Rifle Scopes Comprehensive Tactical Scope Test

[Hoax001]

I found this comprehensive scope comparison very helpful. It might be useful for those looking for a new scope in the $1500 + range. They tested 18 scopes using a double blind test and a what seemed to be a well thought out grading system.

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

After reading the results of the test, I ended up going with the Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 x 50. It came in 5th in optical quality and seemed to be a good glass for the money. I also liked the MOAR reticle.

Just thought I'd share. ;

 

[Smooth_87]

nice choice, i think the 5.5-22 is a well optimised optic.

there is a huge thread on this, its probably on page 2 or 3 now.

 

[Birddog6424]

I think every one of those scopes tested is a nice scope. Going with the features that you want in a scope with any scope on that list is a good choice.

 

[KYAggie]

Thanks for sharing, that article is packed with good info! Also, I poked around a bit on the blog and there's tons of other good info there as well. Now if he would just do a $700-$1500 test, my price range, that would be great!

 

[CS95]

So has anyone bothered to check credentials on the author of this? Is he at the very least an experienced shooter? Does he have any experience in the optics field?I mean you guys are taking this for gospel and no one even knows who he is. I can tell you there are many errors in his testing methods (Frank Galli will back this claim from what I have seen)

or is this one of those- "I read it on the internet so it must be true"

 

[FALex]

I still think he should have thrown the 5-20 SSHD in there.

 

[Lowlight]

Cal of the PRB needs to address the corrections on this test as errors were made that might sway the way people look at some of these scopes.

I know very few people read corrections, but several of the actual scopes were retested after "issues" were discovered and most of those issues were operator error.

There are no real surprise in the overall ratings, but there are some glaring issues that should be addressed,

 

[AK Sgt Maj]

So has anyone bothered to check credentials on the author of this? Is he at the very least an experienced shooter? Does he have any experience in the optics field?I mean you guys are taking this for gospel and no one even knows who he is. I can tell you there are many errors in his testing methods (Frank Galli will back this claim from what I have seen)

or is this one of those- "I read it on the internet so it must be true"

He is an Engineer, so whatever he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.