"long range" scope challenge. What do you use

[Mikecr]

Unless this is a 'best glass' contest, I'd submit that there is more to long range shooting than gadgetry(reticles) and glass.

I prefer 8.5x25 Mk4s with simple med-fine crosshairs, M1 field turrets, and alumina flip-ups.
They are accurate as hell,, light,, low,, and reasonably priced.

I don't screw around trying to range with scopes.
I don't screw around trying to solve & holdover with scopes.
There are far better solutions avilable for these things, and better glass ain't gonna do squat about it.

Use the right tools, dial, and shoot.
With this, a Mk4 will be way more accurate than your gun, at any range.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

With all due respect to Mikecr, the more options you give yourself the more situations you will be able to take advantage of. And if you spend much time hunting, you will run into situations where a qucik holdover is the only shot you have or your RF craps out on you. A good reticle can be an invaluable tool in the field.

I'm not going to say which is the best scope because I dont know. I will say the NF NSX is well worth the money. It is more scope than I need and in the geographic and enviromental condititions I hunt in, I wouldn't want any less of a scope. With my 4.5-22x50, I can clearly see game in the darkest "legal" light hunting conditions set on full 22 power. If you want to shoot in moonlight, it will do that on the lower power, but I dont have the need to do that. The NSX is about as close to 100% field reliable as a scope will get. They have been well proven in combat including functioning with bullet holes in them.

No need for me to make a list or compare. I have what I need and want and the only second scope I'll be buying is another NF.

-MR

 

[linksmechanic]

Mike cr: I agree with you. I bought into the nightforce hype and I agree it's a great scope. Is it worth the now $500.00 more than my mark 4? No way. Maybe my 29 year old eyes are failing me but me and my hunting partners all agree that they can't tell the difference between glass quality in my scopes. Most of my partners had nightforce but are older and can't see the fine reticles provide by nightforce. To me they seem varmint like. Yes they are illuminated but I won't use that in the middle of the day targe shooting. Also there lens cap sucks. The butler creeks don't work worth the crap in the North idaho brush. Everytime I turn around one is open and the lens is exposed.My nxs has turned into a glorified bench scope. Yes I could run it over with a tank and it would survive. I don't plan to however. The mark 4 has proved itself in the military and with hunters and my next purchase will be another mark 4. The best flip ups ever and they are very repeatable. Yes everybody makes a lemon: One of my buddies from Spokane bought a Nxs a few months ago with a huge spec in the inside glass. Another one of my buddies from Nevad had a mark 4 that wouldn't track. He sent it in and usually they fix it. Leupold sent him a new one and it took five days! But to be fair Nightforce had a great turn around also. IMO there is no better glass than Swaro or S&B and if your going to step up that's where I's be looking. I used a pmII last year and tried as hard as I could not to give it back. It's a real piece of work and imo neither the nightforce or the mark 4 are in the same class.

 

[Mikecr]

I have 2 NXS, and 2 Mk4s at the moment.
- There is absolutely zero difference in glass quality between them. Neither anywhere close to european glass. Dead last on my list of importance..
- The eypiece rotates with NF scopes making flip-up operation a PIA. This disqualifies NF for field use -for me. I've learned the hard way that the only way to keep glass clean in the field is to keep it covered. But you can't be fiddling with bad covers or capped turret adjustments out there. It don't work well.
- The NF scopes are nearly a pound too heavy IMO and the 56mm scopes must be mounted higher than I like.
I reserve NF to my competiton guns because all I need there, is a resonable reticle subtension, reliable POA and sufficient power. One needed lens rebedding due to POA shifting, and NF turnaround on this was amazing. As good or even better than Leupold's service.

I don't have a problem with NXS scopes, they just aren't as good as Mk4s -overall. Though I would slow down only to urinate on a NF BR model..

I've thought about better glass. It's about all thats left with all else covered by Mk4s. Problem is, nobody covers all the Mk4s specs AND have better glass..
I've begged Leupold to offer a 'Mk5' out of the custom shop with ED matched lenses, and a range calibrated micrometer side focus. No luck yet.
Someone mentioned March scopes. But I wonder if they know anything about scopes actually used in the field. They started with a BR scope based on BR shooter input. They didn't, and wouldn't have done it on their own.
So who's telling them how to make hunting scopes? Do they hunt?

I've looked at various european scopes, and I don't really care about cost.
Usually there is a disqualifier like FFP, or metric, or weight, pysical size, limited options, huge reticle subtension, or other oddities(like capped turrets). Not one betters a Mk4 overall.

I guess my scopes must be more practical, than tactical.
I need a Mk5...................

 

[Svein Lerbrekk]

Hi

My best combo is a Rem mod 700 with a 7mm STW barrel on, with a Zeiss 6-24x56 reticle 43, thes is a deadly combination for anything but the largest Africa games.

 

[linksmechanic]

Mike cr: Wow you basically hit the nail on the head for me. I feel the same thoughts.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I have 2 NXS, and 2 Mk4s at the moment.
- There is absolutely zero difference in glass quality between them. Neither anywhere close to european glass. Dead last on my list of importance..
- The eypiece rotates with NF scopes making flip-up operation a PIA. This disqualifies NF for field use -for me. I've learned the hard way that the only way to keep glass clean in the field is to keep it covered. But you can't be fiddling with bad covers or capped turret adjustments out there. It don't work well.
- The NF scopes are nearly a pound too heavy IMO and the 56mm scopes must be mounted higher than I like.
I reserve NF to my competiton guns because all I need there, is a resonable reticle subtension, reliable POA and sufficient power. One needed lens rebedding due to POA shifting, and NF turnaround on this was amazing. As good or even better than Leupold's service.

I don't have a problem with NXS scopes, they just aren't as good as Mk4s -overall. Though I would slow down only to urinate on a NF BR model..

I've thought about better glass. It's about all thats left with all else covered by Mk4s. Problem is, nobody covers all the Mk4s specs AND have better glass..
I've begged Leupold to offer a 'Mk5' out of the custom shop with ED matched lenses, and a range calibrated micrometer side focus. No luck yet.
Someone mentioned March scopes. But I wonder if they know anything about scopes actually used in the field. They started with a BR scope based on BR shooter input. They didn't, and wouldn't have done it on their own.
So who's telling them how to make hunting scopes? Do they hunt?

I've looked at various european scopes, and I don't really care about cost.
Usually there is a disqualifier like FFP, or metric, or weight, pysical size, limited options, huge reticle subtension, or other oddities(like capped turrets). Not one betters a Mk4 overall.

I guess my scopes must be more practical, than tactical.
I need a Mk5...................

I guess we all have our preferences in what we like in a scope. I'm not trying at all the pick a fight with you but I have very, very rarely heard anyone say that a Leupy was better than a NF. A few might say they are better "for the $$$", and that would only be a few.

I have never used a Leupy so let me ask you a few quetions about them.

If you dial in 20 MOA of elevation at 1000 yds. do they move 20 MOA exactley, or do they move 19.2 MOA?

Do they track reliably and always return to the same zero?

Will they do the above perfectly in 10 years... 20 years... 30 years?

Do they operate the same in -30 temps as they do in 90?

If your rifle and Mk4 took a tumble down a rock slide, would your turrets still work and would your scope still be on zero?

Are the internal workings of the Mk4 built to the same standards as a NF?

Is each scope tested against harsh and extreme enviromental conditions.

In short, are they constructed anywhere near to this standard?

TECHNOLOGY

IMHO, you get what you pay for and with NF you get a little more.

For some people the reticles are too fine. But that's not a problem with the scope, that's a limitation with the person. The reticle is specifically designed that way and is perfect IMO and I am 53 and my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. But I can see the reticle well enough and I like the fact when I draw down on a target @ a 1000 yds it isn't obscured by the reticle. At 500 yds it covers the area about the size of an elks eyeball.

As far as the eye peice moving when the power is adjusted, that just doesn't bother me. I dont use Butler Creek caps because I find them to be a pain. They fall off and flip up too easily on their own. I use the NF bikini cover and that works fine for me.

They are a little heavy, but again, that doesn't bother me. They are extremely rugged and if your horse takes a tumble and rolls over on your rifle and NF, you'll be worrying about the rife and not the NF. For a person who does not hunt in rugged and extreme conditions, a Leupy will probably do fine, as long as the internal workings perform to 100%, 100% of the time.

There are a number of scopes that will get the job done most of the time, but when I'm carrying my NF, it gives me complete confidence.

-MR

 

[Mikecr]

I have very, very rarely heard anyone say that a Leupy was better than a NF

I think it's human nature to defend judgment, even if shoring delusion. We are a stubborn life form.

If you dial in 20 MOA of elevation at 1000 yds. do they move 20 MOA exactley, or do they move 19.2 MOA? Do they track reliably and always return to the same zero? Will they do the above perfectly in 10 years... 20 years... 30 years? Do they operate the same in -30 temps as they do in 90?

I've shot boxes with my Mk4s to the extremes of their adjustments and back. They are in MOA and mine tested perfect. I also looked carefully at reticle alignment. I could really care less about it as I use only crosshairs, but mine tracked plumb with the elevation adjustment plane.
I actually did this first with 3 NXS scopes. They also did well except one would not return to, and hold zero well. Sent it to NF & they found a lense bedding issue. And luckily for me, One of the NXS in 22x holds zero better than any scope I've used. No matter the gun I set it on, 100yd groups shrink. I have it put aside in the safe as a crucial reloading tool. 'For Load Development Only'.
Anyway, this led me to testing Mk4s..
My shooting temps only go from 30 to 100degs.
I hope my scopes will perform as they have for the rest of my life. That's all I can.

If your rifle and Mk4 took a tumble down a rock slide, would your turrets still work and would your scope still be on zero?
are they constructed anywhere near to this standard?

I don't live anywhere near Hollywood(physically or mentally), so none of this falls within my expectations.
If I mung up a gun, I'll check it, repair or replace it, before further use.

For a person who does not hunt in rugged and extreme conditions, a Leupy will probably do fine

Guess that's me.

IMHO, you get what you pay for and with NF you get a little more

I agree. And I agree about their reticles. I believe NF has the best reticle selections and physical design(etched).

There are a number of scopes that will get the job done most of the time, but when I'm carrying my NF, it gives me complete confidence.

I think you'd find carrying a Mk4 a little easier, and doing so for a while would change your perspective on scopes.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I think it's human nature to defend judgment, even if shoring delusion. We are a stubborn life form.


I've shot boxes with my Mk4s to the extremes of their adjustments and back. They are in MOA and mine tested perfect. I also looked carefully at reticle alignment. I could really care less about it as I use only crosshairs, but mine tracked plumb with the elevation adjustment plane.
I actually did this first with 3 NXS scopes. They also did well except one would not return to, and hold zero well. Sent it to NF & they found a lense bedding issue. And luckily for me, One of the NXS in 22x holds zero better than any scope I've used. No matter the gun I set it on, 100yd groups shrink. I have it put aside in the safe as a crucial reloading tool. 'For Load Development Only'.
Anyway, this led me to testing Mk4s..
My shooting temps only go from 30 to 100degs.
I hope my scopes will perform as they have for the rest of my life. That's all I can.

Interesting. If the Leupys track and hold zero as well as the NF's, that's good. I dont have the resources for very many upper end scopes but maybe one day I will try a leupy for kicks. All I can go by is my personal experience with my, so far, one NSX and others experiences with the NF's and Leupy's. of the reports and opinions I've read, most owners who have had both, including dealers rate the NF well above the Leupy.

Montana hunting temps can and will vary in the range I listed. The coldest temp I ever fired in was last winter when I shot a cow elk at -10 and the warmest was in the 80's while antelope hunting in Oct. PD shooting could easily see 100 in the summer.

I don't live anywhere near Hollywood(physically or mentally), so none of this falls within my expectations.
If I mung up a gun, I'll check it, repair or replace it, before further use.

I dont live near Hollywood either. But these possibilites definitely fall within my expectations. If you talk to enough hunters with back country horse experience you'll hear some stories about horse crashes with rifles packed on. I have never used horses but Ihave several of my own exprioences most recently last winter while elk hunting I was walking on foot deep snow and my boot got caught on a sage branch hidden beneath the snow. I went down hard, on top of my rifle and my NSX hasd a couple of small scratches from it. Once I was walking a cross a creek bottom that was a solid slab of flat bedrock covered with a layer of leaves there was some moisture under the leaves on the rock and I found out how slick it was. My feet went up and I went down backwards real hard on my slung rifle. Another time, my sling came undone from the swivel and it went down hard. In the country I hunt, I have crossed all sorts of terrain including large, trecherous deadfals and steep talus rock slides. These are all calculted risks and sometimes the only practicle way to get from point A to point B is to cross some risky terrain. I have also had to use all hands and feet a few times with pack and rifle strapped to back to back while making a short climb. This really isn't "what if fantasy" In my world it is a real consideration.

I think you'd find carrying a Mk4 a little easier, and doing so for a while would change your perspective on scopes.

I have carried lighter scopes and I would rather have the ruggedness of the NSX. If I cant carry a 2 lb NSX, then I need to push and try harder.


Best,

-MR

 

[Mikecr]

Good discussion

The reason I bring up weight is that I set it before building a gun. If it's a woodchuck rifle, my limit is 12lbs. If it's a 1K LG, it'll finish at 16lb 15oz.
Either way, a pound more scope means a more top heavy gun with a pound less barrel.

Higher scope mounting(56mm+) is undesirable due to increased level sensitivity. A bubble level is a bit lacking in resolution. Especially when shooting off a bipod in the rolling hills up north.

Alot of folks cursing Leupolds have not used Mk4s. IMO Leupold has completely diluted -their own market, with so many models. Outside of a few specials in their lineup(like airgun scopes) they should have discontinued all but Mk4s. Or, atleast include year and revision in their model# so that anyone would know what they're buying. I've seen 10yr+ Vari-x scopes on gunshop shelves, on sale as new. But truthfully, they are very old -unused scopes. And they are no match for NXS..

Anyway, I'm sure thread starter was looking for more than 2 scope discussion. So I'm out......

 

[älg]

I would use a Schmidt Bender PMII 4-16-50 with the P4 fine reticle. If you are going to shoot a lot on paper, maybe get the 5-25x with the same reticle; or take a look at the new Premier 5-25 with a Gen II XR reticle.

I use the first one and is enough for hunting at 1000 m.+ Some more scope power can be good but the scope is also a little heavier on the rifle and on the pocket.

They are all expensive but as someone is saying,. buy once cry once. If you expect to upgrade your medium scope soon, do not bother to buy if you can afford th best you can go for.

These scopes have great glass, mil reticle and adjustments, and a fine reticle good for long shots. Sturdy and trustworthy.
I have not tried the Hensoldts but the problem I see with them is that they only come in standard MIl dot reticles.

Just my opinion.

 

[gahlizard]

+1 for alg

i have been fortunate enough to compare many thousands of dollars of glass side by side. at one time we had a 6.5-20MK4, 8.5-25MK4, 5.5-22NSX, 3.2-17USO, 4-16PM2 and a 3-15Premier. the results did surprise me. with all of them at 15x magnification, the schmidt&bender and premier were the best...hands down, but they were also the most expensive. at max magnification the 20x leupolds and nightforce were the same, but it seems that 25x is too much to ask from the leupold glass...the resolution just isnt there. the USO was not much better than the leupold or the nightforce. from personal experience dialing from 200-1385yards, the 20x MK4 tracks beautiful, it seems to be rugged, the price is quite a bit lower than the competition and it can be up to 3/4lbs lighter than some of the other glass listed. i dont mind the weight, i own a PM2, Premier 3-15 and 5-25 and a NSX5.5-22. if weight or price was an issue i would have to purchase a MK4...also the leupold TMR reticle is my favorite and wish i could have it installed in all of my glass. everyone has an oppinion. this was mine. thanks

 

[HoytemanPA]

I use:
Leupold straight 10x with turrets on 22LR.
Leupold 6-18 VX-II with turrets on 223 (formerly on 22-250).
Leupold 6.5-20x40 VX-III, custom shop added turrets (about to go on 243.)
Leupold 8.5x25x50 VX-III Long Range Target matte on 6.5-284 (1).
Leupold Varix-III Premier Boosted to 35x Long Range Target Silver on 6.5-284 (2).
Leupold 6.5x20x50 Varix-III Long Range Target on 7 WSM (second barrel, formerly 300 RUM).
Leupold Varix-III Premier Boosted to 35x LRT Matte on 300 WSM (rechambered from 300 WBY).
Leupold 8.5x25x50 Varix-III Long Range Target on 30-378 (second barrel).

Ain't any of them safe queens.

I am a little different than the hell for stout scope crowd. I can see till the end of the legal shooting times well enough with the above scopes. I don't pack 50 miles back into a ravine somewhere, my stuff is a bit too heavy, but if I did, I guess I would bring another scope, just in case. Takes a grand total of a shot to rezero. I don't belly crawl on rocks. If my scopes were to fail, which by the way knock on wood, none have, I am quite sure I would survive it. I simply like to get where I can see a far distance and shoot stuff.

Now if I was using it as a matter of life or death, then the whole perspective would change and I would be all ears for the you can run over it with a truck scenarios.

Until then it's gold ring for me. Everything I have is the closed cap type turrets, and I print out an avery label with 30 moa of drop data and wrap it around the turret. Any farther and I fire up Exbal.

If I were to win any of the cream of the crop scopes previously mentioned in a raffle, I would gladly trade it away for 2 maybe 3 Varix-III Long Range target scopes (yeah even the old ones without the matched index lenses true color or what ever other relatively meaningless enhancements that have come out in the last few years.)

Those are the longer ranged ones but for mid range I kind of like a Burris Fullfield with the ballistic plex mounted on a 260 for the wife out to about 500.

That's my 2c

 

[J E Custom]

I have 2 NXS, and 2 Mk4s at the moment.
- There is absolutely zero difference in glass quality between them. Neither anywhere close to european glass. Dead last on my list of importance..
- The eypiece rotates with NF scopes making flip-up operation a PIA. This disqualifies NF for field use -for me. I've learned the hard way that the only way to keep glass clean in the field is to keep it covered. But you can't be fiddling with bad covers or capped turret adjustments out there. It don't work well.
- The NF scopes are nearly a pound too heavy IMO and the 56mm scopes must be mounted higher than I like.
I reserve NF to my competiton guns because all I need there, is a resonable reticle subtension, reliable POA and sufficient power. One needed lens rebedding due to POA shifting, and NF turnaround on this was amazing. As good or even better than Leupold's service.

I don't have a problem with NXS scopes, they just aren't as good as Mk4s -overall. Though I would slow down only to urinate on a NF BR model..

I've thought about better glass. It's about all thats left with all else covered by Mk4s. Problem is, nobody covers all the Mk4s specs AND have better glass..
I've begged Leupold to offer a 'Mk5' out of the custom shop with ED matched lenses, and a range calibrated micrometer side focus. No luck yet.
Someone mentioned March scopes. But I wonder if they know anything about scopes actually used in the field. They started with a BR scope based on BR shooter input. They didn't, and wouldn't have done it on their own.
So who's telling them how to make hunting scopes? Do they hunt?

I've looked at various european scopes, and I don't really care about cost.
Usually there is a disqualifier like FFP, or metric, or weight, pysical size, limited options, huge reticle subtension, or other oddities(like capped turrets). Not one betters a Mk4 overall.

I guess my scopes must be more practical, than tactical.
I need a Mk5...................

+1

I am a Leupold fan for many reasons and one quality is one of them, I have lusted
over the $3000+ scopes for years and found None that was 3 or 4 times better
like there price.

I really like the NX but don't like the weight and price compared to the Leupold.

There is nothing about the Leupold MK 4 that I don't like and to pay more for a good
scope becomes just a matter of what you prefer.

There is always talk about Glass and light gathering ability and the only thing I can say
is Leupold tells you how there best system performs (Percent of light transmission) and
I have been unable to find this information on most other brands.

I have done side by side comparisons as the sun went down and "NONE" have beaten
the now discontinued LPS scopes by Leupold.

Would I buy a NX scope Absolutely!! But My first choice is still the MK4 .

As someone said this is an open site and we are all asked to express our opinions.

This is mine.

J E CUSTOM