Nightforce Scope ??

[texasdave]

I am thinking of putting a new scope on my 338 Ultra and wanted to ask who everyone was recommending to talk to about a new scope.
Thanks
Texasdave

 

[Limbic]

I've got one and love it. I'd get the 5-22x56 for the 338. Make sure you get some good rings and a 20MOA base for that longrange machine! How's the recoil on that monster?

 

[texasdave]

I've got one and love it. I'd get the 5-22x56 for the 338. Make sure you get some good rings and a 20MOA base for that longrange machine! How's the recoil on that monster?

The recoil is really not bad. I am just working up loads now. I have two nightforce scopes like you mentioned on a 30/338 lapua and a 300 Ultra ( which is my favorite so far). I was actually thinking of going with the 50mm instead of the 56

 

[Michael Eichele]

After owning four 56mm scopes and two 50mm scopes I will never go back to the 56mm. The 5.5-22x50mm is my favoriate. I am using one on my 300 RUM and love it. I was using the 3.5-15x50mm for a while. I had bought that before NF offered the 22x in 50mm. Once they offered the 22x50mm, I was all over it having used the 22x NF BR in the past.

50mm objectives are much more compact and lighter. For me this is important.

 

[Limbic]

I had no idea that there was such a difference. The website shows the 56mm to be 1/10 inch longer and 1 oz heavier. Things are different in cyberspace I guess.

 

[Michael Eichele]

I had no idea that there was such a difference. The website shows the 56mm to be 1/10 inch longer and 1 oz heavier. Things are different in cyberspace I guess.

Higher and bulkier too. Thats the part they dont list on the spec sheet. For a backpacker, an ounce in an ounce and bulk is bulk. If all you want to do is sit your *** on a bench and shoot pdogs maybe the 56mm might work better for [you].

 

[Limbic]

Higher and bulkier too. Thats the part they dont list on the spec sheet. For a backpacker, an ounce in an ounce and bulk is bulk. If all you want to do is sit your *** on a bench and shoot pdogs maybe the 56mm might work better for [you].

Higher and bulkier. Intangibles you can only get from holding it in your hands. Good to know. Thanks

 

[Michael Eichele]

If youre 56mm biased then why dont you explain why it is beneficial to you?
Instead of being a wise guy.

 

[Limbic]

No. I think you are taking my post the wrong way. I have no experience with the 50mm and only have one NF on top of than. I'm not doubting your judgement. I know from getting burned too many times on the net that things aren't always what they seem. It is much better if you can handle the product, whatever it may be: knives, scopes, boots, backpacks ect. Your comments about bulkiness is well taken. Like I said some things can only be understood by holding the scope.

No wise guy here.

 

[Michael Eichele]

Thank you for clearing that up.

The points I brought up about the 50 vs the 56 are beneficial to me. Another indavidual may not care how bulky his scope is and he may want the extra brightness of the 56mm.

There will be many differing opinions as to which is better. Is there a better? No. Only better for me and better for the next guy.

 

[texasdave]

Micheal:
You made me smile when you mentioned the extra size. Every mountian hunt I have been on I always carefully pack my pack with only what I think has to be in it and at the end of the hunt I am down to cleaning out the lint to get rid of the extra weight.

I also thought that I had to have the 56mm scope and my two I now have are 56mm but after using them on mountian hunts I am seriously going to look at a 50mm so your point is well taken

Dave