Rifle Scopes Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 - So Far Dissapointed

[Arrowhedz]

So I finally think I got the diopter set up correctly! I also looked for parallax when I was shooting, went to infinity and backed if off until there was no parallax and the sight picture was fairly clear. Not crystal but enough where I was not complaining too much haha.

I shot 55g Norma USA Remington Tactical out at 100 yards. The groups were again poor. I was hoping for 2 MOA at least. These were all over the place, usually in a 5ish MOA group. I know you all said to get match ammo but here in Grand Junction where I am from, there is not any match ammo on the shelf. This was all I could come up with.

I found some green tip 62 grain American Eagle (I think) ammo I had lying around and shot those. Groups were tighter but off to the right of the 2 MOA Dot. This group was 3ish MOA. I tried shooting a silhouette target head (TBOX) and again the rounds were 3ish MOA with some random outliers. Again all to the right.

I found online some 77 grain match ammo I promptly ordered. I am praying this helps really tighen up the groups and gives me an accurate 100 yard zero. Right now with the last 2 ammos I shot, I can't tell where to adjust my zero because they are all over the place.

Thanks all for the help!!

Arrowhedz

 

[deersniper]

So I finally think I got the diopter set up correctly! I also looked for parallax when I was shooting, went to infinity and backed if off until there was no parallax and the sight picture was fairly clear. Not crystal but enough where I was not complaining too much haha.

I shot 55g Norma USA Remington Tactical out at 100 yards. The groups were again poor. I was hoping for 2 MOA at least. These were all over the place, usually in a 5ish MOA group. I know you all said to get match ammo but here in Grand Junction where I am from, there is not any match ammo on the shelf. This was all I could come up with.

I found some green tip 62 grain American Eagle (I think) ammo I had lying around and shot those. Groups were tighter but off to the right of the 2 MOA Dot. This group was 3ish MOA. I tried shooting a silhouette target head (TBOX) and again the rounds were 3ish MOA with some random outliers. Again all to the right.

I found online some 77 grain match ammo I promptly ordered. I am praying this helps really tighen up the groups and gives me an accurate 100 yard zero. Right now with the last 2 ammos I shot, I can't tell where to adjust my zero because they are all over the place.

Thanks all for the help!!

Arrowhedz

I may have missed it but have you shot ither semis accurately?


May I suggest the online training offered here.

 

[Arrowhedz]

I may have missed it but have you shot ither semis accurately?


May I suggest the online training offered here.

Farthest I have shot is 200 yards with my Daniel Defense 16" AR. I was using a Vortex Razor 1-6 and really struggled sighting it in. I ultimately went to 100 yds and got it sighted in. My hits were okay. If I remember right, they were a bit better than my Nightforce so far. I can post pictures of my groups later today with the ammo name listed next to the groups. I also shot my 10.5" AR Pistol out to 200. This was just on a steel diamond. Not sure the size.

When I went out yesterday, I also shot a steel plate at 300 yards with the Nightforce, no problem.

Before I sold my Razor, I shot a 2 MOA group at approximately 85-100 yard (set out in desert) laying on the ground using an ammo can as a rest. This was in the head of a silhouette, starting in the TBOX and going in a downward pattern. If that makes sense haha. Maybe I just got lucky? I am just confused why this optic is so difficult for me to use haha.

Yesterday I was prone as well so I was extra stable in my shots.

I am definitely going to into it. I have spent too much money this month on this hairbrain project of mine and so once finances stable I want the extra training.

 

[deersniper]

Read this a couple times

Advanced Marksmanship - Fundamentals of Marksmanship.

Based on the two topics, "Is Marksmanship Dead" and Equipment Versus Shooter" and the comments engendered. I know nobody here needs to read what is about to be posted, but it's been around a long time and used by a lot of people and covers fundamentals pretty well. I know, reticle is mispelled...

www.snipershide.com

Practice dry firing. A lot

If your trigger is heavy I would def get the Larue for $87.

^all that will help a lot and make it easier to shoot nice groups.

 

[Arrowhedz]

Read this a couple times

Advanced Marksmanship - Fundamentals of Marksmanship.

Based on the two topics, "Is Marksmanship Dead" and Equipment Versus Shooter" and the comments engendered. I know nobody here needs to read what is about to be posted, but it's been around a long time and used by a lot of people and covers fundamentals pretty well. I know, reticle is mispelled...

www.snipershide.com

Practice dry firing. A lot

If your trigger is heavy I would def get the Larue for $87.

^all that will help a lot and make it easier to shoot nice groups.

I will start working it in to my dry fire routine I do with my pistols. My carbine skills need a lot of work.

I have a Geissele SD-E trigger in it so it is not too bad at all. I think I may be flinching when I shoot.

 

[loveha]

Could also be your barrel is a dud, or you have not found the right load. I have a barrel that shoots 5 MOA with 62gr Barnes and 1 MOA with a Federal GMM load.
Finding out it could do 1 MOA took 5 different boxes of match ammo.
This was also with just a NF 1-8 NX8 scope using top of the post below the big ass dot.

 

[Arrowhedz]

Read this a couple times

Advanced Marksmanship - Fundamentals of Marksmanship.

Based on the two topics, "Is Marksmanship Dead" and Equipment Versus Shooter" and the comments engendered. I know nobody here needs to read what is about to be posted, but it's been around a long time and used by a lot of people and covers fundamentals pretty well. I know, reticle is mispelled...

www.snipershide.com

Practice dry firing. A lot

If your trigger is heavy I would def get the Larue for $87.

^all that will help a lot and make it easier to shoot nice groups.

I will definitely check out that article, thank you!

 

[Arrowhedz]

Could also be your barrel is a dud, or you have not found the right load. I have a barrel that shoots 5 MOA with 62gr Barnes and 1 MOA with a Federal GMM load.
Finding out it could do 1 MOA took 5 different boxes of match ammo.
This was also with just a NF 1-8 NX8 scope using top of the post below the big ass dot.

Gosh I hope not lol! I have had this rifle too long to find out the barrel is a dud haha. I am assuming it is me and the ammo as well. Hopefully this 77g I ordered will be the one? That dot did look huge in the photos. I definitely would love a 1 moa group or as close as I can get!

 

[nn8734]

I will definitely check out that article, thank you!

Most ARs with chrome lined barrels are 1.5-2 MOA guns overall with “regular” ammo - match ammo may improve this by .25 or so; those with match barrels used with factory match or tuned hand loads can be as low as .5 but sub MOA is typical on an AR purpose built for precision. My DD M4A1 block 2 shoots 1.25 MOA with BH and my hand loads. I’m very happy with 1 MOA in precision set ups if I can hold that MOA out to the rifle’s max effective range (typical 5.56 Nato is 500 yards in reasonable conditions, give or take). SPR type rifles can add 100 or so yards to that effective range figure.

if you can’t get the rifle to consistently shoot around 2 moa or better at 100 with BH 77smk (assuming all fundamentals applied consistently/correctly and no one else can either) then yea, may have to consider your rifle has a bad barrel but I’d put that further down on the list of possibilities for now.

Lastly, when researching/working on the fundamentals, pay particular attention to trigger control as that’s the most challenging fundimental to get right consistently in my opinion. Dry fire exercises will def help.

 

[Arrowhedz]

Most ARs with chrome lined barrels are 1.5-2 MOA guns overall with “regular” ammo - match ammo may improve this by .25 or so; those with match barrels used with factory match or tuned hand loads can be as low as .5 but sub MOA is typical on an AR purpose built for precision. My DD M4A1 block 2 shoots 1.25 MOA with BH and my hand loads. I’m very happy with 1 MOA in precision set ups if I can hold that MOA out to the rifle’s max effective range (typical 5.56 Nato is 500 yards in reasonable conditions, give or take). SPR type rifles can add 100 or so yards to that effective range figure.

if you can’t get the rifle to consistently shoot around 2 moa or better at 100 with BH 77smk (assuming all fundamentals applied consistently/correctly and no one else can either) then yea, may have to consider your rifle has a bad barrel but I’d put that further down on the list of possibilities for now.

Lastly, when researching/working on the fundamentals, pay particular attention to trigger control as that’s the most challenging fundimental to get right consistently in my opinion. Dry fire exercises will def help.

That is what my understanding was too in regards to the barrel. That is why my hopes were a bit dashed when I was shooting all over the place. I would love a 1.5-2.0 group at this point haha. Just to know if my zero was on or not. Right now I am getting shots all over the general place but never in the 2.0 cirlce. 500 will be the max I probably shoot this gun.

What does "BH" stand for? Sorry if that is a dumb question, I am just unsure. I will definitely post the results of the 77g match ammo I just ordered. My hope is by the time I get it, I have dry fired enough to at least get a nice 2 moa group. I do not feel it is the barrel either but will keep it on my list of things to look at. The barrel being and dud and/or the optic being out of QC are way low on my list.

Reading that article I read SEVERAL things of what not to do, that I was doing. My eye closed when I fired some shots, I was muscling the gun on to the target. All sorts of things. It bums me out knowing I wasted ammo. Fun to be out at the range, but sucks knowing I could have better utilized those rounds.

 

[lash]

BH is short for Black Hills, a popular brand of match quality ammo for ARs.

 

[nn8734]

BH= Black Hills. Any match ammo featuring the 77g SMK will work for your purposes, diagnosing and ruling in/out various things...

eyes closed when shooting is a no-no for Precision or accuracy, haha. Don’t despair, most of us have been there at some point early in our journey. I suspect you will find that the rifle is fine; you just needed to bone up on the fundamentals, that’s all.

subscribe to the Snipers Hide Youtube channel if you haven’t done so already and watch as many of Frank’s marksmanship clips as you can. He usually covers one or two things in an easily consumable manner so should be helpful for you.

 

[Arrowhedz]

BH is short for Black Hills, a popular brand of match quality ammo for ARs.

Ahhhhh yes that makes sense. I have heard of them and went to buy some but can not find anywhere locally that had them, and did not have much success online. I found some Freedom Munitions 77g HPBT ProMatch ammo I am going to try and hope for some better results. From me and the scope/rifle/ammo.

 

[Arrowhedz]

BH= Black Hills. Any match ammo featuring the 77g SMK will work for your purposes, diagnosing and ruling in/out various things...

eyes closed when shooting is a no-no for Precision or accuracy, haha. Don’t despair, most of us have been there at some point early in our journey. I suspect you will find that the rifle is fine; you just needed to bone up on the fundamentals, that’s all.

subscribe to the Snipers Hide Youtube channel if you haven’t done so already and watch as many of Frank’s marksmanship clips as you can. He usually covers one or two things in an easily consumable manner so should be helpful for you.

I never thought I would close my eyes like that because I am comfortable around firearms and what not. I guess it is just the lack of repeatedly shooting in prone that far, or thinking about it too much or something! But it is definitely something I need to, and will, work on.

I will definitely check it out. I will take any help and training I can get.

Gosh knows I need it.

Thank you!

 

[nn8734]

I never thought I would close my eyes like that because I am comfortable around firearms and what not. I guess it is just the lack of repeatedly shooting in prone that far, or thinking about it too much or something! But it is definitely something I need to, and will, work on.

....Thank you!

check out tutorials on recoil management and follow through. That will help you with your flinching issues. 5.56 is a good caliber to learn on.

 

[Arrowhedz]

check out tutorials on recoil management and follow through. That will help you with your flinching issues. 5.56 is a good caliber to learn on.

recoil management and follow through, copy that! Thanks! I need to learn now because I plan on getting a 6.5 creedmoor next year and really want to learn how to shoot far!

 

[secm]

I recently purchased a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 and was so excited to throw it on my 16" Daniel Defense as a MK12/Recce inspired build. I sold my Vortex Razor 1-6 to help fund it because I wanted more magnification and a more precise reticle.

When I got it, the field of view was crazy limited to what I was used to with the Razor, but I kept telling myself that they are two very different optics. The glass looked super clear and the build quality looked and felt awesome.

Before I bought it I did tons of internet review searches and it appeared to be highly recommended. I followed the manual's instructions on how to mount it, along with videos by Ryan Cleckner. I followed everything exactly but when it came to setting the diopter I hit a major wall. I ended up giving myself a headache trying to get that thing sighted in to my eyes. No matter what setting it all looked the same to me. I made sure I did not stare at the reticle too long and that I was looking at a white sheet of paper.

I finally thought I got it set up right, then I went to the range to sight it in at 100 yards. When I magnified the optic to 10x, everything but the reticle got super blurry. I was confused until I remembered to adjust the parallax. I read on what to look for and thought I got the parallax figured out. It seems like the only setting that everything was clear on was almost at the infinity mark. To me it still looked like there was parallax.

I shot some groups and thought I had it sighted in. I then reconfirmed it on the same target but on different 2 MOA circles. The groups went from good to worse, to good, to worse, to super bad at the end. I only fired maybe 30 rounds if that. I was all over the place and super disappointed. I understand my DD is not a super precision rifle but I expected the groups to be all similar.

I understand that many factors come in to play such as ammo and stuff. But everything was consistent during my 45 minute session. I started searching for answers online and determined it was most likely the parallax. What is frustrating is a lot of the forums I read, including on here, many people struggled to get the parallax set right, a clear picture, and clear reticle with this particular optic. I might have went a different route if I would have read this sooner.

I am super disappointed in the optic and have still struggled to get it all focused right. I am in the process of trying to return it/sell it so I am not screwed out of my money. Maybe I am being rash but I thought for what I paid it would not this difficult to get everything focused to my eye.

Edited****Sorry if this is a bad post. I am newer to this forum and especially to this relm of optics and magnification. I am venting for sure, but also seeking help on the best way to set this dang thing up. Thanks all for listening to me rant and offering advice. I wanted to be thorough as to what I have been doing in order to be detailed and receive the best advice specific to my issues.

Every now and then, no matter how expensive the scope, a bad one slips by ever now and then. I shoot the ATACR, great scope, great company. Contact them, they will surley make things right.

 

[rottenruger]

I’ll give you five hunnert for it.

five-twenty-five!

 

[Arrowhedz]

Every now and then, no matter how expensive the scope, a bad one slips by ever now and then. I shoot the ATACR, great scope, great company. Contact them, they will surley make things right.

This is my last resort plan for sure. I am glad to hear they are a solid company when it comes to customer service. This will be my first Nightforce Optic. I believe the issue is me as a shooter. However, you could be right and it is the optic. If things do not change with my buddy shooting it, my ammo selection, and me improving as a shooter, then I plan on contacting Nightforce and seeing if they can't take a look at the optic.

 

[secm]

Excellent choice! Hope it works out for you!

 

[Arrowhedz]

Excellent choice! Hope it works out for you!

Thank you! I really hope so too Haha! Also I am glad to hear it is an excellent choice!

 

[scudzuki]

If I understand the OP, setting the diopter was difficult because there was a wide range of diopter setting where the reticle remained in focus?

What I've done in the past is, use the diopter to establish a baseline, then setup on a target at a distance (100 yards, 200 yards, whatever). Adjust out any parallax with the side focus knob by finding a setting whereby the target does not shift relative to the reticle when your head is moved from side to side.

Leaving the side focus at that setting, adjust the diopter to focus the target. Lock the eyepiece (diopter adjustment). Verify by finding another target at a greater distance and adjusting the side focus until that target is in focus, then move your head from side to side; there should be no parallax error.

Adjusting the side focus to eliminate parallax moves the focal plane of the target coincident with (the same distance from your eye as) the reticle. Since the target and reticle are the same distance from your eye, they should both be in focus at the same diopter setting.

 

[Arrowhedz]

If I understand the OP, setting the diopter was difficult because there was a wide range of diopter setting where the reticle remained in focus?

What I've done in the past is, use the diopter to establish a baseline, then setup on a target at a distance (100 yards, 200 yards, whatever). Adjust out any parallax with the side focus knob by finding a setting whereby the target does not shift relative to the reticle when your head is moved from side to side.

Leaving the side focus at that setting, adjust the diopter to focus the target. Lock the eyepiece (diopter adjustment). Verify by finding another target at a greater distance and adjusting the side focus until that target is in focus, then move your head from side to side; there should be no parallax error.

Adjusting the side focus to eliminate parallax moves the focal plane of the target coincident with (the same distance from your eye as) the reticle. Since the target and reticle are the same distance from your eye, they should both be in focus at the same diopter setting.

You are correct. The diopter was a huge pain for me to adjust but I finally figured it out thanks to the good people on here. I got teased a bit but in the end thanks to them it is finally set to my eyesight.

I am interested in trying out your method and seeing if my diopter is set to a good setting based on what I see at say 200 yards. At 100 yards I can adjust the parallax out and still get a fairly clear image. To me anyways haha. I am still learning to pick up parallax at different distances and eliminate it using the side adjustment.

 

[acudaowner]

its a good life lesson in there . sorry it's not all that you thought it would be still a nice scope even if the mag range is tiny .

 

[Arrowhedz]

its a good life lesson in there . sorry it's not all that you thought it would be still a nice scope even if the mag range is tiny .

There is for sure. And I was being impatient and expected amazing results immediately (I was being a millenial lol ) and so I have learned a lot in this process and plan on learning a lot more. But this time by asking questions a head of time and doing better research. And being patient haha which is not a strong suit of mine.

The scope is growing on me and I finally got some match grade ammo so tomorrow or Thursday I plan on taking it out and posting some groups I get. I have been dry fire practicing and trying to set myself up for success.

Based on my current shooting needs I probably could have stayed with my 1-6 but I really wanted to enter into longer range stuff and learn something new and so I thought the next step up would be 10x. Next year I plan on getting a bolt gun and long range scope and continue learning the long range game.

 

[scudzuki]

You are correct. The diopter was a huge pain for me to adjust but I finally figured it out thanks to the good people on here. I got teased a bit but in the end thanks to them it is finally set to my eyesight.

I am interested in trying out your method and seeing if my diopter is set to a good setting based on what I see at say 200 yards. At 100 yards I can adjust the parallax out and still get a fairly clear image. To me anyways haha. I am still learning to pick up parallax at different distances and eliminate it using the side adjustment.

When the diopter is properly adjusted, the side focus setting that removes all parallax error from a given target will also focus that target unless there's something wrong with the scope or the shooter's eyesight (which glasses should fix).

I posted this method years ago, titled "fine tuning the diopter" and got a little bit of heat over it, but those who tried my method agreed that it works. The science behind it is accurate, but gun enthusiasts can be very set in their ways.

 

[Arrowhedz]

When the diopter is properly adjusted, the side focus setting that removes all parallax error from a given target will also focus that target unless there's something wrong with the scope or the shooter's eyesight (which glasses should fix).

I posted this method years ago, titled "fine tuning the diopter" and got a little bit of heat over it, but those who tried my method agreed that it works. The science behind it is accurate, but gun enthusiasts can be very set in their ways.

I wear contacts and so my eyes "should" be fixed haha!

But that makes sense what you are saying. I read the articles recommended to me on this thread and someone else was describing a very similar method and I thought about giving it a try as well to see if it worked better for me or was easier for me to figure it out. I went with the "stare at the blank wall" method and really took my time, and appropriate breaks and think I found a really good sweet spot. I guess time will tell for sure! I need to get something better than a 8x11 sheet of paper that is stapled to a white board as a target in order test your method.

 

[Slab74]

Consistent head placement is the key to shooting well with the ar platform. AR’s were not really designed for scopes. There is a reason a lot of us spend $300 or more for an adjustable buttstocks, so we can shoot without breaking our necks. I have shot rifles and pistols my whole life and when I got my first AR, I really struggled to shoot it with a scope.

 

[Arrowhedz]

Consistent head placement is the key to shooting well with the ar platform. AR’s were not really designed for scopes. There is a reason a lot of us spend $300 or more for an adjustable buttstocks, so we can shoot without breaking our necks. I have shot rifles and pistols my whole life and when I got my first AR, I really struggled to shoot it with a scope.

I have really been trying to work on head placement. I am so used to red dots with little to no parallax and so forming a good and consistent cheek weld has been one of my goals lately when I am dry firing and what not. I was looking at the Magpul or LMT DMR style stocks for my rifle. I will need to save some money if I go that route however haha. This has been an expensive experiment for sure!

I love the AR platform and have not really had any issues until I threw a scope with more magnification on it haha.

 

[kukworld]

I have a NXS 2.5-10 x 42 on my Knight’s LPR, I found it hard to replace as a DMR role. I brought a RG3 hoping to replace the NXS but eventually failed. For the size, weight and feature, this little NXS scope still has its place in this market.

 

[Arrowhedz]

I have a NXS 2.5-10 x 42 on my Knight’s LPR, I found it hard to replace as a DMR role. I brought a RG3 hoping to replace the NXS but eventually failed. For the size, weight and feature, this little NXS scope still has its place in this market.

I would freaking love a Knights LPR! Such a sick looking rifle! The NXS is definitely growing on me now that I am understanding how to use it and what not. You all on here have really helped me out and so I am now enjoying learning about it and using it. I have not had the chance to shoot this match ammo I just got in the mail, but I have a feeling that when I do, I will be happier with my groupings. That is as long as my fundamentals are good and the gun/optic are functioning properly. Which I believe they are, it is just me messing up haha! I could definitely see this optic having a role still as a DMR optic!

 

[yakmastermax]

Just got my brand new NXS 2.5-10x42 Mil-R the other day. Running into the exact same issues that OP (and MANY others have run into with NXS) scopes and it is a bit disheartening to see so many people referring OP to fundamentals of marksmanship and setting scopes up rather than address the elephant in the room, which is the finicky $1600 scope.

Over two days of shooting I've established the following. The NXS is difficult to properly set diopter up on relative to other scopes, in one part thanks to the ridiculous amount of diopter adjustment turns, and another part due to the difficulty of turning the adjustment itself. Combine that with the vague manual that doesn't specify the parallax setting for the diopter adjustment, on a scope that certainly has a great deal of interplay between the two adjustments, you've got a recipe for a difficult diopter setup.

Now combine that with a bizarre behaving parallax adjustment, and what after some research I've determined is a common NXS issue, an inability to eliminate parallax and focus the target at shorter ranges (150m and in).

At a VARIETY of diopter settings I was UNABLE to eliminate parallax at 100m, without sacrificing target focus. How is one supposed to get a 100m mechanical precision measurement out of their system like this? How is one supposed to do a 100m zero like this?

I've set up scopes before, and dealt with scopes that had broken parallax adjustments out of the box, and my NXS 2.5-10x42 is simply not a team player. Crap groups at 100m. Same day, and my AR10 with a Steiner printed sub 1" all day while the NXS couldn't get below 2", and was doing "parallax error" groups all day with 2-3 shots in a 0.5"-1" group spaced about 1"-2" from another group of 3-2 shots also in their own little 0.5"-1" group. Typical of parallax error combined with inconsistent eye placement behind the scope (the eh tier eye box didn't help much either).

Called Nightforce today, but no one was around. I'll try tomorrow, and hopefully they can provide some additional directions for setting this scope up, but so far I'm disappointed also in my NXS 2.5-10x42, and if can't get a parallax eliminated in focus image at 100m for purposes of zeroing and mechanical precision measurements, I will be letting go of this optic.

OP, I had the exact same issue. At 100m I could not get the target into focus without the parallax set at infinity, and this was done at a VARIETY of diopter settings. The resulting parallax error certainly reduce the quality of my groups. Also to the fudds claiming that lower magnification results in better groups, that simply isn't how precisely repeatable POA works.

When the diopter is properly adjusted, the side focus setting that removes all parallax error from a given target will also focus that target unless there's something wrong with the scope or the shooter's eyesight (which glasses should fix).

I've been researching this all day, and LOTS of NXS users report being unable to get parallax eliminated and the target in focus at 100m. Plenty of cope posters say they just zero and group at 200m or greater, which IMO is NOT an option, as the extra distance introduces additional variables that result in a less than optimized zero/group measurement, not to mention difficulty of finding a nice indoors environmentally controlled 200m range.

 

[asanders380]

I would freaking love a Knights LPR! Such a sick looking rifle! The NXS is definitely growing on me now that I am understanding how to use it and what not. You all on here have really helped me out and so I am now enjoying learning about it and using it. I have not had the chance to shoot this match ammo I just got in the mail, but I have a feeling that when I do, I will be happier with my groupings. That is as long as my fundamentals are good and the gun/optic are functioning properly. Which I believe they are, it is just me messing up haha! I could definitely see this optic having a role still as a DMR optic!

Update on everything ? I am too looking at this scope along with a few others for my Mk12 Mod 1 I’m finishing up

 

[charnicus]

Update on everything ? I am too looking at this scope along with a few others for my Mk12 Mod 1 I’m finishing up

I’m going to add my not asked for .02 and say this is a diopter adjustment issue. My last 2.5-10 focused just fine at 100. Actually less for that matter. Attachment is straight from the horse’s mouth. I just bought another and will probably forget to weigh in after setup. If you want one I’d buy one. They’re drying up and may not come back.

 

[308pirate]

I have super bad eyesight

Well so get it fixed

I bet yours is not worse than mine, but instead of using scopes to clean up my vision problems I use glasses. That way when I get behind a scope, I don't have to use up its limited focusing ability just to see through it.

 

[lash]

Well so get it fixed

I bet yours is not worse than mine, but instead of using scopes to clean up my vision problems I use glasses. That way when I get behind a scope, I don't have to use up its limited focusing ability just to see through it.

^^^This exactly.^^^
All of my scopes and sights are set up properly to be used with my glasses on. I never have to think twice when picking up a rifle or take my glasses off and on that way. For everyone that thinks it’s too hard to shoot while wearing glasses, consider that it’s all in the fitment of the rifle/optics system to the shooter. Set up your scope high enough so that you get more of a square-on sight picture through more of the center of the glasses lens. That’s typically where the sweet spot of your glasses is anyway. I do this with no line progressive trifocals.

 

[308pirate]

^^^This exactly.^^^
All of my scopes and sights are set up properly to be used with my glasses on. I never have to think twice when picking up a rifle or take my glasses off and on that way. For everyone that thinks it’s too hard to shoot while wearing glasses, consider that it’s all in the fitment of the rifle/optics system to the shooter. Set up your scope high enough so that you get more of a square-on sight picture through more of the center of the glasses lens. That’s typically where the sweet spot of your glasses is anyway. I do this with no line progressive trifocals.

A big part of the problem of shooting with glasses is trying to mount the scope as low as physically possible. That shit makes no sense.

 

[lash]

A big part of the problem of shooting with glasses is trying to mount the scope as low as physically possible. That shit makes no sense.

I think that is one of those myths that started because most hunting rifles did not have adjustable combs and having a low scope mount is usually needed in order to get a sure picture and cheek weld at the same time. Then there is the common misunderstanding that a high scope mount is somehow going to affect the precision or ballistics of the rifle.

Of course there are always the OAFs that don’t want a high head profile for their pretend sniper fantasies...

 

[charnicus]

I think that is one of those myths that started because most hunting rifles did not have adjustable combs and having a low scope mount is usually needed in order to get a sure picture and cheek weld at the same time. Then there is the common misunderstanding that a high scope mount is somehow going to affect the precision or ballistics of the rifle.

Of course there are always the OAFs that don’t want a high head profile for their pretend sniper fantasies...

Somebody scolded me on 1.5” mounts for that very reason...

 

[lash]

Somebody scolded me on 1.5” mounts for that very reason...

Yeah, it happened to me many years ago on this very site when I posted a picture of my DPMS LR308. There were a lot of posts back then discussing how you only needed a mm or even the thickness of a dollar between the objective bell and the barrel. Then there were posts where people were showing the damage to the objective bell and barrel rubs. Hmmm...

 

[charnicus]

Yeah, it happened to me many years ago on this very site when I posted a picture of my DPMS LR308. There were a lot of posts back then discussing how you only needed a mm or even the thickness of a dollar between the objective bell and the barrel. Then there were posts where people were showing the damage to the objective bell and barrel rubs. Hmmm...

Exactly what went through my head, “hmmmm”.

 

[308pirate]

Of course there are always the OAFs that don’t want a high head profile for their pretend sniper fantasies...

LOL I remember that retarded argument

 

[308pirate]

Somebody scolded me on 1.5” mounts for that very reason...

Unless they paid for your rifle, scope, and rings, they can fuck right off

 

[charnicus]

Unless they paid for your rifle, scope, and rings, they can fuck right off

This is the way.