Night force 3.5x15x56 for hunting?

Little7fan

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
9
I'm looking to buy a new scope for my 7 rsaum, this will be a hunting rifle with shots probably not to exceed 500 yards. I also have a range and enjoy shooting paper and steel out to this distance. Is this the scope I need for both, it seems the more I read the more confused I get.

Rifle:
Rem 700 7 rsaum built by John whidden.
#5 hart barrel
Hs precision stock
Jewel trigger
169g BErger VLDs

This gun is new, I would love to hear from someone who loads for this round I need a good load.

Thanks guys for any help.
 
I have 2 Nightforce 3.5x15 x50mm scopes and they work great, even shooting out to 1K. I went with the 50mm objective as I find the 56 just a little to big on a hunting rifle. I'm sure this would compliment your setup just fine. I went with the NP1-RR reticle on both.
 
I recommend the 50mm also. Nightforce have been proven to be outstanding for hunting. To me Nigtforce are one of the best scopes on the market for the dollar value.

Another great scope for hunting would be the Premier Light Tactical. I have been using one for about 2 months now and love it.


Nightforce 3-15x50mm
4585054307_85d7516b2c_z.jpg



Premier Light Tactical
5916652940_c8d66e2b4c_z.jpg


Mike @ CST
 
the 3-15 Nightforce is a great scope, no argument there. but for only shooting 500 yards a 10x with a ballistics reticle is a great way to go. Swarovski has a 3-10 that would be half the weight and a very good scope.
 
The Swarovski are great scopes and the glass is great. For most hunters a 10x will do just fine I like a little more magnification for long-range hunting.

The
 
Thanks guys, really good glass is important to me I hunt fields a lot and the last 10 mins of shooting light is important. I want a scope in the 4.5 to 14 range with at least 50mm obj.
 
I have three NF NXS 50s. A couple of years ago I sold a 56mm scope of another brand because I just didn't like its size. 56mm is a little big for a hunting rifle, course that's just my opinion.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top