Both of the NF's are fixed at 125. ATACR is said to be 125y, NX8 is 125m (this is what NF website notes on their website).
Now take your/our S&B 1-8x24. They are actually fixed at 100m save for the "CC" setting which adjusts the parallax free under 7y for that setting. Again, they are only truly parallax free at specific distances. However, the the higher you go in magnification, the easier it is to notice at distance.
...or did you mean to ask if it was a "true" 1x bottom end?
The CQBSS still brings a few things to the table, but I've yet to find the one LPVO that can rule all others in EVERY way. To be honest, I think the NF's will bring some heat but they aren't going to be the final word in the matter either...a notable entry, but not the final word. Be they mechanical, interface issues...size/weight...or actual function it's on the end user to find the best fit and apply it appropriately.
@dms16 , always willing to point me in the right direction, appreciate that!
Happy New Year!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm just happy to see something come to fruition that was hinted at when the IAR first hit the Corps and they noticed that the M27 was more then accurate enough to supplant the MK12 in the SPR role as well.
Now if they could just get this M855a1 BS figured out, all will be well, right, and as it should be.
I remain skeptical about the supposed disparity between the M27 and M4A1 in component life with the second version of M855A1. Knowing how the Army has such a hard-on for the M4 and has fought tooth and nail to keep the legacy design, I have no doubt that they supplied the first version of M855A1 to the M27 and ran the new version of M855A1 in the M4A1 during the tests. Do I have proof? Not a bit. The disparity just seems way out of whack and a system that's known for running extraordinary round count life of components all of a sudden can barely keep up with an older legacy design? I call bullshit.