outdoor life optics review?

[7mmAI]

I have always heard such good thing about nightforce scopes but in the review they have the image quality for the nightforce nxs 3.5-15x50 as lower than other scope in the 300-700 dollar range/ What do you guys think of that. Also the bushnell 6500 that I was thinking about was rated very low in low light performance. I understand that it has an extra lens and only a 1 inch inner tube but most reviews still say it is quite bright. So now I dont know what to think about the review or the scopes.
PS the nikon ed monarch 8-30x50 got the editors choice. Dean

 

[LewisH]

I didn't see a NXS scope in that evaluation. What page?

 

[jwp475]

I don't put much faith in thier ratings. One year they rated a cheap 200 to 300 dollar scopes low light ability over the low light ability of a S&B and I know from experience that is BS

I have 5 NXS scopes and thier low light ability is excelent and I have compared them to a lot of other scopes

 

[7mmAI]

Optic section starts on pg. 131 If I remember correctly. Dean

 

[J E Custom]

Jwp 475 is right about the ratings of some magazines. Most
are based on personal preference not facts. (The same way we form
our opinions).

There is a standard method of testing light transmission and some scope
makers use and advertise these numbers.(SOME DONT).

Different lens coatings can make you think one is brighter than another
because everyones eyes are a little different and respond different to
different coatings.

There are people on this web sight that can explain it better than me (
and I wish they would).

Every scope has plus's and minus's and the best scope for you is the one
with the features that you like.Type of knobs, size of main tube,Size of
objective lens, type of retical,power, finish, ETC.

Withen one makers scopes there are numbers/% light transmission that vary
from 94% to 99.6% depending on the cost and use intended.

Leupolds LPS (Now Discontinued) that advertised 99.4% was on the high
end of light transmission at the time and nikon was advertising 94% and it
was hard to tell the difference untill right at dark.

I have not seen the numbers on the Night force but I would bet they are high.

So dont believe hearsay believe the facts by Apple to Apple compairsons.

J E CUSTOM

 

[jwp475]

A lens coating that enhances the "blue light spectrum" will appear to be brighter and allow you to see more in low light even if the scope does not transmit any more light or even less light than another scope with coatings that do not enhance the "blue light spectrum"

The less expensive scopes do not have the best coatings when compared to the NF, SB, Zeiss, Meopta's,. Etc. That is one of (only one) the reasons that the higher quality scopes cost more.

 

[jwp475]

Ever notice that the scope companies that spend a lot on advertising in Outdoor Life Mag never get a lowwer rating even when compared to scopes much better optics?

 

[tscott]

475, Thats exactly what I was thinking. Advertising dollars speak very loud.

 

[LewisH]

Ok, I found the section on the NXS. The reviewer said it was mainly a "military" scope with some "crossover application" to hunting, and implied it was too big and heavy for most hunting...and also the image wasn't as bright as his favored Nikon Monarch. He was, however, favorably impressed with its 100+ MOA elevation range.

I suppose this is a fair review in a naive general hunting mag, but I doubt the NXS image is less bright than a Nikon Monarch.

 

[DWK]

Some years ago an outdoor writer for Field & Stream took a bunch of binoculars to an optics lab and had them scientifically tested for resolution, light transmission, etc. The tests did not address durability, ergonomics, and a few other factors that go into making a good binocular. However, I'd certainly like to see a gun mag go to an optics lab with an assortment of rifle and spotting scopes. Then we might get some hard numbers that would provide a less subjective basis for comparison.

 

[Tyler Kemp]

I didn't like their rifle tests either. Or shotgun tests. They didn't give anything to compare them to each other. Didn't have accuracy listed fro some guns, weight, etc.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Ever notice that the scope companies that spend a lot on advertising in Outdoor Life Mag never get a lowwer rating even when compared to scopes much better optics?

I stopped reading Outdoor Life and Field & Stream about 30 years ago. The more I got into the *real* world of Hunting, Fishing, Shooting and Outdoors, the more cheezy their articles looked to me.

They live off of advertizing... not good to bite the hand that feeds you...

Never put any stock into a review that accepts $$$ from a sponser, etc.

I listen to real folks, like the ones in these forums. Everyone has some personal preferences but overall, if you read and listen to enough opinions, you see trends and can usually makes some good judgements. There are a handfull of scopes at the very top of the pile and NF is one of them. I have looked through them and they seem to be of excellent optical quality, but that is only one of their outstanding features. And I am getting one.

90% of the scopes on store shelves would be totally ruined by the tests that NF scopes go through.

IMHO, in the long range game (500 yds +), which I am totally new to, you want a scope like a NF, USO, S&B, etc.

I have come to the conclusion, that over 400 yds I will range and dial, and a lot of production *good quality* scopes just do not have the reliable tracking and repeatability of the scopes that are specically designed for that.

BTW, I believe the 6500 has a 30mm tube. Probably a great scope, but not one I would use over 500 yds. JMO

 

[Boss Hoss]

You could write books on what the rag writers leave out. The dollars that flow in from the products they review will put a spin on the data so "caveat emptor" my friends!!

 

[Pdvdh]

Wouldn't surprise me that the Nikon might transmit more light. And if the Nikon came with all the other features the NXS has, we all might be using Nikon's. I've performed some side by side scope comparisons in the past and rated some lower priced scopes higher in light transmission than my more expensive IORs and at the time, a Leupold LPS. If light transmission had been the sole determining factor, I would have sold my more expensive scopes for the lower cost ones, but I'm still using my 3-18x IORs and a Zeiss.

I've looked through some Nikon scopes and binoculars and been favorably impressed with the optics, especially considering their moderate cost.