absolute best scope???

[Darryl Cassel]

Yeh right STL

Maybe that's why they went out of business????

Hope your's don't break down on you.

Later

 

[Brent]

Darryl,

the R2's tic spacing is 2 moa at 22x, you has wrote 30 moa.

Is STL Shooter on to something?

I think the NF NXS is a superiorly built scope to anything else I have seen or owned. That said, I don't see anything wrong with any of the other top brands, but what you are doing with it, what features it has, and what reticle style you like is a big part of the buyers perception which is the "best" scope.

All my experience with Tasco scopes has me thinking STL had his tounge through his cheek by the time he was finished typing.

 

[STL_Shooter]

Now Brent, I'm always serious when discussing issues of national security...

Why, if our scout/sniper teams'd just get holda soma them Supah Snipahs - ol' Saddam'd be dealt with fast, quick and in a hurry!

Oh, and I think Darryl means a total of 30 MOA within the graduated area of the 5.5-22...

[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: STL_Shooter ]

 

[Darryl Cassel]

Brent

The spacing is 2 MOA apart for "each" horizontal mark and there are 15 marks which is 30MOA "total" to work with in the entire verticle ladder grid.

That's what I was refering to as a total amount to work with and not touch the knobs..

DC

As an add on here, I can see it could have been confusing and STL did mention the total of 30MOA I was refering to. I went back and changed that portion of my post. Thanks for pointing that out. I was typing to fast in that section.

[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Darryl Cassel ]

 

[Darryl Cassel]

Brent

I know you and others like the NF scopes and I agree they are very good but, NOT as opticily sharp as the Leupold LR to MY eyes and others.

If you get a chance, try something.

Four others plus myself set the 5 1/5X to 22X NXS on 22X and also a Leupold LR 8 1/2X to 25X to 22X.

We put them side by side on a bench looking at a fired on 100 yard target with 30 cal and 6.5 bullet holes in it at 100 yards.

Focus each scope for "your" eyes and for the distance to the 100 yd target.

Look in one scope and then the other after a short break. Then do it reverse.

The five of us all could see the ragged tears in the paper from and around the small bullet holes with the Leupold and NOT the NF.

We all agreed, the sharpness edge went to the Leupold. The NF does have some features that the Leupold does not but, the test we did showed the optics to be a bit better on the Larger Leupolds.

Try that test sometime. The scopes have to be set on the SAME power and the test done on BOTH scopes at the same time.

You may be surprised at the outcome.

Later

PS---I like NF too but only have 3 of them. I have many more Leupolds so I can make a pretty fair comparison between the two brands.

 

[Brent]

Darryl,

I believe you, and am a proud owner of a few Leopolds, but I do not have one to compare them to that is higher than 10 power. I will however check out the difference when I get the new one for my wifes rifle. Ian has said they did a similar test with the NF and the Nikon, they found the Nikon to be a bit superior optically too. I don't think anyone would see a difference in any of the three without them being side by side, as you suggest, but it is worth noting though.

If I were Leopold, I would offer an illuminated reticle like the R2, but make the spacing calibratable to 1 moa and 2 moa both, at different power settings of course. This would be my reticle of choice with the M1 turreted LR tube.

Another thing that they could do too, is to put a small dot in the center and end the vertical and horizontal lines a .5 moa away from it, this would be a very nice feature.

If they offered a few variations to this reticle design it would be very successfull I think.

Has anyone ever approached NF and asked them to modify the R2 by adding 1 moa tic marks to one for them?

 

[Darryl Cassel]

Brent

I agree with you.

I don't think anyone has approached them (NF) with that suggestion and I think it would be a good one.

I think it all boils down to each persons preferance for thier own use when choosing a scope.

The ranges I shoot the R2 is not very good for my purpose. A dot or duplex works MUCH better for me.
Like has been mentioned before, I like to click to my targets at "any" range especially over 1000 yards.

If a person wants to see clarity, check out the 0lder Unertl 2" Objective in the 15X to 20X Target or Ultra Varmint models.
They blew the compitition away and still are.

Take care and good shooting.

Later

 

[Brent]

As you probably have figured, I shoot alot more at targets than I get a chance to at animals most of the year, so a small dot in the center of the reticle would be pretty nice to me. The crosshairs would still need to extend down to within .5 moa to help center thing in lower light situations when it's not quite dark enough to get good contrast with the lighted reticle yet.

I know you like the dot alot and this is perfectly understandable to not even need the tic marks on the reticle, as you click to the target with probably very few exceptions.

I like the tics for not only ranging, which you don't need, but the ability to hold over in a fast acting situation where dialing might just be the extra few seconds you might not have. With the numbers committed to memory, both dialing and hold over are a simple matter, one not much quicker than the other, but still quicker in a pinch.
In the event you assign each tic a point plank range distance with a given target size, which Exbal happens to calculate for you, one can be very, very fast if these numbers are commited to memmory.

The advantage to to having a .5 moa space between the dot and each vertical ond horizontal hair is one the 1000 yard competetor could use when shooting for score to hold off a calibrated amount quickly. The edge of the hair could be used to hold on the edge of a certain scoring ring or whatever, thus giving you more options in a windy condition.

Man I wished I lived in a place I could compete right now. Someday not too far off we'll get our 1000 yard range approved. They have a place all picked out about 10 miles just north of where I live, but the burough mayor will not approve the use of the land, so we'll have to wait until he is gotten rid of. The nearest property owner is over 5 **** miles away! He could not even hear the activity if it were there! The mayor just uses him as an excuse to blow us off, he will never go for it, so we have no choice but to wait. Meanwhile, at the last meeting out here, he suggested every other possibility to keep people from target shooting in high use areas on the river bar and in the woods...the guy doesn't get it. There just isn't but one range to shoot at this side of Anchorage, and it's over 25 miles away and almost there anyway. People will not go that far when they can go right here. Someday though!

 

[Darryl Cassel]

Brent

Just for a suggestion after doing the 1000 yard match shooting for many years.

If you get a range up there and start to get serious about winning matches, Use a reticle that has a fine cross hair or target dot and either 1/8th or 1/4 Min clicks for fine adjustments. The R2 won't be very good for Match shooting. NF does make a real good reticule for Benchrest shooting and they recomend it highly for that purpose. It's the CH-3 or the NP-2DD.

Check them out.

You need to be able to concentrate on the center of that bull with little opticle restrictions.

Later

 

[Brent]

I would get one when the 1000yd range came about for strictly competition, hope that happens soon too.

 

[Brent]

I was wondering if you "fat fingered" that one in there, thanks for the clarification.

I wasn't thinking of the total there either, duh.

 

[Darryl Cassel]

Strictly compitition???

You may like those reticules so well, you may even want to hunt with it out at 1000 yards "plus." You may have to click to target/animal though

Whatever trips a persons trigger.

Have a good one

 

[Guest]

[ 07-12-2003: Message edited by: S1 ]

 

[Brent]

I have not hunted all over the country like most of you guys have, being born and raised up here, but at least 50% of my shots on moose come in the early morning or late evening, the rest at around high noon. This is the main reason I like a thick crosshair, and even a lighted reticle "sometimes" helps.

The reason I can't count on a lighted crosshair but for maybe the last half hour or so, is that it just isn't dark enough to help until then, yet a fine crosshair, or dot reticle will still be blending in with too much and not be contrasted enough anymore, this is where the thicker crosshair works perfectly.

I keep the lighted reticle intensity very, very low so it doesn't come on real strong and distract my eye from the target or cause the pupil to contract, it is on just bright enough to take over when the thick crosshair starts to get concealed too much. For me, the lighted reticle is hardly ever used, but it will pay off some day I'm sure, if it's only once it will be worth it to me.

For me, the dot reticle alone would work perfect for target work, but you never know, I might like to use it hunting after getting comfortable with it around dark in the off-season, time will tell though.

I have never shot an animal yet, that I can remember anyway, by using holdover or a ballistic reticle such as the R2, I have either shot within range of my sight in, or dialed in the adjustment my chart called for. I actually find it pretty quick and simple to dial in the come ups and will continue to use it, especially at longer ranges. The R2 does make it real easy to range and see the come ups in the crosshair without ever taking your eye off the target though. I like the bullet impact to be as precise as possible whenever I break any shot, if I don't feel using the R2 would give me the precision in that instance, I'll dial it in, simple as that.

Take care,