Nightforce 2.5‐10

Oregonmuley

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
494
Location
Jennings Lodge, Oregon
Unfortunately I only of one of the older mil-dot versions that they discontinued maybe 3 years ago?? I'm also probably only one of 3 people that actually like the reticle for hunting. I've now got 2 seasons on that scope and knock on wood I have yet to miss a critter with it - could be the rifle but I sure do like that reticle for my hunting anyway. I can also live with the MOAR reticle, for me the scope has way more pros than cons going for it (y)


 

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
3,271
Unfortunately I only of one of the older mil-dot versions that they discontinued maybe 3 years ago?? I'm also probably only one of 3 people that actually like the reticle for hunting. I've now got 2 seasons on that scope and knock on wood I have yet to miss a critter with it - could be the rifle but I sure do like that reticle for my hunting anyway. I can also live with the MOAR reticle, for me the scope has way more pros than cons going for it (y)


Have a few of these. It’s the best reticle they offered in the 2.5-10’s.
 
OP
1

19dsniper

Newbie
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
5
The 2.5-10’s are all good optics, biggest downside is the reticle options but they work for some people. The x24 and x32 also lack parallax adjustment which isn’t ideal. The x42 has it but the reticles are still just so so. I think most people also want more than 10x on the top end especially now that there are great 6, 7, 8, 9 and even 10x erector optics on the market so you can have magnification without sacrificing too much on the low end.

Personally I wouldn’t buy a 2.5-10 today for anything. I would buy a 1-10 instead like the razor or Vudu.

I recently got one of the 4.5-22 LHT’s and it’s a very nice optic for what I paid for it and for what you can get them for but I don’t think they’re worth the $1500 price tag. I paid $900 for a LNIB unit and I would pay $1100-$1200 delivered from a dealer but any more than that I think I’d step up to a MK5 as it’s worth the extra coin at that point.
As much as I appreciate your opinion, these optics are no where similar. I have a Razor 1-10 and there is no way I would pick that optic to put on an elk rifle. There is no comparison with the low light performance with the NF 2.5-10x42 in any usable magnification close to dawn or dusk. The razor 1-10 is just a different optic for a different application. It's a good optic, but not for this application.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,277
Unfortunately I only of one of the older mil-dot versions that they discontinued maybe 3 years ago?? I'm also probably only one of 3 people that actually like the reticle for hunting. I've now got 2 seasons on that scope and knock on wood I have yet to miss a critter with it - could be the rifle but I sure do like that reticle for my hunting anyway. I can also live with the MOAR reticle, for me the scope has way more pros than cons going for it (y)


I like that reticle!
 

JCMCUBIC

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
44
Couldnt you just turn on the illumination?

With the x32 model, the illumination is bright enough to help a bit in some cases where there's a broken background or heavy shadows/bright sections of sunlight, etc. That same brightness becomes detrimental to the image in lower light.

On the x42 model the illumination is dim. This is better in lowlight but doesn't help in bright light.

In wide open areas, the reticles work ok for me. In woods, across crop fields with a broken background of darkened pines, or clear cuts with stumps/brush, the reticles are tough to find.

There's just so many better options for an all around (near to far) hunting reticle than anything NF is using in the 2.5-10 models.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,277
With the x32 model, the illumination is bright enough to help a bit in some cases where there's a broken background or heavy shadows/bright sections of sunlight, etc. That same brightness becomes detrimental to the image in lower light.

On the x42 model the illumination is dim. This is better in lowlight but doesn't help in bright light.

In wide open areas, the reticles work ok for me. In woods, across crop fields with a broken background of darkened pines, or clear cuts with stumps/brush, the reticles are tough to find.

There's just so many better options for an all around (near to far) hunting reticle than anything NF is using in the 2.5-10 models.
I dont disagree. I much prefer the center illumination MOAR available in the SHV line than I do the total reticle illumination of MOAR in the NXS line.
 

JCMCUBIC

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
44
I dont disagree. I much prefer the center illumination MOAR available in the SHV line than I do the total reticle illumination of MOAR in the NXS line.

Yeah, the smaller area illuminated the better in low light. Windage hold may be limited, but my desire to shoot in low light while needing to hold much windage is also limited.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,277
Yeah, the smaller area illuminated the better in low light. Windage hold may be limited, but my desire to shoot in low light while needing to hold much windage is also limited.
Exactly. I’m not holding into a stiff wind at long range and low light.
 

redneckbmxer24

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2022
Messages
41
As much as I appreciate your opinion, these optics are no where similar. I have a Razor 1-10 and there is no way I would pick that optic to put on an elk rifle. There is no comparison with the low light performance with the NF 2.5-10x42 in any usable magnification close to dawn or dusk. The razor 1-10 is just a different optic for a different application. It's a good optic, but not for this application.

I wouldn’t pick the NF to put on an elk rifle either.
 

roosiebull

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,970
Location
oregon coast
I dont understand this either. I drew the best elk tag of my life this year and either rifle I might take will be wearing a Nightforce.
It’s just more sporting and exciting not knowing if your rifle is still zeroed when you get behind the gun looking at that big bull… adds to the fun. I may go back to vortex and leupold and sell my nightforce and swfa, more like recurve vs compound, knowing where you want the projectile to go, but not sure if it’s actually going to land there😉
 

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
3,271
It’s just more sporting and exciting not knowing if your rifle is still zeroed when you get behind the gun looking at that big bull… adds to the fun. I may go back to vortex and leupold and sell my nightforce and swfa, more like recurve vs compound, knowing where you want the projectile to go, but not sure if it’s actually going to land there😉

Genius! I’m going MK6’s and LHT’s on everything!
 

slowelk

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,216
Location
Western MT
Something with a better reticle. LHT, LRHS, ATACR all fit the bill. Nothing wrong with the 2.5-10x42 if you can live with the reticles, but they’re not for me.

F1 or F2? I assume you’re talking about F1. What reticle in the atacr is better than what’s available in the nxs for hunting? Mil-C or Mil-XT? I don’t think either reticle is better for hunting with how faint they are on the low end.

Nothing in the atacr line compare to the G2H reticle in the LRHS.
I’m not gonna comment on anything related to the vortex.
 

Macintosh

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
199
Location
VT
I bought a new scope this year. I had fully planned to buy this nightforce with a simpler reticle like the one shown above, and when I found out all of the reticles that I would have purchased had been discontinued and could not find a used one, I bought from a different brand. The currently-available reticle options are a 150% full stop for me.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,277
I bought a new scope this year. I had fully planned to buy this nightforce with a simpler reticle like the one shown above, and when I found out all of the reticles that I would have purchased had been discontinued and could not find a used one, I bought from a different brand. The currently-available reticle options are a 150% full stop for me.
I used to feel that way about the MOAR. I gotta say though, in the field it’s pretty darn useful. It’s grown on me to the point that I actually like it. Still not my favorite, but there are much worse.
 

Macintosh

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
199
Location
VT
Ive used it, it aint for me. Companies dont drop their best-selling products, so based on whats available it seems Im an outlier—so no shocker others like it. It is what it is.
 

redneckbmxer24

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2022
Messages
41
F1 or F2? I assume you’re talking about F1. What reticle in the atacr is better than what’s available in the nxs for hunting? Mil-C or Mil-XT? I don’t think either reticle is better for hunting with how faint they are on the low end.

Nothing in the atacr line compare to the G2H reticle in the LRHS.
I’m not gonna comment on anything related to the vortex.

Tremor 3 is my pick but MIL-XT is nice too. I’ve killed a lot of shit with a 4-16x42 ATACR with T3 both during the day and at night behind NV and thermal clip ons.
 

Watrdawg

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Messages
91
Location
NC
I have a 2.5x10x42 with a MOAR MOA reticle on my LMT .308 AR and for that rifle it works. I wouldn't use it on any of my other rifles though. I really like the NX8 4x32. Covers all I need for my other rifles.
 
Top