Nightforce MOAR reticle

Rick051

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
3
Another new guy here with a question for the experts. Im about to pull the trigger on a new Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x56. I cannot decide whether to go with the MOAR or NPR1 reticle. The scope will sit atop a Browning xbolt .270 Winchester for now. It will be used exclusively for hunting big game.

I would appreciate hearing from any of you guys that have experience with these reticles.

Will the MOAR cover up to much target when I eventually start extending the shots? Will the NPR1 be hard to pick up in poor light or shadows?

I really want to get this right the first time.

Again, thanks for your help.

Rick
 

rick523

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
748
Location
Terre Haute In.
I have the MOAR 5.5x22x56 mounted on 7mm I personally have no problem with it out to 1000 yds on paper and steel. It is a little thicker than the npr1 but that is what I prefer. I know some of the guys on here think it is to heavy I think it is great. If you can find someone that has one or the other look through them and see for yourself what you like. Either way you can't go wrong it's a Nightforce. IMHO


Rick
 

Eaglet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,779
Location
Nevada
click on it for a larger pic

NPR1-MOAR.jpg

As stated above, you can't go wrong with either one.

If there were to be a next NF for me it'd be the MOAR... My eyes need help! :)
 

Scot E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,316
Location
SW Idaho
Not sure if this will help but the NPR-1 will subtend to cover .625 at 1000 yards whereas the MOAR subtends to 1.4 inches at the same distance. So the MOAR covers just a bit over twice as much as the NPR-1.

On a lower powered scope like the 3-15 I would tend to lean to the MOAR because it will be easier to see in conditions where that is important. On the 5-22 it would be more of a tossup.

I think it also depends how far you intend to shoot and at what sized targets.
For stuff over 1k, and smaller targets, a finer reticles has its advantages. But its disadvantage is that you can loose it in twilight, dark vegetation or moving targets scenarios like you could get in dark timber.

It's all about managing the tradeoffs for YOUR shooting style and intended purpose.

Good Luck!

Scot E.
 

Rick051

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
3
Thanks so much to rick523 and Eaglet for the info on the Moar. My NXS 3.5-15x56 MOAR is already on the UPS truck. The info from you guys helped tremendously.

ScotE, I had already placed the order earlier today for the new scope. But, your response sure made me feel better about the purchase.

I have never owned a Nightforce before, so Im checking the UPS tracking site regularly!

This is a fantastic site.......Sure glad I stumbled across it!
 

Eaglet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,779
Location
Nevada
Not sure if this will help but the NPR-1 will subtend to cover .625 at 1000 yards whereas the MOAR subtends to 1.4 inches at the same distance. So the MOAR covers just a bit over twice as much as the NPR-1.

On a lower powered scope like the 3-15 I would tend to lean to the MOAR because it will be easier to see in conditions where that is important. On the 5-22 it would be more of a tossup.

I think it also depends how far you intend to shoot and at what sized targets.
For stuff over 1k, and smaller targets, a finer reticles has its advantages. But its disadvantage is that you can loose it in twilight, dark vegetation or moving targets scenarios like you could get in dark timber.

It's all about managing the tradeoffs for YOUR shooting style and intended purpose.

Good Luck!

Scot E.
I "hear" your reasoning, one of them is 1/16" = 0.0625 and the other one is 1/8" = 0.125 so at 1000 yards would cover 0.625" and 1.25" respectively.

Unless your target is smaller than a square 1.25"x1.25" and you're shooting at 1000 yards it would not be good for you.

If you could hit a 5" diameter plate at 2000 yards, the reticle of the MOAR would still not be a hindrance. Not for me anyway! It would only cover a square of 2.5"x2.5".

Bottom line, I don't think the marksman that would be slowed down by the MOAR reticle has been born... Then again I could be wrong! :)

Happy Thanks Giving To All!
 

Scot E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,316
Location
SW Idaho
I "hear" your reasoning, one of them is 1/16" = 0.0625 and the other one is 1/8" = 0.125 so at 1000 yards would cover 0.625" and 1.25" respectively.

Unless your target is smaller than a square 1.25"x1.25" and you're shooting at 1000 yards it would not be good for you.

If you could hit a 5" diameter plate at 2000 yards, the reticle of the MOAR would still not be a hindrance. Not for me anyway! It would only cover a square of 2.5"x2.5".

Bottom line, I don't think the marksman that would be slowed down by the MOAR reticle has been born... Then again I could be wrong! :)

Happy Thanks Giving To All!
Unless something has changed NF specs show the MOAR at .14 not .125. Still I get your point.

If I was shooting prairie dogs or rock chucks I might look for the thinnest one I could but anything bigger and I agree, either would be killer!

Scot E.
 

Eaglet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,779
Location
Nevada
U're right it's 0.140"

I have no idea where I got the 1/8" from! :)

The analogy is still good.
 

Greyfox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
5,592
Location
Northeast
I have shot both reticle weights and think it comes down to personal preference with little if any practical effect on accuracy even at the extended ranges. I personally prefer the heavier reticle since I find it faster, and more conducive to focusing on the crosshair and not the animal or target in my sight picture at extended ranges.
 

Trending threads

Recent Posts

Top