$2,000 to spend on scope…..

[Ckleeves]

I'd buy 6 right off. Even better if they could put the THLR reticle in there.

I think a lot of guys would! NF could have hit a home run with the NX8 if they would have settled down a little bit on trying to pack so much into a short scope and just settled for a NX5. Or a 4-16 and 3-12 NX4 while I'm dreaming.

 

[Joe270]

Mike:

I briefly had the LHT in reference. Had high hopes for it, but like you, I wasn't sold on it. Didn't care for the reticle below say 6 or 8x, didn't like that it didn't have a rev counter on the elevation, didn't like that the turret is 6 mil per rev - should be 5, 10 or 15 , and didn't care for the feel of the turrets. I know all of this is subjective and not definitive on its own, but just contributed to a general feeling. I didn't give one a lot of use, but read a few reports about them not tracking the best, so moved on.

I have an NX8 2.5-20. I like it, but I can see where guys knock it for the view. Tough to describe the nuance of it without looking at, but the best way I can state it is that the view is optimized so that the reticle and target are most visible. The background sometimes suffers. It bothers you more when just looking through it because you're not focused on a target; when you're shooting it's fine. You just gotta remember that it's a feature rich scope in a small package so there's going to be trade offs. People have also reported a critical eye box, but I haven't noticed it being a problem at all on a good fitting stock. To me it's not really a point and shoot at close targets in heavy cover kind of scope, anyway.

One option that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Bushnell LRHS 2 from GAP. I have a couple of these scopes in both 3-12 and 4.5-18, and while I'm always trying different scopes, I still rank the Bushies right up there. LRHS 2 is not lit, but the reticle is designed so that you really don't need it to be in order to use it at low X. This saves some weight. If you don't care for the "doughnut", the LRTS can be had lit, and it is more of a traditional ffp reticle. Overall, they've been great scopes for me, and they get a lot of things right in design and build.

I'll take that junk vortex off your hands!

 

[dmj]

One suggestion that I don't remember being suggested is the sightron siii. Not sure that they would meet all your requirements. But might be worth taking a look at. Camera Land seems to carry quite a few and has some decent prices on them. I own 1 of them, again it's sfp and moa, but does seem to be a decent scope.

 

[JMW67]

I have been thinking about the Element Nexus 5-20x50 # 50002 it would meet your needs I believe just a couple oz. heavy

 

[JustMe2]

Not a $2000 scope, but they say comparable to a $1.5K scope for about $600 and a new guy in the market. Japanese glass also.
Seems very hard to beat this scope for the money. You can also get $195 value package of FREE rings, scope level, throw lever, covers, and gadget bag if you use one of many codes like CYCLOPS, REX170, available on Youtube videos:

Home

Home
www.arkenopticsusa.com

 

[TXTrained]

Anybody run a Maven riflescope?

My cousin has 2 Maven scope. The RS.4 and the RS.5.. one is st Focal Plane and other is SFP.. Heb loves them. He hunts with the SFP though on his 300 WM.

 

[SEGARE]

There was a Leupy Mark5 on the AS Classifieds a couple of days ago.

 

[TheYoungGun]

I need a scope for an upcoming 6.5 SAUM build. This gun is built with intentions of being a light, handy packing rifle. Rifle should finish somewhere in the 7#'ish range sans optics.

I have a budget of NO MORE than $2,000 to spend on a scope for this rifle.

Must haves are:

• FFP
• 18x or higher magnification
• MIL/MIL illuminated reticle
• Solid positive turrets, locking elevation would be a plus.
• 25oz or less preferred.

What is the best scope I can get for my stated budget with the options above? Again $2000 is my MAX budget.

I love my MKV HD, I would keep an eye out on leupolds website, they tend to be easy to grab on there compared to other sites, just have to watch it more. You can have emails sent when they come in stock if you would like.

 

[Starbuck]

I'll take that junk vortex off your hands!

Already sold it to a buddy, and he loves it. I didn't mean to imply that they were "junk"; just that they weren't exactly my cup o tea in current guise based on a lot of smaller factors.

 

[Brian0615]

Mark 5HD

 

[7.62 Gunner]

I looked at the Trijicon but if I recall they are a bit heavier than I was looking for.

I've owned a mk5 3.6-18 and an NX8 4-32, the mk5 is much easier to get behind and the glass is better.
I really don't like short scopes though, and after using a few I've gone back to 14-14.5" optics. Optically there are issues with super short tubes, including tight eye box, distortion, and darker image.
Not to mention the mounting woes when trying to get proper relief.
I'd get a Trijicon tenmile 3-18x44 FFP, it weighs 24.4 oz, they're tracking true and proving to be very durable.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I've owned a mk5 3.6-18 and an NX8 4-32, the mk5 is much easier to get behind and the glass is better.
I really don't like short scopes though, and after using a few I've gone back to 14-14.5" optics. Optically there are issues with super short tubes, including tight eye box, distortion, and darker image.
Not to mention the mounting woes when trying to get proper relief.
I'd get a Trijicon tenmile 3-18x44 FFP, it weighs 24.4 oz, they're tracking true and proving to be very durable.

Im leaning heavily toward the MK5. It seems to check all the boxes except a couple of extra oz.

I'll have to look at the tenmile again. I though I remember it being much heavier than that.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I was almost sold on the tenmile until I dug into the specs.

I have a question more than a beef but why does the 3-18x44 ffp only have 17.5 MILs of total travel? Should I be concerned about that, especially with a 20MOA rail on my receiver or am I worrying over nothing? Seems like most scopes in this realm have 25+ MiLs of elevation adjustment.
The price is certainly right on it.

 

[sp6x6]

I would say not . I use 200 zero and 7 mil takes me to 1000. My mark 5 is the larger, 25x, but is clearer than my older March F1,only usable to 20x and was more$. The 3-18x44 I think would make a great hunting scope, Im still using a Mark 4 too.