AR Sponsor
Nx6's are shipping... who's got a 1-6? (Page 2 of 3)
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Most budget clip-ons excel from 1-4 and can be stretched to 6x with limited and varying success depending on model. Keeping the reticle and target in constant proportions helps when engaging a quick, unpredictable target once the distance starts to stretch a bit. Think coyotes and whatnot. The scope also has more forgiving properties such as eyebox at less zoom, making it easier to use at speed. FFP can do everything SFP can do. SFP cannot do everything FFP can do. So there’s no real difference inherent with using a FFP, just the same differences between SFP and FFP when otherwise unaided? |
|
Originally Posted By billytehbob: So there’s no real difference inherent with using a FFP, just the same differences between SFP and FFP when otherwise unaided? Originally Posted By billytehbob: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Most budget clip-ons excel from 1-4 and can be stretched to 6x with limited and varying success depending on model. Keeping the reticle and target in constant proportions helps when engaging a quick, unpredictable target once the distance starts to stretch a bit. Think coyotes and whatnot. The scope also has more forgiving properties such as eyebox at less zoom, making it easier to use at speed. FFP can do everything SFP can do. SFP cannot do everything FFP can do. So there’s no real difference inherent with using a FFP, just the same differences between SFP and FFP when otherwise unaided? If you have a 1-6 and and the image falls apart above 4 you're going to want your holds accurate on 4x especially if you don't have exposed turrets or you'll have no drop compensation. I personally prefer sfp for LPVOs but for that niche application ffp can be really important. |
|
Originally Posted By GreenMushroom: If you have a 1-6 and and the image falls apart above 4 you're going to want your holds accurate on 4x especially if you don't have exposed turrets or you'll have no drop compensation. I personally prefer sfp for LPVOs but for that niche application ffp can be really important. Originally Posted By GreenMushroom: Originally Posted By billytehbob: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Most budget clip-ons excel from 1-4 and can be stretched to 6x with limited and varying success depending on model. Keeping the reticle and target in constant proportions helps when engaging a quick, unpredictable target once the distance starts to stretch a bit. Think coyotes and whatnot. The scope also has more forgiving properties such as eyebox at less zoom, making it easier to use at speed. FFP can do everything SFP can do. SFP cannot do everything FFP can do. So there’s no real difference inherent with using a FFP, just the same differences between SFP and FFP when otherwise unaided? If you have a 1-6 and and the image falls apart above 4 you're going to want your holds accurate on 4x especially if you don't have exposed turrets or you'll have no drop compensation. I personally prefer sfp for LPVOs but for that niche application ffp can be really important. something else to consider is being able to take advantage of the better optical properties such as eyebox and FOV at lower magnifications. Using less mag makes it easier to scan and engage multiple or moving targets... Precision vs speed. The SFP plx-c is a perfect example of this weekness. As a side note, it is 100% acceptable to prefer one or the other just because. I'm not advocating for any reticle or style of optic. But to simply say 1-6 ffp doesn't have advantages is very very wrong. The PLX-c's have proven that ffp can be just as capable image wise on 1x as sfp... The honest difference is a ffp is actually a 1 TO 6 and sfp is a 1 OR 6. |
|
I have one and have used/had pretty much every LPVO on the market (both in tactical and competition use) If someone held a gun to my head to pick: The PLX-C RDB is best all around performing LPVO, hands down. Same 1x (but wider fov) performance than Razor and K16i, but lighter weight and much better reticle…not too mention 8x while still managing best in class or among best in class 1x. With that being said, I would say the NX6 1-6 is on the same level or just below it. This has a better reticle in my opinion than the PLX-C but it’s a tad heavier and is 6x vs 8x. They’re both made by LOW so reliability is moot, but Nightforce through brand recognition is admittedly more confidence inspiring. Both have the “disappearing” ocular housing effect that we know and love from Razor 1-6, AND both have wider FOV than Razor with edge going to PLX-C. Both also have a very forgiving eye box that feels no different than razor 1-6. Most apparent…they are significantly lighter weight than razor. In short NX6 is a home run. I plan on buying more and will likely use them for LPVO needs going forward. The reticle trumps the extra 2x the PLX-C offers imo and the 2oz weight penalty is trade off for perceived Nightforce “robustness” or durability. IF Primary Arms ever ditched chevron for dot (like the whole world is asking for) and got rid of those white trash/gimmicky/gun store counter worker “human tracking / ranging bars” on horizontal stadia , it would be hands down the winner and BEST lpvo on market. But they wont, so I’ll buy NX6 as the next best thing. K16i: K16i has best field of view AND 1x performance of any LPVO, but compared to RDB and NX6 it seemed only marginally better in use and was difficult to notice , but the distinctionis there. Reticles and durability concerns are main reasons I don’t use K16i anymore. BUT if you want BEST 1x , it’s your guy. In addition to shit reticles, it’s not as bright as others and doesn’t feel as robust. |
|
Ok, so have a silly question. How many here have either looked through, actually used or own the Vortex AMG 1-10? I know these are wildly different scopes at wildly different price points, but I’m curious. I’m kind of in an “F it” mentality right now and don’t want to buy and regret an optic choice. The AMG is on sale for $3,500, so while stupid expensive, it’s not unreachable. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Ok, so have a silly question. How many here have either looked through, actually used or own the Vortex AMG 1-10? I know these are wildly different scopes at wildly different price points, but I’m curious. I’m kind of in an “F it” mentality right now and don’t want to buy and regret an optic choice. The AMG is on sale for $3,500, so while stupid expensive, it’s not unreachable. The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. |
|
Originally Posted By thedownzero: I have one and have used/had pretty much every LPVO on the market (both in tactical and competition use) If someone held a gun to my head to pick: The PLX-C RDB is best all around performing LPVO, hands down. Same 1x (but wider fov) performance than Razor and K16i, but lighter weight and much better reticle…not too mention 8x while still managing best in class or among best in class 1x. With that being said, I would say the NX6 1-6 is on the same level or just below it. This has a better reticle in my opinion than the PLX-C but it’s a tad heavier and is 6x vs 8x. They’re both made by LOW so reliability is moot, but Nightforce through brand recognition is admittedly more confidence inspiring. Both have the “disappearing” ocular housing effect that we know and love from Razor 1-6, AND both have wider FOV than Razor with edge going to PLX-C. Both also have a very forgiving eye box that feels no different than razor 1-6. Most apparent…they are significantly lighter weight than razor. In short NX6 is a home run. I plan on buying more and will likely use them for LPVO needs going forward. The reticle trumps the extra 2x the PLX-C offers imo and the 2oz weight penalty is trade off for perceived Nightforce “robustness” or durability. IF Primary Arms ever ditched chevron for dot (like the whole world is asking for) and got rid of those white trash/gimmicky/gun store counter worker “human tracking / ranging bars” on horizontal stadia , it would be hands down the winner and BEST lpvo on market. But they wont, so I’ll buy NX6 as the next best thing. K16i: K16i has best field of view AND 1x performance of any LPVO, but compared to RDB and NX6 it seemed only marginally better in use and was difficult to notice , but the distinctionis there. Reticles and durability concerns are main reasons I don’t use K16i anymore. BUT if you want BEST 1x , it’s your guy. In addition to shit reticles, it’s not as bright as others and doesn’t feel as robust. This is where it gets funky- The plx-c imo is the most overrated optic on the market. The diopter and image play poorly with my eyes. I've had a gen 1 ffp and sfp. No rdb experience. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: This is where it gets funky- The plx-c imo is the most overrated optic on the market. The diopter and image play poorly with my eyes. I've had a gen 1 ffp and sfp. No rdb experience. Yeah it’s not even close to the sfp or reg ffp version. Total redesign. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: This is where it gets funky- The plx-c imo is the most overrated optic on the market. The diopter and image play poorly with my eyes. I've had a gen 1 ffp and sfp. No rdb experience. Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By thedownzero: I have one and have used/had pretty much every LPVO on the market (both in tactical and competition use) If someone held a gun to my head to pick: The PLX-C RDB is best all around performing LPVO, hands down. Same 1x (but wider fov) performance than Razor and K16i, but lighter weight and much better reticle…not too mention 8x while still managing best in class or among best in class 1x. With that being said, I would say the NX6 1-6 is on the same level or just below it. This has a better reticle in my opinion than the PLX-C but it’s a tad heavier and is 6x vs 8x. They’re both made by LOW so reliability is moot, but Nightforce through brand recognition is admittedly more confidence inspiring. Both have the “disappearing” ocular housing effect that we know and love from Razor 1-6, AND both have wider FOV than Razor with edge going to PLX-C. Both also have a very forgiving eye box that feels no different than razor 1-6. Most apparent…they are significantly lighter weight than razor. In short NX6 is a home run. I plan on buying more and will likely use them for LPVO needs going forward. The reticle trumps the extra 2x the PLX-C offers imo and the 2oz weight penalty is trade off for perceived Nightforce “robustness” or durability. IF Primary Arms ever ditched chevron for dot (like the whole world is asking for) and got rid of those white trash/gimmicky/gun store counter worker “human tracking / ranging bars” on horizontal stadia , it would be hands down the winner and BEST lpvo on market. But they wont, so I’ll buy NX6 as the next best thing. K16i: K16i has best field of view AND 1x performance of any LPVO, but compared to RDB and NX6 it seemed only marginally better in use and was difficult to notice , but the distinctionis there. Reticles and durability concerns are main reasons I don’t use K16i anymore. BUT if you want BEST 1x , it’s your guy. In addition to shit reticles, it’s not as bright as others and doesn’t feel as robust. This is where it gets funky- The plx-c imo is the most overrated optic on the market. The diopter and image play poorly with my eyes. I've had a gen 1 ffp and sfp. No rdb experience. I mean, I’m a big fan of the original RDB with the usual caveats of individual eyesight will impact diopter preferences, reticle quirks, and reticle brightness. With that said though the RDB, at least for me, has a noticeably better image. I can resolve .223 holes @ 200 pretty easily with it, and it’s a nice flat image with great colors contrast. Really great image. The reticle is also about 50% improved. It’s got a much smaller horseshoe now and the chevron is really just a tiny tick. You’re not giving it credit by likening it to the gen 1 chevron. It’s probably smaller than the DMX dot, or at least close. I still contend the chevron is a non-issue given the intent of the optic and using holds etc, but it’s doubly a non-issue with the RDB. I still prefer the DMX though. You’re doing yourself a disservice not checking out an RDB. Different strokes for different folks but I wouldn’t take an NX8 at half the price of an RDB after using both. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. |
|
Originally Posted By thedownzero: I have one and have used/had pretty much every LPVO on the market (both in tactical and competition use) If someone held a gun to my head to pick: The PLX-C RDB is best all around performing LPVO, hands down. Same 1x (but wider fov) performance than Razor and K16i, but lighter weight and much better reticle…not too mention 8x while still managing best in class or among best in class 1x. With that being said, I would say the NX6 1-6 is on the same level or just below it. This has a better reticle in my opinion than the PLX-C but it’s a tad heavier and is 6x vs 8x. They’re both made by LOW so reliability is moot, but Nightforce through brand recognition is admittedly more confidence inspiring. Both have the “disappearing” ocular housing effect that we know and love from Razor 1-6, AND both have wider FOV than Razor with edge going to PLX-C. Both also have a very forgiving eye box that feels no different than razor 1-6. Most apparent…they are significantly lighter weight than razor. In short NX6 is a home run. I plan on buying more and will likely use them for LPVO needs going forward. The reticle trumps the extra 2x the PLX-C offers imo and the 2oz weight penalty is trade off for perceived Nightforce “robustness” or durability. IF Primary Arms ever ditched chevron for dot (like the whole world is asking for) and got rid of those white trash/gimmicky/gun store counter worker “human tracking / ranging bars” on horizontal stadia , it would be hands down the winner and BEST lpvo on market. But they wont, so I’ll buy NX6 as the next best thing. K16i: K16i has best field of view AND 1x performance of any LPVO, but compared to RDB and NX6 it seemed only marginally better in use and was difficult to notice , but the distinctionis there. Reticles and durability concerns are main reasons I don’t use K16i anymore. BUT if you want BEST 1x , it’s your guy. In addition to shit reticles, it’s not as bright as others and doesn’t feel as robust. Agree I’ve tried most every premium LPVO save for Kahles/S&B and the RDB is the move. I also agree with the reticle. They’ve improved it over the Gen 1/Nova, but if I had my druthers: -Bring the bold outer crosshairs in considerably for a t-box 1X, around where the image tops out @ 6-8X. I don’t need a million mils of wind-hold, especially @ 3/9:00 where I’d only be @ 100m anyway. I don’t need a million mils of elevation hold, and if I were shooting into the next county I’d probably take the cap off and dial anyway. - Nix the head-to-foot ranging stadia, especially if being upper/lower and left/right. It’s simply too many little gizmos of little utility. If we need it at all, up @ 12:00 out of the reticle like the Razor does it is fine, but I don’t think they need to be there at all. - I could take or leave the shoulder-to-shoulder ranging stadia down in the BDC, but they only need to exist on the BDC models. On the mil variant they make a lot less sense and simple mil hashes make more sense. As I describe my fixes, I realize I’m just slowly mushing it over to be more and more like the DMX. Nightforce really nailed it with that reticle and I think it’s one of the better aspects of their LPVOs. I’m glad they imported almost the exact same reticle in their 2-12, and if anything the tiny modifications they’ve made there (MRX, was it?) are about the ideal reticle for a MPVO/LPVO. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Ok, so have a silly question. How many here have either looked through, actually used or own the Vortex AMG 1-10? I know these are wildly different scopes at wildly different price points, but I’m curious. I’m kind of in an “F it” mentality right now and don’t want to buy and regret an optic choice. The AMG is on sale for $3,500, so while stupid expensive, it’s not unreachable. The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Accurate. The AMG isn’t supposed to be a next-level optic. It’s supposed to be a great performing 1-10 in a tiny body. Which it seems to be (I’ll never own one). Versus its cousin the Razor it’s supposed to do similar/slightly better overall performance in a smaller package, and a much higher price tag. Which makes sense for small/elite SF groups with the budget to buy nice things and value rail space and having the smallest/lightest, etc. Outside that for a lot of the appeal is gone for most shooters save for wanting to clone or have what SF have etc. If it were truly the best LPVO I’d buy it despite the price tag. I like having nice things. But I’m not swayed that’s the case and I’d either be buying an ATACR or, more likely, another RDB. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. NX6 is 1000x better than NX8 and ATACR. They both tunnel and have “looking through straw effect. The NX6 is 2nd largest FOV in class and the ocular housing has disappearing effect. No distortion at edges like the NX8 and image is flatter. Adjusting diopter actually yields a useable image throughout mag range on NX6. NX8 and ATACR is a compromise and you almost have to favor 1x or 8x. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. The ATACR is a big optic but it is definitely a nice optic. My only problem is it’s about half as nice as many fans claim. I had one, it was solid. It wasn’t stellar. Its selling point is it’s solid @ 1X, it’s solid @ 8X, it’s got a daylight bright reticle, and it’s got NF durability. There’s a lot to like in there. But it was out at a time it was a lot more unique than it is now. Now lots of optics come close in many of those areas, exceed it in some, or exceed it in most, all while being hundreds cheaper. It also has a giant ocular housing in the viewing window, is considerably larger than competitors, glass quality is a solid ‘mid’ etc. Now it’s got the RG3, Vudu 1-10 Daylight Bright, NX8, PLXC RDB, and a few more that are all shooting around (or above) it at a lower price point and I don’t think it’s half as cool as it was several years ago. |
|
Great stuff - thanks to all. How about the Leupold Patrol 6HD G2 1-6 185607 (SFP) Reticle decisions aside (kinda like the horseshoe (I shoot mostly ACOGs)), any experience with it? 16oz is nice. It is LONG at almost 11”. Any idea on 1x eyebox tightness/straw tunnel-vision etc? Reviews say it’s pretty good. Dang thing costs as much as the NX6 though. EDIT - available for $1,350 3yr old optic now. |
|
Originally Posted By thedownzero: Yeah it’s not even close to the sfp or reg ffp version. Total redesign. Originally Posted By doty_soty: I mean, I’m a big fan of the original RDB with the usual caveats of individual eyesight will impact diopter preferences, reticle quirks, and reticle brightness. With that said though the RDB, at least for me, has a noticeably better image. I can resolve .223 holes @ 200 pretty easily with it, and it’s a nice flat image with great colors contrast. Really great image. The reticle is also about 50% improved. It’s got a much smaller horseshoe now and the chevron is really just a tiny tick. You’re not giving it credit by likening it to the gen 1 chevron. It’s probably smaller than the DMX dot, or at least close. I still contend the chevron is a non-issue given the intent of the optic and using holds etc, but it’s doubly a non-issue with the RDB. I still prefer the DMX though. You’re doing yourself a disservice not checking out an RDB. Different strokes for different folks but I wouldn’t take an NX8 at half the price of an RDB after using both. I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Agree I’ve tried most every premium LPVO save for Kahles/S&B and the RDB is the move. I also agree with the reticle. They’ve improved it over the Gen 1/Nova, but if I had my druthers: -Bring the bold outer crosshairs in considerably for a t-box 1X, around where the image tops out @ 6-8X. I don’t need a million mils of wind-hold, especially @ 3/9:00 where I’d only be @ 100m anyway. I don’t need a million mils of elevation hold, and if I were shooting into the next county I’d probably take the cap off and dial anyway. - Nix the head-to-foot ranging stadia, especially if being upper/lower and left/right. It’s simply too many little gizmos of little utility. If we need it at all, up @ 12:00 out of the reticle like the Razor does it is fine, but I don’t think they need to be there at all. - I could take or leave the shoulder-to-shoulder ranging stadia down in the BDC, but they only need to exist on the BDC models. On the mil variant they make a lot less sense and simple mil hashes make more sense. As I describe my fixes, I realize I’m just slowly mushing it over to be more and more like the DMX. Nightforce really nailed it with that reticle and I think it’s one of the better aspects of their LPVOs. I’m glad they imported almost the exact same reticle in their 2-12, and if anything the tiny modifications they’ve made there (MRX, was it?) are about the ideal reticle for a MPVO/LPVO. Originally Posted By thedownzero: NX6 is 1000x better than NX8 and ATACR. They both tunnel and have “looking through straw effect. The NX6 is 2nd largest FOV in class and the ocular housing has disappearing effect. No distortion at edges like the NX8 and image is flatter. Adjusting diopter actually yields a useable image throughout mag range on NX6. NX8 and ATACR is a compromise and you almost have to favor 1x or 8x. Initial thoughts on the nx6 vs 8... the 6 is asking a LOT of money for what it is. They should have either discontinued the 1-8 and made a compact 1-6, or a premium compact 1-8. And remember, 10ft less FOV is actually a lot when we calculate out additional area for FOV. Physics are why the NX6 will have a solid, stable image. Its a 6x erector in a standard body. Nothing ground breaking. My view on parallax is this... if your engagements require fine-tuning the focus and have the time to allow it, then perhaps a 6/8/10x erector with a 24mm objective lens is the wrong tool for the job to begin with. I agree on the reticle. Once glass/optical properties are "good enough" I chase the reticle. A great designed reticle with good enough glass makes for better use than great glass with a good enough reticle imo. This is taking a more 'combat/do-it-all' approach. If precision is whats needed things change. the DMX/spin-off's are the best small frame gas gun reticles on the market. NF did a stellar job on those. My nx8 never had tunneling, but my atacr did. Tunneling is NOT looking through a straw affect, but is when FOV doesn't increase when magnification increases. If the atacr didn't tunnel it'd have the same specs as the nx8 |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Great stuff - thanks to all. How about the Leupold Patrol 6HD G2 1-6 185607 (SFP) Reticle decisions aside (kinda like the horseshoe (I shoot mostly ACOGs)), any experience with it? 16oz is nice. It is LONG at almost 11”. Any idea on 1x eyebox tightness/straw tunnel-vision etc? Reviews say it’s pretty good. Dang thing costs as much as the NX6 though. EDIT - available for $1,350 3yr old optic now. No personal experience. Leupold has a track record of having the best designs paired with the most fudd worthless reticles anyone can think of. The fact they didn't continue to develop the mk6 1-6hd is beyond me. That thing was LIGHTYEARS ahead of its time |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: No personal experience. Leupold has a track record of having the best designs paired with the most fudd worthless reticles anyone can think of. The fact they didn't continue to develop the mk6 1-6hd is beyond me. That thing was LIGHTYEARS ahead of its time Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Great stuff - thanks to all. How about the Leupold Patrol 6HD G2 1-6 185607 (SFP) Reticle decisions aside (kinda like the horseshoe (I shoot mostly ACOGs)), any experience with it? 16oz is nice. It is LONG at almost 11”. Any idea on 1x eyebox tightness/straw tunnel-vision etc? Reviews say it’s pretty good. Dang thing costs as much as the NX6 though. EDIT - available for $1,350 3yr old optic now. No personal experience. Leupold has a track record of having the best designs paired with the most fudd worthless reticles anyone can think of. The fact they didn't continue to develop the mk6 1-6hd is beyond me. That thing was LIGHTYEARS ahead of its time Agree. Leupold loves to make a nice optic only to hamstring it with goofy and nonsensical reticles. Then they’ll charge you $300 for illumination. Then they’ll not offer illumination in the reticles that don’t suck. It’s like they go out of their way to only ever give you 2/3 of what you’d want in any given optic. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By thedownzero: Yeah it’s not even close to the sfp or reg ffp version. Total redesign. Originally Posted By doty_soty: I mean, I’m a big fan of the original RDB with the usual caveats of individual eyesight will impact diopter preferences, reticle quirks, and reticle brightness. With that said though the RDB, at least for me, has a noticeably better image. I can resolve .223 holes @ 200 pretty easily with it, and it’s a nice flat image with great colors contrast. Really great image. The reticle is also about 50% improved. It’s got a much smaller horseshoe now and the chevron is really just a tiny tick. You’re not giving it credit by likening it to the gen 1 chevron. It’s probably smaller than the DMX dot, or at least close. I still contend the chevron is a non-issue given the intent of the optic and using holds etc, but it’s doubly a non-issue with the RDB. I still prefer the DMX though. You’re doing yourself a disservice not checking out an RDB. Different strokes for different folks but I wouldn’t take an NX8 at half the price of an RDB after using both. I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. See I think a lot of that is going to come down to eyesight, and how the optic is engineered relative to your eyesight. Overall I expect LPVOs to need some diopter shift. Some more than others. My PLXC RDB will be a bit suboptimal at min or max if you refine it for one or the other. My NX8 was the same way. My ATACR I don’t notice it. My Vudu does it bad. But my eyes aren’t so great so I accept that’s going to be a different experience for me than for others. Also splitting the difference with the focus fixes a lot of it, depending on specific optic of course. The further the erector magnifier, the worse I’d expect it to be. My 1-6 Razor is great, my Vudu 1-10 is meh. I think that’s a lot of that. |
|
Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. People too often think parallax adjustment is an objective improvement. You see it more in 2-n MPVOs like the Credo that gets knocked for not having it. I think it depends on knowing what the optic is for, and if that’s the right optic for you. The 2-10 Credo is an SPR optic through and through. It is meant for quick hits at varying mid-ranges. It is not a benchrest optic. It knows this. It knows adding a parallax only adds more buttons to get bumped and need adjusted between shots which would only slow down shots, which is not what the optic is designed to do. If one wants to eke out that extra precision and take low deliberate bench shots, the 2-10 was never the right optic for them in the first place. Parallax in a LPVO makes even less sense IMO. What’s an LPVO for? If you’re using it for long range precision, no LPVO is the right LPVO. They’re always compromise optics, and adding a parallax is almost universally adding complexity at detriment to its mission. If one is that concerned with what benefits a parallax would bring, they’re far better served with a wholly different optic altogether. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: See I think a lot of that is going to come down to eyesight, and how the optic is engineered relative to your eyesight. Overall I expect LPVOs to need some diopter shift. Some more than others. My PLXC RDB will be a bit suboptimal at min or max if you refine it for one or the other. My NX8 was the same way. My ATACR I don’t notice it. My Vudu does it bad. But my eyes aren’t so great so I accept that’s going to be a different experience for me than for others. Also splitting the difference with the focus fixes a lot of it, depending on specific optic of course. The further the erector magnifier, the worse I’d expect it to be. My 1-6 Razor is great, my Vudu 1-10 is meh. I think that’s a lot of that. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By thedownzero: Yeah it’s not even close to the sfp or reg ffp version. Total redesign. Originally Posted By doty_soty: I mean, I’m a big fan of the original RDB with the usual caveats of individual eyesight will impact diopter preferences, reticle quirks, and reticle brightness. With that said though the RDB, at least for me, has a noticeably better image. I can resolve .223 holes @ 200 pretty easily with it, and it’s a nice flat image with great colors contrast. Really great image. The reticle is also about 50% improved. It’s got a much smaller horseshoe now and the chevron is really just a tiny tick. You’re not giving it credit by likening it to the gen 1 chevron. It’s probably smaller than the DMX dot, or at least close. I still contend the chevron is a non-issue given the intent of the optic and using holds etc, but it’s doubly a non-issue with the RDB. I still prefer the DMX though. You’re doing yourself a disservice not checking out an RDB. Different strokes for different folks but I wouldn’t take an NX8 at half the price of an RDB after using both. I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. See I think a lot of that is going to come down to eyesight, and how the optic is engineered relative to your eyesight. Overall I expect LPVOs to need some diopter shift. Some more than others. My PLXC RDB will be a bit suboptimal at min or max if you refine it for one or the other. My NX8 was the same way. My ATACR I don’t notice it. My Vudu does it bad. But my eyes aren’t so great so I accept that’s going to be a different experience for me than for others. Also splitting the difference with the focus fixes a lot of it, depending on specific optic of course. The further the erector magnifier, the worse I’d expect it to be. My 1-6 Razor is great, my Vudu 1-10 is meh. I think that’s a lot of that. the individual eyes is exactly it. I get more image stability from an nx8 than i do an atacr another point against the plx-c for me was how the image would 'smear' if you weren't centered on the optic. The top end was so tight that it made the sfp actually unusable for me unless i was in a saddle/on a bench/super stable. It was strange, normally coming off center makes the image darken, but not on those optics for me. It was like a clown mirror house at an amusment park. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: People too often think parallax adjustment is an objective improvement. You see it more in 2-n MPVOs like the Credo that gets knocked for not having it. I think it depends on knowing what the optic is for, and if that’s the right optic for you. The 2-10 Credo is an SPR optic through and through. It is meant for quick hits at varying mid-ranges. It is not a benchrest optic. It knows this. It knows adding a parallax only adds more buttons to get bumped and need adjusted between shots which would only slow down shots, which is not what the optic is designed to do. If one wants to eke out that extra precision and take low deliberate bench shots, the 2-10 was never the right optic for them in the first place. Parallax in a LPVO makes even less sense IMO. What’s an LPVO for? If you’re using it for long range precision, no LPVO is the right LPVO. They’re always compromise optics, and adding a parallax is almost universally adding complexity at detriment to its mission. If one is that concerned with what benefits a parallax would bring, they’re far better served with a wholly different optic altogether. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By Brahmzy: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The thing with the amg is not that it's the best performing lpvo. From real world users it's marginally better at 1x and worse at 10x than the rg3 1-10. What makes it impressive is doing that in the compact body. Thanks. Any thoughts on the NX8 vs the new NX6? I know you’re still waiting on your NX6 to show up. Besides the 2x increased mag, any better glass or features? Eyebox just as forgiving between both? 10ft less FOV at 1x on NX8, but smaller, lighter. NX6 has better eye relief. So I guess it seems like, on paper, unless I’m missing something, the NX6 will excel at 1x with a forgiving eyebox and go up to 6x mag with a razor-sharp, usable reticle. The AMG seems to do all of that and also go up to 10x in a smaller size (same weight) but almost twice the price. Oof. The ATACR sounds nice, but is really getting heavy at 21oz. Haven’t been able to look through one of these. How big of a deal is the drastic diff in parallax adjustment, in the real world? Tough choice. People too often think parallax adjustment is an objective improvement. You see it more in 2-n MPVOs like the Credo that gets knocked for not having it. I think it depends on knowing what the optic is for, and if that’s the right optic for you. The 2-10 Credo is an SPR optic through and through. It is meant for quick hits at varying mid-ranges. It is not a benchrest optic. It knows this. It knows adding a parallax only adds more buttons to get bumped and need adjusted between shots which would only slow down shots, which is not what the optic is designed to do. If one wants to eke out that extra precision and take low deliberate bench shots, the 2-10 was never the right optic for them in the first place. Parallax in a LPVO makes even less sense IMO. What’s an LPVO for? If you’re using it for long range precision, no LPVO is the right LPVO. They’re always compromise optics, and adding a parallax is almost universally adding complexity at detriment to its mission. If one is that concerned with what benefits a parallax would bring, they’re far better served with a wholly different optic altogether. exactly. I said it up there- if you need the fine tuning that parallax adjustment gets you, perhaps the 6/8/10x errector in a 24mm objective was the wrong choice to begin with. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. Are you talking about RDB or the PLX-C you actually used? I have an RDB on my 6.5 Grendel SBR and I regularly take it out to 500-800yds and I do NOT have to re-adjust diopter. You can just do the ol’ set to mag and adjust, you have to confirm at 1x to ensure clarity throughout the range. NX8 for me would not balance out and I effectively had to choose one over the other. NX6 rectifies that issue as well sensitive eyebox of nx8. |
|
Originally Posted By thedownzero: Are you talking about RDB or the PLX-C you actually used? I have an RDB on my 6.5 Grendel SBR and I regularly take it out to 500-800yds and I do NOT have to re-adjust diopter. You can just do the ol’ set to mag and adjust, you have to confirm at 1x to ensure clarity throughout the range. NX8 for me would not balance out and I effectively had to choose one over the other. NX6 rectifies that issue as well sensitive eyebox of nx8. Originally Posted By thedownzero: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I've had a very very opposite experience. The image on the plx-c was indeed nicer than the nx8... until higher mags when the diopter needed to be adjusted to make it useable. I've watched just about every review on youtube about the plx-c g2 and quite a few of them can still be seen adjusting their diopters at higher mags. My eyes are sensitive to this and thus it won't be something I'll be trying anytime soon. On the other hand, the nx8 stayed consistent throughout the mag range and was useable throughout the entire range. I'll take more consistency over better glass if the glass isn't whats holding me back. Are you talking about RDB or the PLX-C you actually used? I have an RDB on my 6.5 Grendel SBR and I regularly take it out to 500-800yds and I do NOT have to re-adjust diopter. You can just do the ol’ set to mag and adjust, you have to confirm at 1x to ensure clarity throughout the range. NX8 for me would not balance out and I effectively had to choose one over the other. NX6 rectifies that issue as well sensitive eyebox of nx8. both im not saying everybody needs to adjust the diopter between mags. But I can name at least 4, BIG time youtube lovers of that optic that I watched do it duing their review. I'm not naming anybody as I know that is an individual thing and shouldn't be a concern if thats not something you as an individual are sensitive to. I am very sensitive to it. I have 20/20 in my left and 20/15-12 in my right eye. The difference is large enough for me that I am most likely an outlier. as an add-on to my eye quirks... if I set the diopter with both eyes open I must use that optic the entire time both eyes open through the entire magnification range. I can't set it up for 6/8x one eye closed and use it at 1x with both eyes open. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The honest difference is a ffp is actually a 1 TO 6 and sfp is a 1 OR 6. To be fair if you use a max point blank range zero on your SFP LPVO or MPVO you can use intermediate zoom to good effect for quite a ways. This is how I use my NXS 2.5-10x42mm. |
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: To be fair if you use a max point blank range zero on your SFP LPVO or MPVO you can use intermediate zoom to good effect for quite a ways. This is how I use my NXS 2.5-10x42mm. Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: something else to consider is being able to take advantage of the better optical properties such as eyebox and FOV at lower magnifications. Using less mag makes it easier to scan and engage multiple or moving targets... Precision vs speed. The SFP plx-c is a perfect example of this weekness. As a side note, it is 100% acceptable to prefer one or the other just because. I'm not advocating for any reticle or style of optic. But to simply say 1-6 ffp doesn't have advantages is very very wrong. The PLX-c's have proven that ffp can be just as capable image wise on 1x as sfp... The honest difference is a ffp is actually a 1 TO 6 and sfp is a 1 OR 6. To be fair if you use a max point blank range zero on your SFP LPVO or MPVO you can use intermediate zoom to good effect for quite a ways. This is how I use my NXS 2.5-10x42mm. While fair that technique isn't exclusive to sfp and can be used on any sighting system |
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: True. Just making sure people can get the fullest use of SFP instead of treating it like the plague. Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: While fair that technique isn't exclusive to sfp and can be used on any sighting system True. Just making sure people can get the fullest use of SFP instead of treating it like the plague. i apologize if I came off like that- sfp def has its use cases. For the most precision sfp is superior. FFP wins in versatility. They also tend to be much more cost effective. They are often better optically as well since they stress the glass less. |
|
Originally Posted By GreenMushroom: If you have a 1-6 and and the image falls apart above 4 you're going to want your holds accurate on 4x especially if you don't have exposed turrets or you'll have no drop compensation. I personally prefer sfp for LPVOs but for that niche application ffp can be really important. Ah, okay, that makes total sense! I only have experience with dedicated thermal scopes, but I’m picking up with you’re saying. |
|
I’m underwhelmed at the on paper stats of the 1-6 NX6 so far. Sure, it’s a FFP Razor 1-6 with a good reticle, but it’s not much lighter and every other stat looks about on par or maybe slightly worse. The Razor has been out for 14 years, the Gen II-E has been out for 8, and both of those will always be cheaper than the NX6. I don’t know if FFP in a 1-6 is enough to make this thing relevant to anyone except those wanting an optic with NF written on it. The PLx discussion is interesting. I just zeroed my RDB last weekend and did feel like it was a struggle to get the diopter right. The Razor 1-10 was the same way for me but that was a longer and more gradual process of adjusting where as this seemed more noticeable in the moment. My eyes have tanked fairly hard over the last few years so I assume that has something to do with it. Hopefully I’ll be back out this weekend to play with it more, but I was underwhelmed based on my first impressions. Lots of posts and videos had set my expectations higher on it but we’ll see. |
|
Originally Posted By Wake27: I’m underwhelmed at the on paper stats of the 1-6 NX6 so far. Sure, it’s a FFP Razor 1-6 with a good reticle, but it’s not much lighter and every other stat looks about on par or maybe slightly worse. The Razor has been out for 14 years, the Gen II-E has been out for 8, and both of those will always be cheaper than the NX6. I don’t know if FFP in a 1-6 is enough to make this thing relevant to anyone except those wanting an optic with NF written on it. The PLx discussion is interesting. I just zeroed my RDB last weekend and did feel like it was a struggle to get the diopter right. The Razor 1-10 was the same way for me but that was a longer and more gradual process of adjusting where as this seemed more noticeable in the moment. My eyes have tanked fairly hard over the last few years so I assume that has something to do with it. Hopefully I’ll be back out this weekend to play with it more, but I was underwhelmed based on my first impressions. Lots of posts and videos had set my expectations higher on it but we’ll see. so you have one in hand then? |
| interestingly enough, every review has been very positive, most likely because it's 'underwhelming'. Not pushing the limits of the physics means less stress on the glass and better performance because of it. I've seen far too many rg2 break to take them seriously at this point. |
|
Just went to Scheels again and looked through the NX6 1-6 FFP, NX8 1-8 and AMG. Ordered an NX6 1-6 FFP. Gets here Friday. That AMG is very nice but honestly the 1x of the NX6 was very impressive, along with that killer reticle at 6x. The NX8 was a non-starter for me . Eyebox was extremely tight for me, no matter the mag. Definitely a strawtube feeling. NX6 at 1x just looked amazingly flat, both eyes open. I’m excited. Thanks all for your input here! I do have another rifle I need a new LPVO on, so after some range time with the NX6, I may be getting another one. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: interestingly enough, every review has been very positive, most likely because it's 'underwhelming'. Not pushing the limits of the physics means less stress on the glass and better performance because of it. I've seen far too many rg2 break to take them seriously at this point. Maybe a sampling problem because of the hordes of them out there in the hands of people who are actually putting them to use? |
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Maybe a sampling problem because of the hordes of them out there in the hands of people who are actually putting them to use? Yeah kind of my thought. I've seen more Razor 1-6s than any other LPVO in use, by far. I actually broke one, but have never seen any other go down. And mine fell real hard on concrete, so I would've expected any optic to break and then be shocked if I was wrong. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Subbed to Aaron Cowens patreon to watch his review of the 1-6. He seemed like a fan. I hadn't tuned into his channel for a good while so figured this would be a good reason to. He seems like a good guy and everything but I don't feel like I learned anything from his "review." Mostly it was his philosophy about using LPVOs and particularly a 1-6 vs 1-(higher mag). I almost forgot he basically refuses to directly compare any products to each other. |
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Maybe a sampling problem because of the hordes of them out there in the hands of people who are actually putting them to use? Originally Posted By Wake27: Yeah kind of my thought. I've seen more Razor 1-6s than any other LPVO in use, by far. I actually broke one, but have never seen any other go down. And mine fell real hard on concrete, so I would've expected any optic to break and then be shocked if I was wrong. Not a sampling problem- I see more atacr and vcogs than razors in my AO and the dudes with the razors (ebr-7c or whatever) have the most issues. |
Nx6's are shipping... who's got a 1-6? (Page 2 of 3)
AR Sponsor