scope choice

[trueblue]

Would like some feedback on choosing between these 2 scopes:

Leupold 4.5x14 50mm LR M1 turrets w/ Illuminated duplex reticle
or
Nightforce 2.5x10-32mm w/ target turrets NP-R2 or NP-1

The scope will go on a light 30 cal carry rig for elk out to 7-800 yards. I will be dialing elevation for ranges past 400yds, so repeatability is crucial.
They both way about the same, and cost the same within $ 150.00 of each other. My question is do I go with the Nightforce, for known quality on repeatabilty, and give up alittle bit of magnification ? I am leaning toward the Nightforce, but would like others opinions on weather 10x is enough for elk to 800 yards.

 

[Broz]

Nightforce! But can you get a bigger objective, 32 seems small ? I always think in sellability in case I ever wanted to sell to buy something different. If you don't think NF hold's their value, try to buy a used one. There must be a reason for that.

Jeff

 

[kmad61]

Nightforce

 

[trueblue]

Broz,
If I go to a bigger object, like their 3.5x15-50 NXS or 5.5x22-50 NXS models, the weight goes up to 2 pounds just for the scope, then add on for rings and base and your at 3# for the optics. I am trying to stay with a lighter set up that will give me reliable turrets and a lighted reticle. I am somewhat concerned about the 32mm objective for light gathering abilities. No one in my area stocks these scopes, so I do not have the opportunity to see one in low light conditions. Maybe someone will chime in who has experience with the new Nightforce scope in respect to low light and such.

 

[CS T]

The Nightforce are great scopes very strong. To me Nightforce is one of the best scope on the market. I would recommend getting it with the NPR2 reticle.

If you go with the Leupold I would recommend getting the TMR or Mil-Dot. For the price they are hard to beat.

We have in stock:
Custom Mark 4 4.5-14x40mm LR/T M1 Turret, M1 Side Focus, w/ TMR or Mil-Dot.

Mike @ CSGW

 

[trueblue]

Mike@CSGW,
Am I correct in thinking these two scopes are within $150.00 of each other with an illuminated reticle and M1 turrets on the Leupold ? If the price is that close, I am going with the Nightforce. My two concerns with that choice, however, is 10x enough for elk to 800 yards, and will the 32mm on the Nightforce gather enough light in low light conditions ? The only reason I am looking at the 2.5x10-32mm Nightforce ,instead of the 3.5x15-50mm, is it weighs 19oz. and I am trying to keep the weight down on a carry rifle, but want exceptional quality too.

 

[davewilson]

i was kinda doing this very thing today. gun store had a Super Sniper, 10 x 42, and i had it out front trying to get a feeling about the clarity. of course this is tuff to do because you're holding it with your hands and it's seemingly bouncing all over the place. there was a 1 quart plastic jug sitting on the back of a guys truck, which i guessed was around a 1/2 mile. i felt that i could have made an accurate shot with the 10 power.

this topic is being discussed on another thread about how much scope magnification is needed. i think it's an individual thing and depends on the quality of the scope and the shooters eyes. i say get a scope with 10x capability and look at some objects of known size at the distances in question and see what you think.

 

[trueblue]

Dave,
Thanks for chiming in. On another note, I appreciate those e-mails you send. Most are humorous, but after the last one, I will be wearing blue on Friday.

 

[Buffalobob]

You should be concerned. A V3 with a 50mm lens has 2.44 times the surface area of a 32 mm lens. While the glass, lens design and coating of the NF may be superior to the V3 there is no way they can compensate for that much surface area at the objective. You are comparing apples to oranges.

If you are over 45 then your night vision is going down hill faster than one of Grit's horses in deep snow. The reason I first went from the 40mm to the 50mm V3 was I could not tell the difference between a buck and a doe at 375 yards on an overcast day after sundown. I use the NF 56mm a lot also. They are good for a long time after sundown and for a long ways.

Some of the issue will depend upon your hunting habits and whether you try to start hunting right at legal shooting hours and hunt till hunting hours are over. Some of it depends upon how much cloudy weather you anticipate. The hard days are the overcast ones where there you are looking west at the east-facing hillside which is the first area to go dark.

So, if I wanted to shoot 800 yards in bad light at an elk on the east slope of a hill while it was standing in the edge of the dark timber with a light weight scope I would go with the V3 50mm. At one point in time in my life, about 40 years ago, I could have done it with the NF 32mm.

 

[bighornbob]

My choice would be the Nightforce NXS 3.5x15x50. It weighs 11 ounces more than the 2.5x10x32. The light gathering ability difference at 600 yards with animals standing in the dark timber will be worth the 11 oz gain. My opinion is you would not be able to tell the difference in the weight of the rifle with either scope. You are talking 104 oz vs 115 oz rifle scope combination.

 

[CS T]

Mike@CSGW,
Am I correct in thinking these two scopes are within $150.00 of each other with an illuminated reticle and M1 turrets on the Leupold ? If the price is that close, I am going with the Nightforce. My two concerns with that choice, however, is 10x enough for elk to 800 yards, and will the 32mm on the Nightforce gather enough light in low light conditions ? The only reason I am looking at the 2.5x10-32mm Nightforce ,instead of the 3.5x15-50mm, is it weighs 19oz. and I am trying to keep the weight down on a carry rifle, but want exceptional quality too.

It would be close to a $300 difference.

A 10x scope maybe a little underpowered for an 800yds Elk shot but it can be dune just fine. The 32mm Nightforce are quite bright.

Mike @ CSGW

 

[CS T]

I would recommend getting the Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50mm, they are worth the extra weight.

Mike @ CSGW

 

[Havingfun]

Trueblue,

Interesting discussion because I am contemplating almost the same scenario.
I have a Kahles K418 TT scope with a 50mm objective (NIB) that I purchased for a .30 Hart rifle currently being produced specifically for long range hunting.

Before I mount this scope on my rifle, I am considering selling/trading it for another scope with a lighted reticle. To that end, I am seriously looking at the NF 2.5x10x32 vs the NF 3.5x15x50.

As my Elk and bear hunts are in western Montana, the thought of lugging the 2 lb. 50mm scope is somewhat distastefull but I also don't want to be penny wise and dollar foolish in regard to the capabilities either.

I am in the 50+ age bracket so eyesight, as pointed our earlier, is a factor. However, having said that, the ability to distingish between a bull and a cow at great distances doesn't normally fall to my scope. I am glassing with 10x42 Swaros at those distances and simply use the scope to place the shot.

In a perfect world, NF would recognize the market for a scope somewhere between the extremes of a 32mm and a 50mm objective. I have in fact asked them about that but never really got a good answer.

The ultimate question in my mind is, "Is the 10x power setting on the NF suitable for shot placement at extreme distances such as 600-700 yards at an Elk?" Having never done this before, I am curious as to the answer.

Again, thanks for asking the questions as I am in the same boat.

 

[Jon A]

The ultimate question in my mind is, "Is the 10x power setting on the NF suitable for shot placement at extreme distances such as 600-700 yards at an Elk?" Having never done this before, I am curious as to the answer.

Yes. 10X is plenty for a target that big at that range for "placing the shot." Personally, I like more because I do like to see every last detail of what I'm shooting (counting points, verifying spike/no spike, etc) but if all you need the scope for is placing the shot 10X is plenty.