I got to look through a bunch of scopes today

[timeless61]

I looked through a bunch of scopes today, here they are:
NF NXS 8-32
NF NXS 5-22
NF BR 12-42
Leupold VX-3 4-14
Leupold VX-3 6-20
Trijicon 5-20
Zeiss Diavari 3-12
Vortex-lower end not sure which model

conditions were pretty dark before sunset in cloudy rainy weather



i had a question, basically everyone raves about the NXS, and i was not at all impressed, the 8-32 focus was changing on me at different powers and was never all that clear, and the 5-22 was not bad, but not great either. could this just be how my eyes see things or have others been really not that impressed?

the NF BR i was impressed with, and once i focused it it was focused through all powers, and was very clear, i know it should be the same glass, but something was different about it, also like the fast focus eyepiece style

the leupolds actually impressed me also, to my eyes definitely looked better and brighter than the NXS.

the trijicon was also very nice, and seemed to be pretty bright and stayed focused on all powers

the zeiss was probably the best optically for my eyes

i was impressed with the vortex for the price

when i looked at all of them i was using 10-12 power to sort of compare fairly..

after looking at all of this, i still would like to see IOR and Sightron, but do not know if i will get to see an IOR how do they fit in compared to these? i am leaning towards a zeiss diavari 6-24x56 which is at the top of my price range, so schmidt and bender or anything more expensive is out of the question, anything else i should look at?

thanks for responses in advance

any comments on this? has anyone else done anything like this and had results similar?

 

[texan79]

I would look into the MK 4 line up from Leupold. Also, check that NXS 5.5-22 again. Go all the way outside with it. Flourecent light does no lens justice.

 

[timeless61]

i was outside with them, i currently have a mark 4 6-20 i wanted to go up in magnification, and glass quality if possible... i also have a vari-x-3 6-20 lrt, that i want to replace with a 4-14 or something like that as that gun will not be dedicated to longer range anymore

but i will do nothing with the mark 4 unless i notice a difference in optics and go up in magnification and it is semi cost effective

 

[Bill Maylor]

Trijicon is making some waves guysgun). I have two of the above named scopes and my eye tells me the TR23 has the bright glass. Bill Maylor..

 

[timeless61]

Trijicon is making some waves guysgun). I have two of the above named scopes and my eye tells me the TR23 has the bright glass. Bill Maylor..

what scopes do you have?

 

[J E Custom]

I have done the same as you except for the most expensive scopes ($1800.00+)
and found nearly the same thing. Your comment about "your eyes" is correct. each
persons eyes respond differently to the lens coatings and one person may have a
different opinion of brightness.

It appears that the MK4 Leupold is as good as I can find for the money with my eyes.

The zeiss diavari was next but prices are out of my range now.

The old M8 12X target Leupold was one of the brightest in a 40mm objective that I ever
saw and used.

For inexpensive scopes the Nikon's with the side focus are very clear and gather light
well.

There are a lot of good quality scopes available today and I have not tried some of them
outside where you get a better comparison.

But the leupold's are good to my eyes and wallet so that's why most of my scopes are
Leupold's .

Also I like the weight, generous eye relief and the durability they have.

The important thing is to get the scope that best fit your eyes and needs irregardless of
brand.

J E CUSTOM

 

[FEENIX]

Your comment about "your eyes" is correct. each persons eyes respond differently to the lens coatings and one person may have a different opinion of brightness.

There are a lot of good quality scopes available today and I have not tried some of them outside where you get a better comparison.

But the leupold's are good to my eyes and wallet so that's why most of my scopes are Leupold's .

Also I like the weight, generous eye relief and the durability they have.

The important thing is to get the scope that best fit your eyes and needs regardless of brand.

J E CUSTOM

Well said and agreed!

Ed

 

[Bill Maylor]

The one thing I have forgot to mention is my TR23 has very forgiving eye relief. I just measured mine you can see full circle @2 1/2"-6". The manufacture dose not claim that long eye relief. No other scope I own keeps a full circle out to 6". I find the scope pleasantly surprising. Bill Maylor..

 

[timeless61]

My original plan was to go up in magnification and maybe glass quality, but I left out one consideration, moa adjustment of each scope.

I am shooting a 300 smk at 2950 fps, i have a 20 moa base, what internal adjustment amount would safely get me to 1800 yards? thanks for responses in advance, according to JBM i need 64 moa to get to 1800 with 100 yard zero.

also, has anyone else noticed a difference looking through a NF BR vs NXS scope? and how are IOR VALDADA scopes, particularly the 9-36 and 4-28 thanks again

 

[Gene]

Several weeks ago, there was an article on accurateshooter.com, in which a reader said he observed a light purple haze on a NXS 12-42 scope. Those who responded agreed the NF BR model had glass much more clear than the NXS. I am not certain both models use the same glass. I own two BR models and they are very clear. But my Leupold 40X is not far behind.

 

[timeless61]

thanks, that is the conclusion i got to anyway.

here is another question, i want to go up in magnification from a mark 4 6.5-20, do you think that 24 or 25 power will be worth trouble of selling my scope and then buying a new scope to gain 4 or 5x? or if i really want to go up, do i need to look at the 8-32's or similar?

 

[J E Custom]

thanks, that is the conclusion i got to anyway.

here is another question, i want to go up in magnification from a mark 4 6.5-20, do you think that 24 or 25 power will be worth trouble of selling my scope and then buying a new scope to gain 4 or 5x? or if i really want to go up, do i need to look at the 8-32's or similar?

20x is enough for all but the longest distances but the down side of the 8x to xxx power
is the low end magnification is very high and if you get a close shot it will be diffacult to
find the animal in a hurry.

I have both scopes(6.5x20 and 8x25) and the eye position is more critical on the 8x25.

I prefer to hunt with a 4.5x 14x 50 because it works at all distances, even the very long
shots are manageable with no lose of accuracy. In some cases the lower power is actually
better IMO because of shooter movement and mirage.

All of the MK4s have the same quality of glass so all you get is more power.

J E CUSTOM

 

[300rum]

IOR Valdada have very clear and crisp glasses, the only problem is they will not hold all the time the punch from a heavy rifle with muzzlebrake.
I owned one and I just sold it and replaced with NXS 8-32x56 NP-R1.
Problem solved with recoil.
The down size is with 8-32 NSX you run out of MOA at 1784yrds, so you have to use MOA and reticle to get you out to 2000yrds.
get a 5x22x56NSX lots of 100 MOA and enough magnification.
The 8-32x56 NSX is changing the focus every time when you change the power. So you have to refocus.

 

[timeless61]

IOR Valdada have very clear and crisp glasses, the only problem is they will not hold all the time the punch from a heavy rifle with muzzlebrake.
I owned one and I just sold it and replaced with NXS 8-32x56 NP-R1.
Problem solved with recoil.
The down size is with 8-32 NSX you run out of MOA at 1784yrds, so you have to use MOA and reticle to get you out to 2000yrds.
get a 5x22x56NSX lots of 100 MOA and enough magnification.
The 8-32x56 NSX is changing the focus every time when you change the power. So you have to refocus.

is that normal on the 8-32 NSX? the 12-42 BR did not do that, the 5.5-22 is not really an option, as in my eyes, I will not be getting an upgrade from my mark 4.