Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut

[chillywig]

I have the NF NXS 8-32X56 with the MOAR reticle , zero stop and high speed turrets on my 308 TRG 22 and AIAW. I debated for quite a while wether to go the S&B 5-25X route. But after comparing a friends S&B to another friends 8-32X Nightforce and considering I don't shoot more than 600 yards I decided the Nightforce was a better choice for me. If I was shooting 1000+ yards my choice might have been different. But I am extremely satisfied with the NF 8-32X56 scopes. I don't think you would be sorry if you choose the NXS 8-32X56 scope for your DPMS SASS. By the way I also have a DPMS SASS and have a NF 5.5-22X50 scope with ZS, HST and the MOAR reticle on it.

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I am definitely getting the NXS 8-32X56 with the zero stop. After reading all the scope info I have a feeling I will likely end up with more than one high end scope. Also I am starting to feel the need for a bench rest rig. Oh well...

Now the only question is which mounts to use???

 

[mike.h.]

Thanks for the words of encouragement! I am definitely getting the NXS 8-32X56 with the zero stop. After reading all the scope info I have a feeling I will likely end up with more than one high end scope. Also I am starting to feel the need for a bench rest rig. Oh well...

Now the only question is which mounts to use???

I have the NF NXS 8-32X56 with the MOAR reticle , zero stop and high speed turrets on my 308 TRG 22 and AIAW. I debated for quite a while wether to go the S&B 5-25X route. But after comparing a friends S&B to another friends 8-32X Nightforce and considering I don't shoot more than 600 yards I decided the Nightforce was a better choice for me. If I was shooting 1000+ yards my choice might have been different. But I am extremely satisfied with the NF 8-32X56 scopes. I don't think you would be sorry if you choose the NXS 8-32X56 scope for your DPMS SASS. By the way I also have a DPMS SASS and have a NF 5.5-22X50 scope with ZS, HST and the MOAR reticle on it.

Thanks for this reply. Like you I have the NSX 8-32X56 etc, on my bolt gun, and I like it very much, and am in the process of deciding on new glass for my new DPMS SASS. I will freely admit that bias set in when I started shopping for a new scope because I'm familiar with the NXS and I like the way it works.

This thread is very timely and thank you calz for all your hark work. This thread has me rethinking my options and I will most likely look through some other scopes.

Thanks again, Mike

 

[NoLegs24]

Can I get another update lol

Tactical Scopes: Where They?re Made & Warranty | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[poison123]

wow....the Henny is only 2 years and non transferable......based on the experience I had with them on my 4-16....screw that.

 

[calz]

I just posted part 1 of the mechanical results. As far as I know, this is the first time any data like this has been published. I found it enlightening.

Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[rw496]

very impressive..thanks again

 

[shamir]

I just posted part 1 of the mechanical results. As far as I know, this is the first time any data like this has been published. I found it enlightening.

Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Part 1 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Very much so. A lot of us Kahles owners were disappointed with how it performed on the optical performance test, but it seems to be emerging as one of the best overall scopes here.

Shamir

 

[shamir]

I'm still surprised by how badly the March scope did on this test. Given the 42 mm objective size, it was doing very well so far.

Hey calz, just to be clear, you were using USMC mils, i.e., 3.43775 MoA to a mil? Did you confirm with the manufacturers that none of them were using Army mils, i.e., 3.375 MoA (The Truth About Mil Dots). It would create a 1.86% difference if any of them were using Army mils, and that would make the March's look better. Also, was the error on the March consistent, i.e, it was always in the same direction ? Or did it switch around at 5, 10, 15, and 20 mils?

 

[calz]

I'm still surprised by how badly the March scope did on this test. Given the 42 mm objective size, it was doing very well so far.

Hey calz, just to be clear, you were using USMC mils, i.e., 3.43775 MoA to a mil? Did you confirm with the manufacturers that none of them were using Army mils, i.e., 3.375 MoA (The Truth About Mil Dots). It would create a 1.86% difference if any of them were using Army mils, and that would make the March's look better. Also, was the error on the March consistent, i.e, it was always in the same direction ? Or did it switch around at 5, 10, 15, and 20 mils?

Great question. The Horus CATS targets I used are configured in USMC mils. I'm not sure what the manufacturers configured each scope for. I've never heard of any high-end scopes configured for army mils, although cheaper manufacturers may do that. USMC mils seem more standard, and I think that's what shooters would expect that to be (and it's what most ballistic engines use).

The March was consistently off in the same direction. I didn't put which direction each scope was off, because I didn't want people to assume their scope was exactly the same and therefore just use that data instead of actually performing the test on their scope themself. Every scope is different, and assuming your scope matches my findings precisely could hurt more than it could help. But I can say it was in the same direction. I didn't see any that switched directions in my tests.

 

[shamir]

Given the very small amount of error, its clear that everybody was using USMC mils, also know as mils. And that is what everybody uses these days I think. I just wonder about the March given the consistent error across two scopes. It looks like bad calibration rather than bad manufacturing - adjusting your clicks by 2.5% exactly would fix the error on both these scopes.

Goes to show you should always test and calibrate a new scope yourself.

 

[Cobracutter]

People for real. Lets post relevant posts on here. This discussion could help non Snipers Hide members out that are just searching around. When he posts his final results with the test, we can post here with opinions of his findings. This thread was mainly created for post test results postings. Thank you all who have posted non childish things, even though I did have to stoop to their level. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO. Thanks, BullyDog

Meth, beacuse this fucking moron could not afford coke.

 

[Lowlight]

Only 1 Scope used "Army Mils" the Leupold M3A, no other scope used that ... it was an error from back in 1982 when the Army used the Military Mil which is rounded to 6400.... today, we all use 6283 and not 6400.

So the idea Army Mils still exist is misguided, it was only in one scope. The Whole Army vs Marine Mils has nothing to do with the Dot shape as many suggest, it was not because the Unertl Mils were oval and the Army dots were round, that had nothing to do with it. It was about the base value of 6400 vs 6283. Because the Lensatic compass and Military artillery used 6400, the Army believed the USMC had erred and contracted Leupold to build the scope based off 6400. It was quickly realized this was error and no other scope used 6400 after that I know of.

 

[Cobracutter]

Only 1 Scope used "Army Mils" the Leupold M3A, no other scope used that ... it was an error from back in 1982 when the Army used the Military Mil which is rounded to 6400.... today, we all use 6283 and not 6400.

So the idea Army Mils still exist is misguided, it was only in one scope. The Whole Army vs Marine Mils has nothing to do with the Dot shape as many suggest, it was not because the Unertl Mils were oval and the Army dots were round, that had nothing to do with it. It was about the base value of 6400 vs 6283. Because the Lensatic compass and Military artillery used 6400, the Army believed the USMC had erred and contracted Leupold to build the scope based off 6400. It was quickly realized this was error and no other scope used 6400 after that I know of.

So THAT is why I failed the land nav course..........I knew it was the compass and not me.

 

[Dead Nutz]

The ior recon is looking like a top contender.

 

[The_FNG]

I'm pretty surprised by March's poor showing in the mechanical performance test.

 

[TexasMade]

Everybodys complaining about the March but I the way I read Cal's test was that the Nightforce and Mark 6 both had issues and had to be sent back which to me is way worse than March's poor showing. What's funny is I had to do the SAME THING. Sent back a Mark 6 for tracking crappy and the same with a nightforce actar. The actar wouldn't even hold zero longer than a day. But I will say I'm surprised at the razor not doing better. I've have 3, and am very happy

 

[XRanger08]

Biggest thing I have taken away from the latest update is that the S&B Fan Boys might want to go over the test and evaluate their scopes. 1 Click off across almost the entire spectrum can be a huge amount like what was demonstrated on the blog at 1,000 yards +. I wish the Mark 6 would have done better across the entire spectrum, but I will def be investing in a Horus chart and a homemade jig like what was done in the test to double check my tracking. Another thought going through my head now is wondering about how many people are thinking the same thing I am? Along with how many people are going to be call up their Customer Service department to their respected manufacture for warranty work? If my Leupold Mark 6 is not on point it will def be going back.

 

[bward]

I am friends with 2 other shooter's who have seen the same margin of error in March scopes they had. I just bought a 5-40x56 to try out, and am curious to see how it will do. If it is off I will just return it.

Another thing I was pleased to see is that the USO was perfect. Many people on here claim they have tracking problems, but out the 5 I had them make for me with a custom reticle all 5 have been spot on. I have tested all of them just like in this test, and all were 100% perfect. I think in the past there may have been issues, but they have their design and testing correct now.

Overall all of the scopes, other than the March, were very acceptable based on my analysis of the results. Setting up a correction small correction factor is easy.

 

[phlegm]

Everybodys complaining about the March but I the way I read Cal's test was that the Nightforce and Mark 6 both had issues and had to be sent back which to me is way worse than March's poor showing. What's funny is I had to do the SAME THING. Sent back a Mark 6 for tracking crappy and the same with a nightforce actar. The actar wouldn't even hold zero longer than a day. But I will say I'm surprised at the razor not doing better. I've have 3, and am very happy

He said he got a replacement March and it was worse than the original, though:

"However, the replacement March scope that Kelbly.com sent unfortunately didn’t follow that same pattern. In fact, while the 2nd March scope performed similar to the original, it was actually slightly worse overall. The original scope had an average of 2.2% of error in the elevation adjustment through 20 mils, and the replacement had an average of 2.7% of error."

How does this make it better than the NF or Leupold?


I doubt there will be that much backlash for March in this. It seems like most March owners shoot competitively, so they are allowed sighter shots that make tracking issues less of a problem.

Where I'm cringing is thinking about how the <$1500 scopes will do if these top end scopes are off.

 

[Irokcrawl]

My March 5-40x56 tracked dead nuts on in a similar test. Glass was on par or better imo than anything else I have or have owned (S&B, kahles, steiner, uso, NF, hensoldt (not as good as the Henny but nothing is imo) I also prefer the floating center dot in the March 5-40x56 as well as their turrets with the exception of the 5 mils per rev version. Maybe I got a good one? Never have I had a good Leupold however. Moa shims in mil optics for unknown reasons and horrible tracking in the range that I actually would use which is maybe up to 10mils since that takes me to 1500 or so yards with a 100 yard zero if I'm not mistaken.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Sapper524]

The ior recon is looking like a top contender.

Until you shoot it on a 338 ...

 

[Dead Nutz]

That is great news, because I don't own a 338.

 

[msat10]

For now, till the Steiners catch up....

The results were pretty good, no serious surprises other than the NF did score higher than people give them credit for ... this quote says it all
OTE]

It appears the S&B 5-25x is still the gold standard by which all scopes are judged

 

[997/2man]

wow....the Henny is only 2 years and non transferable......based on the experience I had with them on my 4-16....screw that.[/QUOTE


Yikes!

Poison 123, I value your opinion, this gives me pause. Had considered a 4-16x, not so much...

 

[997/2man]

Meth, beacuse this fucking moron could not afford coke.

Don't be dissin my meth, mofo!

 

[para1505]

I am only interested in the mechanical and durability part of test the rest of it is just fluff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cobracutter]

I am friends with 2 other shooter's who have seen the same margin of error in March scopes they had. I just bought a 5-40x56 to try out, and am curious to see how it will do. If it is off I will just return it.

Another thing I was pleased to see is that the USO was perfect. Many people on here claim they have tracking problems, but out the 5 I had them make for me with a custom reticle all 5 have been spot on. I have tested all of them just like in this test, and all were 100% perfect. I think in the past there may have been issues, but they have their design and testing correct now.

Overall all of the scopes, other than the March, were very acceptable based on my analysis of the results. Setting up a correction small correction factor is easy.

So becuase your 5 scopes all work as they should (which is kinda expected from a $2k+ optic) you can discount everyone else's experinces and make a judgement on current production?

Tracking.............. http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-For-Dummies-Deborah-Rumsey/dp/0470911085 would be a fine investment.

 

[lennyo3034]

So I did a box test with the March when I got it, but was only able to do it on a single sheet of paper. Looks like I may need to do the test over the full range.

 

[bward]

So becuase your 5 scopes all work as they should (which is kinda expected from a $2k+ optic) you can discount everyone else's experinces and make a judgement on current production?

Tracking.............. http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-For-Dummies-Deborah-Rumsey/dp/0470911085 would be a fine investment.

So how many people that complain about any scope test tracking properly over 15+ mils? Very few actually do. The sample size just got a lot smaller since you want to talk statistics. I'm guessing you are no W. Edwards Deming.

 

[Mr.T]

I vote for IOR , own a couple a 9-36x56 and 4-28x50Recon both work flawlessly great glass ,perfect tracking ,great turrets , only handicap is weight but that comes with rugged construction . and unileke most scopes that are cheaper in US than in Europe, IOR is much cheaper in Europe than the competition so normally we pay 2/3rds the price of anything remotely comparable

 

[augnmike]

It cracks me up that some guys on this site hate a company so much no matter which way the data comes out they will not accept even one positive thing about their products. You guys should go to Ferguson cause those folks as well will only accept one outcome, the facts be damned. The credibility gap is amazing.

 

[Dead Nutz]

I studied Demings work in depth while in college. He was light years ahead of his time. He understood things about quality back in the 40's that people today still can't grasp.

 

[Dead Nutz]

I vote for IOR , own a couple a 9-36x56 and 4-28x50Recon both work flawlessly great glass ,perfect tracking ,great turrets , only handicap is weight but that comes with rugged construction . and unileke most scopes that are cheaper in US than in Europe, IOR is much cheaper in Europe than the competition so normally we pay 2/3rds the price of anything remotely comparable

The funny thing about IOR' s is that there seems to be no middle ground. People either really love them or really hate them.

 

[orkan]

The funny thing about IOR' s is that there seems to be no middle ground. People either really love them or really hate them.

I'd like to see a list of scopes the owners that love them have owned other than IOR. I bet it would be very telling.

 

[calz]

Well, I finally was able to publish more of the mechanical results. MAN, this is time consuming! This post might have taken longer to write and create all the diagrams than any other. Lots of technical stuff for sure. Hope you guys find it helpful.

Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Part 2 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[jdboy]

Cal, did you disable (bottom out) the ZeroStop on the Bushnell XRS before you tested your elevation? My XRS shipped with the ZeroStop set to a little below mechanical center.

 

[Mr.T]

I'd like to see a list of scopes the owners that love them have owned other than IOR. I bet it would be very telling.

Could be but from my personal expirience IOR is quite polarising no other brand comes close and first couple of gens had problems . On the other hand what i see with many top brands is suprising tolerance form their users for thier flaws ,must be good if its so expensive kind of logic. LOL

 

[cro789]

Well, I finally was able to publish more of the mechanical results. MAN, this is time consuming! This post might have taken longer to write and create all the diagrams than any other. Lots of technical stuff for sure. Hope you guys find it helpful.

Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Part 2 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Thank you sir for all the time you have put into this. It has helped me to learn a lot about the scopes that I have and will buy next. And to my surprise US Optics didn't finish as badly as some others. That is the scope that seems to fit my eyes the best. Thanks again and I know more people on here appreciate it as well.

 

[Dead Nutz]

Until you shoot it on a 338 ...

WILL a 7 mag work?

 

[calz]

Cal, did you disable (bottom out) the ZeroStop on the Bushnell XRS before you tested your elevation? My XRS shipped with the ZeroStop set to a little below mechanical center.

I actually didn't adjust it, but I don't think it could have been set on the one I had. Bushnell advertises the adjustment on the XRS scope I tested to be 50" at 100 yards. I tested it to actually be 73" at 100 yards. It seems unlikely that it would be that if the zero stop was engaged, but I can't say for certain. Unfortunately I've already returned the scopes.

 

[calz]

WILL a 7 mag work?

Yes. It fires projectiles and has significant recoil, so it will work.

Yes, it might have been better to try it with a 338. One guy suggested I use a 50 cal. I'd be up for using either if someone will send me one and pay for the ammo! Remember, I'm just some guy doing this in my spare time, out of pocket, and publishing it for FREE. I don't have corporate sponsors or a budget. I pay for my bullets, gunpowder, and rifles. I'm just trying to use whatever I have the best I can.

 

[Beiruty]

I'd like to see a list of scopes the owners that love them have owned other than IOR. I bet it would be very telling.

There are shortcoming for the latest IOR. I like my crusader. But it not perfect. Reseting the turret to zero after you zero your rifle is really tough. For the second time, I am still off by 1 or 2 clicks on windadge. Also, the zero stop is not perfect too. And when you use the zero stop, there is no hash mark on the body of the scope. The vertical line is covered by the turret when the zero stop is being used.

 

[Dead Nutz]

Hey CALZ what south mount did you use on the IOR Recon. I can't find one that's 40mm.

 

[calz]

Hey CALZ what south mount did you use on the IOR Recon. I can't find one that's 40mm.

Well, that is a good question. Here is an excerpt from Part 1 of the mechanical results:

Although Spuhr offers 29 different models of one-piece picatinny mounts, there were a few scopes with irregular dimensions that wouldn’t work in a standard size mount. The Valdada IOR RECON Tactical 4-28×50 has a proprietary 40mm tube, so I used the rings made by American Rifle Company that Valdada included to mount that scope. The US Optics ER25 5-25×58 has an unusually long turret box, and it wouldn’t work in any the 6 Spuhr mounts I had. So I used the US Optics rings they provided to mount that scope. While these other rings may not have all the bells and whistles of the Spuhr one-piece mounts, they seemed very solid and the manufacturers obviously believe in them (because it’s what they sent me for testing).

I have to say that I was impressed with the American Rifle Company (ARC) rings. I talked with Ted Karagias, president of ARC, at SHOT Show this year ... and he is one of the smartest guys I've ever met. He is a brilliant mechanical engineer, and I actually think he could be the John Browning of our era. I'd suggest you check out a video interview I had with the guy at SHOT, and I think you'll see what I'm saying. You can check that out at: American Rifle Company – Most Innovative Product of SHOT Show 2014 | PrecisionRifleBlog.com. I don't have much experience with the ARC rings, but my interactions with Ted would give me the confidence to give them a shot. They are a pretty cool design that I personally hadn't seen before.

Having said that, I hate it when a scope doesn't fit standard mounts. I see that as a major drawback, and I actually deducted a few points from the ergonomic score for the this (see the ergonomic scores). The scope mount is just more important than what some people give it credit for, and things like a 40mm tube or an enormous turret box severely limit your options. Is it a deal-breaker? Probably not ... just one more line item to add to the "Cons" list for those scopes.

 

[Mr.T]

Having said that, I hate it when a scope doesn't fit standard mounts. I see that as a major drawback, and I actually deducted a few points from the ergonomic score for the this (see the ergonomic scores). The scope mount is just more important than what some people give it credit for, and things like a 40mm tube or an enormous turret box severely limit your options. Is it a deal-breaker? Probably not ... just one more line item to add to the "Cons" list for those scopes.

Some one has to make progress without companies like IOR you would still be looking at 1'' standard tube ,coin adjustable turrets and mildot reticle as the most advanced reticle option ,not long ago 34mm tube was not very common ,now its most common in high end tactical scopes. ,plus IOR always come with the rings.
For me the only drawback of huge 40mm tube is the weight of the rings ,otherwise for tactical use is see great increase in stiffness as a great benefit
Good mounts are great but i can't quite get past the price point of a Spuhr ,90+% of their users never make use of all the features it offers ,i rather invest that money in a better scope.

Otherwise topshit 40mm mounts are made in Croatia by Rusan company i have a pair of those on my IOR Recon
Mounts - Rusan

 

[augnmike]

Cal, I have a question, so four scopes passed the tracking part of the test but of those four only two passed the tracking and cant test? The only two to pass both parts were Kahles and USO?

 

[orkan]

In a time when companies are getting 30+ mils of travel out of 34mm tubes, I wouldn't really call a 40mm tube "progress," but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Mr.T]

augnmike

Cal, I have a question, so four scopes passed the tracking part of the test but of those four only two passed the tracking and cant test? The only two to pass both parts were Kahles and USO?

Of the 4 scopes that tracked perfectly only Hensoldt had a slight cant of reticle
But all tests are subject to individual scopes tested,luck of a draw, every time you would remake this test with different batch of scopes results would vary in the parts that depend of individual scope build, for example the brand new KahlesK6-24x56 MSR my buddy used for recent Finnsniper competition had no less than 10% tracking error so we had to make a corrected dope cards for it, we noticed its tracking differently on our first competition as we have identical pair of rifles, load and chrono speeds but that were all just ideas till we did Litz tall target test that shocked us both as the scope was moving cca 10% to much so his dope card was corected (so for 1000m was 7.0mil while i had 7.7mil for same load and speed ),scope has been sent to Khales for repair following the competition and is expected back any day now.We will see what gives when it comes back.

In a time when companies are getting 30+ mils of travel out of 34mm tubes, I wouldn't really call a 40mm tube "progress," but maybe I'm wrong.

Its not just about travel ,40mm tube is way stiffer than 35mm tube and offers space for more robust internals ,so far there are no scopes that handle recoil flawllesly ,many(inluding IOR) still fall apart when used in magnum calibers and 50BMGs .We will see how future pans out but i suspect 34mm is not the limit where the optics will stop

 

[orkan]

so far there are no scopes that handle recoil flawllesly ,many(inluding IOR) still fall apart when used in magnum calibers and 50BMGs .

I don't agree with this in the least bit. Many other manufacturers have been able to demonstrate longevity on magnums.

 

[Redmanss]

I swear, it's amazing our Unertls ever survived a 10k round double workup and deployment riding on M82A1 Barretts with the way some say recoil will kill any scope. With wire reticles no less... The rifles broke long before the scopes did, and this was across four guns. The only scope we had break was due to a guy spearing the thing into the pavement on a helo fast rope for a dog and pony, broke the reticle wire.

The excuses these days baffle me. If your shit breaks because of recoil, your shit sucks. Plain and simple.