NightForce Scopes

[wf deacon]

The purpose for this thread is not to say that one brand of optic is better than the other, but is just my observation.
Many years ago the first scope I bought was a Simmons Whitetail Classic, I thought it was a fine scope. I zeroed it once and it stayed zeroed. It worked great I thought and I killed many North Carolina whitetails looking thru it. It wasn't until a friend of mine took me groundhog hunting that I found what I was missing looking thru that Simmons scope. He had Leupold scopes on all his guns. Now while my Simmons worked, his leupold was so clear at any magnification. It also returned to zero with the same number of clicks if you clicked it up, where my Simmons would not. I could get it back to zero, but if I went up 19 clicks, it might take 23 or 24 to get it back to where it was. The thought of spending as much or more than I did on a gun was crazy, but eventually I did.

For the last 15 years if I bought a new gun, it had a Leupy on it. Had the same brand name arguments with other friends, you know the Leupy, Burris, Nikon(just like the ford, chevy, dodge in the truck world). I was a member on here before moving to Florida 8 years ago, so I had read of the other great scope that was available, but could never see that one could serve my needs better than my leupolds. I had and still do have a couple Mark4's, not inexpensive glass.

That all changed recently I bought me a Savage Predator in 6.5 Creedmoor. I put my 3.5-10 MK4 that I had on my AR. It worked good, but I felt I needed a little more magnification. While looking in the classifieds I seen that Bob Beck had I few NightForce listed. After a few emails back and forth a 3.5-15 NightForce with the MOAR reticle was on the way. I really felt stupid, I had just spent almost twice what the rifle cost me. When the UPS truck arrived I open the box and was immediately impressed. After mounting the scope and a trip to the range I was very happy with my purchase.

I was so impress that when Bob post another tread I had to act, this time it was a 5.5-22 with the NP-R1 reticle for my 300wm. When it arrived I swapped the Leupold(8.5-25) off, put it back on my 6.5/300wtby, its original home, and mounted the NightForce. Took a trip to the range yesterday am to sight both in. While the purpose was not to compare the two, I couldn't help but do just that. While both scope were clear and easy to see the target at 200yds the NightForce was the clearer of the two, both were easy to dial to zero and returned to zero when doing a box test. After playing with both for several hours, I found the NightForce to be superior. Now that does not mean that there will be a mass exodus of leupolds from my deer rifles, I believe that are hard to beat for that. From now on I think my long range rifles will wear a NightForce.

 

[Broz]

Good post and I agree. In the last few months I have mounted about 1/2 a dozen Nightforce NXS's and a couple ATACR's. (not all mine) I am very happy with what this company is offering us. There might bet better out there, but I feel I have the very best for what I can afford to spend.

Jeff

 

[tom m.]

Good post and I agree. In the last few months I have mounted about 1/2 a dozen Nightforce NXS's and a couple ATACR's. (not all mine) I am very happy with what this company is offering us. There might bet better out there, but I feel I have the very best for what I can afford to spend.

Jeff

There is more expensive out there, but I'm not sure there's anything better. Maybe some different options that are neat and so on. I haven't even bought any of the new releases yet.

I was once again impressed by my old 5.5-22 yesterday. It's been a while since I've played out past 2k, and wanted to get some data on the 300 otm as far as grouping at sub sonic. We worked our way to 2740, and I needed 113.25 at that moment. She bottomed out at 92.5, so I cranked back to 83.25 to keep the math tardproof. Cranked it down to 11x(yet another reason for second focal planes), and held 30 moa over. First shot was 2moa low and out the right 18-24". Held 32 and hit was 0 and out the right 20ish". Sent another at the same hold, landed(4.9xxx seconds later) just under 2moa high, and out the right about 30". I learned 2 things, 300smk might have the edge for group at extreme distances with a 10 twist. And nightforces are **** reliable, even changing the power settings.

Tom

 

[SidecarFlip]

My humble and unbiased opinion (because I own and have mounted every brand of consequence with the exception of S&B and US Optics (because both are insanely expensive) is once you broach the 1000 dollar mark, they are all excellent and overall performance don't increase exponentially with price. Unique features change such as reticles but overall performance is incremental.

Keep in mind that a persons vision, like their fingerprints are unique to each individual so one person may see more clearly through a particular optic than another person looking through the same glass, even adjusting the ocular ring for maximum sharpness.

The problem with optics is the Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge debate. IMO, whatever you feel gives you the best return for dollars spent is your ideal optic.

I like them all and I'm not brand loyal.

 

[Kurt]

There is more expensive out there, but I'm not sure there's anything better. Maybe some different options that are neat and so on. I haven't even bought any of the new releases yet.

I was once again impressed by my old 5.5-22 yesterday. It's been a while since I've played out past 2k, and wanted to get some data on the 300 otm as far as grouping at sub sonic. We worked our way to 2740, and I needed 113.25 at that moment. She bottomed out at 92.5, so I cranked back to 83.25 to keep the math tardproof. Cranked it down to 11x(yet another reason for second focal planes), and held 30 moa over. First shot was 2moa low and out the right 18-24". Held 32 and hit was 0 and out the right 20ish". Sent another at the same hold, landed(4.9xxx seconds later) just under 2moa high, and out the right about 30". I learned 2 things, 300smk might have the edge for group at extreme distances with a 10 twist. And nightforces are **** reliable, even changing the power settings.

Tom

if you just held 30 on the reticle with the power at 11 on a sfp scope wouldn't that throw you off as the reticle is not calibrated at that power.

 

[Broz]

if you just held 30 on the reticle with the power at 11 on a sfp scope wouldn't that throw you off as the reticle is not calibrated at that power.

Oh, but it is indeed calibrated, as it is on any power with the use of simple math. So next time you read otherwise by a FFP advocate now you will know the real story.

The NXS 5.5~22 NXS is calibrated on 22X to be full value on the reticle sub-tensions. So with a MOAR reticle each line is 1 moa. But you have the option to reduce the power to 11X (which is 1/2) and this makes the reticle sub-tensions now double or 2 moa each. This allows a reticle with 20 moa of hold over to quickly become 40 moa of hold over for a situation exactly as tom had.

This is the easy math but you can now see that a little practice reveals some of the not so talked about assets of a SFP scope.

Jeff

 

[Kurt]

which I understand but he held 30 at 11 power would you not have to hold 15 on the reticle to actually be a true 30.

from his post.....Cranked it down to 11x(yet another reason for second focal planes), and held 30 moa over.

maybe it is being lost in translation but get what I am saying now. If he would have said cranked to 11x and held to 15 on reticle which would equal 30 moa it would have made sense.

when I come to sfp or ffp both work just fine its what a guy wants to put in the time and practice with that makes the difference.

 

[Broz]

He needed 113.25 moa. He dialed 83.25 and held 30. Or I guess another way to say it was he dialed 83.25 and held 15 x2 in the reticle. But he knew when he dialed back the reticle went to double so he was indeed holding 30 moa. At least that is how I interpret it.

Jeff

 

[tom m.]

No, I held 30, because I needed 30. It changed my r1, to an r2 basically, witch might explain why the center of the group was @ 31.5. I believe the np' s are actually I.P.H.Y even though most refer to them as moa. I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I gridded it out. For the most part I keep it within the adjustment range of the turrets.

Tom