I know Nightforce have the reliability down , but how is the current glass on the 3.5-15 F1's. I heard somewhere it was coming out of Europe now, is that true? I been looking at all the options and I just keep coming back to the F1. My new scope has to be a 30mm tube, FFP, MOA/MOA, Around 100 moa of travel. Tough to find in a European option. Happy New Year!
Rifle Scopes Nightforce F1 Glass?
- Thread starter JAGERSPEAR
- Start date
I don't mind the glass in my NXS scopes. I honestly can't tell much of a difference between the glass in my F1, 5.5-22x, and 2.5-10x. The glass that you're referring to is in the NEW ATACR and BEAST, which is very much improved. I have a BEAST on order when they ship.
How old is your F1, don't know where I seen it but they said all Nightforce FFP scopes had improved glass. Maybe they got confused by the Beast. The problem with the Atacr is it's SFP , and like the Beast it's to big for what I'm looking for. I want something in the 2.5x to 3.5x on the lower magnification end. Does anyone know how long the NP-RF1 has been out? Anybody have any shooting time behind it, what do you think? I wonder if the crosshair is a little thick at .205 moa.
I've had 4 F1's and 7-8 standard 3.5-15's and the glass in the F1's is a tick better. Mine have all had great resolution, the glass in the others has still been very good though. I'd buy the F1 over the SFP though just for the FFP even if glass wasn't better.
I've been looking at buying one of these or either Steiner in that range. Anyone have it with the mildot2 reticle and if so how you like it?
Long story short. I have a Steiner Military 5-25, a S&B PMII 4-16, a S&B 5-25 PMII and a Nightforce F1. The F1 has very good glass, I'd buy another one. Buy it,you'll have no regrets.
Darren
Darren
Here is a comparison between a few high end scopes including the F1. Hope this helps.
Tester A had a chance to look at Premier 3-15×50, IOR 3.5-18×50, USO SN-3 3.2-17×44, Nightforce F1 3.5-15×50 and Leupold 4.5-14×50. He could not quite decide whether he liked Premier or IOR more, but for him one of these two definitely looked like a top choice. He noticed that the IOR has a warm color cast and did not like it too much, but he liked how much detail he could see with it. He thought the other three scopes were not in the same league as Premier and IOR. Nightforce did not agree with him at all. He had a hard time maintaining proper sight picture with it and thought that the image lacked vibrancy. To his eyes Premier was a little better than the IOR, and USO was a little better than Leupold. Generally, he has some interest in scopes of this type since he recently acquired a GAP-built rifle chambered for 338 Lapua. Once I told him what all these cost, he liked the IOR even more. He is somewhat new to scopes, so the Horus reticle in the Leupold got him more than a little confused. He thought that Mil-Dot Gen-2 reticle in the Premier was a nice uncluttered design and he preferred it to the other reticles here. With the Nightforce, he noted that at low magnification the reticle is very difficult to see.
Tester B was the range officer who looks so excited in the first picture of this article. He thought that most of these scopes were great and they can all be used just fine. He is a target shooter, so he liked thin reticles. To his eye, the S&B with the fine center lines and crisp image was the best scope, closely followed by the Premier and USO. Hensoldt, while very nice, did not have that visual pop for his eyes, but he liked the compactness of it. With the IOR, he could not get over the thick reticle, but liked the image. Leupold’s Horus reticle did not do anything for him and Nightforce looked dim compared to S&B and Premier.
Tester C was a guy who has looked at a lot of scopes with me over the years, so he knew what all of these were and how much they cost. He thought that optically, Premier agreed best with his eyes, closely followed by the S&B. At high magnification, the image quality between these two was very close to his eye. However, he did not like the tunnel vision that the S&B has at low magnification. With March and Hensoldt, he liked the detail in the image, but thought that it lacked some pop due to shallower depth of field. He did note how flexible the eyerelief of the Hensoldt is. Overall, he liked the image through the IOR and the depth of field. However, the warm tint stood out to him and in bright light the image, and I quote: “looked too bright, almost so bright that it hurts my eyes”. I suspect that is his reaction to a different color gamut. With Leupold, he noticed rather strong CA, which bothered him. On top of that, he simply could not get over how busy the Horus reticle is. He found it distracting. With Nightforce, while he liked the solidity of the adjustments, he thought the image looked dull and also noted that at low magnification the reticle tends to be hard to see.
Tester D only had a chance to look at Premier, S&B and Nightforce in any detail. To be succinct, he thought that Nighforce is not in the same league while he would be happy to take S&B or Premier home with him (and he made a solid attempt to sneak one out forgetting that I know where he lives). On a more serious note, he really liked the color saturation and depth of field on both S&B and Premier. Nightforce looked bland to him.
Tester A had a chance to look at Premier 3-15×50, IOR 3.5-18×50, USO SN-3 3.2-17×44, Nightforce F1 3.5-15×50 and Leupold 4.5-14×50. He could not quite decide whether he liked Premier or IOR more, but for him one of these two definitely looked like a top choice. He noticed that the IOR has a warm color cast and did not like it too much, but he liked how much detail he could see with it. He thought the other three scopes were not in the same league as Premier and IOR. Nightforce did not agree with him at all. He had a hard time maintaining proper sight picture with it and thought that the image lacked vibrancy. To his eyes Premier was a little better than the IOR, and USO was a little better than Leupold. Generally, he has some interest in scopes of this type since he recently acquired a GAP-built rifle chambered for 338 Lapua. Once I told him what all these cost, he liked the IOR even more. He is somewhat new to scopes, so the Horus reticle in the Leupold got him more than a little confused. He thought that Mil-Dot Gen-2 reticle in the Premier was a nice uncluttered design and he preferred it to the other reticles here. With the Nightforce, he noted that at low magnification the reticle is very difficult to see.
Tester B was the range officer who looks so excited in the first picture of this article. He thought that most of these scopes were great and they can all be used just fine. He is a target shooter, so he liked thin reticles. To his eye, the S&B with the fine center lines and crisp image was the best scope, closely followed by the Premier and USO. Hensoldt, while very nice, did not have that visual pop for his eyes, but he liked the compactness of it. With the IOR, he could not get over the thick reticle, but liked the image. Leupold’s Horus reticle did not do anything for him and Nightforce looked dim compared to S&B and Premier.
Tester C was a guy who has looked at a lot of scopes with me over the years, so he knew what all of these were and how much they cost. He thought that optically, Premier agreed best with his eyes, closely followed by the S&B. At high magnification, the image quality between these two was very close to his eye. However, he did not like the tunnel vision that the S&B has at low magnification. With March and Hensoldt, he liked the detail in the image, but thought that it lacked some pop due to shallower depth of field. He did note how flexible the eyerelief of the Hensoldt is. Overall, he liked the image through the IOR and the depth of field. However, the warm tint stood out to him and in bright light the image, and I quote: “looked too bright, almost so bright that it hurts my eyes”. I suspect that is his reaction to a different color gamut. With Leupold, he noticed rather strong CA, which bothered him. On top of that, he simply could not get over how busy the Horus reticle is. He found it distracting. With Nightforce, while he liked the solidity of the adjustments, he thought the image looked dull and also noted that at low magnification the reticle tends to be hard to see.
Tester D only had a chance to look at Premier, S&B and Nightforce in any detail. To be succinct, he thought that Nighforce is not in the same league while he would be happy to take S&B or Premier home with him (and he made a solid attempt to sneak one out forgetting that I know where he lives). On a more serious note, he really liked the color saturation and depth of field on both S&B and Premier. Nightforce looked bland to him.
This has been my experience as well.
The glass in my S-B PMIIs appears better to my eyes, but I guarantee I never missed a shot with my F1s due to glass quality.
About a year old or so. It was part of the limited mil-spec releases. It might be slightly better like the others say, but I can't tell. All 3 have better glass than my old MK 4...
Thanks guys for all the input. I am wondering how much of the magnification range is going to be actually useful for ranging/ holds/ leads. I know that everyone is saying that the reticule is hard to see at the lower end and is possible dim at the upper range. Is it only suited for ffp work from the 8x-12x range, How do you F1 owners see that? Maybe the Atacr would be a better choice. I'm thinking durability for me is more important then a little brighter picture. You guys that have a S&B and A F1, If the glass and the price was the same - which scope would you buy? How do the other features match up, durability, turret feel, parallax, ergo's - etc? The S&b I would be looking at is a 3-20x50 moa with the p4 fine.
Which reticle is being referred to in this thread on the f1?
Nightforce F1 glass is very nice. I have some guys say it is nicer than the SFP NXS to me it seams the same. Form what I have seen the PR LT I use sees better than the NF 3-15x I use. I'm sure most shooter would be very, very happy with the NF glass.
Mike @ CSTACTICAL
Mike @ CSTACTICAL
I will be using the NP-RP1. I have heard mixed reports about the PR LT, Great glass not sure about reliability. Are these affected by the same design flaw with the main tube and parallax ? How about future servicing with being sold recently? I do like that they offer a Non-Illuminated version. But It's hard to go against Nightforce and their track record. I can't remember when I've heard someone say they had trouble with their NF.
The usability at lower magnifications is mostly a matter of your own visual acuity and ambient lighting conditions. Depending upon reticle choice, and regardless of manufacturer, I have a difficult time picking out half-mil hash lines at anything lower than around 5x magnification (the 0.2mil hash lines on a H59 reticle are difficult to pick up below 8x in anything but the most favorable lighting conditions).
I found absolutely no problem with using the F1 at 15x magnification. Anyone claiming that it is not usable or is excessively dim at the upper end of the zoom range is probably inventing reasons to justify some other scope.
Fuck if I know. If blue and red were the same color, which one would you like more? I'm not going to spend a lot of time on imaginary scenarios.
I like the feel of the F1 knobs better; the LT knobs on my S-B PMIIs feel just a bit too fine/precise for use with gloved hands, but that's simply a result of putting a larger number of clicks into the same amount of rotation (the 10mil/turn knobs on my Steiner 4-16x are better than both, BTW). The parallax adjustment on the S-B is really nice; for me, I can set it at exactly the target's actual range and know it's pretty much spot-on, where as the NF parallax knob is not marked with numbers and may require a bit of futzing around to find the right spot (I've seen people use silver Sharpie markers to remedy this situation). Illumination is a wash; it's generally too dim at anything but the highest level on both of my PMIIs to be of use with the naked eye, so having a multi-step adjustment (compared to the NF's on-off method of illumination control) doesn't provide any significant advantage (and once again, Steiner beats both).
Let me get this straight. You mean to tell me that a 4,000 scope has better glass than a 1800 dollar scope. Wow who would have guessed?
The F1s are great, I've owned 3 one Mil-spec. Def prefer the ML2 2.0 to the 1.0, the reticle is a bit thick for my liking so I switched to an S&B 5-25 P4F but will probably jump ship for a Kahles MSR-K or a S&B 5-25 H2CMR. Who knows, my optics woes are fun and exciting in of themselves. An F1 would be my go to scope in the $2,000 price range though. They track, they are reliable as hell, the glass is nice to my eyes (It ain't no S&B) but to the same extent I very much disliked steiner glass and thought it was of lower quality than NF. In addition to the best of my knowledge all the F1s are Made in USA. All 3 of mine were.
Anyone have the f1 with the mildot2 reticle?
Update, I bought the F1. And I have to say, I'm impressed to say the least. I took her out to the range Sat, and teamed up with a GDI mount the old Scar Heavy was like a laser beam. I've never used a scope as easy to dial in, what ever I dialed - bullseye. I'm also impressed with the glass, it looked as good as my old zeiss.
Similar threads
