Vortex Razor 1-6 Gen II-E vs Nightforce NX8 vs Steiner M6xi

[secondstoryguy]

My teamates and I have been discussing the usefulness of LPV in LEO applications. The money is not allocated for dept purchase (yet!) so I’m planning on buying my own as a proof of concept. I’m down to three scopes: the Vortex Razor 1-6 Gen II-E, the Nightforce NX8 or the Steiner M6xi. Can anyone offer some input so I don’t waste my money and time?

[Duke]

Got the 1-6 razor HD gen II JM about 2 years ago.

Proof concept for me is if you can’t see it you can’t shoot it - so more X is almost always going to be better.

At the time it had the best glass (imo) of the other 1-6s I considered. The ones you list weren’t on my list at the time.

What I can say about the razor - on 1x it does shoot very much like a red dot. The 1moa red dot in the reticle is daylight bright. I left mine on for 2 months at #3 brightness before the battery died. It has an off between each illumination so getting it on is fast.

Glass is clean and clear and at 6X the JM reticle does a good job at putting stuff where you want it.


It is heavy though and I’m totally ignorant to the newer model optics that have come out since then.

[gringop]

Ive got a NX8 that I bought a few months ago on my BCA upper. The eye box seems a little tight but I've run it at Mike's carbine match on 1x without any problems. I'm in Austin and I'll be happy to let you shoot it at ARC any weekend.

PM if interested.

Gringop

[Clusterfrack]

My must have list for a 1-x optic:

True 1x
True daylight bright illumination
Usable reticle at 1x w/o illumination

I personally prefer FFP because it makes it easier to lead moving targets at any mag. I also prefer a mil/mil scope.

I don’t love the Vortex Razor. It checks most of my boxes but is overpriced for what you get, and is heavy for no good reason.

No experience with the other two scopes, but make sure you can return whatever you buy. You can tell a lot by looking through a scope before mounting.

[CS Tactical]

My teamates and I have been discussing the usefulness of LPV in LEO applications. The money is not allocated for dept purchase (yet!) so I’m planning on buying my own as a proof of concept. I’m down to three scopes: the Vortex Razor 1-6 Gen II-E, the Nightforce NX8 or the Steiner M6xi. Can anyone offer some input so I don’t waste my money and time?


I'd be happy to assist you on your decision if you wanted to give us a call at 916-670-1103, plus I have them in stock and get you one shipped out today. We've been discussing these scopes in these two threads here:
Vortex Razor Gen II 1-6 Review with some SR-15 thrown in. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?28785-Vortex-Razor-Gen-II-1-6-Review-with-some-SR-15-thrown-in.
Nightforce 1-8 discussion https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?28979-Nightforce-1-8-discussion

[LittleLebowski]

Seriously, just call CS Tactical.

[dontshakepandas]

Seriously, just call CS Tactical.

This.

I finally got my NX8 that I bought from them mounted up over the weekend and so far doing dry fire practice I love it. The eyebox is a little tighter than some other options I was looking at but the awesome reticle and being FFP more than makes up for it. At 1x as long as my face is touching my stock it's good to go though.

[TCFD273]

Can’t recommend CS enough, I’ve purchased several optics through them.

Having time behind 2 (NF and Vortex) of the 3 optics you mention, my choice would be the Vortex. As a NF fanboy, it does hurt to say that. Haha

A carbine will spend most of its life being shot at 1x, so a more forgiving eyebox is what your looking for. Especially when fired from field positions.

I have plenty of time behind FFP and dual focal plane optics and FFP on a LPVO isn’t a need for me. My mil reticle is accurate at 6x, and if I’m using the mil reticle for longer shots.....it’s on 6x.

Chuck Pressberg had a Q&A recently where he addressed this subject, and the NF NX8. He has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, FAR more than I, but my limited experience matches his.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Buddy that was central in his department’s adoption of LPVO’s came to the conclusion that the number one choice was: Vortex Razor HD 1-6. Second was the Leupold MK6 1-6. He gave my personal picks honorable mention. But, for care free, duty ready optics, said those were the 2 (and that the Vortex was head and shoulder above the Leupold).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

I have a Leupold Mk6 CMR-W on an 18" rifle. Excellent scope.

I can't agree with you about preferring the Vortex. The Leupold glass is better, and I prefer the CMR-W reticle by far. Plus the Mk6 is much lighter in weight. And is FFP.


Buddy that was central in his department’s adoption of LPVO’s came to the conclusion that the number one choice was: Vortex Razor HD 1-6. Second was the Leupold MK6 1-6. He gave my personal picks honorable mention. But, for care free, duty ready optics, said those were the 2 (and that the Vortex was head and shoulder above the Leupold).

[Sigfan26]

I have a Leupold Mk6 CMR-W on an 18" rifle. Excellent scope.

I can't agree with you about preferring the Vortex. The Leupold glass is better, and I prefer the CMR-W reticle by far. Plus the Mk6 is much lighter in weight. And is FFP.

That was me reposting my buddy’s Department preference (and his). My rifles have Trijicon Accupower 1-4 and 1-8. Also, from what I recall from folks like CS Tactical, second focal plane is preferred for LPVO (unless it’s a Nightforce 1-8... then FFP is awesome)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

I have a Leupold Mk6 CMR-W on an 18" rifle. Excellent scope.

I can't agree with you about preferring the Vortex. The Leupold glass is better, and I prefer the CMR-W reticle by far. Plus the Mk6 is much lighter in weight. And is FFP.

Could you elaborate your need for a FFP scope on a work carbine?

In my post above, based on my experience, the rifle will spend the majority of its life on 1x, and if your needing to hold with the reticle for precision shots, you’ll be at 6x.

FFP is nice, as long as 1x is forgiving. The NF NX8 is not as good as the Vortex or Khales on 1x.

Why sacrifice 90% of what a patrol carbine is for to optimize 10%?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dontshakepandas]

Could you elaborate your need for a FFP scope on a work carbine?

In my post above, based on my experience, the rifle will spend the majority of its life on 1x, and if your needing to hold with the reticle for precision shots, you’ll be at 6x.

FFP is nice, as long as 1x is forgiving. The NF NX8 is not as good as the Vortex or Khales on 1x.

Why sacrifice 90% of what a patrol carbine is for to optimize 10%?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NX8 isn't as forgiving at 1x as the Vortex or Kahles but it certainly isn't bad. Saying that you are sacrificiy 90% is misleading since it is probably 80-90% as good.

You also get a few different advantages by making that sacrifice. The most obvious one with the NX8 is the size and is what you are really trading the eyebox for. If the size (and cost) doesn't matter go with the ATACR 1-8.

I think FFP is a huge advantage and this is where I think the "90% of what a patrol carbine is for" statement gets hazy. With a SFP everything between 1x and the top magnification is not very useful since the reticle isn't accurate. That makes it pretty much all or nothing so you are pretty much going to live at 1x unless you need a lot of magnification. With FFP that isn't the case. You can zoom in just a little for intermediate distances and still keep a wider FOV but get better ID capabilities and still have a usable reticle.

Reticle preference plays a part too. I would rule out Vortex right out of the gate because I strongly dislike their reticle choices. Kahles has a few options that are ok but I strongly prefer the NX8 mil reticle.

Every optic is a trade off in some way, you just have to decide what matters to you. If you are in an urban environment and will be clearing structures more than anything then performance at 1x is probably where you want to focus. If you live/work in a more rural area and have higher chances of needing to take intermediate length shots but still need to work in buildings occasionally something that is FFP may be worth the trade off.

If you are buying for duty use I'd suggest getting the ATACR and having the best of both worlds. I'm not LE and the ATACR was way over budget for me so I chose the NX8 over the Kahles because it fit what I wanted for this specific rifle.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

The NX8 isn't as forgiving at 1x as the Vortex or Kahles but it certainly isn't bad. Saying that you are sacrificiy 90% is misleading since it is probably 80-90% as good.

You also get a few different advantages by making that sacrifice. The most obvious one with the NX8 is the size and is what you are really trading the eyebox for. If the size (and cost) doesn't matter go with the ATACR 1-8.

I think FFP is a huge advantage and this is where I think the "90% of what a patrol carbine is for" statement gets hazy. With a SFP everything between 1x and the top magnification is not very useful since the reticle isn't accurate. That makes it pretty much all or nothing so you are pretty much going to live at 1x unless you need a lot of magnification. With FFP that isn't the case. You can zoom in just a little for intermediate distances and still keep a wider FOV but get better ID capabilities and still have a usable reticle.

Reticle preference plays a part too. I would rule out Vortex right out of the gate because I strongly dislike their reticle choices. Kahles has a few options that are ok but I strongly prefer the NX8 mil reticle.

Every optic is a trade off in some way, you just have to decide what matters to you. If you are in an urban environment and will be clearing structures more than anything then performance at 1x is probably where you want to focus. If you live/work in a more rural area and have higher chances of needing to take intermediate length shots but still need to work in buildings occasionally something that is FFP may be worth the trade off.

If you are buying for duty use I'd suggest getting the ATACR and having the best of both worlds. I'm not LE and the ATACR was way over budget for me so I chose the NX8 over the Kahles because it fit what I wanted for this specific rifle.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

A couple of points:

Historically engagement distances for patrol carbines is well within 100yds.

I don’t think anyone would suggest that a LPVO is as fast and as forgiving as a red dot inside 100yds

With a 5.56 zeroed at 100yds you will not need a FFP optic until about 250-300yds. If your shooting a target at 300 yds that’s required the use of the reticle (head shot, tight window shot) you better be on 6 or 8x.

I think we, I’m included in this because I spend a lot of time banging long range steel, spend a lot of thinking of what if’s without considering the data from the GWOT (meaning making tight shots at 300yds under duress) and LEO engagements with carbines.

If your a police officer in an urban setting, a 300yd shot is HIGHLY unlikely. What’s more likely is something like I was recently a party to. A head shot at 5yds inside a home. For that you want the most forgiving eyebox, with a really good dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

Great question, and one that I can't answer. My use of carbines has been limited to competition. When there are moving targets, FFP allows me to lead using the reticle at any magnification. There are plenty of situations where I like 4x better than 6. If I had an 8x scope, I'd definitely not want to have to use max mag to have my reticle be calibrated.

The NX8 doesn't look nearly as nice as the ATACR...


Could you elaborate your need for a FFP scope on a work carbine?

In my post above, based on my experience, the rifle will spend the majority of its life on 1x, and if your needing to hold with the reticle for precision shots, you’ll be at 6x.

FFP is nice, as long as 1x is forgiving. The NF NX8 is not as good as the Vortex or Khales on 1x.

Why sacrifice 90% of what a patrol carbine is for to optimize 10%?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

Some data: (second column from the left is drop in mils)

Black Hills Mk262 zeroed at 100yds with a 10mph constant left to right wind

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180605/9e2eab4dbf7b9350135fe9999e427703.jpg

62 grain load at 2950fps zeroed at 100yds with a 10mph wind.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180605/c29a769eb5f8624b2b8610d5d049625d.jpg

My point to this is, a FFP optic is not a necessity for a patrol/swat carbine. Once you push out past 250 you will need the reticle to hold for a tight window shot. In that highly unlikely scenario, a ZERO FAIL scenario mind you, you need to be on 6 or 8x and be shooting from a stable position.

This past Friday I went 10 for 10 at 300 from a standing to seated position in under 30sec with a MRO on a 18” x 24” piece of steel. You don’t need a FFP much less a LPVO to do that. They are nice for target identification, precise shots at distance, and I personally find them easier to get hits while moving at 50yds or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

Great question, and one that I can't answer. My use of carbines has been limited to competition. When there are moving targets, FFP allows me to lead using the reticle at any magnification. There are plenty of situations where I like 4x better than 6. If I had an 8x scope, I'd definitely not want to have to use max mag to have my reticle be calibrated.

The NX8 doesn't look nearly as nice as the ATACR...

Yes, the ATACR is very nice. I’ve looked through them, but haven’t put any real time behind the 1-8 ATACR. I shoot the 5x25 ATACR weekly and it’s my favorite to date.

I shoot 2 gun frequently, but I can’t recall any targets being past 300yds, most of the time they are setup inside 250 at my home range for multigun competitions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wayne Dobbs]

Magnification, eye relief requirements and required eye coaxiality with the center of an optic are NOT your friends on a patrol carbine in the overwhelmingly common circumstances present in the use of a CONUS patrol rifle.

[secondstoryguy]

Magnification, eye relief requirements and required eye coaxiality with the center of an optic are NOT your friends on a patrol carbine in the overwhelmingly common circumstances present in the use of a CONUS patrol rifle.

I agree. In my AOR and in my mission set (SWAT/patrol) the ability to deploy a rifle with magnified optic makes sense. These include an active shooter in a large open venue, an active shooter on an elevated structure, and as a precision rifle analog when doing over watch. The ability to look into windows ans PID targets is also a huge plus.

I still would probably deploy an RDS equipped sight for 90% of my patrol use. The idea would be to have two rifles in my vehicle. This was also motivated by my primary rifle being rendered inoperable during training the other day(case failure).

[GJM]

Isn’t 18x24 unrealistically large for hunting or face shooting?

[Wayne Dobbs]

I agree. In my AOR and in my mission set (SWAT/patrol) the ability to deploy a rifle with magnified optic makes sense. These include an active shooter in a large open venue, an active shooter on an elevated structure, and as a precision rifle analog when doing over watch. The ability to look into windows ans PID targets is also a huge plus.

I still would probably deploy an RDS equipped sight for 90% of my patrol use. The idea would be to have two rifles in my vehicle. This was also motivated by my primary rifle being rendered inoperable during training the other day(case failure).

Why not do a quality magnifier on a flip mount?

[Wayne Dobbs]

Isn’t 18x24 unrealistically large for hunting or face shooting?

Yes.

[secondstoryguy]

Why not do a quality magnifier on a flip mount?
I’ve considered it as some of my teamates use them. I’ve looked through the higher power Aimpoint magnifiers and I still prefer a LPV for my intended use.

Time will tell and this might be a solution too. I’m worried about how hard it will be to use a LPV with a mask on...a magnifier would solve that.

[TCFD273]

Isn’t 18x24 unrealistically large for hunting or face shooting?

Face shooting-yes

Hunting-yes

Combat-No, dot on face, break the shot.

I was trying to illustrate that a red dot is more appropriate for a patrol rifle, and if you want a LPVO having the best/most forgiving one at 1x is paramount. Maybe I did a poor job explaining that.

I can hit 8” plates with a magnifier at 300...but I think a LPVO is better suited for that niche role. Niche being a work rifle.

You can absolutely use a good LPVO in place of a red dot...with a lot of training and rounds down range. I’m not speaking of myself, but having witnessed/shot along side men who do face shooting (CQB) with LPVO.

This topic has been covered in much greater detail with men with far more experience than myself. I’m mainly parroting them combined with my own experience using them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CS Tactical]

An older but good review on the last generation Vortex Optics Razor Gen II 1-6 to check out.

https://youtu.be/jilqXipJFm0

[vmi-mo]

I have been using LPVO since 09ish IIRC. Most of my time has been spent behind Mk8's, Mk6's, Vortex 1-6 and slowly gaining time behind the ATACR.

I have used these optics on 10"+ rifles and now, all my rifles wear LPVO.

I prefer FFP with some sort of mil based reticle. This comes down to the fact, my holds are represented in the reticle regardless of what magnification I am on.

The realities of the targets engaged in combat are unknown ranges, awkward exposures, blending into backgrounds(even just natural lighting), and not easily eye ball measured shapes.

There are two main ways to hold for ranged engagements. Holds, aka using a mark in a reticle. Or hold overs, meaning if my bullet drops 18" at whatever range, I hold 18" high.

Banging plates at 300 with a SFP gives a false sense of confidence IMHO. It is my personal theory that humans are relatively good at knowing what to hold when they have a target of somewhat known size to hold in reference of. Example, say you're shooting at 12" circle. Say your drop for whatever range is 8", it is fairly easy for you to extrapolate your hold.

This, in my experience quickly falls apart. A fair test of skill is to paint steel targets some neutral earth tones, hide them in a tree line, in realistic spots used for cover, and see how that method of holding treats you.

To me, and most everyone I have ever worked with, having multiple reference points in the reticle spaced out at known increments which hold true regardless of magnification range, carries the day (mil or moa based reticles)

This also makes the degree of precision I can employ easier. Instead of holding in the air above the target 18"ish, i know instead to hold exactly 1.2mils. This means I can engage lower percentage shots (think heads sticking out over a wall) at longer distances and still have a higher degree in confidence of making the hit.

I rarely use the dot illumination in LPVO. I mostly run them around 2 power, which gives me thick enough stadia lines for close stuff, but i can still focus through for precision shots if needed.

The LPVO is just as fast as red dots. It just takes more work to be as fast. In real world conditions, if you know what you are doing, and dont tank turret, the LPVO is not slow.

The flip up magnifier is an awkward system that I have seen prone to zero shift(sorta), parallax and other problems. Looking through 4 lenses is just excessive. Other than added magnification for PID, it doesnt give me any real benefits

The one thing you can do with a red dot, that you cant do with an LPVO, is shoot through it with helmet mounted nods. If anyone has done this successfully with a LPVO, please let me know

[GJM]

Other than obvious differences in magnification, what are thoughts on NF 1-8 ATACR vs Kahles 1-6?

[vmi-mo]

Other than obvious differences in magnification, what are thoughts on NF 1-8 ATACR vs Kahles 1-6?

Don't have much time on the Khales.

Intital view point, 34mm tube, proven durability, fairly logical reticle, mil based for the atacr.

[LittleLebowski]

Guys, I would listen to vmi-mo.

[jellydonut]

Banging plates at 300 with a SFP gives a false sense of confidence IMHO.


Realistically, would anyone use anything less than full power on a 1-6 at 300 yards?

With a small range such as 1-6 the scope is more of an on-off deal than one where you use a lot of powers in between.

Perhaps on the 1-8 FFP makes more sense, I have not tried one, but I don't feel SFP is an issue on 1-6 optics at all.

[GJM]

Realistically, would anyone use anything less than full power on a 1-6 at 300 yards?

With a small range such as 1-6 the scope is more of an on-off deal than one where you use a lot of powers in between.

Perhaps on the 1-8 FFP makes more sense, I have not tried one, but I don't feel SFP is an issue on 1-6 optics at all.

Because the wounded elk you were tracking is running over the hill at 347 yards, and you were on 3 power, as a compromise, at that moment, not knowing where he was.

[vmi-mo]

Realistically, would anyone use anything less than full power on a 1-6 at 300 yards?

With a small range such as 1-6 the scope is more of an on-off deal than one where you use a lot of powers in between.

Perhaps on the 1-8 FFP makes more sense, I have not tried one, but I don't feel SFP is an issue on 1-6 optics at all.


When you have a 2FP scope, you have somewhat turned your optic into more of an elcan rather than taking advantage of the entire range of magnification.

There are hundreds of reasons to dial back power, even on long range shots. Mirage from the environment, mirage off a can, your engagement area etc.

If I am set somewhere, and needing magnification, my general rule of thumb is I set the magnification so I can see my largest possible target to target transition within the entire reticle. In competition, that is relatively self explanatory. For field use, that may mean setting the magnification so you can see both sides of a road, or an entire intersection, an entire clump of trees, an entire outer wall on a compound etc.

This isnt a set in stone rule, more of a guideline.

Additionally, I have been in the sun or on a hot can where 2-4x was all I could do before mirage overtook the image. Now if you are using a 2FP, what is your holds.....More brain power going into calculating a hold, on a flash target, that will only present itself for 3-5 seconds...You are stacking the odds against you.

I really feel its a mindset shift. A LPVO isnt just a red dot with magnification. There is so much more capability to it and it requires training and new ways of thinking.

[Clusterfrack]

^^^Excellent explanation. I completely agree.

It’s harder to design a reticle that works well for all applications in FFP, so that adds a major issue when shopping for a scope. There’s really no good way to tell if a reticle is going to work well unless you: 1. Know what you need, and 2. Look through the scope.

[vmi-mo]

^^^Excellent explanation. I completely agree.

It’s harder to design a reticle that works well for all applications in FFP, so that adds a major issue when shopping for a scope. There’s really no good way to tell if a reticle is going to work well unless you: 1. Know what you need, and 2. Look through the scope.

I think the answer is the H27D (commonly used in the CQBSS/Mk8) or the FC-DM (commonly used in the ATACR1-8). Both are very similar....

If I was reticle god for a day, I would make some minor minor changes, outside of that.....

[jellydonut]

I do like the look of the ATACR 1-8's reticle, the only thing I don't like are the big duplexes. I get the idea, it's supposed to focus the eye towards the center, but I think it would be better with some thin lines.

[dontshakepandas]

I do like the look of the ATACR 1-8's reticle, the only thing I don't like are the big duplexes. I get the idea, it's supposed to focus the eye towards the center, but I think it would be better with some thin lines.

The thick duplexes really help with 1x use if you have to run with no illumination for some reason.

[Unobtanium]

All other things aside, including illumination in any and every shape and form, how does the eyebox and image flatness on the nx8 compare with the mk6 on 1x?

[phreaticus]

Hi - long time PF lurker (as in years), first time poster. Sorry for the thread necrosis, but the post below was such high quality that I just had to jump in and say thanks to vmi-mo. I'm a simple carbine enthusiast, just now transitioning from red dot to LVPO. As I investigated the pros/cons of various scopes, I've struggled to understand the pragmatic (vs theoretical) benefits of FFP in the middle magnification ranges. I train & shoot a lot, have some fairly experienced/talented guys in my circles, and in last 2 years have taken several upper level carbine/rifle classes from some pretty credible trainers. I've understood that the real benefit of FFP was in the mid ranges (eg. 2-5 zone on a 1-6 optic), but so far no one ever explained to me exactly why or what specific use cases they really help - I could never reconcile how one would not want to be at max power for a fixed, no-fail type of shot in medium ranges. The explanation below was the first & only that I've seen that helped me really grok it.

Personally, I'm very partial to super simple clean reticles that can emulate a red dot in 1x mode as much as possible. Most of FFP's seem to have super busy reticles that I can't stand, and my use case does not realistically comprise any form of multiple threats at meaningful ranges beyond 100m. I very much like the analogy of 1-N to Elcan's "1x/4x switch-mode" - as this is exactly what I find most comfortable & seems to be the best tool for the job - for where I am currently at. My first try at LVPO was Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x in some cheap 1.5" rings - that setup was basically worthless at any range for me, and I went back to red dot. I'm now taking another stab to get comfy on LVPO, this time with a Steiner P4Xi-1-4x24, which I consider to a poor man's Elcan (IMO same/better glass, perfect reticle, at a fraction of the cost/weight). Also trying 1.93" mount vs traditional 1.5" for the first time... So far, it's nothing short of glorious and it's already hard to imagine going back to T1's. But based on this new information, if/when the time comes for me to explore higher end stuff with more magnification, I'll now consider FFP a bit more seriously than I have been previously.

Anyway, main point was to say thanks to the high quality PF contributors. I've gotten a ton of useful info here on pistol related topics, and this one was super helpful for my rifle/scope education.

Cheers,

P



When you have a 2FP scope, you have somewhat turned your optic into more of an elcan rather than taking advantage of the entire range of magnification.

There are hundreds of reasons to dial back power, even on long range shots. Mirage from the environment, mirage off a can, your engagement area etc.

If I am set somewhere, and needing magnification, my general rule of thumb is I set the magnification so I can see my largest possible target to target transition within the entire reticle. In competition, that is relatively self explanatory. For field use, that may mean setting the magnification so you can see both sides of a road, or an entire intersection, an entire clump of trees, an entire outer wall on a compound etc.

This isnt a set in stone rule, more of a guideline.

Additionally, I have been in the sun or on a hot can where 2-4x was all I could do before mirage overtook the image. Now if you are using a 2FP, what is your holds.....More brain power going into calculating a hold, on a flash target, that will only present itself for 3-5 seconds...You are stacking the odds against you.

I really feel its a mindset shift. A LPVO isnt just a red dot with magnification. There is so much more capability to it and it requires training and new ways of thinking.