Nightforce or Vortex Razor

[WTB]

Finishing a new rifle and need another scope, what do you guys think? I'm trying to decide between a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 MOAR or MOAR T and the Vortex Razor 5-20 MOA EBR 2B. I have never had a FFP scope and I'm concerned about the Reticle being to thick on the razor. The rifle will be used for long range hunting and shooting.

Also, have any of you guys had any experience with the MOAR and MOAR T reticles? Is the MOAR T too thin for hunting?

 

[pyroducksx3]

I don't have experience with the razors and not much with a ffp reticle. I have a moar t and love it. The reticle is thin and when I was shooting at mountain rock faces the reticle got difficult to see with all the different colors/cracks and high contrasting/busy sight picture. But then I took it to a shooting comp with a more traditional target ( steel animals in bushy trrrain) and it was amazing. If mostly hunting I say get the moar but if you are trying to pick up tiny Moa or 1/2 Moa targets/ rocks at 700 and over the moar t. I love mine as I target shoot a lot

 

[WTB]

Thanks for the info, I would love to have a look at both. The NPR1 I believe has the same subtrnsions as the MOAR T and it has been one of Nightforce's top selling reticles for years.

 

[Bater]

My NPR1 (same st's at MOAR T) is far too thin for hunting IMO. The standard MOAR seems perfect and isn't a hindrance for slapping steel/fur as far as I've shot it (1200yds). I personally wouldn't want the added weight of the vortex making the NXS an easy choice.

 

[Timber338]

I have an ATACR with the MOAR reticle on my 300 win mag hunting rifle. I do not feel that the reticle is too thick. I do want to look through a NF with the MOAR-T reticle, but my guess is that the thinner moarT is not going to be good for closer work in the forests, but will probably excel for dedicated long range work. Always a tradeoff.

I did have a chance to look through a Vortex Razor a few weeks back and compare to my ATACR, and it was pretty easy for me to see that my ATACR had better optics. The razor was not mine, so I think there was a chance that the Razor eye piece was not set perfectly for my eye.

The next nightforce I'm looking at is the 5.5-22x56 NXS. Several ounces lighter than the ATACR and should still be great glass for a hunting rifle.

 

[7magcreedmoor]

The Razor reticle lines are .25 moa thick, target would have to pretty small to hide behind that. I have four Vipers, two each with SFP and FFP, and I prefer the FFP in all situations.

 

[WTB]

I had a chance to look through the NSX 5.5-22X50 NPR1 , ATACR moar, and a Vortex Razor with the older mil reticle. The NPR1 reticle is .0625 and didn't look extremely small but I question if in a lower light or cluttered background it may become a problem. In my opinion the ATACR and the Razor had a slight advantage over the NSX as far as clarity and color. The Razors mil reticle looked fairly thick but not to bad. I believe the moar reticle is .140 and the Moa ebr2b is a .150 reticle, so pretty close. The razor that I looked through however did not have the .25 moa open center. The NSX looks much smaller when compared to the ATACR and the Razor. I guess it just comes down to FFP or SFP and I can't decide.

 

[WTB]

I have decided to go with the NXS 5.5-22. Has anyone had any experience with the difference between the 50mm and 56mm. Do you think the light gathering capability of the 56 is worth the height increase?

 

[pyroducksx3]

I dont have any experience with the 56mm but have zero complaints with my 50mm and it still fits in my scabbord and eberkestock packs a 56 wouldnt. I asked my gunsmith this question when buying my scope, he has lots of expierence with nf, and he said to use the 50. If I was going to 56mm get the atacr and get the higher mag and larger main tube with better glass, in the nxs id stick with 50mm.

 

[WTB]

Thanks for the info, I'm leaning toward the 50mm.

 

[Timber338]

I'm in a similar position with needing to figure out which scope to run on a new long range build. For a hunting rifle and if I go with a NF, I think the right answer is the 5.5-22x50mm. But all NF's are so heavy. Before I make a purchase I am going to mount a Vortex Viper PST that I already own. Do load development and some initial long range practice. Curious how that scope will work out even though the glass is obviously lesser quality. I'm wondering if it will be good enough for a hunting specific rifle, and quite a bit lighter.

 

[WTB]

I'm sure it will do fine. I have a super light setup that I use for some hunts but I prefer my heavier ones, they are just so much easier to shoot.

I have spoken to several people about the 50mm and 56mm and some think I am sacrificing with the 50mm as far as light gathering with a 22 power scope. Does anyone have any side by side comparisons with the two scopes?

 

[4xforfun]

Let me ask a question to those who think that the reticle is too thin on XYZ scope and it gets lost in the "clutter". Have you ever considered turning on your lighted reticle? The battery is probably good for a couple thousand hours....turn it on at the beginning of season.....turn it off after. Cost is about three dollars to replace.

Just wondering if that would help, as I don't have that issue. Then you would have the best of both "worlds"...a good hunting reticle and a good target reticle!!

Again....just asking,

Tod

 

[Timber338]

Let me ask a question to those who think that the reticle is too thin on XYZ scope and it gets lost in the "clutter". Have you ever considered turning on your lighted reticle? The battery is probably good for a couple thousand hours....turn it on at the beginning of season.....turn it off after. Cost is about three dollars to replace.

Just wondering if that would help, as I don't have that issue. Then you would have the best of both "worlds"...a good hunting reticle and a good target reticle!!

Again....just asking,

Tod

On my ATACR, the illuminated reticle is amazing in the twilight hours especially in the timber when branches begin to make the black reticle hard to see. One nice thing about the standard MOAR illuminated reticle is that the entire reticle glows red. But I believe that with the MOAR-T, only the middle "+" glows red, so a much smaller red pattern for your eye to register. I have not used the MOAR-T, so I am only speculating. I would guess that just the "+" glowing red would be sufficient in the timber in low light conditions.

Based on the batteries, they will die after a day or two of being left on. But easy enough to just turn on/off whenever you want. So you do bring up a good point that the illuminated reticle would probably be the solution to the thinner reticle... I would like to try it out the MOAR-T and just get some experience with it before I made the switch. Overall I do not feel that the standard MOAR is too thick, but that is a factor of how I hunt/shoot as well.