I'm glad to see the military actually make a good selection on a important piece of gear. They seem to get it wrong way more often than right.
Rifle Scopes Marine Corps Scout Snipers Choose Nightforce Optics
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
I wished they would have used an AI to see if they could get better results since there barrels are made to be hand tight
I would not say they are "made to be" hand tight, they are just like any other steel barrel and need to be machined by a good gunsmith (unless you get a pre-fit); however, for the torture test they set it up to be easily removed and re-attached without torquing.
Edit: my apologies @Sniperwannabee, I just realized you were talking about AI barrels being made to be hand tight and not PROOF barrels in general, missed that the first time around, and now that PROOF is making pre-fit/threaded AI barrels, even better!
Back to the Marines NF selection
Why would you want a discontinued scope to sit on the latest Marine Sniper Rifle? Many would argue that 15x is not "plenty" for 1000 and beyond, the only thing the 3.5-15 gets you is saving a little weight and bottom end FOV and you think 8oz extra to a Marine Sniper is going to hinder them more than having a better scope and how many shots will a Sniper make that will require a wider FOV at close range, there are other rifle systems suited better for those situations. The ATACR F1 series is NF's latest which has arguably better glass than previous generation and the 5-25 magnification is pretty much the standard for long range engagements which is what this rifle was designed for. Like my Pops used to tell me "you're entitled to your own wrong opinion"
Seriously though, I think this was a wise choice by the Marines, and I am not a huge NF fanboy, in fact, I've never owned a NF because they don't make a scope and reticle that really excites me (except maybe the 7-35 but I don't have an ELR rig); however, as a civilian I am able to choose from a host of manufacturers for a scope that fits a specific purpose, the military does not have that luxury and so decisions must be made on a large scale, more often then not those decisions often leave one scratching their head but this one is a thumbs up !
Last edited:
The Army's Lethality branch did a field test several years ago to determine the minimum magnification range for PID at 1000m. They had to discern shovels from rifles in all conditions.
15x was determined minimum while 18x+ was optimal.
Why limit your capability on a magnum sniper weapon? The Marines have been using 12-15x for a long time and even they will tell you they wish they often had 20x or more.
Now the PID requirement is getting more strenuous. Shooters have to determine smaller items such as cell phones, handguns, remote detonators, etc. 15x WILL NOT do that.
20x plus is the way forward for sniper optics with much emphasis on higher mags like 35x. The NF 7-35x is gaining a ton of popularity with many of the more active CT units.
15x was determined minimum while 18x+ was optimal.
Why limit your capability on a magnum sniper weapon? The Marines have been using 12-15x for a long time and even they will tell you they wish they often had 20x or more.
Now the PID requirement is getting more strenuous. Shooters have to determine smaller items such as cell phones, handguns, remote detonators, etc. 15x WILL NOT do that.
20x plus is the way forward for sniper optics with much emphasis on higher mags like 35x. The NF 7-35x is gaining a ton of popularity with many of the more active CT units.
It's not arguable. I have a pair of NXS 3.5-15x56 and a pair of ATACRs and the glass quality isn't even close in a side by side comparison. AND I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want more magnification for a dedicated sniper rifle. The NF website lists the 7-35 as only 1.3oz heavier than the 5-25. I think they should have gone with the higher power. Uncle Sam would have to shell out more ducats for them but since when has he ever shied away from that? And FOV isn't crazy different at 5x than at 7. If 35x is too high for the conditions, mirage, etc then you can still use it at 25x or 15x or whatever.
I shot the NF 7-35x this past weekend,
Never took it off 15x except to go to 10x to location the targets, shot everything around 15x
Never took it off 15x except to go to 10x to location the targets, shot everything around 15x
Then why buy a 7-35x when 15x will do
I get your point, a 7-35x doesn't necessarily mean it has to go on an ELR rig, it's nice to have it when you need it but not necessary.
Last edited:
LOL! Why do you fuck the hot chick, when you know she's way too high maintenance? Because you can.
Then why to buy a 7-35x when 15x will do
Dude, I am not sure what ELR Shooting you are doing, but it's fuck all hard to see on high magnification especially in the summer.
ELR is about Elevation, not magnification.
Sure there are guys that like to shoot on high power, however, I want FOV and the ability to have options. On paper at 100 yards, I shoot on 30x, on steel, 12x -18x depending on the situation.
in competition when you are moving, when you have to locate the targets under time, you need FOV, when using alternate positions it's easier to open up the eye box and shoot on lower power and not have to hunt for targets.
I shot 4000 yards with an S&B 3-27x, I was probably on 18x most of the time. The reason to use that scope, elevation, vs magnification.
I said I don't have an ELR rig, so I'm not doing any ELR shooting and you have a heck of a lot more experience than I do and appreciate your insight; however, I do have some questions about what you are saying. I understand when you say "ELR is about Elevation, not magnification" but wouldn't you say it is "more about elevation than it is about magnification" because it seems you're discounting magnification altogether. I realize that if you intend to shoot long range you don't just go pick up the highest magnification scope you can find, crank that lever all the way over and begin flinging lead, heck, sometimes I get thick mirage at close range depending on conditions so I get that it's not all about high magnification, but you also mentioned using 30x on paper at 100, so you verify there are situations where it's nice to have it which is what I was saying.
FOV is something I've been an evangelist about for a while now as I believe it is an often overlooked feature - the more you can see within the sight picture at a given magnification the better.
I've never shot at 4000 yards, 1300 yards is the furthest I've gone out to so again your experience trumps mine all day long (and not just in long range) but I have to ask, if the only reason you used the S&B 3-27x (with 26 mils of total elevation) was for elevation, then why not choose a 3-20 Ultra Short with 35 mils of total elevation?
4K? Great Caesar's ghost! Was the target a building? I know the record for military snipers is nearly that far but...it's hard to wrap my mind around how that is possible. I feel a little like Luke doubting that Yoda could lift the X-wing.
I used the other 3-27x, with more than 26 Mils of elevation, S&B sells a version with 34 Mils.
The old model is 26, there is a 34 Mil version
The old model is 26, there is a 34 Mil version
Okay, but since you don't need 27x the 3-20 would have worked just as well for you right?
It could have been,
Try to keep up Bill, I don't shoot on High Power, my normal shooting is all below 20x, I could have used the 3-20x, I could have used a Vortex but I feel it's a bit under-resolved vs the S&B. We have a lot of choices.
By saying I would use 30x or so to zero at 100 doesn't mean I do, means it's the only time I consider going over 20x with just about any scope. 24x, 25x, 30x, 35x... I still hover around 18x for steel and just above for zeroing.
You can say, "It's better to have it and not need it vs not having it at all" sure, but also I find with some of the higher magnification scopes the top end is not as good as powering down?
What that means:
In the case of the 3-20x vs the 3-27x, I think using 20x on the 3-27x looks better than the using 20x on the 3-20x it's not the same to me. Maybe it is for you, but not me. I feel the midranges are crisper to look at vs the max magnification setting on many of these optics. It might be a perception thing but in my mind I like powering them down and believe they resolve better doing so vs being at max magnification.
I use a lot of 4-16x scopes too both NF and S&B
Try to keep up Bill, I don't shoot on High Power, my normal shooting is all below 20x, I could have used the 3-20x, I could have used a Vortex but I feel it's a bit under-resolved vs the S&B. We have a lot of choices.
By saying I would use 30x or so to zero at 100 doesn't mean I do, means it's the only time I consider going over 20x with just about any scope. 24x, 25x, 30x, 35x... I still hover around 18x for steel and just above for zeroing.
You can say, "It's better to have it and not need it vs not having it at all" sure, but also I find with some of the higher magnification scopes the top end is not as good as powering down?
What that means:
In the case of the 3-20x vs the 3-27x, I think using 20x on the 3-27x looks better than the using 20x on the 3-20x it's not the same to me. Maybe it is for you, but not me. I feel the midranges are crisper to look at vs the max magnification setting on many of these optics. It might be a perception thing but in my mind I like powering them down and believe they resolve better doing so vs being at max magnification.
I use a lot of 4-16x scopes too both NF and S&B
I find myself visually seeing the same things sometimes. I compared my 7-35 vs my TT525 both at 25x and I actually liked the picture of the 7-35 better in that situation. I like to go towards I have extra if I need it.
I try to keep up, but I'm Army so bare with me
I realize sometimes I've missed the boat so seek clarification, also, you speak like a Marine (nothing wrong with that) and sometimes that can come across rather vague (for people who may be new) like when you inferred ELR is all about elevation and not about magnification, but throughout this conversation you've provided more clarity which I think is a benefit to all reading this. I agree that many scopes have degradation of IQ at the far ends of the magnification spectrum so I'm glad you pointed that out, forgive me for continuing to prod but that is the information I was hoping to get to which I think is much more beneficial than just saying it's all about elevation and not magnification. My preference right now is for scopes with a top end of 18-20x, to me that is the sweet spot so you and I are on the same page there. I would be curious however to see how well my Schmidt US 3-20 compares to my Minox 5-25 when both are at 20x similar to what you've done with the 3-27 vs 3-20. Cool, thanks Marine , in the end we're on the same page.
That's an interesting observation. I'll have to put my ATACRs side by side at 25x -- top end for one, mid for the other -- and see what the image looks like.
I'm a consultant and am often involved in situations where a RFP is sent out to multiple vendors meeting a requirement by the client; however, often times the decision has already been made and the other vendors are more a formality than they are of serious consideration, but just hearing the words Barska and military together make me cringe.
Well that might ruffle some feathers, but an interesting observation none-the-less. I'd really like ZCO to get their scopes out (ZC527 and ZC420) as I'm hoping the ZC420 brings ultra shorts to a whole new level, plus it matches with my ideal magnification range.
Bringing this back to the NF topic, one could assume the NF 5-25 ATACR F1 is going to perform better at lower magnifications than say the old 3.5-15 F1 or even the new 4-16x42 ATACR F1 but still provide enough FOV for engagement distances the weapon system is designed for.
@wjm308 yea I’m sure it did when I initially posted that finding, but hey that's only to my eyes and I'm sure others will see it differently. I often think about a S&B 5-45 because you can seemingly have both a decent low end and a great top end but I can justify the price right now.
Last edited:
Magnification becomes a crutch.
It feels comfortable to visually make the target bigger.
I'm just a paper shooter with limited ability to shoot far so I always shoot on my highest magnification.
So I get full exposure to atmosphere conditions that degrade my view through the scope.
Too much magnification is a problem in other ways.
Shooting at short range with high mag the scope shake gets magnified. I look through the high mag scope and it looks like the target is moving all over the place. Dial it back and everything becomes confidence building still. I must suck at controlling pulse because at high mag I can count the heartbeats.
Everything has its pluses or minuses.
If told I had to choose between a fixed 10X or a fixed 25X to do everything I'd take the 10X.
It feels comfortable to visually make the target bigger.
I'm just a paper shooter with limited ability to shoot far so I always shoot on my highest magnification.
So I get full exposure to atmosphere conditions that degrade my view through the scope.
Too much magnification is a problem in other ways.
Shooting at short range with high mag the scope shake gets magnified. I look through the high mag scope and it looks like the target is moving all over the place. Dial it back and everything becomes confidence building still. I must suck at controlling pulse because at high mag I can count the heartbeats.
Everything has its pluses or minuses.
If told I had to choose between a fixed 10X or a fixed 25X to do everything I'd take the 10X.
I bet @koshkin could expound on that.
What design ever works its best at the extremes of its function?
Tourque wrenchs suffer the higher end of their tolerance at the extremes of their design.
Figure out what your intended use is and buy something that puts the majority of your intended use in the middle of its capabilities it should make you happier.
what in the world do the Marines know that the Army is missing ?
Ummm...
1. That every person is ultimately a rifleman.
2. That changing unfoirms every three years is asinine.
3. That we don't need air assault badges, since that shit is part of boot camp.
4. That occupation of territory is boring as shit, and best left to cops (cue the Army).
5. That our brothers in the Army come in two flavors, really sharp and really dull. Not a lot of middle ground there.
6. That the Army's lack of discipline is both a blessing and a hazard. The sharp ones adapt quickly, disregarding dogma and policy. Sometimes that adaptation isn't well thought out though, and gets people killed.
7. That the Army typically trains for exercises that simulate combat. Marines just train for combat (still conduct artillery live fire over our own barracks to this day).
8. That Army uniforms look like fucking a Christmas tree decorated boy scout uniform.
9. That they get all the new gear, often finding all the fuck ups, long before the Corps ever acquire it.
10. That when the shit hits the fan, we'll be there to help, and likewise, when we're in need, so will they.
Last edited:
*twoUmmm...
1. That every person is ultimately a rifleman.
2. That changing unfoirms every three years is asinine.
3. That we don't need air assault badges, since that shit is part of boot camp.
4. That occupation of territory is boring as shit, and best left to cops (cue the Army).
5. That our brothers in the Army come in too flavors, really sharp and really dull. Not a lot of middle ground there.
6. That the Army's lack of discipline is both a blessing and a hazard. The sharp ones adapt quickly, disregarding dogma and policy. Sometimes that adaptation isn't well thought out though, and gets people killed.
7. That the Army typically trains for exercises that simulate combat. Marines just train for combat (still conduct artillery live fire over our own barracks to this day).
8. That Army uniforms look like fucking a Christmas tree decorated boy scout uniform.
9. That they get all the new gear, often finding all the fuck ups, long before the Corps ever acquire it.
10. That when the shit hits the fan, we'll be there to help, and likewise, when we're in need, so will they.
Honestly, the pre-historic S&B 4-16x42 is probably one of my favourites. There is just something about that scope.
On 3-20x vs 3-27x at 20x: there are several things at play. The most obvious one is the larger objective. Exit pupil at 20x is perceptibly larger with the 3-27x which makes things a little easier. Another is the way the objective is built. Since S&B wasn't dealing with the same overall length constraints, it was easier for them to extract higher image quality out of the 3-27x and as you go up in magnification, you start seeing that. At 20x, I already see it, although both are very nice scopes.
I am definitely with Lowlight on the magnification choice: I only dial up above 20x to look at the conditions or, when shooting paper, to look for bullet holes. I am going to head to the range in about 15 minutes and although it has cooled down a little today, it is still well in the 90s, so high magnification will likely not do anything for me today.
ILya
Last edited:
I guess it depends on where you shoot. I agree 15x is about where I have to be to keep my 10” bull from moving in the climate and humidity I shoot in. The mirage is terrible at even 25x. I suppose the 7-35 gives you a nice range for any condition. If the humidity and heat is high you can dial it back and if it’s dry then zoom it on up. Don’t want to limit it at 15x if conditions can allow a clear sight picture at distance with higher magnification. Just can’t do it well here in southern Alabama
LOL! Fixed it (was heading out the door to a customer site, so was in a rush).
Last edited:
Spent some time at the range earlier today with the Delta Stryker 4.5-30x56 mounted on the 308Win Fix. Stryker being a FFP scope, I just dial the magnification until the image looks appropriate to the conditions and stay there. When I was done, I looked at the mag ring. It was right at 15x.
ILya
There are 2 things pointed out above, that will most likely get lost in all of the chatter, but when it comes to a Military optic these days, they matter!
LOW END FOV
Take a look at the chart above, and there are 2-3 optics that really stand out.
S&B PM II at 3-20 & 3-27 at 3 Power = 42.7 feet
Vortex Razor Gen II 3-18 at 3 Power = 37.8 feet
Leupold Mark 8 at 3.5-25 at 3.5 Power = 32.5 feet
In the real world of combat:
- Real targets are very dynamic, and you need the ability to keep up with that movement.
- A combat zone is extremely dynamic, and you need as much situational awareness as you can maintain.
Looking at the 15-20 foot "window" that most scopes are providing for their low end, is going to be very limiting and challenging. Having a 30-40 foot window does matter, and can make a big difference.
TOP END MAGNIFICATION
Take a look at the chart above, and there are 2-3 optics that really stand out.
Nightforce ATACR 7-35
S&B PM II at 3-27
Vortex Razor Gen II 4.5-27
In the real world of combat:
- Engagement distances are getting pushed further & further out. If you can't find or see the threat, then you can't shoot it.
- With current more stringent ROEs, you can no longer just put the crosshair center mass and pull the trigger. Per comments above, you have to positively ID an actual threat, and that could be something as small as a cell phone or remote detonator.
While you may not be able to run the high end of the magnification range all of the time, bottom line is you can't dial up magnifcation that you don't have.
In the past it was always pick one or the other, because you couldn't have good low end and high end performance in the same scope. Take a look at some of the scopes above, and that is obviously no longer the case.
When you look at both of those critical items in a scope, there is a clear winner in both, the S&B PM II 3-27.
The choosen Nightforce ATACR 5-25 is just in the middle of the pack, there are worse, but there are also better!
Honestly it is Military Procurement, so I am actually somewhat surprised that they did as well as they did!
Good News, the USMC will be taking some steps forward with their new rifle and scope, but once again they are still not running the best that is out there.
LOW END FOV
Take a look at the chart above, and there are 2-3 optics that really stand out.
S&B PM II at 3-20 & 3-27 at 3 Power = 42.7 feet
Vortex Razor Gen II 3-18 at 3 Power = 37.8 feet
Leupold Mark 8 at 3.5-25 at 3.5 Power = 32.5 feet
In the real world of combat:
- Real targets are very dynamic, and you need the ability to keep up with that movement.
- A combat zone is extremely dynamic, and you need as much situational awareness as you can maintain.
Looking at the 15-20 foot "window" that most scopes are providing for their low end, is going to be very limiting and challenging. Having a 30-40 foot window does matter, and can make a big difference.
TOP END MAGNIFICATION
Take a look at the chart above, and there are 2-3 optics that really stand out.
Nightforce ATACR 7-35
S&B PM II at 3-27
Vortex Razor Gen II 4.5-27
In the real world of combat:
- Engagement distances are getting pushed further & further out. If you can't find or see the threat, then you can't shoot it.
- With current more stringent ROEs, you can no longer just put the crosshair center mass and pull the trigger. Per comments above, you have to positively ID an actual threat, and that could be something as small as a cell phone or remote detonator.
While you may not be able to run the high end of the magnification range all of the time, bottom line is you can't dial up magnifcation that you don't have.
In the past it was always pick one or the other, because you couldn't have good low end and high end performance in the same scope. Take a look at some of the scopes above, and that is obviously no longer the case.
When you look at both of those critical items in a scope, there is a clear winner in both, the S&B PM II 3-27.
The choosen Nightforce ATACR 5-25 is just in the middle of the pack, there are worse, but there are also better!
Honestly it is Military Procurement, so I am actually somewhat surprised that they did as well as they did!
Good News, the USMC will be taking some steps forward with their new rifle and scope, but once again they are still not running the best that is out there.
Attachments
@LRShooter101 if based on that, then I guess the S&B 5-45 would be the best?
Awesome table btw. Thanks for that
Awesome table btw. Thanks for that
Actually, the 5-45 is a "loser" on the low end. It's FOV would only be 25 feet at 5 power.
No offense, but you can tell the comments here that are coming from shooting on a one way range at static targets or shooting something like a PRS match.
The is a scope that is going on a rifle that will be on a 2 way range engaging real targets. If you loose your situational awareness looking through a soda straw FOV it could be a real bad day. There are times when having that extra 15-25 feet of view could mean the difference in seeing/catching whatever is trying to kill you. Also being able to crank the magnification up that extra 3-5 power could mean the difference in being able to ID what you really need.
Once again, the Nightforce 5-25 is NOT a total looser, but there is "better" out there on the low & top ends.
No offense, but you can tell the comments here that are coming from shooting on a one way range at static targets or shooting something like a PRS match.
The is a scope that is going on a rifle that will be on a 2 way range engaging real targets. If you loose your situational awareness looking through a soda straw FOV it could be a real bad day. There are times when having that extra 15-25 feet of view could mean the difference in seeing/catching whatever is trying to kill you. Also being able to crank the magnification up that extra 3-5 power could mean the difference in being able to ID what you really need.
Once again, the Nightforce 5-25 is NOT a total looser, but there is "better" out there on the low & top ends.
Price would be an interesting metric to include in that table — another thing that matters in the real world.
Kind of depends!
If you are talking about Military Procurement, then it may well be the only metric that matters! I have spent over 30 years of my life relying on low bid equipment.
Personally, I am not going to put a price on what my life is worth, so if a scope is going to cost an extra $1,000, I will be glad to pay for it out of my pocket.
It pisses me off to no extent that the military can't afford to spend money on new sniper rifles and scopes which are in the thousands, when they are dropping money on other items that are in the millions or billions.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....ng-the-fleet-navy-charts-course-for-355-ships
Sorry, but I am having a real hard time getting on board with the spending that it is going to take for the Navy to have and maintain a 355 ship fleet.
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that ramping up to 355 ships over the next 20 years could cost upwards of $26 billion annually — not including associated increases in operation and support costs. That would be more than 60 percent above what the Navy has received on average for shipbuilding in recent decades, and more than 25 percent higher than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2017, according to CBO "
They are talking about spending in the Billions, but it would make a difference if Nightforce is purchased over Schmidt & Bender based on a difference in cost.
Given what the USMC has gone through to get to this point, it should be considered a win. But the sad thing is, it could be a much better win.
If you are talking about Military Procurement, then it may well be the only metric that matters! I have spent over 30 years of my life relying on low bid equipment.
Personally, I am not going to put a price on what my life is worth, so if a scope is going to cost an extra $1,000, I will be glad to pay for it out of my pocket.
It pisses me off to no extent that the military can't afford to spend money on new sniper rifles and scopes which are in the thousands, when they are dropping money on other items that are in the millions or billions.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....ng-the-fleet-navy-charts-course-for-355-ships
Sorry, but I am having a real hard time getting on board with the spending that it is going to take for the Navy to have and maintain a 355 ship fleet.
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that ramping up to 355 ships over the next 20 years could cost upwards of $26 billion annually — not including associated increases in operation and support costs. That would be more than 60 percent above what the Navy has received on average for shipbuilding in recent decades, and more than 25 percent higher than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2017, according to CBO "
They are talking about spending in the Billions, but it would make a difference if Nightforce is purchased over Schmidt & Bender based on a difference in cost.
Given what the USMC has gone through to get to this point, it should be considered a win. But the sad thing is, it could be a much better win.
It's all perspective. Fleets are strategic assets, scopes are tactical assets. I'm not saying one is more valuable than the other, but that decisions on acquisition are made at both of those levels. And cost is always the driving factor. Do they all meet the RFP requirements? Yes? Then it will always be the cheapest of those options. Always. Ship, tank, scope, whatever; it will always be decided by cost. The DFAR 5000 really needs to be tossed out and replaced with something much more current, but that is another discussion.
I agree, FOV is an often overlooked spec and the NF 5-25 doesn't have the best low magnification FOV but it does pick up by 25x to compare more favorably with other 25x top end scopes. Are there better scopes than the NF 5-25, arguably so; however, the NF is a solid choice. SOCOM picked the 300 Norma Magnum but have they picked a scope for the ASR?
Lots of assumptions and bias present here in peoples comments about the Corps' choice. I am familiar with much of the testing and results, but not all, and so I won't offer an opinion on the WHY, since I don't have all the facts. I do think the NF 5-25 is an excellent choice that will serve well.
I will say though, that the reason some scopes were left out, had nothing to do with wants or performance, but simply with the time involved in testing, and that the "good idea fairy" had already missed the boat. It is a reality of gov't procurement.
I will say though, that the reason some scopes were left out, had nothing to do with wants or performance, but simply with the time involved in testing, and that the "good idea fairy" had already missed the boat. It is a reality of gov't procurement.
@lowlight On a previous post you had mentioned you aren’t a big fan of the tremor3 reticle.
If you could have chosen any reticle for the Marine Scout Snipers to use, what would you have chosen? Would your scope choice still be the ATACR 5-25?
If you could have chosen any reticle for the Marine Scout Snipers to use, what would you have chosen? Would your scope choice still be the ATACR 5-25?
Similar threads
