*JUST RELEASED* Nightforce NX8 FFP 1-8x24mm 30mm Tube & ATACR F1 1-8x24mm 34mm Tube Models

Michael_Lucero

Private
Minuteman
Sep 17, 2018
9
2
6
Hey guys I’m new here. I’m having a hard time in deciding what optic to get. I am really liking the Nightforce Atacr 1-8 but the other I have been thinking about is the Schmidt and Bender PM2 1-8 short dot dual cc. Can anyone help me make my choice easier. Thanks
 

phlegm

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Apr 3, 2014
272
135
49
Question...what is "Exit pupil" and "Eye relief" in relation to "Eyebox"? Are they always directly linked, or are there other factors that skew the equation?

The reason I ask, is t hat noone bitches about the Swarovski Z8i's eyebox, while some people are complaining about that of the NX8.

The Z8i has an exit pupil on 1x of 8.1mm, and on 8x of 3.1mm. It has 3.74" eye relief.
The NX8 has an exit pupil on 1x of 7.9mm and on 8x of 3.0mm. It has 3.75" eye relief.

Both of these datasets were taken from manufacturer website.

Does this mean that the Z8i has an identical eyebox (nearly) to the NX8? Or does the FOV (much larger on Z8i) negate the near identical exit-pupil and eye-relief statistics? If so, why do people even care about exit pupil (aside light transmission at low light) like it's some almighty measure of an eyebox?

Would love to hear from people who have looked through both and compared eyeboxes.
I've spent a few range sessions with the NX8, and only briefly looked through the Z8. The numbers you put up agree with my experience.

There are a lot of people I've seen chime in that have used a Z6 and assume the Z8 will have the same presentation, but the one I saw was a lot less generous than the Z6.

The biggest difference between these two is the FFP vs SFP reticle placement. The FFP scope feels like the reticle is on the far end of the tube, while the SFP feels like the reticle is on the close end of the tube (which they are). The difference is minor, but perceptible.
 

sidewaysil80

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jun 11, 2012
259
24
22
Gainesville, VA
  • Like
Reactions: poconnor

CSTactical

Sniper's Hide Vendor
Commercial Supporter
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 18, 2009
6,003
771
219
Elk Grove, CA
www.CSTACTICAL.com
One Nightforce Optics NX8 1-8x24 FFP mil/mil display model in excellent shape for $1,515.00 ($200 off retail price) call us at 916-670-1103 to pick this one up.


 

Biggy

Full Member
Belligerents
Jul 25, 2005
429
2
22
New Knoxville ,Ohio
Maybe the second focal plain scope will have a better FOV and better eyebox, as it is now, it is just not for me. Kind of like the old NXS 2.5-10 x 24 compact riflescope, for me, it is to much sacrifice just to get 8x and a small footprint.
 

deersniper

Truth Teller
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Feb 22, 2007
3,867
3,115
219
N. Maryland
Maybe the second focal plain scope will have a better FOV and better eyebox, as it is now, it is just not for me. Kind of like the old NXS 2.5-10 x 24 compact riflescope, for me, it is to much sacrifice just to get 8x and a small footprint.
I am a big fan of the 2.5-10x32 and like the NX8 a lot. It is much better, Just about perfect for clip on sights. I would like to try the ATACR
 

Tx_Flyboy

Sergeant
Belligerents
Mar 2, 2011
571
2
22
Houston, Tx
This thread has been enlightening!

I went in looking to be convinced to buy a NCS 1-8. But, in the end, I’ll probably end up with the Khales 1-6, swaro equivalent, or Steiner TX5.
 

Emtothedee

Private
Belligerents
Sep 14, 2017
26
7
6
Dialed my atacr 1-8 to 5 mil today. Moved back down to 1x and noticed how terrible the image was. Then I remembered I read I think somewhere in this thread that the 1x image degrades as you dial up. I dialed all the way down to zero and the image went back to perfect. I’m posting this because on both rifles that share this optic, they both require to be dialed to 2 mil and 3 mil in order to be properly zeroed. Because of that, the image isn’t as good as it could be at 1x. I feel like that’s a lot. 20-30 clicks of elevation to get zeroed. I do have the sticker still on. Dumb question maybe, but is it possible the sticker is causing that? One upper is a build, but the other is a KAC Mod 2. My lmt mrp which had also been zeroed with it only requires 0.7 mil adjustment to be properly zeroed. Anyone else run into this?
 

sidewaysil80

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jun 11, 2012
259
24
22
Gainesville, VA
Dialed my atacr 1-8 to 5 mil today. Moved back down to 1x and noticed how terrible the image was. Then I remembered I read I think somewhere in this thread that the 1x image degrades as you dial up. I dialed all the way down to zero and the image went back to perfect. I’m posting this because on both rifles that share this optic, they both require to be dialed to 2 mil and 3 mil in order to be properly zeroed. Because of that, the image isn’t as good as it could be at 1x. I feel like that’s a lot. 20-30 clicks of elevation to get zeroed. I do have the sticker still on. Dumb question maybe, but is it possible the sticker is causing that? One upper is a build, but the other is a KAC Mod 2. My lmt mrp which had also been zeroed with it only requires 0.7 mil adjustment to be properly zeroed. Anyone else run into this?
I doubt it’s the sticker, it would have to be pretty thick to create that big of a difference. However I would just take it off. It’s kind of like leaving the designer tag on the sleeve of a new suit.
 

phlegm

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Apr 3, 2014
272
135
49
The sticker shouldn't affect the image. Still, you should remove it if it's under the rings.

Do you have a zero MOA mount or one with built-in incline? I've dialed mine to 4.5mils or so and saw no change in image quality.
 

Yama Arashi

Danneskjöld Imperative
Belligerents
Jun 9, 2011
201
54
34
CONUS
Dialed my atacr 1-8 to 5 mil today. Moved back down to 1x and noticed how terrible the image was. Then I remembered I read I think somewhere in this thread that the 1x image degrades as you dial up. I dialed all the way down to zero and the image went back to perfect.
ETA: In regard to your zeroing adjustment - the ATACR 1-8 on an LMT MWS with a 2.625" height over bore required 4.6 MIls of elevation for a 36yd zero.

Just as an FYI to your image quality issues, I sent my ATACR 1-8 back to NF, as the image resolution/focus/clarity was horrible at max magnification at around 125-150 yards and anything further. Oddly, at max magnification, I was able to clearly resolve and focus images as close as 17 yards with the reticle always in focus.

I compared the image to all my other scopes, including a Kahles K16i, and none of them exhibited this same issue. (Granted aside from the Kahles and an NX8, they're all ATACRs with higher magnification and parallax adjustment.) Looking through the Kahles at 6x, I could readily read/resolve wording on a range poster at 300 yards - not so with the ATACR 1-8 at 8x.

I messed with the diopter to verify that wasn't the problem, and it did not fix the issues. (I have 20/20 vision, and have never needed to adjust the ocular from factory settings on the 5 other NF scopes that I own.)

I couldn't really extract any specific info from NF about what they did, although they did agree the clarity they would have liked to see wasn't there, but they did *something* and now that I have it back, it's perfect. Images/focus/clarity are readily resolved at the closer 125+ ranges and to infinity. (within my eye's capability of course)

There is some glue reside at the objective lense seam - so I'm *assuming* they either replaced a lense, or adjusted the fixed parallax.
 
Last edited:

deersniper

Truth Teller
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Feb 22, 2007
3,867
3,115
219
N. Maryland
The NX8 Mia reticle is terrible. I don't know why they used 1 moa hash marks. 2 would have been fine
 

clsmb

Private
Belligerents
Feb 3, 2012
2
1
2
34
ETA: In regard to your zeroing adjustment - the ATACR 1-8 on an LMT MWS with a 2.625" height over bore required 4.6 MIls of elevation for a 36yd zero.

Just as an FYI to your image quality issues, I sent my ATACR 1-8 back to NF, as the image resolution/focus/clarity was horrible at max magnification at around 125-150 yards and anything further. Oddly, at max magnification, I was able to clearly resolve and focus images as close as 17 yards with the reticle always in focus.

I compared the image to all my other scopes, including a Kahles K16i, and none of them exhibited this same issue. (Granted aside from the Kahles and an NX8, they're all ATACRs with higher magnification and parallax adjustment.) Looking through the Kahles at 6x, I could readily read/resolve wording on a range poster at 300 yards - not so with the ATACR 1-8 at 8x.

I messed with the diopter to verify that wasn't the problem, and it did not fix the issues. (I have 20/20 vision, and have never needed to adjust the ocular from factory settings on the 5 other NF scopes that I own.)

I couldn't really extract any specific info from NF about what they did, although they did agree the clarity they would have liked to see wasn't there, but they did *something* and now that I have it back, it's perfect. Images/focus/clarity are readily resolved at the closer 125+ ranges and to infinity. (within my eye's capability of course)

There is some glue reside at the objective lense seam - so I'm *assuming* they either replaced a lense, or adjusted the fixed parallax.
I came to find an answer on this. as the mag goes up, the image quality seems to get blurry in a hurry. I messed with the diopter and have it where I consider perfect. at 300 the target (a 10" plate) is easily visible and hitable but it is NOT a crisp clear circle as when viewed through a 1/3rd the price trijicon tr26 at 8 or 12x. anybody got input?
 

Yama Arashi

Danneskjöld Imperative
Belligerents
Jun 9, 2011
201
54
34
CONUS
I came to find an answer on this. as the mag goes up, the image quality seems to get blurry in a hurry. I messed with the diopter and have it where I consider perfect. at 300 the target (a 10" plate) is easily visible and hitable but it is NOT a crisp clear circle as when viewed through a 1/3rd the price trijicon tr26 at 8 or 12x. anybody got input?
My bet (*assumption*) is on where they have the fixed parallax set.

I do recall the person I spoke with over the phone casually mentioning something about the optic being dialed more toward the red dot side of its intended use (as in closer distances)

If that is the case, it doesn't make much sense to me, as I'd prefer the farther distances/images with this optic usage to be what is clear and sharp. I don't need such to be perfect at CQ/red dot distances, and the image at the low end of the mag range wasn't the problem anyway - of course I also wouldn't be using the high end of the mag range or the reticle at closer distances.

I could also readily see whatever I was looking at, as in your example, but nothing at the distances I mentioned were ever anywhere near clear/sharp/perfectly focused at 8x.

With the way that it is now, after having received it back from NF, the clarity and focus at the close-in distances while on max magnification are still just as good, but focusing on the target/image that close in does make the reticle go slightly out of focus - but as aforementioned, at the distances I will actually be using the reticle on 8x, the clarity/focus of both the reticle and image are perfect, and I couldn't be more pleased.
 
Last edited:

DL32

Private
Belligerents
Jan 23, 2013
29
0
2
40
My bet (*assumption*) is on where they have the fixed parallax set.

I do recall the person I spoke with over the phone casually mentioning something about the optic being dialed more toward the red dot side of its intended use (as in closer distances)

If that is the case, it doesn't make much sense to me, as I'd prefer the farther distances/images with this optic usage to be what is clear and sharp. I don't need such to be perfect at CQ/red dot distances, and the image at the low end of the mag range wasn't the problem anyway - of course I also wouldn't be using the high end of the mag range or the reticle at closer distances.

I could also readily see whatever I was looking at, as in your example, but nothing at the distances I mentioned were ever anywhere near clear/sharp/perfectly focused at 8x.

With the way that it is now, after having received it back from NF, the clarity and focus at the close-in distances while on max magnification are still just as good, but focusing on the target/image that close in does make the reticle go slightly out of focus - but as aforementioned, at the distances I will actually be using the reticle on 8x, the clarity/focus of both the reticle and image are perfect, and I couldn't be more pleased.
This is exactly why I held out for the S&B dual CC.

Cc mode = 7 meter parallax and everything else is 100 meters.

Seems to solve a lot of this.
 

clsmb

Private
Belligerents
Feb 3, 2012
2
1
2
34
welp. im feeling dumb af.

I did everything I found online about setting the diopter properly inside my home. were talking... 40-50 ft hallway distance.

I took it down the road where I could view an ~750yd building with normal home sized windows. it was blurry af and i decided unless the target is triple human size there was no way I was going to distinguish it.

before I drove away I decided to mess with the diopter again. all the way out and work it IN. when I had arrived here, my diopeter was set 2.7 turns in. reticle was sharp as could be and 100yds was VERY clear.

so in doing this excersize of adjusting the diopeter at a VERY long distance, i was able to make the building 10000% more clear. I will second that what you said about the reticle, i think it was just eye fatigue but I felt like i was looking past the reticle and seeing a PERFECTLY clear image of the building, but my eye would focus back and the reticle would be very sharp. it was a happy medium and I will fine tune it slightly next time Im at the range. as it sits right now I could smoke the tail light out of a truck at 750ish if I wanted to or a man sized target standing in one of the windows. it made THAT big of a difference.

in closing, adjust your diopter at something far away. it was the difference between looking through some well used safety glasses and a microscope. literal 1000% improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phlegm

steve123

Lt. Colonel
Belligerents
Mar 16, 2008
8,086
781
219
Flagstaff, AZ
This is exactly why I held out for the S&B dual CC.

Cc mode = 7 meter parallax and everything else is 100 meters.

Seems to solve a lot of this.
And also why I'd like to see adjustable parallax on these type of scopes. I didn't want to spend the money for a pricey 1-8 but your scope or a March with AP is what I would have preferred.
 

Yama Arashi

Danneskjöld Imperative
Belligerents
Jun 9, 2011
201
54
34
CONUS
in closing, adjust your diopter at something far away. it was the difference between looking through some well used safety glasses and a microscope. literal 1000% improvement.
I still had the same issues irrespective of how I adjusted the diopter.

Great if that worked for you, but I do wonder if it doesn't induce other issues at different magnification settings and ranges. Technically the diopter should be focused for the reticle at infinity, and against a background that doesn't offer any sort of image to focus on (flat white wall, clear blue sky, etc.) and without focusing on the reticle for any more than 1-2 seconds, as the eye will correct for a possibly out of focus reticle.

I still think it's an issue of what distance NF has the fixed parallax set at - but it's also a limitation of a design with a fixed parallax setting. Hence the design that DL32 mentioned, which makes the optic go back and forth between 2 fixed parallax settings, contingent on the magnification setting. But, this issue could still arise without an actual parallax adjustment knob, depending how they have the parallax set for the FFP reticle.

S&B states parallax free to 7m for the SFP red dot, and to 100m for the FFP reticle, whereas NF states their fixed parallax is at 125y. So 125 and beyond should be parallax free and in focus, but mine seemed to work the exact opposite when on max magnification. (Everything short of 125 was in focus at 8x, and any image beyond that range would never be clear or fully resolved.)

With whatever change NF made to my scope, any complaints I had with it have been resolved, and the only time both the image and reticle are not perfectly focused together, is when I'm at max magnification and looking at an object as close as 17-25 yards in - but again, I wouldn't be using the magnified reticle at those distances anyway,
 
Last edited: