F T/R Competition Scope Choice

[calshipbuilder]

Need some help picking an F-T/R mid range scope.

I'm looking at 4 options. Here is my current order of preference:

1. 12-42 NSX with 1/4 moa adjustments and NP-R1 reticle (its reasonably priced and I can pay to have the turrets swapped to 1/8 if needed)
2. 8-32 NSX with 1/8 moa adjustments and NP-R1 (same price as the 12-42, better turrets, but lower power)
3. 15-55 Competition FCR-1 Reticle (expensive, I don't like fast focus eyepieces)
4. ATACR MOAR-T (expensive and lower power, but good glass)

I'd like some help on this list, I've seen great results from local shooters with the NSX hybrids, and the price is right these days.

I'm focused on mid-range FTR for the near future - at least the next year, after that I plan go with a dedicated long range setup.

Let me know if you think I'm going to be held back by the NSX Hybrids. Should just bite the bullet on the competition?

The ATACR is a bit of a dark horse here, I want one for purposes outside of F-Class, but am wondering if the high quality glass in the ATACR at 25x will be enough to resolve .308 bullet holes at 300-600? I don't know.

Rifle is a Remington M24R in an AICS chassis with a bag rider and Rorer-Spec Bipod. I'll make weight with the 12-42, but it will be close. Currently classified as Expert, missed Master by like 2 points.

Thanks!

 

[memilanuk]

I've got two 12-42x BRs with a 2DD, a 12-42x NXS with a R1 & a 2013 15-55x Competition with some hybrid reticle they stuck on some on some of the team scopes.

If it weren't for the reticle I'd say go with the Competition scope. As is... for me... I just can't see the reticle in the Comp worth a dang - too fine for my eyes.

So for my $0.02 worth... the BR scopes have always done everything I've asked of them in matches around the country and overseas, for less money. If you can 'afford' the weight, that is.

YMMV,

Monte


Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[haroldwilson]

Nothing wrong with NXS's and they can be had for deal now. I prefer the .125 turrets. For me, the 25x would not be enough. I shoot my NXS on 42 a lot.

With that said, I have a Comp coming for my next rifle.

 

[lawman29]

another alternative: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/f-class-f-t-r-competition/248242-leupold-vx-6-7-42x56.html

 

[Down South]

Like Monte said, the NF Benchrest will do everything you need. Its a really good scope, especially for the money.

 

[Tactical]

Of the scopes you listed I would get the 8-32 NXS. It has lower power but all the power but a heck of a lot more adjustment than the BR or 12-42NXS. If your stuck on more power than get the 12-42 NXS. Flat out tougher better scope than the BR

 

[cdparker]

From my personal experience, I sold my BR and went with a 12-42 NXS with .125" turret. I also have a 2014 competition. The reason that I gave up the BR was that if I wanted to get to the front mounted adjustment, I could not reach it while in position. The scopes that I have now work a lot better for me. The other thing that I have noticed is that I very rarely get my scopes up to full power. I like the clearest view of the target that I can get. Here in "Upper Slobovia" the conditions are such that shooting the scope at it's top power is like trying to look through a swimming pool. Besides, when the wind is really blowing, I kinda get sea sick watching the center of the cross hairs. Did win a Regional last week where the weather was so bad that a lot of folks just went home. Being an old service rifle shooter, I just thought that "the wind is my friend". Not like those small bore types. ;^)
Craig

 

[jhw1]

another alternative: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/f-class-f-t-r-competition/248242-leupold-vx-6-7-42x56.html

++1 on the Leupold 7x42

 

[Down South]

Of the scopes you listed I would get the 8-32 NXS. It has lower power but all the power but a heck of a lot more adjustment than the BR or 12-42NXS. If your stuck on more power than get the 12-42 NXS. Flat out tougher better scope than the BR

No doubt the NXS scopes are good scopes but they have trouble with them at times as well....My 12 X 42 NXS quit tracking while i was shooting the Berger Nationals in February (that particular scope had about 5000 308 rounds shot under it when it happened)....Nightforce took care of the problem right away (within a couple weeks) as their customer service is great, scope looked brand spanking new and worked fine when i got it back....Buddy of mine from Texas had to send his in also for problems....I never had any trouble with my 8 X 32 NXS or my NF 12 X 42 Benchrest scope....Im not knocking the NXS scopes at all, just pointing out that even though they are known to be tough scopes they can have problems just like the rest of them.....I only recommended the Benchrest scope because of the price as its a great value and i got the impression from the original post that he didn't wanna spend a ton of money..........Mike, what does the new Leupold scope weigh?

 

[Tactical]

No doubt in my mind the new 7-42 beats all the scopes listed above.

I don't now exact weight of new Leupold but when they developed it we where told it was a couple of ounces less than Nightforce Comp which is lightest of the scopes the OP asked about

 

[gstaylorg]

Of the scopes you listed, I'd go with the NXS 8-32x56 NP-R1 without a second thought. I have 3 of the NXS 12-42x56 NP-2DD (.125 MOA turrets) scopes on rifles I shoot in F-TR from 600-1000 yd. They rarely if ever go above 30-32X mag. I have two other rifles wearing NXS 8-32x56 NP-R1 (0.125 MOA turrets) that I mainly use in 300-600 yd F-TR competitions. They stay on 32X. They are excellent scopes and the NP-R1 reticle is very good for F-class type shooting. I strongly doubt you will find that 32X is "limiting", particularly if you shoot at the Camp Pendleton or South Bay matches. The mirage can get pretty strong here in the 2nd and/or 3rd matches of the day, and it literally becomes impossible to see the center of the target at 600-1000 yd when the scope mag is turned up past 35X or so.

On a side note, you mentioned you could have NF change the .250 MOA turrets on the 12-42 NXS to .125 MOA. I've been meaning to call NF to ask about that because a fellow shooter here has a 12-42 NXS he wants to trade for another 3.5-15X NXS NF scope I have. Unfortunately, his scope has 1/4 MOA turrets and a mil-based reticle, neither of which match my other 0.125 MOA turret/MOA reticle scopes, and are not as useful for me for F-Class shooting. I know I can have the reticle changed, but wasn't sure about having the turrets changed to 0.125 minute clicks. Did NF give any kind of a cost for having that done?

 

[Down South]

No doubt in my mind the new 7-42 beats all the scopes listed above.

I don't now exact weight of new Leupold but when they developed it we where told it was a couple of ounces less than Nightforce Comp which is lightest of the scopes the OP asked about

Thats good to hear, if its a durable/reliable scope they should have a winner.

 

[calshipbuilder]

gstaylorg, looks like $275 for the swap. http://nightforceoptics.com/pdf/NFO_FactoryService-Conversion--RMA__TLE_03Jan2012.pdf

 

[gstaylorg]

Thanks - been meaning to contact them, just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I appreciate the info.

 

[damoncali]

I wrote up a review of my Nightforce 2014 Competition: Nightforce Competition Rifle Scope (2014)

The short version is I like it. It does what it's supposed to do. My only gripe is that above 40X it gets a little tricky with the tiny exit pupil. But I don't think I've ever taken it above 40x during a match anyhow. Well, that and the price tag. But it's pretty much made for F class.

 

[Denys]

I wrote up a review of my Nightforce 2014 Competition: Nightforce Competition Rifle Scope (2014)

The short version is I like it. It does what it's supposed to do. My only gripe is that above 40X it gets a little tricky with the tiny exit pupil. But I don't think I've ever taken it above 40x during a match anyhow. Well, that and the price tag. But it's pretty much made for F class.

So, tell me again why you do not use the maximum magnification of the scope? I would think that is one of its desirable features over a scope that is limited 40X or thereabouts.

 

[XTR]

I have two NF scopes an 8-32 BR and a 12-42 NXS, both have the NP-2DD reticle. At 600 yards, its a toss up, at 1000 I prefer the 12-42. I do prefer the .125 (1/8) turrets on an F class scope.

For 600 yard shooting magnification higher than about 36 will take the target number out of your field of view, making x fires much easier to accomplish.

 

[damoncali]

So, tell me again why you do not use the maximum magnification of the scope? I would think that is one of its desirable features over a scope that is limited 40X or thereabouts.

Mostly because our local matches are at 600 yards, and 40x seems fine at that range - it's not too much trouble to check the number board and I can see the x ring clearly. 55x is usable, but it's trickier - less forgiving about head position, smaller field of veiw, etc. Part of me thinks this is a matter more of my position being sloppy than a problem with the scope, but I'm still learning here. At 1000 yards, I'd probably be turning it up a bit more often, but at 600 I don't feel the need to.

Another factor is that the FCR-1 reticle is calibrated at 40x. I like being able to adjust my spotters with the reticle.

 

[memilanuk]

I used to be a card-carrying member of the max-power-all-the-time club. Figured mirage is wind I can see, and the more/ better I can see it the better off I am.

Except for dark overcast days when anything much over 32-36x starts getting kinda dark in a hurry ( I do live in the PNW albeit on the dry side of the mountains). When you start losing that center dot in the shadows on the target face...

And more recently (last couple years) during heavy mirage the center of the target starts looking grey & washed out thru the rifle scope, to the point where a consistent hold becomes kinda iffy. Turning the power down to where I get some definition back to where I can see the rings well enough to hold seems to help with that somewhat. YMMV.

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[Denys]

Sorry, my mistaken assumption; I keep thinking 1000 yards all the time. Yes, I can see where 55X could be viewed (pun intended) as too much magnification at 600 and maybe even be counterproductive. I do like to be able to see a target on either side of mine, or at least part of them in my riflescope. It allows me the chance to detect a "wow, look at that" event when I'm ready to shoot and no longer on the spotting scope. And yes, I would think the position behind the rifle would be even more critical with that small of an exit pupil. I'm still quizzical as to why they reduce the size of the objective while increasing the top magnification.

 

[Denys]

I used to be a card-carrying member of the max-power-all-the-time club. Figured mirage is wind I can see, and the more/ better I can see it the better off I am.

Except for dark overcast days when anything much over 32-36x starts getting kinda dark in a hurry ( I do live in the PNW albeit on the dry side of the mountains). When you start losing that center dot in the shadows on the target face...

And more recently (last couple years) during heavy mirage the center of the target starts looking grey & washed out thru the rifle scope, to the point where a consistent hold becomes kinda iffy. Turning the power down to where I get some definition back to where I can see the rings well enough to hold seems to help with that somewhat. YMMV.

Sent from my Samsung S4

That's when I turn on the illuminated reticle.

 

[memilanuk]

Doesn't help; I've tried.

Especially on NXS with non-field adjustable illumination

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[Denys]

Yeah, it's a little tricky with the NXS and I've had to play with it a bit to get it right for me. But as you said, YMMV.

 

[XTR]

WOA, you mean my NXS has illumination.

 

[damoncali]

I'm still quizzical as to why they reduce the size of the objective while increasing the top magnification.

That was my thought too. But then I ask myself, "Would it be worth the extra cost and weight for such a minor improvement in exit pupil?" And I come to the conclusion that they made the right tradeoff. I'm not sure there is a way to make a 55X+ scope user-friendly without throwing a ridiculous huge objective on it (with all the obvious problems that implies).

 

[calshipbuilder]

8-32 NSX is on its way, thanks for the great advice all, and thanks to EuroOptic for the good price.

When I go long range, I'll definitely give the new leupolds a look.

 

[gstaylorg]

Great choice! I think you'll be very satisfied with it. If at some point down the road you wanted to try something else, NFs usually have pretty good resale value as well.

 

[XTR]

I've shot a whole lot of matches at 1000 yards with an 8-32 BR Nightforce. Yea, more magnification can be nice, but that scope will serve you well till you need another one, and by that time you'll have another rifle, so it won't matter, you'll need it anyway.

 

[SWRichmond]

I am changing my thoughts about magnification and mirage. I use a spotter with a 25X eyepiece with my left eye to watch mirage and to wait for the target to come back up. I have my rifle scope set to about 28X, and focused at the same distance as the spotter. I wait for a stable and known condition before going to the rifle to confirm mirage in the rifle scope and then shooting. On lower magnifications such as these I can see 4-5 target boards at 1,000 yards, and I am starting to like this. I can see wind changes coming from either side; at Butner at least this has proven to be useful to me, as conditions change almost constantly. If i was running on 42X or 55X I couldn't see these. Plus, I wear strong eyeglasses and exit pupil is a big deal for me. Also, I would need a different eyepiece for the scope, plus the whole thing would get darker (bad).

I am now thinking that the ability to see more area at distance (lower magnification) lets me get better conditions (more likely to stay the same while I shoot).

Thoughts? IMO these additional considerations influence scope selection.

During regionals I frequently saw the mirage doing this (from about 18 seconds to 23 seconds in the video), usually slower than the video, but sometimes that fast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJUUGdG4QWg

There is no way I'd be forewarned about these changes if I was on 55X. Flight time is 1.5 seconds.

 

[memilanuk]

Set your spotting scope up so you can look thru it with your left eye with little to minimal movement of your head off the gun.

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[SWRichmond]

Set your spotting scope up so you can look thru it with your left eye with little to minimal movement of your head off the gun.

Sent from my Samsung S4

I am doing so. Thanks!

 

[memilanuk]

So you have wide field of view in the spotter, and detailed view in the rifle scope. What's the problem again?

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[SWRichmond]

So you have wide field of view in the spotter, and detailed view in the rifle scope. What's the problem again?

Sent from my Samsung S4

I see your point; I need (and I've known this for some time) to speed up my transition from the spotter to the act of firing. More about that in another thread sometime perhaps. As for scope power, I am not yet confident in my ability to see the mirage the same way through different eyes and different magnifications in real time. I need more practice.

 

[memilanuk]

Often you won't be looking at the same mirage thru the spotter as you are with the rifle scope. The latter should be focused @ the target while the spotter is usually focused somewhere closer - 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down range where the bullet is @ max height over line of sight, or near where the wind from terrain features (break in tree line, ravine, etc) hits the flight path.

Different tools for different tasks.

And we all need more practice Most days I end up using one eye for both... just with minimal movement.

Sent from my Samsung S4