I know these are just being released but I thought I would ask anyway. I am hoping to get into long range shooting and do not even have a rifle yet. I plan to go with a Remington 700 action in .308 and live in North GA. Most shooting will be less than 300 yards with the occasional 500 yard range trip. This will be purely for fun as I do not hunt. From what I have read I was planning on going with a 3.5-15x50 but this looking interesting. I was planning on a 20" barrel. Would this be a good first scope? And if so, in what configuration? Thanks.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes another NF 2.5-10x42 question
- Thread starter TheWaker43
- Start date
The 2.5-10x42 would be great on a smaller .308, especially shooting within the distances you're looking at. Either the MOAR with .25 MOA ZeroStop or Mil-R with .1 Mrad ZeroStop variants would be the ticket. If not, the 3.5-15x50 would be a good one as well, although it's a little heavier and longer.
Depending on the price point for both you may just want to step up to the x 15 just for the extra magnification. With that being said for many, many years the Army's fixed 10 power luepold on the M24 SWS did just fine out to 1000 meter targets. That's what sat on my M24 when I went to SOTIC and the misses I had at 1000 were my fault and not the fault of the scope, and at the time I didn't feel like I didn't have enough magnification. I wasn't into this type of shooting at the time so maybe I just didn't know what I was missing. I just took took delivery of a 16.5 inch Beanland .308 that I plan on using as a 600 yard and in gun, I put a NF 2.5-10x32 with MOAR on it and couldn't be happier.
I also plan on putting a NF 2.5-10x42 with MOAR on my recce/SPR 600 yard and in gun. "I" don't need or want any more magnification, weight, larger tube size and heavier and higher 34mm mount , huge turrets or more bulk. Also, the MOAR'S .140 MOA main line substensions will be about a perfect compromise for my 20/40 shooting eye vision in low light and at 600yds. I will be using an Aimpoint H1 in some type of offset mount as my backup and 0-100yds sight. As for MOA vs MIL. in scope ajustments, for me Vern Harrision, owner of Central Virginia Tactical and a Vietnam combat sniper veteran and master trainer sums it up pretty well.
The issue was which was better, mil/Moa/matching, question was posed to him. Vern referring to MOA/mils is primarily relating to the knobs. "I read a lot about speed and hear a lot about it as well. I hear now you have to have large ergo knobs and mil on mil. Truth is when a sniper has laid there in his firing position, usually for a good while, he has mapped out his field of fire. He knows his yardage or meter) out to every position in front of him. This should hold true in an urban position as well. If he's in a city he will still have a grid he's responsible for and will sketch out his field of fire. Knowing this he should be able to dial on target in no time.
Here at school we have timed several students dialing with either mil or moa turrets. If you know your scope it's literally tenths of seconds differences between the two. The shooter will take a lot more time in his trigger prep than he will in time it takes to dial his turrets. In a Military application the spotter will call elevation and windage, while the sniper preps for the shot. Either way it takes very little time to dial to a target.
Do I think Mils are faster? No. I've seen teams here using moa be on target faster then teams using mils. Why? Because they knew their equipment better. Knowing your equipment is everything.
So I teach, whatever your going to use, know it well. Real well. I ask my students to go home and practice laying behind the scope, locked in and using the dope they got here to dial in while dry firing. Get use to dialing while your head is down in the cheek weld. Know inside out up, down, left and right. You would be surprised at the shooters that don't know left and right on their scopes.
I'm very comfortable with either. Why? Because I have to teach both. However, being old school I still believe in one shot one kill. Not one shot adjust and second shot hit or third. I still believe in precision and with that I want to be able to dial as close to my point of aim as possible. That's why I prefer moa.
I have a March 1-10x24mm mounted to my long range AR. I'm able to make hits out to 600 yards just fine. The new Nightforce 2.5-10x42 should have an even better image quality than my March so I would say you would be good to go.
I've also considered getting that same NF because it is nice, compact, and light.
I've also considered getting that same NF because it is nice, compact, and light.
It seems like all of the 1-8x and 1-10x scopes out there have overly tight eye boxes on their top end for me.
Last edited:
