right. The "solver" may not explain it, but there it is on the paper.

[SLG]

Solvers, ime, work great when you put good info in, as noted above. A 200 yard zero is great for point blank shooting, but for LR stuff, solvers make life much easier. Dope at every range is just not practical all the time, and a solver gets you there much faster and easier. Still need to verify it, but it really speeds the process up.

[00bullitt]

Which is the problem with such things.

Personal, I have no interest in learning some new widget, software, whatever. Rounds on paper is how I figure out where I am and should be zeroed.

Which, as listed above by others, until you shoot at distance X you aren't really sure where a round is gong to hit at that distance.

Randy Cain's carbine course gets you a solid 200 yard zero. How you get there is part of the I structin and training in the course. But you don't just stop at 200, you work back in and check to see where you are now. I've seen people think they are "on" at 50 (which, according to the internet means they are dead nuts at 200) and get out to 200 and be 6" off left or right. The "solver" may not explain it, but there it is on the paper.

Solvers are very accurate for me. I use them for all of my weapon platforms. I still verify as the verified data helps true up the algorithm. I can now establish my zero and use a solid data point for truing up. That eliminates timely dope gathering and expending unnecessary ammo from multiple distances. It works for me, and very well.
For example, my 16" Recce Gun; I establish my 100 yard zero. The solver gives me a solution for 600 yards based off of data that is close. I then shoot to confirm my 600 yard POI. I correct if necessary and adjust the solver to reflect. Sometimes it is a change in velocity and sometimes it is a change in BC and Velocity. I manipulate the data to make it provide accurate info. Once it is manipulated to do so, it will provide a solution no matter where I am. There are factors involved into accurate truing, like having a scope that tracks accurately. I verify all of my scopes to track true and if they don't I can figure out the error in which they don't and input that info into the solver as well.

And yes, I do make back up dope charts in case the batteries die; but I use the solver to print them.

Solver work. You just need to learn how to manipulate them properly.

If gathering DOPE at every distance is your thing.....so be it. I moved passed that archaic method years ago.

[Failure2Stop]

I have found ballistic calculators confusing. I input the sight height (2.5"), I input actual chronographed velocity and BC, and they are all sorts of off. I am about 2-3" high at 100 yards with a 50 yard zero, ever time. The BC says I should be a hair over an inch. Why? What am I missing? BC, height, zero, velocity...

Zeroing range needs to be pretty solid. Whole lot of people zero at 35-40 yards, thinking it's 50. Use a decent LRF to verify zeroing distance.

LOS over bore is usually 2.7" with an AR with 1.5" height rings.

Environmental input is pretty important.
For example, with a 200 meter zero, there is a ~0.25" difference at 100 meters between 0ft and 10,000ft (at standard condition) with a 200 meter zero with a fairly slow 69gr. Not a big deal at 100, but significantly different at 500 (about 12"). This assumes that the guns are both zeroed at 200 at their respective elevation. Reduce the temp at sea level and increase the temp at 10k and the delta grows. The real purpose of pointing this out is that choosing an incorrect zero height based off of bad environmental data will affect your trajectory.

Check out the ICAO charts for standard atmosphere at elevation for input. Easy button for comparison: Alt=1,000, Pressure= 28.86 in/hg, Temp= 55.4 deg F. For real stuff, use your actual data.
I use a Kestrel with Applied Ballistics to do real-time environmental input and alterations to zero/trajectory.

Muzzle velocity needs to be based on a good statistical sample. I like 20 rounds worth. Using rounded numbers from internet sources is ok enough to get an idea of trajectory comparison, but is woefully lacking for an actual ballistic solution. Same thing with BC. Litz's BCs are pretty spot-on, but you really should be trued and adjusted at 300(+). BCs from the ammo box are not going to be very helpful, and the internet only if the source is known good, and even then, changes to velocity will impact BC. I recommend using G7 or Litz custom BCs. G1 will be close, but starts to become less useful past 600.

Humidity (RH) is pretty much a non-factor. Going from 0% to 100% gives minimal change. I just ues 50%. ICAO runs at 0%.

Applied Ballistics is the best calculator that I have used so far, especially with the Litz profiles. Still not 100% perfect, but with the amount of variables induced by temp, DA, and wind, it's wrong to think that anything will be dead-on past 500-600 unless in the high MV and BC area.
JBM is decent for online fast access.
They do not, however, know if your zero is good, if your MV is right, or if you picked the right BC for the projectile at velocity.
Even if everything is right, they are just a best-guess, and nothing trumps putting real bullets into a target at a verified range.

ETA: just want to note that my final note is not saying that you need to gather POA/POI data at every range, simply that getting something on paper at a verified distance past 300 helps align your physical data with the ballistic calculator, making the Calc that much more useful.

[Chris Rhines]

External ballistic computations are not magic. The equations for calculating drop at distance are perfectly understood; if they weren't, no artillery fire mission would ever hit its target. If the results from JBM, Applied Ballistics, or Strelok are at odds with your observed results, the problem is in your input data.

[Failure2Stop]

I hate to write this, as your point is valid, but I have never run a fresh fire mission (not a registered target already, shifting from a known target, or GPS/laser guided) that didn't require at least 2 corrections; and that's just to get within a couple dozen meters of the target.

From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff

[rob_s]

If the results from JBM, Applied Ballistics, or Strelok are at odds with your observed results, the problem is in your input data.



Solver work. You just need to learn how to manipulate them properly.

These quotes, combined, are exactly my point.

Further, I'm not shooting to 600+ yards, so there's very little so "solve" and very little time involved in the "archaic" method.

[Unobtanium]

.287bc, 2900fps, 2.5" over bore t2 optic, 16" barrel, black hills 5.56 tsx 62gr.

1.5" off from 50 to 100y.

What parameter could be so far off as to deviate that far in just 50y?

[M2CattleCo]

NXS 1-4 user here.

I love it. I use mine out to 600 yards, but I zero at 100 and dial. I have the zero stop turrets.

[Unobtanium]

I have only handled the FC-3G, and I liked it, but the illumination is rather weak. With an X300U the illumination washes out 100% on a white wall/door, but you DO have a very bolt reticle still. Aimed at darker things, it gives off a dull red glow over the illumination.

Anyway, which reticle is faster for combat-effective/IPSC target style hits 0-50 yards both illuminated/no illumination/dark/light, etc?

The IHR, or the FC-3G? I would also appreciate any reticle pix of the optics in question actually in use. I've looked and looked and looked and finally settled on the Nightforce 1-4. Now it's reticle-picking time.

*I don't care one bit about BDC capability. Forget that it exists.*

http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-llwpiff/product_images/uploaded_images/fc-3gill-300x300-69574-1-.png?t=1436990972
https://1shotgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/uc_product_full/public/ihr_4.png?itok=GS9iLa4x

http://nightforceoptics.com/pdf/NFO_IHRsheet_2013.pdf
http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/FC3G_Reticle_Sheet_Final.pdf

[HCM]

NXS 1-4 user here.

I love it. I use mine out to 600 yards, but I zero at 100 and dial. I have the zero stop turrets.

What reticle are you using?

[HCM]

Is there any advantage to the Mil dot reticle in a 1-4 ?

[Unobtanium]

Is there any advantage to the Mil dot reticle in a 1-4 ?

No mil-dot reticle is offered currently in the 1-4, I don't believe. Just IHR and FC-3G

[HCM]

No mil-dot reticle is offered currently in the 1-4, I don't believe. Just IHR and FC-3G

There's a used one for sale local to me.

I think they are also available via special order. Allen Yoast firearms carries them.

[breakingtime91]

So quick question, aren't you the guy that was staunchly for the Red dot + magnifier? If so, what changed?

[Unobtanium]

So quick question, aren't you the guy that was staunchly for the Red dot + magnifier? If so, what changed?

I want variety. I want to spend more time running a LPV to see if my taste changes.

[breakingtime91]

Trackin, keep me updated. Interested in what you find

[Unobtanium]

Trackin, keep me updated. Interested in what you find

Will do. What burned me so bad on the LPV was the VCOG I bought. Total suck. I kindof wrote of LPV's for some time, but the NXS that I looked through had none of the diopter shift issues the VCOG did unless I literally shoved the muzzle of the carbine into the target and the target was a fine-print book and I tried to read the print while keeping a crisp reticle. That's absurd. At any useful/meaningful distance (1-2 yards +), everything is beautifully in focus. So, I'm going to give the LPV a go.

[Unobtanium]

Since noone seems to have these photos, I took a few. My new Nightforce 1-4 NXS with FC-2 reticle arrived, and out came the cheap potato to document! All photos are with illumination set on "Max" unless otherwise noted. This should give a good idea of what one can expect in nearly every lighting environment one will encounter at night. Daylight pictures will have to wait for a bit, for technical reasons.


White wall, 3 meters, illumination off, 800 lumen bulbs (x2) behind white ceiling light diffuser:
http://i61.tinypic.com/riukvm.jpg
White wall, 3 meters, illumination on, 800 lumen bulbs (x2) behind white ceiling light diffuser:
http://i57.tinypic.com/mc3jhf.jpg
White wall, 3 meters, Surefire M600 Ultra (500 lumen) providing illumination, series:
http://i61.tinypic.com/2cxb2g3.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/30kyctz.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/p6qhj.jpg
Standing in living-room, standard residential brightness (to my eyes), unsure of lumens of bulb(s). 1X, aiming across parkinglot at door 50m distant:
http://i57.tinypic.com/nowtwg.jpg
Standing in living-room, standard residential brightness (to my eyes), unsure of lumens of bulb(s). 4X, aiming across parkinglot at door 50m distant:
http://i60.tinypic.com/11t95ag.jpg
Gas station, approximately 150m, 1x:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2qwdeuw.jpg
Gas station, approximately 150m, 4x:
http://i59.tinypic.com/333y0j6.jpg
Dark parkinglot into lit apartment, distance to door @ 10m:
http://i57.tinypic.com/33y5gkz.jpg

[Unobtanium]

Overcast with light rain, 1x, full illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2w1v5sx.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 4x, full illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2prgydg.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 1x, no illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2eeiepw.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 4x, no illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/vii59y.jpg


Very pleased so far. Here is a picture for size/scale. I have not bought a mount for it yet, although I'm working on a deal for the one I want.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2mgtnxx.jpg

-I do notice a tiny bit of magnification on 1x. It is functionally a non-issue, and there is no phoria.

-Everything is tough. The diopter adjustment locks, the scope and all adjustments feel very "robust".

-The glass is very very good. Not Kahles, but VERY good.

-Light transmission on 1x at night is very good. It is similar to the un-aided eye. Not darker, certainly.

-I noticed NONE of the diopter shift issues that I had with the VCOG. On 1x across the room it looks good, at 4x across the parkinglot it looks good...blurry smartphone pix not withstanding.

[Luke]

Thanks for taking the time to do that man. It's like I went to the gun store myself and looked at it!! Looks sweet!!

[Unobtanium]

Thanks for taking the time to do that man. It's like I went to the gun store myself and looked at it!! Looks sweet!!

Any time! I was very frustrated with the lack of information on this item. It's a been to war and come back, proven itself for a decade piece of kit...and noone has anything bad to say about it, but noone even really talks about it...so it was kindof a leap of faith on my part that I'm glad I made so far!