Nightforce NP-R2 Rangefinding Reticle


Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2001
Palmer, Alaska
My brother Derrick has a 5.5x22 Nightforce and has been checking the accuracy of the rangefinder on various things, he says it is within just a couple yards all the way to 1000yds. Very, very accurate to say the least.

The NP-R2 is a great reticle, it's great for range finding. At first it gave me a headache because I was trying to use MIL's rather than M.O.A's. ( I been using a Mil Dot scope for a few years prior to the NP-R2)The math is much easyer with the M.O.A due to the fact you don't have to convert inches to yards.

I have the 42x and have to set the scope zoom to 22x for ranging. What power do you have to set the 5.5x22 at for ranging?

WyoWhisper. you have any good p-dog hunting near you? I'll be passing through your area in July and hope to do some long range p-dogs. Let me know if your interested.

with the 5.5 X 22 the ranging is set at the 22 power setting for 18 inch targets If you incounter a larger target you can go down in power till the bracket lines at 300 yards fit the size you want I have mine marked for 36 inches for wolves and 26 for coyotes from top of schoulder to bottom of foot hope this helps : have a good day Coyote Slayer
I hope it's as good as everyone says it is. I just bought the NXS 12-42 with the NP-R2 reticle. I too am used to the mil-dot scope. I like the idea of not having to rely on the Mil-dot Master to calculate distance.
I have a Nightforce 8-32 with the NP-R2 reticle and it extremely accurate, i only wish they would put the reticle in the first focal plane. if you want to use it to "mil" try setting it on 12 power, that is where "Mil" is on mine. A great product. I live in south florida and on hot and humid days you can see hits on steel at 1000 yards, and when the mirage is not terribly bad you can spot bullet holes at that range.
So if I am understanding you correctly, I want to use it as a mil-dot scope and use my mil-dot master, set the power level to 12. Is that on the 12-42 or the 8-32. I guess I could cut a 3.66 in strip of paper and post it a 100 yards and figure out the setting myself. Does that make sense?
it is not a mill-dot scope and can't be used as one. It can however be used to determine range by measuring an object of a "known" size, what ever the size is, with the hash marks on the crosshairs. They are 2 moa apart vertically and 5 moa apart horizontally. The 5-22 is set to 22X. Determine the size of the object in MOA not mills, Ranging,
If you know the size of the object you want to range,

1.)Divide it by the size in MOA
2.)Multiply by 100 (just add two zeros) and you have the range.

Hope that helps.
The vertical section of the reticle can be set up in "mil" graduations, after bracketing a 36" target at exactly 100 yards with the bottom portion of the vertical reticle (10 equal sections), I found that "mil" was at 12 power on my scope. This allows me to use the center of the reticle as my 1000 yard zero and 5 mils up (the top hash mark)as my 200 yard zero. 11.5 mils below the center of the reticle is my 1760 yard zero. It is a quick method of establishing a method to shoot extreme long range if one does not have the vertical adjustment available in their scope to shoot extended ranges.
Although the NPR-2 is intended for MOA there is no reason not to do as texas shooter suggested and simply match-up a 3.6 inch target at 100 by adjusting the power-ring and noting the power setting. This would enable mil ranging, but you wouldn't have anything for referencing 1/10's.

It is a good idea to check any variable mil-dot scope with a 3.6" inch target or a "barber pole" as the military uses. Some scopes are slightly "off" at the suggested power setting.

We found for practical purposes that there isn't a big deal whether mil-ing with Marine corps dots or army dots - got pretty much the same readings using 1/10's and the 27.77 costant. Maybe Dave King has a comment on that one.

Like some of the other guys I am kind of stuck on mil-ranging, intend to get familiar with the MOA system.
Warning! This thread is more than 22 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.