Nightforce 1-8 discussion

[TiroFijo]

Just a couple decades+ of asking about this kind of stuff to industry people and experts at sniper's hide (when I was more into long range shooting), and personal email communications.
I'm a civil engineer and some of it is basic physics or math, or available everywhere for research but the devil is in the details and it is better to ask people that do it for a living.

Since internet became available I've had great luck contacting very knowledgeable industry people, leaders in their field. I've discussed tech stuff (a hobby for me) with great 1911 gunsmiths or rifle makers, scope or ammo manufacturers, ballistic software designers, etc. It is amazing how well technical people respond to educated and interesting questions.

I just wrote yesterday to Nightforce telling them about the problems with the tech detailed data portrayed in their web site. Sometimes you get a reply with some thanks and make a new friend, sometimes not...

[Gray222]

Just a couple decades+ of asking about this kind of stuff to industry people and experts at sniper's hide (when I was more into long range shooting), and personal email communications.
I'm a civil engineer and some of it is basic physics or math, or available everywhere for research but the devil is in the details and it is better to ask people that do it for a living.

Since internet became available I've had great luck contacting very knowledgeable industry people, leaders in their field. I've discussed tech stuff (a hobby for me) with great 1911 gunsmiths or rifle makers, scope or ammo manufacturers, ballistic software designers, etc. It is amazing how well technical people respond to educated and interesting questions.

I just wrote yesterday to Nightforce telling them about the problems with the tech detailed data portrayed in their web site. Sometimes you get a reply with some thanks and make a new friend, sometimes not...

Got it.

Well then, if you are so inclined for the betterment and education of the forum, please start a new thread and post personal observations and experiences with optics as you see them, corroborating your statements with facts/science.

Again, not calling you out, I am sure I am not in the minority when I say that more education on this topic is best and by someone who clearly has put time and effort into it.

If you do not want to do the work on here, that is fine, maybe start a blog and post this information, either way there are plenty of interested parties.

[Alembic]

An optics sub thread? Anyone?
Lots of potential material to work with.

[MistWolf]

The optical train elements in a scope with a bigger tube are not always bigger, the extra space is often used for other things: more room for elevation/windage adjustment, more forgiving for the complicated optical path, more rugged internal parts, double erector in a 1-8x zoom scope, etc.

Even if the lenses themselves are larger (most probaly they are not, at least all of them), the light transmition increase would be inconsecuential and not detected by the human eye. The key feature would be the glass + coatings quality and not the internal lenses diameter.

All else being equal, an erector set with larger diameter lenses will pass more light.

[00bullitt]

All else being equal, an erector set with larger diameter lenses will pass more light.

This is very true. The optical prescription dictates the diameter of the lenses needed in an erector system to magnify the image. When the erector is made large enough to handle this larger diameter lens system, the outer tube is also made larger as a result to accommodate the necessary elevation travel for movement of the erector within.

I seriously doubt NF just MADE the ATACR 34mm for other reasons that were not dictated by a design criteria of the optical system. Just like I don't think Leupold MADE the Mark 8 35mm, or Hensoldt 36mm or IOR 40mm. They made them that large to accommodate a lens requirement and in turn had to enlarge the tube to provide the desired elevation travel.

I do know a fair amount about optical design in riflescopes specifically.

[TCFD273]

Do you have any formal research or documentation to cite? Not calling you out for the info, as I agree with most of it, just would like to be able to reference a document or research of some kind.

A scopes light transmission, “brightness”, is determined by lenses, coatings, objective diameter and the magnification

I own several NF ATACR’s, 1 SHV and 1 NXF1.

I imagine the ATACR will have better glass/coatings (which does translate to a brighter scope), and be built like a tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ASH556]

I can’t imagine why they felt the need to make this a FFP scope. As @00bullitt said in another thread, it’s not designed to be a true precision optic. In my mind after having used all of the “good” LPV optics, the Trijicon Accupower 1-4 is still one of the best due to it’s meeting the following criteria:

-True 1X
-SFP
-Bold reticle, useable without illumination (things break, batteries die, especially riding around in a patrol car or something)
-Capped turrets

It wins out over the NF 1-4 because of holdovers and a smaller center dot. The center dot on both the FC2 and FC3G are too big for precise aiming.

Kahles 1-6 is best in the world for the same reason.

If Nightforce would make the NX8 in SFP with capped turrets, I think that would be a real winner.

The whole “Aimpoint bright dot on 1X” thing works great until your battery dies. Then you have nothing but a small black spec to aim with.

[00bullitt]

I don't equate FFP to a precision optic. I see plenty of benefit for FFP in a LPV with greater than 6x magnification. My threshold for SFP is 1-6. More than 1-6, with a well designed reticle, FFP has benefits.

If I run a 200 yard zero, I can deal with just about any target inside 30 yards using the center of the reticle. I will most likely be on 1-6x doing so. If I go beyond 300 yards, I will most likely be on 6x; then the reticle subtensions would be accurate to deal with targets requiring any holds. If it were an 8x, dealing with targets beyond 300 yards, I will most likely be on 4x-8x depending on FOV required to engage efficiently. I may not want to be on 8x to address targets. Less magnification increases situational awareness and does not create tunnel vision. If the 8x scope did not have a well designed graduated reticle, then SFP would be just fine.

The SFP benefits of a 6x start to get trumped by the extra magnification of an 8x in my opinion.

The Nightforce reticles worked well in a power out situation. I think they were well designed to address that. I also do not run JUST a scope on a work gun; I couple it with an offset red dot as an auxiliary sight. If not that, I would, at minimum have offset BUIS as I am not one to ever depend on batteries. I DO, however change them regularly and always have spares on hand.

I'm sure if NF made a SFP version of the 1-8, they would sell a few of them, but the FFP will be the majority seller.

[Gray222]

While I understand the reasons behind the sfp vs ffp arguments, in the real world when you pump that optic up to Max magnification you aren't going to be moving around, it'll be in a stationary position for PID and precision shooting purposes. Having an optic you can go from CQB to 200m distances precision shooting is awesome and many that try have fallen short, very short.

[Clusterfrack]

I’m with 00bullitt on this one. Even in a 1-6x I prefer FFP. I’ve shot stages with multiple moving targets and 6x didn’t provide enough FOV. I want my leads and holds to work across the entire mag range. In a 1-8, this is even more important.