New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - nightforce
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

nightforce

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 17:37
dbaird View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 10
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 19:17
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
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.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 19:26
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7698
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.)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 19:40
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
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. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 19:59
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3190
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 20:09
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12710
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

I have no idea what Rich's comparison means. 


Now that's funny!!!  Big Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 20:23
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 20:25
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3190
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

dbaird,

 

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.

 


You are joking right??? You can tell the wall thickness by looking at them???
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 20:48
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/23/2011 at 21:18
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Well ok, but where does the march come in, and op didn't ask about the other two, so I'm still lost. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 00:10
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13877
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

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 polked out about three weeks ago.  With corrective glasses my sight is (00)/(00).  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 one with the little spots wins.
 
You guys seemed to miss something very important.  The same eyes that looked through the Nightforce looked through the key hole of desire.
 
For the person who reads about three hangmen in my post, I would like the poster to tell us what the third hangman's opinon was about quantem physics.
Folks thats it - straight from the horse's mouth.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 08:55
SVT_Tactical View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
Chief Sackscratch

Joined: December/17/2009
Location: NorthCackalacky
Status: Online
Points: 28754
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

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.
Thats some funny chit right there!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 08:59
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Sorry I could only make it through 2 mins. Did I miss something?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 09:25
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7698
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 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.
 


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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 09:42
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13877
Rich you sound like you are off your meds -- rambling.  Please tape a note to your computer that reads:
SHORT VERSION.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 10:08
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7698
I will avoid such direct interaction in the future.

Lesson learned.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 11:00
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 13:08
stickbow46 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/07/2009
Location: Benton, Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
& let us not forget Hensoldt,Zeiss FL,US Optics & Premier.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 14:42
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7698
Originally posted by stickbow46 stickbow46 wrote:

& let us not forget Hensoldt,Zeiss FL,US Optics & Premier.

"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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 15:54
338LAPUASLAP View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar
Scope Swapper

Joined: October/17/2009
Location: STATESIDE
Status: Offline
Points: 2455
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 17:48
Rich Coyle View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar
Blind as a bat

Joined: October/22/2010
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 231
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

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.
 
I am facinated by my inability to communicate.  So let me asked a question.  Do you guys really think I am talking about scope tube wall thickness when I put "wall" in quotation marks?  So sorry for not communicating.
 
If you informed fellows here look though a scope, do you see light right out to the edge of the ocular lens or is there any blackness around the edge?  All my scopes have what I would call a black ring at the edge of the field of view.
 
Also I see lots of bad mouthing of my comparisons, but no one tells us how their scopes compare on a line chart or optics chart.  I am not talking about looking at a bush.  My Bushnell looks as goo as the Nightforce when both are on the same magnification setting.  But on a line chart there is no contest.  (See the post above.)  Is there anyone here besides me who is interested in that type of information?  Of course each comparison is subjective.  But there is a value to them.  If ten people compare a half dozen scopes there will be one or two that stand out and one or two that everyone considers below the general group.
 
That type of information can, if posted, help the rest of us not even consider the lesser brands, even if they cost the same as one of the better scopes which may not cost as much.  Absolutely if I wanted strickly a low light scope, from my experience, I would go with a Nightforce.  If I wanted a scope for mid-day varmint hunting between the Swarovski and the Bushnell I would go with the Bushnell.  Since no one else is telling the group their findings, all an interested person has to go on is the above real world comparison post.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 17:58
topbrass View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: March/10/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 140
Welcome to OT!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 18:54
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 
I am facinated by my inability to communicate.  So let me asked a question.  Do you guys really think I am talking about scope tube wall thickness when I put "wall" in quotation marks?  So sorry for not communicating.
Yes, since that's precisely what you said (emphasis added)...
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 

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.

Pardon me for interpreting "wall thickness" to mean "wall thickness."  I love it how you frequently say things, then when someone responds to what you said, you say you didn't say what you said.  Maybe it's all truly a communication gap at work here, but if so, it's a pretty common occurrence with you, since most people interpret words to mean what the dictionary says they mean, quotation marks or not.  I suggest if you mean something different from the words you type, then maybe you should use different words. 
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 

If you informed fellows here look though a scope, do you see light right out to the edge of the ocular lens or is there any blackness around the edge?  All my scopes have what I would call a black ring at the edge of the field of view.
What you're describing there is called "tunnel vision," and it's a function of eyepiece design.  More black ring around the image is not indicative of more wall thickness; it just means that you can see some of the inside of the tube at the edge of the field when you view through the scope.  Many scopes have some tunnel vision at the lowest power settings, and this isn't a good thing.  It means that magnification is getting lower with little or no increase in field of view, which is the main advantage to lower magnification and the primary reason for choosing an optic with a low magnification in the first place.  While some very good scopes exhibit tunnel vision to some degree, the presence of minimal or no tunnel vision (the field extending almost out to the edge of the eyepiece with no dark ring around the image) is a sign of a well-designed optical system.  This is one weakness of Nightforce scopes; they have pretty prominent tunnel vision, which gives the appearance of having narrow FOV, when in fact they don't.  I personally find excessive tunnel vision very distracting.
Originally posted by Rich Coyle Rich Coyle wrote:

 
Also I see lots of bad mouthing of my comparisons...
Since you quoted me in this post, am I to assume you're referring to me, or is that just another miscommunication?  If so, please point out where I "bad mouthed" anything you said.  I merely corrected a gross misrepresentation of "wall thickness" based on the naive assumption that "wall thickness" means "wall thickness."  I also disagree with your continual assumption that Nightforce optics are the best available, based on owning not only 2 Nightforce scopes, but also from owning and making direct comparisons with all the scope brands you've mentioned thus far, in low light, good light, and everything in between.  You're entitled to your opinion, and disagreeing with you is not the same as "bad mouthing" you. 
 
The legitimate "bad mouthing" your posts have received (not just here, but on at least one other board, btw, so it must be a well-orchestrated conspiracy against you) is due to the fact your comparisons usually make no sense... at least to those of us who assume that words mean what the dictionary says they mean.


Edited by RifleDude - May/24/2011 at 19:13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 19:17
338LAPUASLAP View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar
Scope Swapper

Joined: October/17/2009
Location: STATESIDE
Status: Offline
Points: 2455
BuckySide by Side When I look through the windshield of my wifes car and when I look through the windshield of my car I can say I like the look through my car it is much nicer. It has less wall or edge to edge thickness.Bucky

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Do you mean that thickness?????

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Cool                                      Cool
Cool                                      Cool         
CoolCoolCool        CoolCoolCool       CoolCool Cool
Cool    Cool       Cool     Cool           Cool         
CoolCoolCool        CoolCoolCool           Cool
                           Cool              



Peeker



Edited by 338LAPUASLAP - May/24/2011 at 19:25
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/24/2011 at 19:52
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
'
 
 
 
 
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "nightforce"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
nightforce optics katesdad Varmint Scopes 32
nightforce optics katesdad Rifle Scopes 4
Nightforce Ballistic Reticles Dr. T Rifle Scopes 2
Tell me about NIGHTFORCE scopes 308WIN Rifle Scopes 17
Nightforce NXS turrent question Jason Shore Rifle Scopes 8
Nightforce 2.5-10x32 NEW Balistic reticles Urimaginaryfrnd Rifle Scopes 3
Nightforce bench rest//Optic quality flashpoint Tactical Scopes 4
New Nightforce 2.5-10x32 1911man Rifle Scopes 6
dilema NIGHTFORCE flashpoint Tactical Scopes 2
Nightforce or Schmidt and Bender katesdad Rifle Scopes 10


This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.