Nightforce 2.5-10 x 32? Opinions? Other options?

[ginshun]

Has anybody used this scope? I am thinking of one for a new hunting rifle project that I am just getting started.
I'd like something that has a decent range of mag. So that I can use t close up and far away. I'd also like some sort of ballistic compensating reticle, preferably illuminated. I don't want to fiddle with target knobs in the field. For a long shot I want to get the range via range finer and get the shot off.
The rifle is a Winchester 1885 single shot in 300 wsm. I think I like this scope the best of the ones Ive seen. I have been researching and found this one, Leopold vx-3L w/ the B&C reticle, Burris Six with the Ballistic plex - maybe a couple of others.

Just trying to get some thoughts on this type of scope / application from those who know. The $1300 that this scope runs is pretty much my absolute max - less would be nice, but I also want to get the best I can for that much cash.

[Jimro]

Is there any reason why you want such a small main lens?

If so then IOR makes a 2-12x32 that is available with the MP8 reticle.
And a full size 2.5-10x42 IOR is a pleasure to use.

Jimro

[mapsjanhere]

For a hunting rifle I wouldn't go under a 40 mm objective if you're up to 10 x magnification. You're giving up a lot of low light performance, the 40 has 60% more light gathering capability than the 32. NF's R1 recticle works well for quick ballistics.

[ginshun]

No, there really is no reason that I want the small objective. I honestly was wondering how much of a difference it would really make. Like if I have that Nightforce, how much is the clarity in the optics going to make up for the small objective vs something like a leopold VX1 or a Burris Fullfield II at 3-9 power x 40mm?? Thats really what I am more familiar with for hunting.

I honestly like the variation in power and the reticle design of their new Velocity reticles. Also NF has a nice rep for being super tough, which I like, and the one in the title is quite a bit lighter than the full size NXS's. I'd like something that stays below 3 power, has a big objective and a reticle that I really like along with the obvious clarity that I would hope comes with most of the scopes if you plan on spending $1000+ on them. Just weighing what I can find and what is available. Nothing seems perfect yet. I'll check out the IOR's again though.



I am in no hurry, I am not buying anything for a while.

[ginshun]

Hey - that IOR 2.5-10 x 42mm IOR looks pretty sweet. The MP8 Dot reticle is kind of cool. Not exactly what I was looking for, but it could work.

Thanks.

[Brandy]

It is a wonderful scope. Bright, compact, mounts low and with the Various ranging reticles available you can tailor it to your cartridge. Would it be my first choice for P-dogs? no, I'll stick with my 4-16x50 Schmidt but for a big game hunting rifle, it has few equals.

Benelli R-1 270 WSM with NF 2.5-10 in S&K mounts. handles like a 20 bore Ithaca Featherlight.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z231/leadloader/DSCN3062.jpg

[Jimro]

No, there really is no reason that I want the small objective. I honestly was wondering how much of a difference it would really make. Like if I have that Nightforce, how much is the clarity in the optics going to make up for the small objective vs something like a leopold VX1 or a Burris Fullfield II at 3-9 power x 40mm?? Thats really what I am more familiar with for hunting.

Objective lense size is the major determining factor for exit pupil size, which is the major determining factor in how "bright" a scope is in any given light.

For example, a 4x32 scope has a larger exit pupil, 8mm than a 6x42 which is 7mm. Both the 4x32 and 6x42 are considered "gold standards" for hunting scopes because of their light gathering ability and optical clarity (it is much easier to make a clear low powered scope than a high powered scope with the same lenses) as well as adequate eye relief.

If you bump the magnification to 8x32, you not only cut the exit pupil down to 4mm, but you also decrease the eye relief.

Now obviously a bigger main lense is better for optical performance, but you get into a realm of diminishing returns as larger and larger ocular bells raise the scope higher and higher above the rifle, which can affect your cheek weld and make the rifle harder to shoot. Also there really isn't any point in having a 2.5x56 scope because the exit pupil will be much larger than the iris of your eye even in extremely low light.

Hope this helps a little bit with your search for a proper scope. In the end, a 3-9x40 will do darn near everything that a 2.5-10x40 will do.

Jimro

[Brandy]

A VX 1 or a Fullfield costs about a third of the Nightforce. There is a very big difference in optical resolution and general quality. Now a Schmidt 4-16x50 costs almost 2X the NF. there is a difference but not as dramatic.

While I have and do spend a lot on rifles, were I budget limited, I'd rather have a Marlin XL with a NF, than a Weatherby with a Tasco.

An example of my thinking $800 rifle, $2000 scope, shoots bug holes. Tikka was nuts to ever drop this rifle!

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z231/leadloader/tikka22250.jpg

[SmokyBaer]

Lots more objective than what you are wanting but this NF 3.5x15x56 fits perfect
on my FNAR and is the clearest scope I own. Great investment, so far. :D

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/hobunchastuf/FNAR%20308/MVC-8512.jpg

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o95/hobunchastuf/FNAR%20308/ReticleNP-1RR.jpg