Nikon FX-1000

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
My 4-16x50 has had to go back a couple of times. First time for turret ghost clicks... the replacement arrived with debris on one of the inside scope elements and had to go back as well. It is presently being replaced but I am stuck in limbo because all models of the new FX-1000 scopes are out of stock at Nikon. Product is expected to start arriving this coming week so I am hoping to be one of the first in line to get one. Keeping my fingers crossed for now hoping the third time is the charm!

Will post back with results when I get it!
 

steve123

Lt. Colonel
Mar 16, 2008
7,365
290
83
Flagstaff, AZ
Sportsmans Warehouse counter review here.

Thumbs down, turrets were the worst I've ever seen as far as lining up on any scope so far and by far.

I hope it was just a bad shipment???
My 4-16x50 has had to go back a couple of times. First time for turret ghost clicks... the replacement arrived with debris on one of the inside scope elements and had to go back as well. It is presently being replaced but I am stuck in limbo because all models of the new FX-1000 scopes are out of stock at Nikon. Product is expected to start arriving this coming week so I am hoping to be one of the first in line to get one. Keeping my fingers crossed for now hoping the third time is the charm!

Will post back with results when I get it!
I had some 1st gen Talos BTR's that had this problem but not even close to this bad, heck the turrets on those BSA 4-14's were far superior to the fx1000.
 
Last edited:
Jan 30, 2018
56
5
8
OKC
Picked up a 4-16x here and they are the absolute worst turrets of any scope I own. I was really excited for this scope but these turrets are seriously awful. Even my BSA sweet 22 ($35 scope) has better turrets.

Surely this is a QA issue or bad batch? Clearly I'm not alone with this problem. I am trying to decide if it's worth sending into Nikon or if the fix/replacement will be just as bad?
 

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
Interesting, first replacement scope appeared to have crisp turrets with audible clicks, was absent of ghost clicks, and the hash marks aligned perfectly. Unfortunately, I never got the opportunity to mount it on the rifle and shoot a tall target test to fully check it out due to loose debris floating around on the internal elements.

If third one does not work perfectly it will be going back with a request for a full refund. Since purchasing, my Nikon scope(s) have spent more time at Nikon than at my house. Sure hoping they figure it out real soon!
 

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
The problem is that if they decided to replace yours as well, they currently have zero stock in hand to deliver from. Haven't had any for at least a couple of weeks! I was told approximately two weeks to next delivery about ten days ago so hopefully shipping soon. :cautious: :cool:
 

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant
Nov 27, 2009
3,621
307
83
56
Ingleside, Tx
I'm sorry to hear these are flops.
You would think that since it took them so long to enter the market, they would have done so more carefully.
It was nice they were trying to enter the low end, high feature market, but they screwed the pooch on this one.
 

Primus

Gun Snob
Feb 13, 2017
487
173
43
Vancouver, WA
I got to play with them last night. The 4-16 was optically Superior to the 6-24. Better contrast, depth of field and resolution. It even beat out the pst gen 2 5-25 when set at 16x for comparison. Both are made in the phillipenes and assuming they are mechanically similar, the Nikon is a winner in both price and optical quality.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,393
607
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
I got to play with them last night. The 4-16 was optically Superior to the 6-24. Better contrast, depth of field and resolution. It even beat out the pst gen 2 5-25 when set at 16x for comparison. Both are made in the phillipenes and assuming they are mechanically similar, the Nikon is a winner in both price and optical quality.
That is really odd, since these Nikons are effectively re-labeled Gen 1 PST scopes with Nikon reticles.

ILya
 

deadnbrkn84

Gunny Sergeant
Jan 16, 2011
1,238
60
48
33
Portland, OR
I apologize for the issues with the turrets, we had a some parts that were machined out of spec and didn’t catch it until a batch had been shipped. The problem has been rectified and the batch returned to the manufacturer. The clicks on these scopes are excellent and if you had a bad one that was why. It was a small batch but unfortunately an early one so it left a bad taste in some mouths. If you see a new one try the turrets and give it a shot.
 

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
Quick update on latest status of my 4-16x50 FX-1000 scope ... Looks like the third time is the charm. If you remember, I initially purchased my scope back in late April and received it in earlier half of May. Got busy and did not look at it again for a couple of weeks but prior to mounting it I exercised the turrets and discovered there were quite a few ghost clicks (extra felt clicks) when turning the turrets. For example, I would hear and feel 12 distinct clicks on turret but scope only dialed up 1.0 Mil instead of 1.2 Mil. Overall, the turrets felt sloppy and were not consistent when counting clicks and adjusting for elevation. The scope was determined to be faulty and was replaced by Nikon after about ten days in the repair shop.

The turrets on the replacement were crisp, with precise audible clicks and perfectly aligned hash marks throughout the full turn on the turrets in both elevation and windage. Unfortunately, just when I was starting to feel really good about it I took the scope covers off and looked through it for the first time and immediately saw a large chunk of debris on the periphery of the FOV at the lower powers. Optically this scope was good, just like the first one, and even though I tried to dislodge the debris, I was unable to clear it out of the FOV. I took some pictures and again returned it to Nikon. Good thing I included the letter with the pictures because I was told the debris was not there when they received it. UPS must have treated the package not so gently. Regardless, Nikon opted to replace this one as well but I was informed that they were presently out of stock and would have to wait a couple of weeks for product to come back in stock before getting another one. Of course, like all things optic, two weeks turned into three.

Throughout this entire ordeal I had the assistance of Bman940 here on the Hide. Bart is a Nikon Pro Staff member and was instrumental in coordinating, tracking, and updating me on the current status of my repair. Because of his assistance and contacts I was authorized to receive an upgraded model as consolation for my troubles and patience. No doubt Nikon encountered some significant QC issues with regards to my scopes but in the end they behaved honorably and bent backwards to make me happy.

About a week ago I received my third scope, and I am, pleased to confirm that both elevation and windage turrets had an excellent feel, clicks were crisp and audible, hash marks aligned perfectly, illumination was excellent (thanks Nikon), parallax knob tension was good, and optical quality was great throughout the entire zoom range. This one was ready to be mounted, zeroed, and have a tall target/box test done on it to confirm turret precision and return to zero capabilities. I ran all of these tests this past weekend and was impressed with the overall performance. I shot the test at 100 meters and over 10 Mils of elevation travel and +/- 3 Mil of windage, the scope showed a difference of less than 0.5 cm (less than 0.5%) overall error. Some shots were just over a cm away from their predicted/expected positions, but this difference is easily attributed to shooter's margin of error and in my mind I have fully validated this specific specimens precision, tracking accuracy, and ability to return to zero.

In summary, the long wait was exasperating and disappointing but at its conclusion has resulted in the delivery of a quality product by a company that firmly stood behind its reputation and satisfied a demanding customer. I would not hesitate in recommending this scope... hopefully the growing pains of getting this product to market will soon be behind them.

Thanks again Bart!
 
Last edited:

supercorndogs

Professor Dickweed
Feb 17, 2014
2,376
535
113
I guess I need to check out my 4-16 a little better. Its just been sitting in the safe. Glass looked pretty good{no where near the steiner 4-16}, the clicks felt really good, especially considering the price. It seemed to track, but I just ran it up 3 then 6 mils on paper at 100 then back to zero shot some positional and left.
 
Jul 31, 2010
186
29
28
59
Texas
www.nikonhunting.com
Pell, I was happy to help. Sorry for the delays and I can't thank you enough for the amount of patience you showed during your wait. I'm sure all the rain you were getting in Seattle made that part a bit easier. I am thrilled that you ran the scope through its paces and came out with the results you expected. You have the scope everyone else can now own. There shouldn't be any more issues and if someone does have a problem feel free to contact me and I'll help you out as I did Peter, until you are satisfied with your purchase. Peter, Thank you again for giving us multiple chances to get things right and staying loyal to the Nikon brand.

For those of you who are still on the fence about Nikon's BLACK FX1000 scope, Nikon is currently sponsoring a PROMO with their Authorized Retailers where you buy the scope and get a free BLACK-Series Mount. this is one heck of a mount worth $140. Here's a pic of the mount on my Bergara with a BLACK X1000.

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd363/bman940/Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 9.09.26 AM.png Screen Shot 2018-07-20 at 9.08.08 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bender
Oct 4, 2017
45
9
8
Even if they are then they have been improved the FX1000s have a real zero stop and not the crappy shems that the PST GEN 1s had. That alone makes it a better scope than a PST GEN 1 even if every thing else is the same IMO.
Although I returned my FX1000, it was because of the turrets. The glass in my 4-16 FX-1000 was better than my Gen 1 PST 2.5-10. So even if the FX-1000 is based upon the Gen 1 PST, I would think it is bit more than "re-labeled". Maybe it is more appropriate to say it was "adapted from the same platform as the Gen 1 PST"?
 
Likes: bman940

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
Since all are wildly speculating, maybe it is simply just a “better” overall Nikon design!

“Doubters will always be doubters,” no matter the evidence before them. ‘Tis the way of the world!

After an exhilarating ride, I am happy with the results I’ve gotten. Next, we’ll have to determine how and if it continues to perform. LOL , How does that saying go? Oh yeah! “Only time will tell!”
 
Jul 1, 2014
233
87
28
Charlotte NC
I took a chance and ordered one of these and it came in today. Was really hesitant, but Midway has a replace/refund guarantee so I figured what the heck. Got the free mount with it. Haven’t shot it yet as I have a match this weekend, and even a dumbass like me knows better than to jump into a scope switch the night before a match. Anyway, just a quick check out of the box, hash marks are lined up very nicely. The clicks feel very good. Audible and a nice click feel, not mushy at all. No ghost clicks so far, but this is just a take it out and play with it test. Reticle looks good, glass is nice and clear, but this was an inside the house look while I adjusted the diopter. Reticle looks very usable. Of course we wish that it had a tree, but still, I think it’s going to work fine. So far I am really impressed with what this scope is at its price point. Again, just getting to play with it, will come back in the near future with a more in-depth update. By the way, Midway has them for $799 with a free mount and free shipping.
 

pell1203

Full Member
Dec 27, 2007
980
139
43
Bellevue, WA
Just a shout out to folks interested in acquiring one of the Nikon FX-1000 scopes... you may benefit by calling Sniper's Hide supporting vendor Sport Optics and asking for Ben.

Ben is Sport Optics Sniper's Hide point of contact and is always eager to talk to and offer the best possible price to members here. Make sure to remind him you are a Hide member to get best deal.

I have no connection to Sport Optics other than I felt I was treated well by buying from them. Just a satisfied customer saying thanks!
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,393
607
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
Although I returned my FX1000, it was because of the turrets. The glass in my 4-16 FX-1000 was better than my Gen 1 PST 2.5-10. So even if the FX-1000 is based upon the Gen 1 PST, I would think it is bit more than "re-labeled". Maybe it is more appropriate to say it was "adapted from the same platform as the Gen 1 PST"?
Are you talking to the 2.5-10x44? That one was definitely the runt of the litter as far as PST scopes went. PST 4-16x50 was better too.

Nikon can deny it all they want, and the turret design does appear tweaked, but these are the same scopes on the inside, made by the same OEM.

None of the Nikon's Phillipine-made scopes are designed by Nikon. All that "designed by Nikon" stuff is just marketing speak for leveraging Nikon name. Nikon asked for a particular specs from Asia Optical. Filling out the specsheet was the extent of their design effort.

Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing, so I am not sure why they are trying to hide it. Most modern day OEMs are quite competent.

ILya
 

Primus

Gun Snob
Feb 13, 2017
487
173
43
Vancouver, WA
I can say with 100% confidence they are NOT the same scope. The glass is absolutley with a doubt superior to the PST gen 1 and gives the gen 2 a run for its money. They may be made by the same outfit and have similarities, but its far from the same optic.

Prove me wrong.
 

deadnbrkn84

Gunny Sergeant
Jan 16, 2011
1,238
60
48
33
Portland, OR
That is really odd, since these Nikons are effectively re-labeled Gen 1 PST scopes with Nikon reticles.

ILya
Man this could not be more UN-true. This is our own in house optical design designed by our Nikon optical engineers in Japan, completely mechanically designed by our mechanical engineers in japan, and so many extra steps to ensure quality are done. One example is that we machine mated sets of erector screws to almost completely eliminate lash etc etc. We also do in house durability testing including recoil, turret rotation, UV, temperature, etc. The PST is an existing optical and mechanical design they they just licensed from the factory overseas. These literally do not share anything in common other then the power range.
 

deadnbrkn84

Gunny Sergeant
Jan 16, 2011
1,238
60
48
33
Portland, OR
Are you talking to the 2.5-10x44? That one was definitely the runt of the litter as far as PST scopes went. PST 4-16x50 was better too.

Nikon can deny it all they want, and the turret design does appear tweaked, but these are the same scopes on the inside, made by the same OEM.

None of the Nikon's Phillipine-made scopes are designed by Nikon. All that "designed by Nikon" stuff is just marketing speak for leveraging Nikon name. Nikon asked for a particular specs from Asia Optical. Filling out the specsheet was the extent of their design effort.

Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing, so I am not sure why they are trying to hide it. Most modern day OEMs are quite competent.

ILya

I can tell you that you are 100% wrong. Please see the above post. I literally have cad drawings of the inside of this scope from OUR mechanical engineers.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,393
607
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
I can tell you that you are 100% wrong. Please see the above post. I literally have cad drawings of the inside of this scope from OUR mechanical engineers.
If you have the drawings, I'll concede that it is an internal design. I am still very surprised. I do not think Nikon designed any riflescopes themselves since they stopped making them in Japan. Why the change? Nikon corporate seemed to have sworn off anything gun related. I guess they figured out that all the money they lost on compact cameras can recooped with scopes.

As far as doing the QC in house, that is definitely a good way to go and seems to be the path many people are taking. Are you doing it over at your facility in NY?

ILya
 
Likes: Bender
Nov 11, 2008
62
10
8
Man this could not be more UN-true. This is our own in house optical design designed by our Nikon optical engineers in Japan, completely mechanically designed by our mechanical engineers in japan, and so many extra steps to ensure quality are done. One example is that we machine mated sets of erector screws to almost completely eliminate lash etc etc. We also do in house durability testing including recoil, turret rotation, UV, temperature, etc. The PST is an existing optical and mechanical design they they just licensed from the factory overseas. These literally do not share anything in common other then the power range.
Where were these extra quality steps for all the dud scopes that came through? You can’t brag about QC on a scope that literally has more complaints than praises. It just sounds like marketing BS with no backing.

It’s a price point scope and was almost one I bought to go on my trainer. A few too few boxes checked along with the parallax adjustment not making it to 25 yards pushed me to a PST GenII. I did give the Nikon the first shot at going home but couldn’t justify it for how I knew it would be used.
 
May 27, 2014
662
289
63
32.752325 -79.867804
Are you talking to the 2.5-10x44? That one was definitely the runt of the litter as far as PST scopes went. PST 4-16x50 was better too.

Nikon can deny it all they want, and the turret design does appear tweaked, but these are the same scopes on the inside, made by the same OEM.

None of the Nikon's Phillipine-made scopes are designed by Nikon. All that "designed by Nikon" stuff is just marketing speak for leveraging Nikon name. Nikon asked for a particular specs from Asia Optical. Filling out the specsheet was the extent of their design effort.

Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing, so I am not sure why they are trying to hide it. Most modern day OEMs are quite competent.

ILya
You seem like you have an axe to grind with Nikon. You present your information as facts, but in reality it appears to be your own little hunch. If you’re going to make a statement as a fact then why don’t you back it up with a source. If it’s just your suspicion then why don’t you make it clear that it’s just that a suspicion.
 
Apr 15, 2008
84
16
8
Central Illinois
Yesterday I got to compare Nikon FX1000 4-16 mil-rad verision next to PST II 5-25 mil-rad. Overall, both were very comparable. Audible repeatable clicks on both although the Vortex might have been just a little stiffer. Glass was very much the same on both models with my tired old eyes. The reticle design nod would also go to Vortex too. By the way, both reticles were illuminated and both performed well. Overall finish and appearance would also go to Vortex. That being said which did I prefer. Nikon could be purchased for $670 out the door where as PST II was $1100 taxes included on both. That being said, which one would I purchase? Being a little on the frugal side, I am leaning heavily towards the Nikon because of the price point. You could buy 2 for just about the price of the PST II

To me it is kinda like buying a pickup truck. You can buy a moderately priced F150 at $25K or you can buy the Limited Carl Versace Platinum Unobtanium version for $80K +. Which is nicer? The high dollar one for sure. Is it worth it? It is all in your perspective. Both are trucks with 4 wheels and basically do the same. So I am saying it all subjective.

Here on Snipers Hide it seems some are critical of something new. Vortex sure took a beating when they appeared on the optics scene.
 

supercorndogs

Professor Dickweed
Feb 17, 2014
2,376
535
113
Where were these extra quality steps for all the dud scopes that came through? You can’t brag about QC on a scope that literally has more complaints than praises. It just sounds like marketing BS with no backing.

It’s a price point scope and was almost one I bought to go on my trainer. A few too few boxes checked along with the parallax adjustment not making it to 25 yards pushed me to a PST GenII. I did give the Nikon the first shot at going home but couldn’t justify it for how I knew it would be used.
QC stuff gets through everywhere. There are plenty of people out there happy with them. Its nice to have manufactures come here and give us inside info on their stuff. Don't act like a douche bag and chase them off! The final statement reads like you never owned one.
 

fdkay

Gunny Sergeant
Nov 27, 2009
3,621
307
83
56
Ingleside, Tx
These types of threads can be quite amusing.
While I think Nikon stepped on their dicks a bit with the roll out, it seems that the customer service guys and gals are stepping up to make things right.
It is amazing how some companies get a pass for putting out a few turds, folks are quick to leap to their defense "don't worry, they have GREAT CS and will take care of you!".
Yet other companies that have a few bumps on a product release are criticized harshly.
I hope that Nikon gets the wrinkles ironed out as more competition on the entry level market is a good thing.
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,393
607
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
You seem like you have an axe to grind with Nikon. You present your information as facts, but in reality it appears to be your own little hunch. If you’re going to make a statement as a fact then why don’t you back it up with a source. If it’s just your suspicion then why don’t you make it clear that it’s just that a suspicion.
I was told by two different people in the industry that these were Gen1 PSTs with a mostly cosmetic refresh. That jived with what I saw from Nikon previously. It seems I like I need to do some more digging there.
I do not have any sort of aXE to grind with Nikon. I like a lot of their products, especially stabilized LRFs, higher end spotters and some of the binos. I also really like like their lower end scopes for the money. I have, however, been deeply unimpressed with what they made out their monarch line. Last one I tested was the 1.5-6x42 which was an absolute turd. When FX1000 came out, I asked around a little and based on the answers I got choose not to spend time on it. Perhaps, I was misled. Or not. It is difficult to say for sure. Perhaps, I should look at one if/when they introduce a tree reticle.

ILya
 
Nov 11, 2008
62
10
8
QC stuff gets through everywhere. There are plenty of people out there happy with them. Its nice to have manufactures come here and give us inside info on their stuff. Don't act like a douche bag and chase them off! The final statement reads like you never owned one.
I thought it seemed like a good scope for the money. It didn’t match my goals (shooting down to 25 yards on a rimfire) so I went a different way. It seemed reasonable for the money, if not a good value too. It didn’t meet the hype Nikon has posted online. That was disappointing, though it was a bit unreasonable to expect their claims to be true at this price point. It seems like a good deal in the $600-$1000 bracket. It wasn’t comparable to $2000 optics as has been alluded towards.
 

Primus

Gun Snob
Feb 13, 2017
487
173
43
Vancouver, WA
So you say it has more complaints then praises and bang on their QC.

But when challenges you walk back the statement and say it was really about paralax setting for rimfire.

I wonder if I'm the only one thinking this doesn't add up. Also not the first person to put their food in their mouth, get corrected and try to walk back a statement.

How about if you don't actually have first hand experience, keep you trap shut and stop passing off as if you do. It's serves no one ( unless you have alterier financial motives).
 
May 27, 2014
662
289
63
32.752325 -79.867804
I was told by two different people in the industry that these were Gen1 PSTs with a mostly cosmetic refresh. That jived with what I saw from Nikon previously. It seems I like I need to do some more digging there.
I do not have any sort of aXE to grind with Nikon. I like a lot of their products, especially stabilized LRFs, higher end spotters and some of the binos. I also really like like their lower end scopes for the money. I have, however, been deeply unimpressed with what they made out their monarch line. Last one I tested was the 1.5-6x42 which was an absolute turd. When FX1000 came out, I asked around a little and based on the answers I got choose not to spend time on it. Perhaps, I was misled. Or not. It is difficult to say for sure. Perhaps, I should look at one if/when they introduce a tree reticle.

ILya
This is not a joke if you pay shipping both ways I will gladly send you my FX1000 6-24 MRAD for a T&E you can keep it for 30 days then ship it back to me. I have it installed with a pair of Talley Tactical rings all you would have to do is mount it on a picatinny railed rifle and zero. Then come back here and present your evaluation. LMK
 

koshkin

Dark Lord Of Optics
Feb 22, 2006
1,393
607
113
Los Angeles
www.opticsthoughts.com
This is not a joke if you pay shipping both ways I will gladly send you my FX1000 6-24 MRAD for a T&E you can keep it for 30 days then ship it back to me. I have it installed with a pair of Talley Tactical rings all you would have to do is mount it on a picatinny railed rifle and zero. Then come back here and present your evaluation. LMK
I may take you up on that a little later, if Nikon does not lend me one. I do not like to test things in the vacuum, so the right time to do this would be when Athlon Ares ETR gets here. I have Ares BTR and PST Gen2 on hand right now. When ETR gets here, I would like to do a side-by-side. That will be a good time to also pit the FX1000 against them. Price-wise, it competes directly against Ares BTR, but it is worthwhile to get a feel for how it stacks up against the more expensive ETR and PST Gen2.

ILya
 

Hundo

Sergeant of the Hide
Jul 12, 2018
114
14
18
So let me clear up a few things with this scope. I'm the Sr. Manager for Nikon Sport Optics and the one behind this scope (and in that video). It was me that said I sat down with the engineers in Japan picking out clicks etc. There are many, many misconceptions with optics in this industry. I'm not going to point and fingers but many of the "well known" optics manufacturers do not design their own scopes. They design reticles, turret knurling, etc but the optical design, internals, erectors, etc all are designed by the third party manufacturers who build them.

This is NOT how Nikon does things, since we have a heard of optical engineers (we are Nikon), mechanical engineers, etc we design our scopes and the people who build them build to OUR specs, we don't peddle someone else's. This is a very, very large difference and not something you typically find until spending much, much more on optics.

These scopes are made in the Philippines but designed by our people in Japan (hence why I was there) and I really want to emphasize this difference. We have manufacturers who build to our specs, and we don't just pick their existing designs etc out of a catalog so to speak. This is definitely not the mot cost effective way of going about it but yields a much nicer product in the end. Also since we are a glass company, you will get a higher grade of glass for a much lower price. There are a few independent reviews coming out in the next few weeks and from what I've heard already the glass quality is better then that of the PST Gen 2 and the SHV both costing hundreds and hundreds more. I personally own an SHV and the FX glass is better but I keep my comments to myself as I work for Nikon.

I would also like to say that I took 12th overall my first year shooting the PRS and 5th overall my second year. My point is that I took every feature you would "need" to shoot a match and put it in this scope and did it at a price that couldn't be refused. Our margins are quite thin on this scope because I needed people to give us a chance in this world we've never been known in. This is definitely not the old Monarch Tactical as it's a whole new chassis and everything about it is different.

Just a few quick specs on the scope
4-16 or 6-24 illuminated and non MIL and MOA options
30mm tube
The best clicks I've felt under $2k
High Speed Turrets
True Zero Stop
Great reticles, line thickness, etc.
The travel on these scopes that's printed is also EXTREMELY conservative. The 6-24 I have is 20.1 mils and the 4-16 is 31 Mils.
Amazing glass for the price
Tracking has proven to be extremely consistent
Lifetime warranty
Pricing is:
4-16 non illuminated $649
6-24 non illuminated $749
6-24 Illuminated $799
Available in the next couple weeks


I would highly encourage anyone to give these a try and put it against everything else that's out there even costing much more and formulate your own opinions I do not think you will be disappointed.
Interesting
 
Oct 11, 2017
50
6
8
I ordered the Nikon BLACK FX1000 mil/mil 4-16x non ill. I called optics planet today it supposed to ship today. I sent the Athlon Midas TAC back to Midway. The center dot was to small for my eyes and the clicks were awful to close together for me. I’m hoping to get a good Nikon after reading this. I’ve good experience with Nikon scopes in the past.
 
Likes: bman940

Primus

Gun Snob
Feb 13, 2017
487
173
43
Vancouver, WA
Side by side the 6-24 is not much bigger but much more versitile than the 4-16. I would get the 24x if anyone is trying to decide. The glass also looked better in the 24x I was comparing with the 16x, but that could just a one off.
 
Likes: bman940

supercorndogs

Professor Dickweed
Feb 17, 2014
2,376
535
113
I took my 4-16 out today. I got it early on but not at the roll out. It doesn't seem to have any problems. I only ran the tracking up to 5 mils, worked through 1 mil at a time and up an back a few times. Seems like an excellent value under 600 bucks. I am not sure what hype it did not meet. A couple need fixed, ok. The problem is known, the fix is ready. It sucks for everyone who has to send one in. Not as much as it sucked sitting with a non tracking TX5i for 6 months while they figured it out.

I am really not sure the Nikon gives up much on my Ares 4.5-27. I wish they has a center x or floating dot in the nikon. The glass is good for the price point, mine has zero lash in the turrets, letting the hash marks line up, even though they are somewhat close together. I would have a hard time recommending something else under 600 dollars. Go look at a 1200 dollar DMR from 5 years ago, a lot of these sub 800 dollar optics don't give up much if anything.
 

supercorndogs

Professor Dickweed
Feb 17, 2014
2,376
535
113
I may take you up on that a little later, if Nikon does not lend me one. I do not like to test things in the vacuum, so the right time to do this would be when Athlon Ares ETR gets here. I have Ares BTR and PST Gen2 on hand right now. When ETR gets here, I would like to do a side-by-side. That will be a good time to also pit the FX1000 against them. Price-wise, it competes directly against Ares BTR, but it is worthwhile to get a feel for how it stacks up against the more expensive ETR and PST Gen2.

ILya
I am looking forward to your evaluation of the ETR.
 
Top Bottom