Nikon black fx 1000 4x16 review

[tmmcampbell]

Last week I asked about the Nikon Black 1000. No one had much information about the scope. Cabela's had them on sale so I bought one.

I bought the black 1000. It is a second focal plane. It was $499. Got it home and realized it did not have a zero stop. That's a no go for me. So I took it back and bought the black fx 1000. It is first focal plane but has a zero stop. It is difficult for my old eyes to see the reticle so I spent the extra $100 for the illuminated reticle. So now my $499 scope is a $699 scope.

The glass on both black 1000's are nice. They are on par with my leopold vx3 and Swfa. To my eyes my leupold mark 4 and sig whisky 5 has a little better glass, but it is close enough that it is difficult to tell the difference. Low light performance was so equal between these brands that it didn't make a difference to me. So overall I was impressed with the glass.

One weird thing to note is I bumped the scope on the table while looking at it. The noise it made was a "ting". Every other scope I've had is more a "tunk". I didn't take anything away from this other than it was weird. It appears to be a well made scope.

I mounted this on a bergara 6.5 Creedmoor that shoots in the .3s. I did a 20" box test it was on the money. Return to zero. And repeat. It tracks very well. The reticle also was right on the money for tracking. I am very impressed with it's tracking.

The zero stop is easy to set, and works as advertised. I really like the turrets. They had a good feel and were easy to use. I especially liked the windage turret. It has marked on the dial left and right with arrows. Yes I know down is right and up is left. I still like it on the dial so I don't have to think about it. The second focal plane did not have this feature.

Misses: The illuminated reticle is a joke. It was overcast today and you could not tell if it was on. In a very dark room you can barely see level 1. Level 10 is about as bright as level 5 on my sig. My opinion is the illumination is a waste of $100. (I put in the battery that came with it. I will try a new battery when I get the chance)

I also would not use this scope for hunting. It is too difficult to see the reticle until about 7 power. Maybe if the illumination was better, but it was not.

If Nikon put the turrets from the FX on the second focal plane for $500ish this would be one hell of a scope, and one I would buy more of. I very seriously doubt I would buy another FX as I'm not a first focal plane fan.

 

[Barrelnut]

Nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems with scope is it?
For the lack of a zero stop, some folks use some black nylon washers under the turret as a form of zero stop. Think that might work on the SFP version?

 

[Mustang72]

Thanks for the review. This is one that I have been looking at.

 

[tmmcampbell]

I took the top off and looked inside. It was similar to the swfa in looks. I didn't feel comfortable enough with how it worked to try washers. I have that set up on my swfa and it works fine. However, I do hate scopes without a zero stop!!

 

[WildBillG]

Would you use this scope on a hard kicking rifle. As I was thinking of one for my 338 build. I to looked at them at Cabela's and thought they looked ok but could not judge eye relief that well.

 

[tmmcampbell]

I knew I was missing something in my review. The eye relief is generous on low power. It tightens up as the power increases. The eye box gets smaller on higher power too. I measured this as best I could. I get almost 4" on 4 power and just a little over 2" on 16 power.

 

[WildBillG]

Thanks for the info and good review.

 

[Sflutes]

A few month ago, before I knew the FX1000's were coming out, I bought my second regular SFP x1000 mil/mil. Both 4-16's. The first one passed the Litz tall target test with flying colors, I haven't even mounted the second one yet to test out yet, weather not to friendly currently. Glass wise, I don't think you'll find better at the price point. The PA 4-14 is an amazing value for the money, but shooting it back to back beside the X1000 is just a night and day difference in clarity. I guess you could expect that for double the price, but a price I paid twice, so I think they're worth the money. The Leo might be a good scope for shorter range shooting, but if you're going out past 400-500 yards, get the Nikon or maybe look at the Razor Gen II 3-15, I think they're right around $900 if I remember correctly for the SFP model. I couldn't tell any difference in glass quality holding the Razor up beside the x1000 and chose to save the $300 difference and get the Nikon 20 moa 1 piece mount at the time.

 

[whirlwindjml]

too difficult to see the reticle until about 7 power

Is retical just too thin to see easily?

 

[tmmcampbell]

Is retical just too thin to see easily?

If it is against the wrong background like twigs it is hard to see until 7-9 power. If the illumination was brighter I think it would be ok. I have it mounted on my rock shooting gun. I very much doubt I will hunt with this scope because I have a hard time picking up the reticule until higher power.

 

[BrianEM]

This might be a stupid question, is the reticle visible with illum turned off?
And why don't you like ffp? I'm curious, because this would be my first ffp.

Thanks for the review, I am seriously considering this scope for the $$ and features. I have no complaints with my other nikons , but I am not scopeophile either.

Brian

 

[tmmcampbell]

Not a stupid question at all. Or if it is I'm stupid too because I asked the same question about a sig scope.

With the illumination turned off it is just like a scope without illumination. So yes the reticle is visible without illumination.

I don't like 1st focal plane for hunting because sometimes I hunt up close. I have killed elk at 15 yards. The front focal plane scope is not well suited to this because the reticle is very small (to my eyes) on low power. I have a hard time seeing the reticle until about 7 power. This is especially true if it you are in dark timber. And I found the illumination not to be bright enough to be of much help.

Also if I am using the reticle to aim with I am always on max power which makes the reticle accurate for hold off on second focal plane.

There are many people who prefer the first focal plane for hunting. If you like first focal plane I believe you will like this scope. This scope for me will be a perfect match for my intended use. It will just be unlikely that I will hunt with it.

If your serious about this scope you should take the illuminated and non illuminated out into the daylight and compare. I personally would not spend the extra $100 on the illumination.

 

[BrianEM]

Also if I am using the reticle to aim with I am always on max power which makes the reticle accurate for hold off on second focal plane.

There's an "ahaa" moment for me. Anything that I put a higher power scope on is pretty much shooting flat to 200yds (6.5cm ) , so regardless of zoom, I'm not useing reticle elevations anyway. Beyond that I'm using the scope at intermediate powers for FOV scouting, and going to crank it to max for the shot. Most likely anyways. Hmm . got me thinking now. Discounted Swarovski Z5 5-25 @ 18oz is back in the hunt...or one of the others. I just have to make up MY mind

Thanks again,Brian