Nikon was very conservative in their travel numbers and these are proving to be 15-20% better then they list. This scope is listed as 17 MRAD and it’s actually just over 20. The 4-16 tested was listed at 25 MRAD and it was 31!
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, social media, internet forums. etc.
I have both the 4-16 x1000 and now the new fx1000. When illuminated and at higher magnification, I noticed that the fx1000 illumination tends to bleed or blur if you aren’t perfectly aligned/centered behind the scope. This doesn’t occur on my x1000 as It is more forgiving behind the scope in terms of my alignment. In other words, the illumination bleeding and/or blurring effect is almost non-existent on the x1000 unless you are way off center in comparison to the fx1000. Just looking for any thoughts on this? Thank you.
You have shown the travel numbers on the MRAD scopes of the Nikon FX1000. So, are the travel numbers also proving to be 15-20% better than they are listed on the MOA scopes of the Nikon FX1000?
I'm new to long range shooting, and I'm hearing alot about Nikon Black FX1000. Will this scope get me to 1,000 yards and more if I have it mounted on a 20MOA base?
What’s the part number for the magnification throw lever I’ve seen in your other vids ? Thanks In advance Jeremy
Im curious to see the other new scopes you guys offer. Can the M-tactical 1-4×24 Mk1-MOA handle a .308 rifle – lets say like the Scar 17s?? I'm trying to decide over the new leupold freedom line and the M-tactical 1-4×24. thanks
how do you get 31 mils out of a 30mm tube?
how did you get your hands on a FX1000?