Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
nightforce |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
dbaird
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/17/2011 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: May/23/2011 at 17:37 |
Has anybody tried the Nightforce NXS scopees with1/8" clicks and the zero stop.
How are the optics? Cost is about $2000-isHow does it compare to the March scopes?
|
|
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
dbaird,
Your question is about the March scope. I don't have one but did have the Nightforce 12-42X56. I compared it with my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 and Swarovski z5 5-25X52. I posted the info a few months ago, but will post it again for you and other new people. I hope you find the info informitive.
Low light comparison 11/8/10 I compared a Swarovski Z5 5-25X52 with the Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50, NightForce NP-R2 12-42X56 and the Minox 13X56 binoculars. The Swarovski has a 1” tube and the other two have 30MM tubes. The NightForce was added as a last minute thought. First let me tell you, who don’t know, a scope is a tube. All tubes have a wall thickness which is probably pretty thin. The “wall” thickness in the Swarovski appeared to be a little over .100”. The “wall” thickness in the Bushnell looked to be maybe .150”. I never gave it a thought before but the “wall” thickness in the NightForce seemed at least .250”. Never noticed it on the Night before. The field of view between the Swaro on 5X and the Bush on 4 1/2X favored the Swaro by a foot or so at the pump house 127 yards away. The Swaro at 17 ½ ounces is about three and a half ounces lighter that the Bush. The ocular adjustment on the Bush is a little stiffer than that on the Swaro. I prefer the stiffer feel. Both are fine, though. The crosshairs in The Swaro are, to me, the old fashion plex with the thick section thinner than those in the Bush. The Bush has a mill dot with nice heavy thick sections. The thin section openings at twenty-five yards seems to be almost 6” in the Swaro and about 17” in the Bush. The Swaro might be a little better than the Bush if it showed up in the dark woods. When I looked through the Swaro on its lowest magnification my first impression was, “This is bright.” Then I looked through the Bush and had the same reaction. Both are pretty nice. You will see later the Night is better than either when it comes to low light performance. By the time I got home from work, adjusted the crosshairs for my eyes and set out the scopes on sandbags on the porch aiming at the pump house and got them all pointed at the “THIS SIDE DOWN” it was about 4PM. Fortunately the rain stopped, but it was still very overcast. I worked as quickly as I could to read the words instead of making out letters. The settings were: Swaro – 9 1/2X, Bush – 12X, and of course the Night was 12X and the Minox could not read the letters, so I put it away. By 4:10 the Bush had to go to 14X but the Swaro did not move up until 4:15 when I turned up to 12X. At this time I looked through the Night since we are at or above 12X. It is way better at this low light game than the other two. At 4:22 I had to turn the Bush up to 22X to read the words. Just one minute later even 30X didn’t help. It took another minute for me to get to the Swaro.
|
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Correct me if I am wrong (and I am certain someone will), but all non-custom NXS have 1/4MOA adjustments (those with MOA turrets.) I am not aware of an NXS with 1/8th MOA clicks, but I could be wrong.
Next, I have not yet used a March, but Nightforce is among the very best value scopes on the tactical market. Their glass has never been top-tier but that is the only thing keeping them from being top tier. And their glass is more than serviceable. Hard to go wrong with Nightforce. March is said to have better glass, but they are relatively new to market, have significantly larger zoom range, and have a significantly shorter warranty. And cost significantly more. If you need a 2.5-25X, march is the only game in town. If you can deal with a more narrow mag range, you will not be disappointed by Nightforce. lastly, it is well established that Rich Coyle is blind as a bat, no offense, Rich - so be aware that what he sees through his optics (and among his 3 mystery gun smiths) is entirely different than what the rest of the sight-possessing world sees. Hope that helps. (And I have owned several Nightforce scopes and have used quite extensively.)
|
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
NXS are 1/4 with zero stop, the BR are 1/8 no zero stop, as RC stated. The NF BR are both a benchrest and F class standard. I have no idea what Rich's comparison means.
|
|
I love little league baseball-- it keeps the kids out of the house
Yogi Bera |
|
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The only NXS scope with 1/8th MOA clicks is the 8-32x56. But they are 1/4 and not 1/8 with the zero stop. All other NXS scopes are 1/4 MOA. And the bench rest scopes are 1/8th clicks. I have several and I am more than okay with the glass. But what I really like and want is the mechanicals. I want to know for sure when I make an adjustment and go back it is correct. And NF scopes have excellent mechanical adjustments.
http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/index.html Edited by Sparky - May/23/2011 at 20:01 |
|
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Now that's funny!!! |
|
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
|
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The sophistcated posters don't seem to understand. I am posting information for the original poster.
Anyone who thinks I am blind should realize my eyes were tested about three weeks ago. With corrective glasses my site is 20/15. And I would challenge anyone to a competition in the woods spotting game. Put a "C" note on the table also side mine and lets go look for deer. The one who sees the hardest to spot wins.
You guys seemed to miss something very important. The same eyes that looked through the Nightforce looked through the Swarovski and Bushnell.
For the person who reads about three gunsmith in my post, I would like the poster to tell us what the third gunsmith's opinon was about the three optics.
|
|
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You are joking right??? You can tell the wall thickness by looking at them??? |
|
Rich Coyle
Optics Apprentice Blind as a bat Joined: October/22/2010 Location: Grants Pass, OR Status: Offline Points: 231 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You are joking, right? It seems you want to find something to nit pick. But you didn't read the post carefully enough. You can't look through a scope and determine a wall thinkness.
But look though a Leupold or Swarovski and you will see what appears to be a very much thinner "wall" thickness than a Bushnell or Nightforce.
It is not the wall thickness. It is the paper towel tube look I am refering to. The astute reader noticed I put quotation marks around the word "wall" thickness so someone would realize I was not talking about the wall thickness, but the apparent thickness of the inside the tube the observer is looking though.
You folks who want to find fault, please post your own experience with your Swarovski, Nghtforce and Bushnell. That way the uninformed among us will be corrected by your greater knowledge and experience. I always enjoy optics comprisons; done by anyone with the optics and not their computer key board.
|
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Well ok, but where does the march come in, and op didn't ask about the other two, so I'm still lost.
|
|
I love little league baseball-- it keeps the kids out of the house
Yogi Bera |
|
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Folks thats it - straight from the horse's mouth.
|
|
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|
SVT_Tactical
MODERATOR Chief Sackscratch Joined: December/17/2009 Location: NorthCackalacky Status: Offline Points: 31233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sorry I could only make it through 2 mins. Did I miss something?
|
|
I love little league baseball-- it keeps the kids out of the house
Yogi Bera |
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is for the original poster, by way of Rich. Mr. Coyle, herein lies the problem: 1. You rely on soft measures. 2. You "assume" that your stated corrected 20/15 vision is the same as someone else's (corrected or not) perfect or "better than perfect" vision. First, soft measures like "The one who sees the hardest to spot wins" demonstrate your lack of capacity to deal with a test that is quantitative and qualitative. Likewise, many of your evaluations have included other soft measures that cannot be attributed to the optic but can be attributed to the combination of YOUR EYES and the optic. (In low light, more magnification gives better detail - remember that gem?) There is an "average eye" and there is the exception. You eyes, as stated previously and in great detail, are the exception. You do not see things like the rest of the sighted community. To the original poster, I have been told a $300 scope has glass just as good as a $3000 scope - and been told this more than once. The teller fits a very specific profile: not well educated in optics, not well educated in basic sciences, and always with ulterior motives. Glass evaluations can be incredibly biased and incredibly inaccurate, just be aware. As for 1/8th value clicks, it becomes more important at very long ranges; at most ranges, it is a pain in the ass with no real benefit. I;d stick with 1/4MOA unless you plan to build and shoot a 1/4MOA gun and shoot it out to a mile.
|
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Rich you sound like you are off your meds -- rambling. Please tape a note to your computer that reads:
SHORT VERSION.
|
|
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I will avoid such direct interaction in the future.
Lesson learned.
|
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Couple things on the tube thickness thing: 1. There is no way to get a perception of tube thickness by looking through an optic. There is simply no way to gauge tube thickness without physically taking the scope apart or cutting the tube in half. The only portion of the scope's wall thickness you can see that might give you an indication of the relative tube thickness is the immediate front edge of the eyepiece and ocular housings, and even then, you may not be getting a true indication of tube thickness because what you may be seeing is the thickness of threaded locking collars used to hold the lens elements in place in the tube.
2. No NF tube has .250" (1/4") wall thickness. No conventional rifle scope has that much wall thickness. Plus, a thicker tube is not necessarily a good thing, as it only reduces the potential diameter of the erector assy, all lens elements, and reduces the available w/e adjustment travel. Reducing the diameter of internal lens elements has a detrimental effect on image quality.
I own 2 Nightforce NXS scopes, and have spent countless days in the field comparing them to multiple scopes of both lower and higher retail price. They are nice, but their optical performance, while certainly decent, is not their strongest attribute to both my eyes and those of my buddies who've all spent mucho trigger time behind them. While you'd be hard pressed to find a scope that matches their reputation for mechanical integrity, other scopes at the same or lower retail price such as the 3-9X42 and 1-4X24 Super Snipers, IOR, and Vortex Razor series scopes are noticeably superior optically. Edited by RifleDude - May/24/2011 at 11:01 |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
stickbow46
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/07/2009 Location: Benton, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
& let us not forget Hensoldt,Zeiss FL,US Optics & Premier.
|
|
Pearls of Wisdom are Heard not Spoken
|
|
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
"One of thesee things is not like the others." wouldn't put US Optics on that list. They do indeed make nice scopes, their glass isn't the best either. Otherwise, carry on.
|
|
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|
338LAPUASLAP
Optics Master Scope Swapper Joined: October/17/2009 Status: Offline Points: 2596 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
WOW...
I thought I was the only one who wouldn't put USO up there. USO needs some work in that department. I have yet to try the Premier for no good reason at all (just leupold)... about the OP. I can testify to the NF as being good for repeat to the same spot. I have never really been super impressed by the glass it is consistent though which is my biggest fear with some of this new glass, do you always get the same quality and low imperfections. Edited by 338LAPUASLAP - May/24/2011 at 15:56 |
|
No one
|
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |