Rifle Scopes Nightforce 2.5-10x42mm FFP?!

[Lowlight]

The scope is just a great sight picture, it's really a nice all around scope.

I am gonna say, and I will check this for sure, it's gonna be better in lower light.

But overall, I am really digging the new NF offerings, they are not making the scopes overly big, they are putting in some really good glass, with nice color and contrast and they are offering it with matched turrets. They could use a few more FFP options, but still, they are really doing a nice job.

 

[limamike56]

The scope is just a great sight picture, it's really a nice all around scope. I am gonna say, and I will check this for sure, it's gonna be better in lower light.
QUOTE]

I have a couple of Nightforce Scopes in 2.5-10x32 scopes on my LMT MWS and a High Caliber Mark !2 build. I really like them and their compact size. More than once however, I have wished for a little bigger sight picture and better low light performance. Keep us posted how it does lower light conditions.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Hmmm... I see one of these 20 oz beauties and GAP's Extreme Hunter in 6.5 SAUM in my future. It's get-ting hot Hot HOT!

 

[OKbow87]

Hmmm... I see one of these 20 oz beauties and GAP's Extreme Hunter in 6.5 SAUM in my future. It's get-ting hot Hot HOT!

Funny.... I have been thinking the exact same thing!

 

[Bevan]

Needs more FFP. NIGHTFORCE ARE YOU LISTENING????

 

[Red Belly]

Needs more FFP. NIGHTFORCE ARE YOU LISTENING????

If they could get a 3.5-15 F1 with the ATACR glass, MIL-R reticle & new Digillum I would be on that like a hobo on a hot dog. I wonder if that is in the plans?

 

[Biggy]

Does going to a larger 42mm obj increase the size of the eye box any over the 24mm or 32mm obj lens scopes, or does it just affect the resolution and low light performance of the scope ? The Ocular Diameter of this scope is 40mm vs 33mm on the 2.5-10 x 32 scope. This scope weights only 1.5 oz more yet is .100" shorter in length than the 2.5-10 x 32 scope. This scope is also 2" inches longer than the 2.5-10x24 NXS yet weights only 3.5 oz more. For me, the tradeoff of having a little more weight or length is worth it in order to gain the better low light performance and resolution.

 

[Lowlight]

Overall this scope is just excellent, including a very generous eye box, and the weight is a non-issue.

Here it is on the GAP Gladius 18" 308 ... it handles really well and you won't notice any weight difference, at least I don't. (I have a 2.5-10x24)

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tGE-wmVDI0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Look at the video on page 2 for a close up, and here I am playing around with them.

 

[Biggy]

Good to hear it has *a very generous eye box*. While it is just one characteristic of many that make a great scope, I personally have no use for a scope that has an overly tight eye box, regardless of how good its other characteristics are.

 

[chainring]

Yep, MIL-R is all me. I'm in...

 

[StrayDog]

Hey Lowlight--Could you please tell us what lens covers this scope ships with?
Hard to tell from the pic on page 2, but looks like a trimmed bikini on the objective.
Just sniffin around for more info on this exciting model,
Thanks.

 

[800mZero]

Is august still the planned release date?

 

[Lowlight]

Hey Lowlight--Could you please tell us what lens covers this scope ships with?
Hard to tell from the pic on page 2, but looks like a trimmed bikini on the objective.
Just sniffin around for more info on this exciting model,
Thanks.

Trimmed bikini cap.

 

[Brett_B]

This scope looks great and will likely be my next purchase. Glad to hear it has a nice forgiving eye box.

Any more details on how the illumination works? How do you adjust the levels?

 

[Km22]

Hmmm I wonder if this would be a good optic for when my GAP-10 comes, or if I should get another F1...

 

[generalzip]

Hmmm I wonder if this would be a good optic for when my GAP-10 comes, or if I should get another F1...

I don't think I could be content with only 10X on a .308. 5.56 would be fine, but I like a little more in case I wanna shoot groups past 500. If it were me I'd get the F1. Plus FFP is a huge advantage. I'm going through this right now and am looking at the 3-18 Mark 6 and the Premier light tactical. Just as small and light with more "scope."

 

[wm.penn]

I'm going through this right now and am looking at the 3-18 Mark 6 and the Premier light tactical. Just as small and light with more "scope."

Those are good scopes but a side-by-side comparison with the NF 2.5-10x42 might make you rethink your comment about them being "just as small and light." The LT is over an inch and a half longer and has a 50mm objective. The Mark 6 has a 34mm tube and huge turrets (also no illumination). In some applications these differences will not be a problem. In others they will make all the difference. Mounting low on some rifles is also greatly aided by the small ocular bell of the NF Compact series. For these reasons I have two projects in mind that are good candidates for the new NF scope. But I echo the desire for more magnification. Trade offs are always necessary and this scope nicely fills a niche. Looking forward to giving one a try.

 

[generalzip]

Those are good scopes but a side-by-side comparison with the NF 2.5-10x42 might make you rethink your comment about them being "just as small and light." The LT is over an inch and a half longer and has a 50mm objective. The Mark 6 has a 34mm tube and huge turrets (also no illumination). In some applications these differences will not be a problem. In others they will make all the difference. Mounting low on some rifles is also greatly aided by the small ocular bell of the NF Compact series. For these reasons I have two projects in mind that are good candidates for the new NF scope. But I echo the desire for more magnification. Trade offs are always necessary and this scope nicely fills a niche. Looking forward to giving one a try.

Good point. The LT def is a larger scope. The Mark 6 is pretty incredible with the mag range and optical clarity that they fit in such a small package. With a LE/Mil discount its hard to beat unless you really need illumination, but I can't think of many times where I've wanted illumination and almost none where i needed it to make a shot. The NF compact scopes would be great on a AR platform where you need it to sit low for a good cheek weld/sight picture. If the NF was FFP I'd give it a much harder look.

 

[cjgemm]

Good point. The LT def is a larger scope. The Mark 6 is pretty incredible with the mag range and optical clarity that they fit in such a small package. With a LE/Mil discount its hard to beat unless you really need illumination, but I can't think of many times where I've wanted illumination and almost none where i needed it to make a shot. The NF compact scopes would be great on a AR platform where you need it to sit low for a good cheek weld/sight picture. If the NF was FFP I'd give it a much harder look.

I think your on the right track on the Mark6. If illumination is not needed, 3oz and 2mm is nill compared to the Mag your gaining. Not to mention FFP for LESS money.

 

[Dynamic Response]

If that 2-10x42 was FFP I would buy it today. It would be great on the LMT. Right now Im running the F1 but wouldnt mind going this route and putting the F1 on my bolt gun

 

[Dynamic Response]

I have a F1 I bought it about 1 1/2 years ago and now I see people talking about the ATACR glass. What is the difference? I thought the F1 had the best glass avab.

 

[wm.penn]

Overall this scope is just excellent, including a very generous eye box, and the weight is a non-issue.

Lowlight, does that generous eye box mean it has a larger ocular bell? NF's specs say it's 40mm vs 33mm for the 2.5-10x32, but in photos and in your videos it looks the same to me. Can you put it end to end with your 2.5-10x24 and set the record straight?

 

[Gilly]

Doing some research and reading up on this scope, but someone will have to help me understand why on nightforce website under specs the 2.5-10x32 and the 2.5-10x42 have the exact same field of view this does not seem right? If this is the case there is no real advantage to the 42 mm over th 32 mm other than new features. is this a misprint on their part and the info on their site is not correct? I read all the posts in this and other threads and found no mention of actual field of view specs different from what I found. I like everything about it but if fov is the same I will save some money and get a 32 mm. Anyone help out on this one?

 

[Coltster]

If they could get a 3.5-15 F1 with the ATACR glass, MIL-R reticle & new Digillum I would be on that like a hobo on a hot dog. I wonder if that is in the plans?

100% with you Red Belly, that would be a sweet F1! But in the mean time this new 2.5-10x42 MIL-R WILL go on a future .300WM Hunt build for sure, cool little scope. Plus the NF MIL Discount helps out, not quite as good as Leupold but still it makes a big difference! Thanks NF