AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/17/2010 6:20:57 PM EDT
|
UPDATE: THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT ON THIS.
I was ready to get a plain-jane NP-1 with MOA turrets and no zero stop - this thread swayed me to broaden the capability of my scope . . . so . . . I ended up ordering a 2.5-10X24, Mil-Dot with Mil-Rad turrets and zero-stop. Got a deal I couln't pass up on this set-up. I pretty much got every bell and whistle I could think of. The Mil-Dot will be a good hunting reticle as well as allow me to learn and enjoy other shooting applications. The only thing I didn't get was the 32mm obj. so I am sacrificing some light intake. I ordered from Mike at CS Tactical. He is a great guy and a site sponsor and I was glad to give him my hard earned money. He took the time to talk to me despite being in the middle of getting ready to take his kid to school. I can't wait to get the scope! Thank you Mike and thanks again to those who participated in this thread. I am picking up a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x24. It is going on my 14.5” LMT which I have gotten exceptional accuracy out of with a 3x ACOG, so I am bumping up the magnification to see what it can really do. My uses will be predator, pig and small game hunting as well as target shooting from 100 – 300 yards. My hunting will mostly be done inside of 100 yards but I do like having the confidence and capability to take the long shot when it presents itself. I like the simplicity of the NP-1 but I don’t want to later wish I had more options in a reticle if I get into more advanced shooting. The NP-R2 seems like it would allow more options but seems pretty “busy” for my uses. I would really appreciate feedback from those who have actually used these or similar reticles. I am looking to place an order in the next couple weeks and was also wondering if the x32 objective and zero stop are worth the extra $$ considering my uses. 
|
|
Yeah....check the new stuff about it on the NF website, the staff at NF have taken the time to do ballistic calculations and then have a program that lets you find the ammo you use...then choice it and it tells you where to sight in the scope at the 200 yd. hash in the ret. The actual program shows the LV is the optimal choice for .223/5.56.
NF Velocity Ret. link Online Ballistic Ret. Calc |
|
I have the NP-1 on my 2.5x10x32 and love it for hunting medium size game. If I'm not mistaken its the recticle NF recommends for most big game hunting.
I have a dope card I made up for bullet drop/drift on my stock and dial the knobs for POI. The Zero Stop is a nice feature if your clicking the turrets. My ranging is done with a LRF so I don't need or want a complex reticule. If I didn't dial elevation I would have gone with their velocity reticule. |
|
I voted for the NP-R2, as that is what both of my 2.5-10 NXS's have, and it works well for my uses. The Velocity, aka BDC, reticles seem like a decent idea, but I prefer to calculate my dial-in or holdover....YMMV
Regarding the 24 versus 32 objective, if you plan to use it for hunting, larger objectives are always better for the likely reduced ambient light situations; I have posted this repeatedly based upon firsthand experience. As good as the NF glass is, the 24 is miserable when the sun is setting as compared with other high quality optics having larger objective lenses, and the 32 isn't a whole lot better. Physics and optical quality are both very important. The zero-stops take some effort to initially setup for the dedicated platform, but work well if one plans to dial-in DOPE versus holding over. ETA: The windage zero-stop limits adjustment to 4 3/4 MOA, which is roughly equivalent to a 10 MPH full value crosswind at 400-600m, depending on what cartridge one is shooting. |
|
The NP1 has no holdover markings, nor does it lend itself as a CQB reticle. As such, you'll find the scope will only work well at one zero and using it at any other range will require rezeroing. The NP1 is more of a hunting reticle and not much else (while it might suit your needs, it will be poor most other roles).
I'd personally go with the Mil-Dot if you have mrad turrets, or the NP-R2 if you have MOA turrets - both will lend themselves to hunting as well as precision paper punching and long-range varmint sniping. If you just want a CQ-type reticle, get the FC2. |
|
Quoted:
I voted for the NP-R2, as that is what both of my 2.5-10 NXS's have, and it works well for my uses. The Velocity, aka BDC, reticles seem like a decent idea, but I prefer to calculate my dial-in or holdover....YMMV Regarding the 24 versus 32 objective, if you plan to use it for hunting, larger objectives are always better for the likely reduced ambient light situations; I have posted this repeatedly based upon firsthand experience. As good as the NF glass is, the 24 is miserable when the sun is setting as compared with other high quality optics having larger objective lenses, and the 32 isn't a whole lot better. Physics and optical quality are both very important. The zero-stops take some effort to initially setup for the dedicated platform, but work well if one plans to dial-in DOPE versus holding over. ETA: The windage zero-stop limits adjustment to 4 3/4 MOA, which is roughly equivalent to a 10 MPH full value crosswind at 400-600m, depending on what cartridge one is shooting. What are you using the NP-R2 for? |
|
The NP-R2 would work but I think the NP-1 would be a little faster for hunting because it has the thicker/darker stadia lines moving toward the cross hairs.
I see there have been several votes for the Mil-Dot reticle but no posts backing it up. ETA: murderman - better EP's? What are EP's? |
|
Quoted:
The NP-R2 would work but I think the NP-1 would be a little faster for hunting because it has the thicker/darker stadia lines moving toward the cross hairs. I see there have been several votes for the Mil-Dot reticle but no posts backing it up. ETA: murderman - better EP's? What are EP's? Mil-Dot allows for ranging - you can tell the distance of your target simply by how large it is between the dots, which is especially nice if you won't be shooting at a known range. The same goes for the NP-R2. You simply need to match the turrets to the reticle - mrad for the Mil-Dot and MOA for the NP-R2. Further, once you've determined your distance, you can dial in your elevation and windage (if any) corrections and be dead on target at ANY range. With the NP1 reticle, you have to guess your distance and hope you're on target, as you have no holdover or range-estimation markings. Again, this means your scope can effectively only be used at one distance (or a short range of distances). For many traditional hunting rifles and calibers, this isn't a big issue as they're limited to fairly short effective distances over which they fly flat (like the .30-30 or .270), but for a long-ranged arcing round like the 5.56/.223, you become limited by your reticle. Think of it in this light: If you're just going to use it for hunting and you simply want a hunting reticle, why bother getting the Nightforce? While they have nice glass for their optics, that's not what you're paying for. You're paying for the durability and the fine-tuned adjustments and functionality (the turret adjustments). If you're only going to get an NP-1 reticle, then you lose out on half the advantage of getting a Nightforce in the first place. It'd be much cheaper to get a Meopta 1-4x22 or KDot at half the price (the glass is also known to be slightly clearer), as those scopes are meant for game-hunting in the first place. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm just hoping to point out the conflicting ideology behind getting the NP-1 reticle. |
| Good post. Point well taken. I don't want a 1-4. I sold a USO SN-4S because I don't shoot CQB - ever. So your saying, if I am going to maximize the benefits of a Nightforce then get a reticle that does more than the NP-1. Can the same be said about the zero-stop option? Is that worth the extra $$? |
|
Quoted:
Good post. Point well taken. I don't want a 1-4. I sold a USO SN-4S because I don't shoot CQB - ever. So your saying, if I am going to maximize the benefits of a Nightforce then get a reticle that does more than the NP-1. Can the same be said about the zero-stop option? Is that worth the extra $$? ZeroStop is good if you tend to make a lot of adjustments in the field. Once you've zeroed your turrets, your elevation zero becomes your lowest elevation setting (you can't go past it) and your windage turret zero line lines up with 0. That way, you can easily adjust your turrets back to zero and know if they're on simply by feel. If you're simply going to zero your scope once and use holdovers, then you probably don't want ZeroStop and should go with capped turrets instead. If you like the exposed target-style turrets and prefer dialing in your dope instead of holdovers, then ZeroStop is a handy feature. |
|
I appreciate all the posts. I'm still not sure I have been talked out of the NP-1, but I am thinking real hard on it. Seriously, I am used to zeroing my scopes at 100 - 200 yards and leaving them there for hunting and every now and then punching some paper. I like keeping things simple. That said, I can see your points - why not have the options the other reticles offer? I could still hunt with them right?
I am worried about the skinny lines of the NP-R2 getting washed out with thick brushy backgrounds. I also just don't know if I like the busy reticles - and I'm not sure I would ever use them. The NP-1 has thicker lines at 6, 3 and 9 o'clock that help focus the eye to the center on the cross-hairs. I guess I sound like a Fud but I have always been very familiar with my rifles and have always done pretty good using good old fasioned "Kentucky windage." I also recognize that change can be good and stepping out of my comfort zone here might be fun. That is why I am seeking input. I really might enjoy going out past 300 yards and shooting more tactical style. I would really appreciate feedback from predator callers and varmint shooters (p-dogs). I am going to keep reading what I can find on the web and the posts here before making a final decision. I am getting a NF - that much I know. |
|
Quoted:
I appreciate all the posts. I'm still not sure I have been talked out of the NP-1, but I am thinking real hard on it. Seriously, I am used to zeroing my scopes at 100 - 200 yards and leaving them there for hunting and every now and then punching some paper. I like keeping things simple. That said, I can see your points - why not have the options the other reticles offer? I could still hunt with them right? I am worried about the skinny lines of the NP-R2 getting washed out with thick brushy backgrounds. I also just don't know if I like the busy reticles - and I'm not sure I would ever use them. The NP-1 has thicker lines at 6, 3 and 9 o'clock that help focus the eye to the center on the cross-hairs. I guess I sound like a Fud but I have always been very familiar with my rifles and have always done pretty good using good old fasioned "Kentucky windage." I also recognize that change can be good and stepping out of my comfort zone here might be fun. That is why I am seeking input. I really might enjoy going out past 300 yards and shooting more tactical style. I would really appreciate feedback from predator callers and varmint shooters (p-dogs). I am going to keep reading what I can find on the web and the posts here before making a final decision. I am getting a NF - that much I know. I agree with all of your concerns, which is why I went with the Mil-Dot. It's simple enough to use as a normal crosshair with the bonus of ranging. Don't worry about losing your reticle against certain backgrounds - if the background is dark enough to lose the reticle on, then it's also dark enough for the lighted reticle to show up clearly. Even in broad daylight, the reticle with have a dark-red tint to it, so it stands out clearly against anything that's dark. Also, the Mil-Dot and NP-R2 reticles correspond to the turrets. If your shot is off by 1/2 an MOA or a Radian, then you know you need to adjust your turrets by exactly 1/2 a unit value. You lose this with the NP-1 reticle. Again, just something to keep in mind. |
|
For a purely hunting application in the context of medium or large game at relatively close range such as <250y, I agree that the "simpler" reticle, i.e. NP-1 is arguably a better choice. Both of my bolt rifles for such use have Plex-type reticles. Like you, I zero them in such that the no holdover distance is within anticipated range assuming a "kill zone" of nominally 6" diameter....sort of a point-and-click type deal, since one often doesn't have the time to make "adjustments" under such conditions.
I can't comment on prairie dog hunting, as I have no direct experience in such regard, but as another gentleman posted recently, "aim small, miss small." As your target size decreases or range increases, the ability to more precisely quantify the Kentucky windage becomes important. If you use an LRF, and have previously DOPE'd your system, then you should well be able to dial in the NP-1 effectively. Should this be your MO, then the exposed turrets and zero-stops will be beneficial. My hunting bolt guns mentioned previously both have covered turrets, since they are not used as such. As far as the objective size goes, I would recommend the 32mm for your application. It is not much bigger or heavier, and the larger objective will allow you to run higher mag under reduced light. Another EP consideration is that the smaller it is the more precisely one's eye must be centered with the optic. This can be both good and bad. Considering that the compact NXS's do not have parallax adjustment, the smaller EP of the 24 forces one to really maintain a consistent cheekweld, which fundamentally reduces parallax error; the 32 is a bit more "forgiving" on cheekweld, but that opens the potential for greater parallax error, which increases with differential from the zero parallax distance. To me, the slightly improved light gathering of the larger objective is more important than the parallax considerations at the ranges you have mentioned. If you do decide on a "ranging" reticle such as the mil-dot or NP-R2, whatever you do, get turret scales to match! I don't typically range with the reticle, but I can if desired. Recognize that with a SFP optic such as the NXS compacts, ranging can only be performed at a given mag, specifically 10x for these devices. With mil-rads being 3.6" per 100y, and MOA being 1.04" per 100y, my brain just seems to work better with MOA when doing the calculations real time. The benefit of a scaled reticle of either type is that one can quantify holdover/windage versus dialing in if that option is better for the timeliness of a shot. As you know as well as any of us, you are proposing a bit of a hybid application, hence the decision making process being a bit more difficult. The world of optics is full of compromises; only you can determine the best combination of features. Hope this helps. 
|
|
Quoted: Thanks Skyyr - from the poll it looks like you are not alone, the Mil-Dot is the current favorite. Those who vote in these polls tend to vote on: 1 - What they currently have or 2 - What they would get Rarely do people actually read what the OP is asking for and seeking advice for; his particular intended use, so take the poll results with a grain of salt. The poll IS a good indicator, however, of which reticle will offer you the best resale value in case you ever decide to sell it. |
|
Quoted:
Since the NP-R1 is clearly their best, and most popular reticle, it's surprising you didn't list it as a choice. Presumably, the NP-R2 stands as its proxy. The NP-R1 is not available on the 2.5-10 compacts being discussed. Did you actually read the OP? WHY is it "clearly the best" in your mind? I had the opportunity to shoot an extremely nice suppressed AI bolt gun a couple of weeks ago with a 3.5-15x50 NXS; the owner swore by the NP-R2....and he had a choice. |
|
Skyyr saying just get a K-Dot has to be a joke. It just not in the same class if you care about precision. To select the optics you are getting means you care about precision but its not the be all and end all... you still have SOME concern about size and weight... other wise youd get the full size scopes.
If the OP wants to shoot in low light 32mm is a must. If you are concerned about losing the reticle against brush dont worry... you wont, thats what the illumination is there for anyway if its in low light. If it were a FFP scope I could see some concerens but it is not. Just deceide which is easier for you to work with mils or MOA... then get the corresponding reticle. NP-R2 or MilDot. The NP-R2 is a better reticle than the mildot IMO, in the reticles you are looking at as it allows a bit more precision. I prefer a mil dash over tradtional dot. If I wanted a MOA reticle to go wth a MOA adjustment Id go NPR2. If you dont care about mils or MOA and will go with either then the NR2 edges out the standard mildot IMO. I prefer mils to MOA myself and Id get a MLR with a full sized 3.5-15X since I care most about precision. While ranging is great... lets also be honest. If you have a LRF you will use that 99% of the time. Its far easier and more precise. |
|
Quoted:
Skyyr saying just get a K-Dot has to be a joke. It just not in the same class if you care about precision. To select the optics you are getting means you care about precision but its not the be all and end all... you still have SOME concern about size and weight... other wise youd get the full size scopes. If the OP wants to shoot in low light 32mm is a must. If you are concerned about losing the reticle against brush dont worry... you wont, thats what the illumination is there for anyway if its in low light. If it were a FFP scope I could see some concerens but it is not. Just deceide which is easier for you to work with mils or MOA... then get the corresponding reticle. NP-R2 or MilDot. The NP-R2 is a better reticle than the mildot IMO, in the reticles you are looking at as it allows a bit more precision. I prefer a mil dash over tradtional dot. If I wanted a MOA reticle to go wth a MOA adjustment Id go NPR2. If you dont care about mils or MOA and will go with either then the NR2 edges out the standard mildot IMO. I prefer mils to MOA myself and Id get a MLR with a full sized 3.5-15X since I care most about precision. While ranging is great... lets also be honest. If you have a LRF you will use that 99% of the time. Its far easier and more precise. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying the KDot was as precise, but that it was perhaps a better choice for his purposes (and not just the KDot namely). I mean, seriously, how accurate do you have to be on an animal? You have roughly a 4 inch killzone on most boar-sized animals, and up to a full 12 inches on deer, so saying that he must get a Nightforce to be accurate is ludicrous. As I'm sure you're aware, reticle size has virtually nothing to do with accuracy - it has to do with precision, as in repeated shots. A 4 MOA reticle dot will allow you be just as accurate as a 1 MOA dot. The only difference is that you can't aim for the same POI to make small groups (as larger dots cover bullet-sized holes). Since that's not his concern with hunting, then a KDot (with a 2 MOA dot) would indeed fill his needs. He'd easily hit anything dog-size or larger out to 200-300yds, which, again, is exactly what he intends to do. If you think the Nightforce would allow more accuracy, then realize that both the Meopta and the Nightforce have finger-adjustable elevation and windage, and neither have holdovers - for hunting, they function virtually the same. If you're going to blow $1200-$1400 on a scope that has benchrest-like accuracy adjustments, titanium adjustment springs, military-grade tubing, and pristine glass... why get a reticle that negates all of that? The NP-1 reticle doesn't 1) allow for ranging, 2) allow for holdover, 3) allow you to accurately adjust elevation and windage after bullet splash (unless you know the exact distance you're shooting), nor does it have a high resale value (as the poll above and other posters have aptly pointed out). I didn't say they were comparable scopes - I have a Nightforce (2.5-10x24) and it's leagues above the KDot (which I also have two of). However, the KDot does make a faster hunting reticle and the glass is ever so slightly clearer. With all of this in mind, I was making a recommendation that if he truly intends to only use it for hunting and insists on an NP-1 style reticle, then the Nightforce may not be the best investment. I never said it wouldn't work, but with an NP-1 reticle, it's not the best match for the money for his uses. All of that said, I hope he does get the Nightforce - it's truly the nicest scope I've ever seen, all in one small package. I'm just trying to be honest and realistic. |
|
I shoot my K-Dot and Murdurman's NF 2.5-10x24mm at the range and dont find the Meopta to have clearer glass. I think they are equal. The KDot's, larger dot and bloomyness of the reticle, as well as the magnification difference means a lot of real world precision is lost on small targets. If the end hunting use could be small animals, like rodents, the K-Dot is not a good choice IMO.
To me even though there is no MECHANICAL difference in accuracy if the end user can cut groups size in half in real world use then that is a significant difference. I think the 2.5-10X NF will allow most shooters to shoot about half the group size of a 1-4X Meopta K-Dot. If your rifle is accurate enough to shoot 100 yard golf balls IMO your optic should allow you to do this. Not only does the Meopta 1-4 K-Dot not allow you to have the needed precision it wont even let you SEE the golf ball at 100 yards. Same would go for rodent heads sticking out of the ground at 200. For night shooting the K-Dots reticle bloom problem is even more significant as setting 1 is IMO about twice as bright as it should be. NF has the low level illumination settings you want for low light. So if the OP wants low light capability, high precision and accuracy, and MOA adjustments... the 2.5-10x32 with NP-R2 is a no brainer. If someone has other needs it is not so clear cut. |
|
Quoted:
The KDot's, larger dot and bloomyness of the reticle, as well as the magnification difference means a lot of real world precision is lost on small targets. If the end hunting use could be small animals, like rodents, the K-Dot is not a good choice IMO. This was my point - if he's going to shoot small animals or anything requiring high levels of accuracy and precision, then an NP-1 reticle isn't the best choice either, as there are others better suited, such as the NP-R2. If he doesn't care, then a scope like the KDot is better suited at half the cost. Either way, I think we're saying the same thing; if not, I can agree to disagree. Quoted:
Not only does the Meopta 1-4 K-Dot not allow you to have the needed precision it wont even let you SEE the golf ball at 100 yards. Same would go for rodent heads sticking out of the ground at 200. I can (and did on my last range trip) shoot at a 1"-wide bullseye at 150yds. I hit it several times and make a 1.5" group around it... using irons. I know not everyone has perfect eyesight, but I have no issues seeing golfballs at 100yds. At 4x, it'd be cake with a match barrel. |
| Well I am more confused than ever now. I should have known posting this would just make this more confusing. That's what I get for asking. Do I want a more traditional hunting scope or a more versatile target scope. Going with the latter will force me to step out of my comfort zone and learn some more skills. |
|
Quoted: Well I am more confused than ever now. I should have known posting this would just make this more confusing. That's what I get for asking. Do I want a more traditional hunting scope or a more versatile target scope. Going with the latter will force me to step out of my comfort zone and learn some more skills. If you don't like the reticle, you can send it to NF in Idaho and have them change it to a different reticle. I think the charge was around $150 for that for most of the reticles. |
|
I really appreciate all the posts and the discussion. It almost makes the decision more difficult but it is very educational and I feel well informed. I'm pretty sure I have it narrowed down to 2.
I am either going to cling to my old-fangled ways and stick with the NP-1 or I am going to get the Mil-Dot. I have read in a few other places (other boards) that the thin lines in the NP-R2 wash out easily against certain back grounds - I don't want that in a hunting reticle. Plus, the NP-R2 looks too busy to me - kind of like a fuzzy caterpillar. I just don't like the way it looks. There is nowhere to go taround here to look at them first hand - I might be way off base. ETA: This thread also convinced me to go with the 32mm obj. |
|
Quoted: I really appreciate all the posts and the discussion. It almost makes the decision more difficult but it is very educational and I feel well informed. I'm pretty sure I have it narrowed down to 2. I am either going to cling to my old-fangled ways and stick with the NP-1 or I am going to get the Mil-Dot. I have read in a few other places (other boards) that the thin lines in the NP-R2 wash out easily against certain back grounds - I don't want that in a hunting reticle. Plus, the NP-R2 looks too busy to me - kind of like a fuzzy caterpillar. I just don't like the way it looks. There is nowhere to go taround here to look at them first hand - I might be way off base. ETA: This thread also convinced me to go with the 32mm obj. If you get down to the valley (north Phx area), you're more than welcome to take a look at my NF. While most of mine are the NP-R2, I do have one that's a Mildot (5.5-22x). |
AR Sponsor