NXS 50 vs 56 objective

[scottyboy]

First let me start by apologizing if this topic has been beaten to the ground..just wanted to ask the experts before making a purchase.

I am going to be getting a NXS 5.5-22 in either 50 or 56. My question, which to choose and why? Price is the same on them, the 1 ounce? Weight difference doesn't bother me. Intended purposes are hunting and killing paper. I understand the 56 lets in more light, but beyond that is there anything I'm missing to go in one direction or the other?

I'm probably over thinking this, but before dropping a good bit of money on a scope (it's big money for a scope to me) I wanted to make sure I lean in the right direction. If it were you and had your choice with all things being equal with price, not having rings yet etc which is the winner?

Any thoughts or criticism would be appreciated. scott

 

[Greyfox]

I have used both. Yes, the difference is light transmission. From a practical standpoint,when hunting, is that it may be better visibility in the shadows or an extra few minutes or so of extra light transmission at dusk and dawn....given an equivalent reticle size. Personal preference and hunting style generally dictates the choice. I find that under hunting conditions, the differences are more difficult to distinguish and I don't think that I would have not been able to make a shot because of the size of the objective. I personally prefer a 50mm objective on my rifles from an ergonomic standpoint. The height of the 56mm objective requires an additional 1/8-1/4" of comb height for a proper cheek weld. The NSX is already a bulky scope, and the added height and mass of a large objective exascerbates this. My LR rifles are carried quite a lot so the weight and dimensions of my rifle is an important factor to me.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Personally, I would go with the 50 . Lower mounting height , less weight and a more "compact" overall set up . If you anticipate needing to use high magnification in very poor lighting conditions, you may want the 56 .

 

[scottyboy]

Great thank you for the feedback! The overall height is something I looked past and after Greyfox pointed out how much more comb height is needed...50mm it is.

Thank you again!!

 

[Rich Coyle]

scottyboy,

The 56mm is 25% larger than the 50mm. Since I like to be out very early I would go with the 56mm. I compared a 5.5-22X56 with a Swarovski z5 5-25X52. The Nightforce smoked it. I don't get into the lower is better.

A long time ago I started by mounting the scope loosely and then raising it into shooting position with my eyes closed. I would then open my eyes and see where I was looking. Almost every time I was looking at the top edge of the ocular lens. So now I use high or extra high rings. It just doesn't make sense to throw up the rifle only to have to search for the target. The only person I want to impress with my setup is ME!

 

[scottyboy]

That's a good point wildcater, unfortunately the store did/does not have a "dummy stock" to see the difference in the shoulder. I have a 42 mm currently and certainly understand the "hunting" for focus

 

[Wedgy]

I had this scenario last night except it was the 3.5-15x50 on my 6.5x284 with a 3x3 at 890 yards. He blended into the lighter hillside perfectly but the does were a little bit darker and I could still see them thru the scope and ranging the tree next to them the G7. Every time I went from the Meopta S2 spotter he was right there bedded but back to the rifle and I couldn't see him at any power so I thought he moved. Just so happens I have the 3.5-15x56 along with me but not mounted on a rifle(I am rebarrelling a couple with faster twist for copper bullets). I set it on my spotting scope rail that I use mount the G7 on and dialed it to 15x and the bedded buck was visible, not so with the 50mm. So yes, the 56mm does have an advantage in low light and if I had it on that gun last night I would more than likely had a very late night packing that buck out. I think you need to look at how far you intend to shoot and how big and heavy the rifle is. This particular gun can outshoot the optic it had last night and is about 12 pounds total so adding a 56mm isn't a big deal. On other rifles it would seem like too big of a scope. The ATACR seems big no matter what I put it on.

PS I hope this guy doesn't breed a bunch of unicorns we can't shoot, they need to have a fork here

 

[Rich Coyle]

Glad to hear about the 56mm doing its job.

PS I hope this guy doesn't breed a bunch of unicorns we can't shoot, they need to have a fork here

That little bugger is what I was looking for this morning. All I found was a buck like you are describing. It was bedded at 193 yards. I need a spike or doe.

 

[tctt3]

Just my $.02. I have both and love them both. Quite honestly, I just took 3 to the range last week and I can't even remember which has the 56 and which ones have the 50. So, with that negligible of a difference in bulk and size, why not go for the most light transmission? Also, all that being said, have you looked at some 1st focal plane scopes? If I had it to do over again, I think that's the way I'd go. Nxs are awesome and clear, even when you crank the power. However, it takes a little extra thinking when you start cranking up the power and are relying on the reticle at all for wind or distance. On the range it doesn't much matter, but in the field it might make some difference. Jmho. hope it helps

 

[scottyboy]

I've tried FFP but for some reason the reticle sizing based on zoom didn't really appeal to me - but full disclosure, I probably didn't give it enough time to give it a fair assessment. Maybe it's just me being stubborn to want to take the leap on a ATACR or similar, when I've known SFP for so many years now.

Appreciate the input and certainly does give me more to think about, which at this point I'm not sure if that's good or bad

 

[tctt3]

Haha. I feel your pain! I tell you want, bang for buck, vortex makes a killer Ffl for around $2200 all in new. They also offer things like military discounts, etc. Taking nothing away from the bca, but the vortex are significantly cheaper than the atacr if price is the major factor.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Haha. I feel your pain! I tell you want, bang for buck, vortex makes a killer Ffl for around $2200 all in new. They also offer things like military discounts, etc. Taking nothing away from the bca, but the vortex are significantly cheaper than the atacr if price is the major factor.

How does the Vortex glass stack up to Nightforce?

 

[Boman]

It may or may not matter but the 56 has 3.9" of eye relief and the 50mm has 3.7".

 

[toddc]

The difference in exit pupil between a 50 to 56 is 2.54 to 2.27. You could say that is 10% OR you could figure it to matter more how the particular models are designed. A 50 could very well outperform a 56 due to design compromises even with IDENTICAL GLASS QUALITY. The only way to really tell is to use both in the field for 2 or 3 yrs minimum and use them in many differing conditions, lighting and areas.
That's the real truth.