AR Sponsor
Nx6 ffp fc-dmx review (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/20/2026 9:58:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: hoody2shoez][Edited]
|
TL: DR Performance in class 10/10 Value in class at MSRP 5/10 Recommend? 7/10 yes. Not for the value-based customer... the plx-c out value's it. Strength: predictability, ease of use, and image stability Dumb things requiring no extra money to fix- 1. Tall turrets. This is dumb. Stop it. 2. .2mrad adjustments. This is also dumb. Stop it. Current time on FC-DMx (atacr, nx8, nx6 combined) probably over 1500 hours. Around 10000 rounds of ammunition longest engagement distance 900y 2 hits/9 attempts on a 24x36 plate off the magazine, so I'll take it. Missed at 1000... I went 7 for 10 on an 18" plate at 700 today (again off the mag) Things I would change- besides the dumb things that would cost $0 to implement above that NF decided to be a dick about I wish they would have made this in the compact body and shaved a couple oz off. Frankly at 19oz it's only like an oz heavier than the nx8 so weights really not an issue. But for two grand its asking a lot of a full sized scope body 1-6 knowing full well how far tech has come in the compact optic market. Hell, make it a LITTLE longer, not an 1.5"... SCORES-these are looked at in its class-the $2000 class... so take this for what you will Build quality-10/10. Its a nightforce and feels like it. Zoom lever is magically smooth. Diopter is polarizing but works, more on that later. IQ-7/10. Max resolution, color, contrast, things like that. The glass is good, not great... if an atacr is 4k this is like 1080p. The diopter is very forgiving, unlike the other NF lpvo's and much more forgiving than other things in its class that i've tried (looking at you PA). No CA to be noted. Color saturation looked neutral to me, contrast sharp. Nothing was soft but nothing popped either. Above average I think but not blow your socks off. Where this shines is stability... Image stability-12/motherfucking 10. Edge to edge IQ, parallax, off center, etc. Off center? image looks just as good as perfectly centered resolution wise (gets darker but that comes with the territory). clarity until about 700y? Can't even tell its fixed parallax. 900y was small, but still clear. 1000 even was easily identifiable, but again, SMALL. Weird glare from the sun? none. Low(er) light? Best 24mm obj 30mm tube i've ever tried. Its still a 24mm obj 30mm tube but damn, that 7/10 is a constant 7/10-not a 10/10 in perfect conditions and it falls apart in others. Sure it loses some resolution in low light but it is HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE ITS COMPETITION. This thing just fucking works. 1x is probably my favorite 1x to date-smooth, flat, minimal shift until stupid close, and with only a bit of warping around the last 5% or so. It needs to be noted that the distortion/warping is there, but not terrible and if I were to rank that on a scale of 1-10 (1 being exps territory so none) i'd give this a 3. I find a razor to be about 5 (average) so take that into consideration. No loss of resolution or focus through the magnification range. This thing WORKS and is damn easy to use. Eyebox/eye relief-10/10. The actual eyebox feels a bit tighter than a razor at 1x but comparing it to other diffractive illumination reticles this thing has the least 'blink' out of any of them hands down. You have to come WAY off center at 1x compared to an nx8, atacr, or rg3 for the reticle to dim. At 6x it still works better than I remember the other NF optics to perform, again highlighting this things strength, it's predictability/stability. turrets-5/10. Really good actually, but I expect that for 2k so that puts it at average. The strength of this thing is its ease of use and predictability. It works consistently all the time-no quirks or surprises. Attached File Nas3 data for the nerds Attached File *More images to come* |
|
I agree at least in the broad strokes. I’ve been critical of NF LPVOs before and consider the NX8 the worst ‘premium’ LPVO, and the ATACR a mid ‘premium’ LPVO with a Cadillac price tag. That’s comparing them optically, and I’m sure they’re rugged though, which is worth something for sure. This thing is an improvement over both in that it’s a solid leg up on my knocks on the NX8, and compares more in ATACR quality without ATACR price-tag. I do plan on keeping mine but I do feel the Razor is the better 1X LPVO (eyebox, reticle) and the PLXC RDB to be the better upper-magnification LPVO (8X, image quality). It’s a good option that splits the difference though and I do prefer it against the NX8 in quality and the ATACR in price. I definitely agree it’s a meh value, and I wouldn’t have it if I didn’t get a solid deal on it. It @ MSRP, goodness no I wouldn’t buy it. I say that as an overall fan of the optic. |
|
i'm the opposite-I think the razor has a vastly overrated 1x (the eyebox is larger I think) but I hate all the reticle options and the contract one is the worst of them all. The plx-c's are the most overrated optic on the market. Some of that is subjective as the plx-c doesn't play nice with my eyes. I tried a RDB today and I didn't see the improvement everybody was ranting about. I think the plx-c has better resolution overall than the nx6, but the nx6 blows it away image stability wise. YMMV yeah I did want to be very clear on the value proposition. Considering the plx-c exists NF is about 10% high. *EDIT* for more reference on the razor 1x since it'll probably be asked-again comparing MSRP not street price-winner is stated razor vs nx6 eyebox: razor bezzle: razor image flatness: nx6 optical offset: nx6 1x unity: nx6 not saying the razor is bad-its quite good. The bezzle on the nx6 is quite small but the razor has it beat. The flatness, offset (how well the image lines up at the edges), and 1x unity go to the nx6. I didn't include the reticle since that is 100% subjective |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: i'm the opposite-I think the razor has a vastly overrated 1x (the eyebox is larger I think) but I hate all the reticle options and the contract one is the worst of them all. The plx-c's are the most overrated optic on the market. Some of that is subjective as the plx-c doesn't play nice with my eyes. I tried a RDB today and I didn't see the improvement everybody was ranting about. I think the plx-c has better resolution overall than the nx6, but the nx6 blows it away image stability wise. YMMV yeah I did want to be very clear on the value proposition. Considering the plx-c exists NF is about 10% high. *EDIT* for more reference on the razor 1x since it'll probably be asked-again comparing MSRP not street price-winner is stated razor vs nx6 eyebox: razor bezzle: razor image flatness: nx6 optical offset: nx6 1x unity: nx6 not saying the razor is bad-its quite good. The bezzle on the nx6 is quite small but the razor has it beat. The flatness, offset (how well the image lines up at the edges), and 1x unity go to the nx6. I didn't include the reticle since that is 100% subjective I definitely agree on image stability and flatness of image. It’s one of the first things I noticed. It reminds me of the ATACR in that regard. I like the atacr, it’s just priced out of the market competitively now that so many other options are out there that didn’t exist when it was released. It’s been awhile but this reminds me more of the ATACR than the NX8 I had. I still wouldn’t have gotten it if I didn’t get it for $1100. To be fair I wouldn’t have my PLXC RDB if I didn’t get it for, IIRC, also $1100. I think I got my 1-6 Razor-E for $850. It’s definitely the easiest one to snag cheaply. I prefer its reticle the least overall, but within the niche of a 1X that still zooms to 6X not only is it fine but I prefer it. It’s just a thick set of crosshairs (with stadia, but still) with an ample sized nuclear bright dot. Obviously that’s less desirable at range than a DMX etc but that goes into what you use it for. If you’re often using it far enough for the Christmas tree to be relevant the non-Razor options quickly pull ahead. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: I definitely agree on image stability and flatness of image. It’s one of the first things I noticed. It reminds me of the ATACR in that regard. I like the atacr, it’s just priced out of the market competitively now that so many other options are out there that didn’t exist when it was released. It’s been awhile but this reminds me more of the ATACR than the NX8 I had. I still wouldn’t have gotten it if I didn’t get it for $1100. To be fair I wouldn’t have my PLXC RDB if I didn’t get it for, IIRC, also $1100. I think I got my 1-6 Razor-E for $850. It’s definitely the easiest one to snag cheaply. I prefer its reticle the least overall, but within the niche of a 1X that still zooms to 6X not only is it fine but I prefer it. It’s just a thick set of crosshairs (with stadia, but still) with an ample sized nuclear bright dot. Obviously that’s less desirable at range than a DMX etc but that goes into what you use it for. If you’re often using it far enough for the Christmas tree to be relevant the non-Razor options quickly pull ahead. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: i'm the opposite-I think the razor has a vastly overrated 1x (the eyebox is larger I think) but I hate all the reticle options and the contract one is the worst of them all. The plx-c's are the most overrated optic on the market. Some of that is subjective as the plx-c doesn't play nice with my eyes. I tried a RDB today and I didn't see the improvement everybody was ranting about. I think the plx-c has better resolution overall than the nx6, but the nx6 blows it away image stability wise. YMMV yeah I did want to be very clear on the value proposition. Considering the plx-c exists NF is about 10% high. *EDIT* for more reference on the razor 1x since it'll probably be asked-again comparing MSRP not street price-winner is stated razor vs nx6 eyebox: razor bezzle: razor image flatness: nx6 optical offset: nx6 1x unity: nx6 not saying the razor is bad-its quite good. The bezzle on the nx6 is quite small but the razor has it beat. The flatness, offset (how well the image lines up at the edges), and 1x unity go to the nx6. I didn't include the reticle since that is 100% subjective I definitely agree on image stability and flatness of image. It’s one of the first things I noticed. It reminds me of the ATACR in that regard. I like the atacr, it’s just priced out of the market competitively now that so many other options are out there that didn’t exist when it was released. It’s been awhile but this reminds me more of the ATACR than the NX8 I had. I still wouldn’t have gotten it if I didn’t get it for $1100. To be fair I wouldn’t have my PLXC RDB if I didn’t get it for, IIRC, also $1100. I think I got my 1-6 Razor-E for $850. It’s definitely the easiest one to snag cheaply. I prefer its reticle the least overall, but within the niche of a 1X that still zooms to 6X not only is it fine but I prefer it. It’s just a thick set of crosshairs (with stadia, but still) with an ample sized nuclear bright dot. Obviously that’s less desirable at range than a DMX etc but that goes into what you use it for. If you’re often using it far enough for the Christmas tree to be relevant the non-Razor options quickly pull ahead. What makes the razor good is that it can regularly be had for sub 1k and performs how it does. It makes the 'gold standard' for 1x performance based off street price value. Looking at it in absolutes it changes its ranking down several notches imo 1100 is a screaming deal for both. At that price point there is definitely value in both options and the final point would be compact with more magnification vs better image stability. I paid 1600 for mine and that was still high. The full .mil discount is a bit more in line with what I expected street price to be and 1100 is what I imagined the .mil discount would bring it to. Maybe times are changing and we will see price increases across the board to include the rg2 models? A side note on eyebox with sfp vs ffp- even if the eyebox is the same sfp allows the reticle to be seen without a site picture through the optic. That has zero to do with the physics of the design and 100% on the location of the reticle. Looking back I don't actually think the rg2 eyebox is any better but the sfp makes it seem like it is. I could be wrong its been awhile but for the uninitiated this needs to be pointed out. For those new what I am saying is that it is 100% possible to have the same exact eyebox numbers but due to reticle position the sfp would appear to have the edge simply because of reticle location. Thats not an eyebox thing and shouldn't be taken into account in a comparison since the variables are uncomparable imo |
Joined:
Mar 2026
Posts:
576
EE: 100% (1)
OH, USA
|
I guess I still don’t understand the necessity of FFP on an optic with 6x max magnification. For shooting at IPSC targets or silhouettes I’d ideally like a minimum about 1x per 100yds and for more detailed shooting (like trying to stay in A-zones or hit occluded targets and head zones) I’d ideally like about 1x per 50yds. Most centerfire rifles are going to have a 200yd zero or so with a 250ish yard max point blank range. So by the time you’re shooting at ranges where you need to consider holdovers and drops, you’re probably looking at 300+ yard targets and cranked to 6X anyways to engage them. I guess maybe if you have a round with a lot of drop like .300blk or .338ARC or something… |
|
It still amazes me how somehow only tons of magnification are suddenly useful with drops. The acog has 4x and is plenty useful out to 500 on silhouettes which require drops. Backing out magnification allows for better eyebox, fov, light transmission, DoF, consistent relationship of reticle size to target for estimation/rapid engagement, and that's not even getting into clip-ons. Understanding the reticle is largely important too in this. I did a breakdown of how well the segmented circle of the DMX does for that in reduced magnification settings awhile ago. People not understanding usefulness of the designs shows limited spectrum use of their firearms. What you described shows a strict use in competition only. Not coyote hunting at night. Not getting into a firefight (I've seen the dmx and tremor 8 in country). Scroll down a ways you'll see an old write-up I did. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: It still amazes me how somehow only tons of magnification are suddenly useful with drops. The acog has 4x and is plenty useful out to 500 on silhouettes which require drops. Backing out magnification allows for better eyebox, fov, light transmission, DoF, consistent relationship of reticle size to target for estimation/rapid engagement, and that's not even getting into clip-ons. Understanding the reticle is largely important too in this. I did a breakdown of how well the segmented circle of the DMX does for that in reduced magnification settings awhile ago. People not understanding usefulness of the designs shows limited spectrum use of their firearms. What you described shows a strict use in competition only. Not coyote hunting at night. Not getting into a firefight (I've seen the dmx and tremor 8 in country). Scroll down a ways you'll see an old write-up I did. Wow, I didn’t fully appreciate the dmx reticle. At what magnifications have you found the circle really useful? With the NX8 I remember having to crank it up to 6 or 8. I was using the drop tree instead of the circle though and it was too small to use expeditiously. The Illumination also had to be on to see the circle at lower magnifications. Is this similar with the nx6? I may have been just using the NX8 incorrectly. |
|
Originally Posted By tet493: Wow, I didn’t fully appreciate the dmx reticle. At what magnifications have you found the circle really useful? With the NX8 I remember having to crank it up to 6 or 8. I was using the drop tree instead of the circle though and it was too small to use expeditiously. The Illumination also had to be on to see the circle at lower magnifications. Is this similar with the nx6? I may have been just using the NX8 incorrectly. You have in NO MEANS been using the reticle wrong. Most people only see a single reticle, "the tree" and fail to see there are actually two different reticles on this thing. the first one is the speed ring. 1x-whatever magnification you want. Use this illuminated. Think of it as an eotech reticle on steriods. the goal is to bright enough that your brain doesn't even process the "black" reticle parts but not so bright its flat out irritating. This is useful for lower magnifications where the tree isn't needed but the segmented circle is faster than a simple crosshair. Also good for thermal since the black portion of the reticle can get washed out on white/black hot and as most affordable thermals max out between 4-6x in usefulness anyway. MPBR theory on steroids basically. I typically use this from 2-3 when distances benefit from some mag but over-scoping could be an issue, or where speed is needed over precision. A moving coyote at 175 on 3x is much easier to track than 6x. From 3-4 I really treat it like an acog and stick to whole mrad holds, no halves. What the acog excelled at was engaging multiple targets from a static position over medium distances. Literally a firefight. Over 4x its a traditional scope. I couldn't care less about the speed ring. I don't use lower magnifications much on the range, but real world use 2x-3x in the woods helps clear up a good sight picture and reduce the "white noise" while searching for a target. Even out of the woods, I use the intermediate ranges often real world. side note-my nx6 is zeroed at 50, not on the 1mrad hold under |
| How do you think this compares to the Nx8? Currently have an nx8 with the older fc-mil reticle. At some point I'd like to pickup another LPVO with the fc-dmx or maybe an MPVO instead, but this could be a option. |
If my wife had another baby and I was in the delivery room, I'd probably look at it and yell "welcome back bitch" and then have the hospital page Norcal. -scuba_steve
|
Originally Posted By 2apatriot: How do you think this compares to the Nx8? Currently have an nx8 with the older fc-mil reticle. At some point I'd like to pickup another LPVO with the fc-dmx or maybe an MPVO instead, but this could be a option. The nx8 is nx8 is shorter, lighter, and has more magnification if needed at the expense of ease of use and image stability Nx6 is longer, heavier, and less capable while being much easier to use and far more stable. |
|
Originally Posted By 2apatriot: How do you think this compares to the Nx8? Currently have an nx8 with the older fc-mil reticle. At some point I'd like to pickup another LPVO with the fc-dmx or maybe an MPVO instead, but this could be a option. The NX8 is better in specs on paper. The NX6 is better in actual use. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The nx8 is nx8 is shorter, lighter, and has more magnification if needed at the expense of ease of use and image stability Nx6 is longer, heavier, and less capable while being much easier to use and far more stable. I think of optics like I do engines. Size is displacement. The larger an optic is---especially longer---the easier it is to get performance out of. |
|
So I need at least 2 more LPVOs in the close-medium range asap. My love for fixed power ACOGs is waning. I’ll always have a few on certain rifles but even with a piggyback red dot, not feeling it. I am having a tough time looking for any other optic than the NX6 1-6 DMX. I’ve gone back to Scheels many times since purchasing the NX6 and no matter what I pick up I’m finding issues with it. Whether weight, length, reticle or eyebox issues at high mag or massive price. I keep coming back to the NX6. I REALLY wish the NX8 1-8 looked better at all mags. It checks a LOT of boxes as a smaller, lighter alternative to the NX6 but looking at the 2 side by side, there’s just a lot of issues my eyes have with the NX8. How dumb would it be to get another 1-6 DMX? That damn AMG is still calling too. I need to go back to Scheels again and really study the AMG at all mags. It’s annoying when you have those sales goons hovering, thinking you’re going to drop or steal something. GTFO here for 20min while I check this stuff out. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: So I need at least 2 more LPVOs in the close-medium range asap. My love for fixed power ACOGs is waning. I’ll always have a few on certain rifles but even with a piggyback red dot, not feeling it. I am having a tough time looking for any other optic than the NX6 1-6 DMX. I’ve gone back to Scheels many times since purchasing the NX6 and no matter what I pick up I’m finding issues with it. Whether weight, length, reticle or eyebox issues at high mag or massive price. I keep coming back to the NX6. I REALLY wish the NX8 1-8 looked better at all mags. It checks a LOT of boxes as a smaller, lighter alternative to the NX6 but looking at the 2 side by side, there’s just a lot of issues my eyes have with the NX8. How dumb would it be to get another 1-6 DMX? That damn AMG is still calling too. I need to go back to Scheels again and really study the AMG at all mags. It’s annoying when you have those sales goons hovering, thinking you’re going to drop or steal something. GTFO here for 20min while I check this stuff out. The only reason I’d get an NX8 is if you ‘need’ such a small 1-8…and want an inferior optic to the PLXC RDB  The NX6 is the better optic when it comes to actually using and shooting it. The NX8 is the only premium LPVO I’ve ever picked up and immediately knew it just wasn’t for me. I plan on keeping this NX6. And that’s saying a lot, I sell off optics all the time. |
|
Well I decided to give the PLxC RDB MIL a try - found a place selling for $1,325 fs Gotta see what the buzz is about. Going to try n go in with low expectations. I’ve seen enough reviews to already expect the shortcomings, but at the end of the day my eyes will decide. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Well I decided to give the PLxC RDB MIL a try - found a place selling for $1,325 fs Gotta see what the buzz is about. Going to try n go in with low expectations. I’ve seen enough reviews to already expect the shortcomings, but at the end of the day my eyes will decide. I prefer it overall to NX6, but NX6 Is 80% of RDB but with better reticle and Nightforce brand confidence. Imo they’re the two best options right now. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I think the plx-c is a terrible option. This is purely subjective to how it works with my eyes I just picked up a PLXC RDB, so far i like it but I have not messed with it at multiple magnifications and different distances. What didnt you like about it or what were the issues you were running into? |
|
Originally Posted By Kgknight1037: I just picked up a PLXC RDB, so far i like it but I have not messed with it at multiple magnifications and different distances. What didnt you like about it or what were the issues you were running into? Focusing at 1x results in terrible 8x, worse than a $120 Burris. Same the other way around. It seems like not everyone has this issue or notices it maybe. |
|
Originally Posted By tet493: Focusing at 1x results in terrible 8x, worse than a $120 Burris. Same the other way around. It seems like not everyone has this issue or notices it maybe. This is the main downside I’ve read about in reviews and will be looking for immediately. If it’s real bad, it’ll go back in the box and be returned. I don’t think I have to mount it to figure this out. Some say it’s barely an issue, some say it’s a showstopper. For all of the praise this optic has been getting, I’d be shocked if it’s as bad as some say it is. It might be, I don’t know. All depends on the person I guess. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: This is the main downside I’ve read about in reviews and will be looking for immediately. If it’s real bad, it’ll go back in the box and be returned. I don’t think I have to mount it to figure this out. Some say it’s barely an issue, some say it’s a showstopper. For all of the praise this optic has been getting, I’d be shocked if it’s as bad as some say it is. It might be, I don’t know. All depends on the person I guess. If you can, test it during the day looking at object from 200-600 yards, through the range of magnification. It was most noticeable for me at 400yds plus, at 8x, and focused at 1x. Hopefully it works for you. |
|
Originally Posted By Kgknight1037: I just picked up a PLXC RDB, so far i like it but I have not messed with it at multiple magnifications and different distances. What didnt you like about it or what were the issues you were running into? Originally Posted By Kgknight1037: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I think the plx-c is a terrible option. This is purely subjective to how it works with my eyes I just picked up a PLXC RDB, so far i like it but I have not messed with it at multiple magnifications and different distances. What didnt you like about it or what were the issues you were running into? The plxc doesn't play nice with MY eyes. Hence the subjective portion. |
|
Originally Posted By tet493: Focusing at 1x results in terrible 8x, worse than a $120 Burris. Same the other way around. It seems like not everyone has this issue or notices it maybe. I set it to 8x looked at blank sky and adjusted eyepiece. Then I took to down to 1x and used objects 5-10yds away and tweaked previous adjustment. I have no issues at 1x or 8x. |
|
Originally Posted By thedownzero: I set it to 8x looked at blank sky and adjusted eyepiece. Then I took to down to 1x and used objects 5-10yds away and tweaked previous adjustment. I have no issues at 1x or 8x. Thanks for the tip - what were you focusing on in “blank sky” ? - Clouds or something? |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Nothing. You dont focus on anything when setting the diopter. Ah, yes - brain fart. Distracted posting. What’s annoying is the waiting the 5-10sec between attempts to give my eyes a break. Sometimes I’ll recheck the reticle / diopter the next day and I’m like “WTH was I thinking?” Contacts can cause eye fatigue pretty quick when you’re sighting in optics. I just got new multi-focal contacts which basically changed everything and I’ve had to revisit all of my other scopes I had set perfectly. |
|
Thank you for the review. Do you have any experience with the Kahles 1-6x? I realize it is second focal plane, but how does the Kahles compare to the new Nightforce NXS 1-6x optically? Eyebox is my biggest issue with LPVOs, and I was not a fan of the NXS 1-8x (I find the 2.5-20 and 4-32s to be OK by comparison). The issue of course with the Kahles 1-6x is durability. I have had to send mine back at least once, and it’s not like I drop them on the ground. I tried the second focal plane Primary Arms 1-8x, and I was not impressed at all. I found the 1x view to have optical distortion and 8x to have a tight eyebox. Still dreaming of a S&B 1-6x < 10 inches long with a gigantic eyebox. I have the S&B 1-8 short dot dual and love it, but it’s really meant for 7.62 gas guns etc. |
Elite Soviet Democrat
|
I still wonder how a 1-6 would’ve turned out in the NX8 1-8 body. It would’ve had shortcomings, yes, but I’ll always wonder. I wonder if the tunnel effect / poor 1x would’ve remained. And yes on the ridiculously tall turrets. But dayum it’s a beautiful scope to look through at all mags. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: I still wonder how a 1-6 would’ve turned out in the NX8 1-8 body. It would’ve had shortcomings, yes, but I’ll always wonder. I wonder if the tunnel effect / poor 1x would’ve remained. And yes on the ridiculously tall turrets. But dayum it’s a beautiful scope to look through at all mags. I dont think a compact 1-6 would have nearly the shortcomings a 1-8 does. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Eye box is eye box and shouldn't be an issue if you are healthy and know how to mount the gun. My review mentioned eyebox. High errector sets will always struggle on the top end. Its physics Thank you for the reply. No, I do not have healthy eyes. I find my Kahles 1-6x far easier to use than any other 1-6/1-8x LPVO I have used for that reason. S&B comes close, even on the top end. I have yet to get trigger time behind the Kahles 1-8x with the 34 mm tube. Best top end 8x I have looked through still is the S&B short dot dual. I find the VCOG 1-8x to be easier to get behind than the the Nightforce ATACR. NXS 1-8x - I struggle at 1x and anything beyond 6x. Wash hoping they could have made the 1-6x NXS the same size or smaller than the NXS 1-8x. Anyhow, I'm waiting for a few LGS's to get a 1-6x Nightforce for me to look through. Any experience with the Steiner 1-6x compared to the Nightforce? Thanks |
Elite Soviet Democrat
|
Exit pupil alone does not necessarily determine the “eyebox” size. Other people besides myself would be better able to explain it, especially since I have been at work all day today (just got home at 10 PM). Things like the erector set up, tube diameter, ocular lens size, all plays a role in the perceived “eye box”, not just the exit pupil, which really only becomes an issue at higher magnifications. With the Kahles, their ocular lens is quite large and gives one a significant amount of leeway in terms of head/eye position when behind the scope. Edge to edge clarity is still better than any other 1-6x I have tried the past 12 years (bought mine in 2014 at the NRA Convention from EuroOptic). Nothing beats it in terms of FOV to my knowledge for a 1-6x. Of course, it is a second focal plane scope, and we can argue about the merits of a 1-6x FFP vs SFP all day. Downside with the Kahles is they tend to be more fragile. I have sent both of my Kahles 1-6x and 3-18x for repairs at least once, and it’s not like I am dropping them on concrete. Having said, I find the 1-6x Vortex Razor to be acceptable, along with the Steiner 1-6x. I will seek out a NXS 1-6x to play with at some point. Right now, I am working to darn much to have time to shoot this summer :-( Thanks |
Elite Soviet Democrat
|
Originally Posted By themao:I'm waiting for a few LGS's to get a 1-6x Nightforce for me to look through. Do you have a Scheels anywhere near you? They have most all the current relevant LPVO scopes on display. Definitely has been helpful to me. One scope I wish they had on display is the 1-8 DMX ATACR - I’ve never looked through one of those and have heard mixed. I think the 21oz weight is over my threshold for a 556 LPVO but I guess it’s only 2oz heavier than the already heavy NX6. I think I’ve seen it discussed here, but does the ATACR suffer from the tight eyebox and tunnel vision like the NX8 1-8? EDIT: Had a few questions seemed to get answered here - no idea who posted this as it’s archived - hoody maybe? What isn’t really mentioned is the ATACR’s 1x performance. https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/NX8-1-8-and-ATACR-1-8-comparison/18-776424/? @hoody2shoez can you give us your opinions again on the ATACR 1-8? |
|
Originally Posted By wvfarrier: I have the 3-18 MOA-XT and its phenominal I bet. I have a Vortex HD LHT 3-15x42 because it’s 19oz and it’s on my crazy lightweight AR308 which I hunt with, traverse pretty rough terrain for hours and take standing shots with etc. It’s acceptable quality, but it’s definitely not an NF. Unfortunately I think that extra 8oz+ would really push that rifle into a reduced capability for me and how I use that rifle. An extra 8oz doesn’t seem like much until you’re taking a standing shot and having to hold at max magnification for more than a few seconds. Also running a titanium suppressor on that rifle, so yeah. I bet the 3-18 is glorious to look through. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Do you have a Scheels anywhere near you? They have most all the current relevant LPVO scopes on display. Definitely has been helpful to me. One scope I wish they had on display is the 1-8 DMX ATACR - I’ve never looked through one of those and have heard mixed. I think the 21oz weight is over my threshold for a 556 LPVO but I guess it’s only 2oz heavier than the already heavy NX6. I think I’ve seen it discussed here, but does the ATACR suffer from the tight eyebox and tunnel vision like the NX8 1-8? EDIT: Had a few questions seemed to get answered here - no idea who posted this as it’s archived - hoody maybe? What isn’t really mentioned is the ATACR’s 1x performance. https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/NX8-1-8-and-ATACR-1-8-comparison/18-776424/? @hoody2shoez can you give us your opinions again on the ATACR 1-8? Had an ATACR. Sold it. In order to get it perfect at 1x, 8x was fuzzy. In order to get it perfect at 8x, 1x was like looking through drunk goggles. I set it in between, and it was usable, but far enough away from perfect on both ends of the spectrum that I realized the benefits of having an optic with "good" glass was totally wasted on it, thus not worth the cost it commands. That being said, I have yet to actually keep any LPVO terribly long. I've had the Razor 1-6, 1-10, NX8, Atacr, and a few others....and I always find myself selling them. With all the people piggybacking an RDS on an LPVO nowadays, my mightset is may as well grab a good light MPVO and piggyback an RDS to that. A little more weight but better glass with adjustable parallax, better reticle and top end......Yeah, I think thats worth a few oz. Big swing if you're not going to piggyback an RDS, not so much if you are- NX6 1-6 is about 19oz, the 2-12 is 23oz. If one was intending to piggyback an RDS on the 1-6, may as well consider doing the 2-12 if it fits what you want the rifle to do. I still have the NX6 1-6 on order, but we shall see if I keep it. My favorite overall LPVO from the list above was the 1-6, but I really wanted it in FFP with a better reticle (and not made by vortex)......and thats pretty much what the NX6 is. So maybe this will be the first one I actually keep. The 2-12 will be going on my stainless 14.5 MK1 with an RMR HD on top. Should be one hell of a general purpose rifle. |
|
Originally Posted By themao: Exit pupil alone does not necessarily determine the “eyebox” size. Other people besides myself would be better able to explain it, especially since I have been at work all day today (just got home at 10 PM). Things like the erector set up, tube diameter, ocular lens size, all plays a role in the perceived “eye box”, not just the exit pupil, which really only becomes an issue at higher magnifications. With the Kahles, their ocular lens is quite large and gives one a significant amount of leeway in terms of head/eye position when behind the scope. Edge to edge clarity is still better than any other 1-6x I have tried the past 12 years (bought mine in 2014 at the NRA Convention from EuroOptic). Nothing beats it in terms of FOV to my knowledge for a 1-6x. Of course, it is a second focal plane scope, and we can argue about the merits of a 1-6x FFP vs SFP all day. Downside with the Kahles is they tend to be more fragile. I have sent both of my Kahles 1-6x and 3-18x for repairs at least once, and it’s not like I am dropping them on concrete. Having said, I find the 1-6x Vortex Razor to be acceptable, along with the Steiner 1-6x. I will seek out a NXS 1-6x to play with at some point. Right now, I am working to darn much to have time to shoot this summer :-( Thanks Solid point. But exit pupil IS the main driving factor. Something to consider, I forget who did it, but someone video'd an nx8 at 6x and a rg2e at 6x and demonstrated the eyebox was very, very similar. A lot of people equate a good experience like a thin bezzle and wide FOV to eyebox but it is not. Also, sfp allows you to see the reticle in complete scope shadow, something ffp does not and should be noted that isn't eyebox related. Anyway- I find the eyebox more than acceptable. As mentioned if you have special needs regarding this no amount of questions and descriptions on my end will help clear that up and will need to be explored by you. |
Nx6 ffp fc-dmx review (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor