There were pics of the NF 1-8 on Arfcom.
I think the Razor 1-6 does a lot of things well, but the reticle is s non-starter for me. A friend has one and I have used it quite a bit. The biggest issue I have with it is that if the battery or illumination go out, you basically have a fine crosshair reticle. Not conducive to speed.
Did you consider the Accupower 1-8? Thoughts?
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
On second thought, forget the Accupower. Forgot it was FFP. Same issue as Mk6. Nothing to aim with on 1x if power fails.Originally Posted by ASH556
Food Court Apprentice
Semper Paratus certified AR15 armorer
I hope that’s a hint.Excellent review! The Kahles and Vortex LPV are my top LPV’s overall with the Kahles having the weight advantage and the Vortex having the “potential” durability advantage. I’d take either one on a serious use gun and I know the Vortex has been used on duty weapons and by our military.
But I’m interested with what Shot Show brings this year
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had considered the Accupower, a good friend has one and I got to spend some time with it. It’s very well built, typical Trijicon quality, great glass but It was FFP and the illumination was not very good. At 1x the reticle was difficult to see, especially with no illumination.
I ruled out the Leupold MK6 early on because of FFP and the flickering reticle issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t understand why people want a FFP in a 1-6x scope. 95% of the time you are either at 1x or 6x. It is not getting used to mil (or moa) objects at 3-4x.
I would like a ‘horseshoe’ reticle for use at 1x, but I can still see the crosshairs if the (excellent) dot is not on. Even better, I would prefer a light ‘Christmas tree’ like the NF Velocity 600 reticle for easier hold offs at 6x.
I do a lot of backpacking, and I don't understand the focus on weight with this optic. Yes, it is a lot heavier. I really don't look at anyone's rig and not see where they couldn't get a pound or two off, even if they legitimately expected to hump the rig over mountains for several days. Ounces lead to pounds and pounds lead to pain. Is your rifle optic really the first place you want to cut ounces? You're looking at a device you can easily drop, bump, bounce, smack, and you still need it to function as intended. I expect it to be heavy.
I think it's just because it's so striking when you pick it up. People don't expect it, so it gets noted a lot, and then it gets blown up as an issue.
I can't find the link any more, but I found one article that claimed the reason for the weight is the use of steel in the turret mechanism instead of softer, lighter materials. If this is the case, I think it's a good tradeoff. Anyone else see this article, maybe have the link handy?
Last edited by jellydonut; 12-05-2017 at 07:19 AM.
I noted the weight, because it is heavier than its competitors; and that is the main drawback when comparing relatively equivalent quality optics.
There aren’t too many of us who couldn’t loose 10 pounds first, or hit the gym a little more often, rather than worrying about a few ounces in equipment. I am in that group and use the heavier scope. I use the same argument when it comes to hearing people complain about body armor. Most of them could don’t complain about carrying the extra weight around their waist, just the chest.
Last edited by smithjd; 12-05-2017 at 08:04 AM.
One thing about the weight of the optic is not so much the total weight it self, but rather how it effects the balance of the rifle due to the placement on top of the rifle.
Can you spot the difference? Coming 2018.
Only one way to see it - sign up for our newsletter - drops 12/08/17 http://www.vortexoptics.com/content/vortex_enewsletter
CS Tactical
For the best pricing on Optics please PM or call 916.670.1103
Dealer for Zero Compromise, Tangent Theta, Leupold,
Nightforce, MDT, Vortex, XLR Industries and more...
www.cstactical.com
Reply With Quote
