Another scope question

[kasen]

Last weekend I shot the Ephrata match and while I really enjoyed the match, and placed ok as a relatively new shooter, I have become very frustrated with my Burris XTR-14 in relationship to my poor eyesight. I just cant see those targets at 300+ yards well enough to adjust my holdover. I'm shooing open, with a Fastfire at 1 'oclock in a Warne mount. I don't need a Swarovski z6i for the purposes of having a true 1x. And I believe there are some more affordable options for assisting my eyes in seeing downrange. I've got MGM Ironman in two months so I'm really looking forward to finding a solution.

I think I’ve narrowed my search down to:

Night Force NXS 2.5-10 x32

Vs

Leupold Mark IV 2.5-8 x36

I’ve heard some say that Night Force isn’t ideal for multigun applications, I’m not sure why unless it was in reference to not having true 1x (which again doesn’t matter for me). I like the fact that the NF goes to 10x, although that is probably more than necessary. I think 6x or 8x will be plenty for my eyes out to 500 yards, and I don’t plan on engageing anything further out. On the Leupold side, it’s $500 less which is a significant saving. But it doesn’t appear to have a reticle set for 223 BDC, which the NF does.

Any thoughts or input here? Am I missing something or another optic all together? Looked at Trijicon and the 40mm objective is too bulky for me.

Experienced users’ input is very appreciated!

Edited April 11, 2012 by kasen

[CJW]

I do not shoot open, but I'd probably look hard at the Vortex 2.5-10x44 PST as a higher magnification rifle scope, too.

[lee blackman]

I have good corrected eyesight. 4x seems perfectly adequate at 300 meters. I don't know about 500, I never tried that far. I shoot with a 4x32 acog. I think at 500 yards a 6x would be just a bit nicer, but at point blank when you open both eyes and use bidon aiming, its really smooth. I like it alot better than shooting one eye with irons, or thru a red dot.

[Airedale]

Kasen-I am middle aged and wearing progressive lenses.

I shoot in TO and use Dueck offset irons for close stuff and a Leupold Mark AR 3x9. It is fairly inexpensive (around $300) and very clear. It works for me.

Dave

[kasen]

Kasen-I am middle aged and wearing progressive lenses.

I shoot in TO and use Dueck offset irons for close stuff and a Leupold Mark AR 3x9. It is fairly inexpensive (around $300) and very clear. It works for me.

Dave

Thanks Dave. I'll definitely will check that out. The price is super low but if the quality is there that sounds like an excellent option. My eyes cannot be corrected to 20/20, seen the specialists etc, it is what is at 25/20. During Ironman I hit everything that was part of the regular stages, out to 450 yards. But I had to work my eyes to the max. My budget is $1,500 so if the extra money helps me out I'll invest money to better enjoy the sport.

[Airedale]

Kasen-I am middle aged and wearing progressive lenses.

I shoot in TO and use Dueck offset irons for close stuff and a Leupold Mark AR 3x9. It is fairly inexpensive (around $300) and very clear. It works for me.

Dave

Thanks Dave. I'll definitely will check that out. The price is super low but if the quality is there that sounds like an excellent option. My eyes cannot be corrected to 20/20, seen the specialists etc, it is what is at 25/20. During Ironman I hit everything that was part of the regular stages, out to 450 yards. But I had to work my eyes to the max. My budget is $1,500 so if the extra money helps me out I'll invest money to better enjoy the sport.

I think I have two-if you want to test one, shoot me a PM and I will send it to you.

Dave

[benny hill]

Try the burris 2x7 with blistic plex for holdover out to 500.

[kasen]

Try the burris 2x7 with blistic plex for holdover out to 500.

Wow - I'm assuming you're talking about this Burris

I'm happy to save some serious money, I'm just surprised this price range of $200. Is there no reason to spend more for what I'm looking to do in the realm of competition? If not, that's great.

[Charles Bond]

Try the burris 2x7 with blistic plex for holdover out to 500.

Wow - I'm assuming you're talking about this Burris

I'm happy to save some serious money, I'm just surprised this price range of $200. Is there no reason to spend more for what I'm looking to do in the realm of competition? If not, that's great.

Your going to save enough money to have a nice mount and red dot as well on the gun. I really like this scope and some of the Bushnell scopes for the money.

[kasen]

Try the burris 2x7 with blistic plex for holdover out to 500.

Wow - I'm assuming you're talking about this Burris

I'm happy to save some serious money, I'm just surprised this price range of $200. Is there no reason to spend more for what I'm looking to do in the realm of competition? If not, that's great.

Your going to save enough money to have a nice mount and red dot as well on the gun. I really like this scope and some of the Bushnell scopes for the money.

I'm good on that. The Fastfire II I've been using is sweet and the Warne mount is rock solid.

[michael1778]

This is very timely to me!! I've been looking at Vortex 2.5-10x, a couple of different Leupold options (with big price swings), some Vortex 2-7x options, and the Burris 2-7x linked above. A nice red dot and a good 1.5x or 2x up to 7x or 8x scope without an illuminated reticle seemed like a viable way to go. My biggest concern was that I would be going 'too cheap' on the large variable optic for some reason I could not understand as a new 3-gun shooter. Maybe I am not so crazy after all.

Thanks to the OP for starting this discussion and to all the great replies.

[Jaxshooter]

I have several Night Force scopes and find them to be excellent but pricey. I would also look at the Vortex over the Leupold. They are making a very high quality optic. Remember it is much less expensive to buy the best you can afford the first time rather than compromise and have to sell a scope and loose money to end up buying your first choice later.

[michael1778]

I have several Night Force scopes and find them to be excellent but pricey. I would also look at the Vortex over the Leupold. They are making a very high quality optic. Remember it is much less expensive to buy the best you can afford the first time rather than compromise and have to sell a scope and loose money to end up buying your first choice later.

Agreed on getting it "right" (for your needs) the first time you buy. Optics are my last major purchase in my 3-gun kit. Thanks for the relative rankings, so to speak.

[kasen]

I have several Night Force scopes and find them to be excellent but pricey. I would also look at the Vortex over the Leupold. They are making a very high quality optic. Remember it is much less expensive to buy the best you can afford the first time rather than compromise and have to sell a scope and loose money to end up buying your first choice later.

Agreed on getting it "right" (for your needs) the first time you buy. Optics are my last major purchase in my 3-gun kit. Thanks for the relative rankings, so to speak.

Understood, I'll be looking into the Vortex then. I'm already onto my second long range AR optic for 3gun. It'd be nice to be done with this for a long time.

[strangedays]

There has been some serious issues with Leupold quality. I would go with Nightforce since it is proven. Leupold has promised the shooting community to get their act back on track and stop selling us garbage. China parts is not good.

[FishingFool]

Me and two other local shooters use a 2.5-10x32 nightforce on our 3gun rifles and another have also switched to a higher mag scope as well for tac optics. I use the mildot reticle and with the dueck sights I don't feel at a disadvantage.

The only problem I had was when our MD setup a shaky wood platform on 4 old jeep springs sunk in the ground to shoot at a texas star and two mgm mini poppers at 120 yards, followed with flashers at 200,300,400, and 500 yards. I didn't know how to use the mil dot system at 1/2 power at the time so I kept my magnification at 10x for the 200-500 yard targets to get my drops right. Getting back on target sucked with all that rocking.

The more I use the nightforce, the more I realize that life isn't so bad with a second focal plane scope. I can actually see the reticle at low power. After playing with a few FFP scopes I don't like how fine FFP reticles are on lower magnification for the fast and furious shooting. The nightforce turrets tracks perfectly. Zero stop is a god send. Eye relief can be picky at times but since I've gone with the 1.125" unimount that has gone away.

Nightforce makes mounts in 1.125 and 1.375 inch heights. I tried a larue mount at 1.50 and it was too high. The 1.375 worked for a friend of mine but I was still having trouble with snapping up and getting good sight pictures instantly. I felt like I was searching too much. The 1.125 was magic. Definitely play around with the scope height.

[kasen]

Me and two other local shooters use a 2.5-10x32 nightforce on our 3gun rifles and another have also switched to a higher mag scope as well for tac optics. I use the mildot reticle and with the dueck sights I don't feel at a disadvantage.

The only problem I had was when our MD setup a shaky wood platform on 4 old jeep springs sunk in the ground to shoot at a texas star and two mgm mini poppers at 120 yards, followed with flashers at 200,300,400, and 500 yards. I didn't know how to use the mil dot system at 1/2 power at the time so I kept my magnification at 10x for the 200-500 yard targets to get my drops right. Getting back on target sucked with all that rocking.

The more I use the nightforce, the more I realize that life isn't so bad with a second focal plane scope. I can actually see the reticle at low power. After playing with a few FFP scopes I don't like how fine FFP reticles are on lower magnification for the fast and furious shooting. The nightforce turrets tracks perfectly. Zero stop is a god send. Eye relief can be picky at times but since I've gone with the 1.125" unimount that has gone away.

Nightforce makes mounts in 1.125 and 1.375 inch heights. I tried a larue mount at 1.50 and it was too high. The 1.375 worked for a friend of mine but I was still having trouble with snapping up and getting good sight pictures instantly. I felt like I was searching too much. The 1.125 was magic. Definitely play around with the scope height.

I've ordered the NightForce 2.5-10x32 with the velocity reticle. The bdc calculator on their website used to select a reticle was a big selling point. And I can use this with my NV setup, which is definitely cool. Hopefully it will fit nicely in my existing Warne mount.

Thanks for the input.

[jobob]

I'm with Benny on this. I bought a Burris 2-7 ballistic plex that was on sale through Optics Planet for $130 last year. It is a much better scope than the price tag would suggest. I liked it so much I bought another one in 3-9x for a different rifle. Both are on 3-gun rifles with offset irons for the close targets. I like the setup, but unfortunately, I haven't been able to shoot a match with either gun. Hopefully I'll get in a match or two this year and see how they work. My only concern with these scopes might be durability. I try not to bang my guns around anyway, but multigun matches can sometimes be a bit hard on equipment, especially the Ironman.

[michael1778]

That Burris option looks *very* interesting at the sub-$200 price point. Also, it seems like a lower cost way to experiment with a scope + red dot Open rifle set-up.

[kasen]

That Burris option looks *very* interesting at the sub-$200 price point. Also, it seems like a lower cost way to experiment with a scope + red dot Open rifle set-up.

For sure. I've been running an open AR config for two years and love it. If you are sold on shooting open then I don't see any reason to purchase a true 1x scope. Because the red dot is so easy to use there's no reason to put the scope down to 1x. However, open is expensive with all the gear including an open shotgun and pistol. If you're considering shooting scoped tac divison in the future the Burris is a no brainer for low cost. Great way to see if you like shooting open. Or if you have better eyesight than me I'll sell you my Burris XTR-14 with the PERP mount and you'll have the flexibility to go into either division. That was my original plan.

[michael1778]

My vision is a very tricky thing. Individual eye acuity is very good for 42. But fusing the two eye views into a useful image? Can be dicey at times when shooting. I often have to close the non-dominant eye to avoid cluttered perception.

I have been going to a sports vision specialist optometrist for most of the past 5 weeks to improve this situation. Modest progress, so far.