Nightforce vs Leupold

[Mikecr]

You're crazy. Swarovski optics are a better level all together. NF/Leupold -same. Exactly the same. And nowhere close to European/Schott glass, but plenty good enough.

In this comparison, N-vs_L, glass is not a factor at all.
As far as theory about scope adjustments, I test all scopes of mine, every one. Then I enter actual IPHY(the highest resolution) per click into ballistic software. You do this, you'll learn a few things about marketing/Hollywood -vs-reality.

 

[918v]

Leupold and NF same?

Bwahahahaha!

They are night and day different. And you have no idea what high quality glass is.

 

[ND7mmMag]

Thanks for all the comments guys but none of them have sold me on one or the other. Seems like 50% of the people think Nightforce is a way better scope and 50% think Leupold isn't any different then them. With that being said Im leaning toward a VX-6 to save a little cash but mainly to save some weight....but Im also thinking I would like to give Nightforce a try once. Man do I hate being indecisive haha

 

[rcoody]

Thanks for all the comments guys but none of them have sold me on one or the other. Seems like 50% of the people think Nightforce is a way better scope and 50% think Leupold isn't any different then them. With that being said Im leaning toward a VX-6 to save a little cash but mainly to save some weight....but Im also thinking I would like to give Nightforce a try once. Man do I hate being indecisive haha

I was recently in the same boat. Trying to pick between the vx-6 7-42 and the new NF competition 15-55 for my long range rifle. I picked the Leupold because of my past experience with leupold. Don't really think there is enough difference for me to really tell. I have been buying leupold for over 40 years and never had a problem with one. Only about $300 difference so it certainly was not the money.

 

[lamiglas]

Not interested in debating, just want to throw in my 2 cents. I have owned several mark 4's and have found them to be longrange friendly. For me this means glass is good enough, turrets are solid/positive without slack, good parallax adjustment and above all it has to track perfectly repeatable. The mark 4 does all of this, but not nearly as well as the Nxs. There has been alot of times I really wanted to like the leupold better, or even as well as the NF nxs because it costs less and is lighter. however, after using one side by side I have a hard time believing anyone would think are even in the same league. I do believe they feel that way, and not looking to argue, I just do not see how they could feel that way. The mark 4 does have great glass but I think the edge goes to the nxs. Also, I can fine tune the Parallax better on the nxs. Concerning turret feel, ruggedness, and repeatability the nightforce is in a league of its own. In my opinion. Also, to me, the nxs zero stop is almost worth the price difference by itself. After saying all of that, I cannot afford to put an nxs on all my rifles. I believe I will always have one on my primary longrange rig though, and will keep mark 4's on other rifles i plan to dial with. Lastly, I am not brand specific and I do like the mark 4 better than the NF shv. Mostly concerning turret feel, and because the shv has covered turrets. Other than the weight issue for a dedicated light rifle I have never heard of anyone dissapointed after buying an nxs.

 

[918v]

That's because Leupold shares GM's philosophy: build your scope out of the cheapest crap you can get away with. Leupolds adjustments are an afterthought. NF adjustments are what the scope is built around. NF scopes are built like tanks. They are designed for heavy use.

 

[Rich Coyle]

You're crazy. Swarovski optics are a better level all together. NF/Leupold -same. Exactly the same. And nowhere close to European/Schott glass, but plenty good enough.

In this comparison, N-vs_L, glass is not a factor at all.
As far as theory about scope adjustments, I test all scopes of mine, every one. Then I enter actual IPHY(the highest resolution) per click into ballistic software. You do this, you'll learn a few things about marketing/Hollywood -vs-reality.

It sure appears you lack experience comparing scopes' glass side by side. I bought one Nightforce, four Swarovskis, one Leupold VX-6 and three Bushnell 6500's. For glass on deer antlers for which required the highest magnification setting the Swarovski came in LAST! The Nightforce was best by a wide margin then the Leupold and next came the 6500's. I won't be purchasing anymore Swarovskis.

 

[BergerBoy]

Among the Long Range scopes that I own are a Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20X50 (Mil-Dot Reticle) and a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56 (MOAR reticle). Both of them are, IMO, excellent scopes. I wouldn't part with my Long Range Leupold but, in all honesty, I find that the Nightforce has better glass, is more rugged in design, has crisper feel in windage and elevation knobs, and its focus/parallax adjustment has a broader range and is more sensitive when I need a critical long range image.
None of those things make the Leupold bad. For hunting and long range F class shooting the Leupold serves me well. When I reach out to 1000 yards or more in a silhouette target for my tactical competition reach for the Nightforce with the MOAR.
Leupold doesn't offer a reticle that will allow me to fox in the target when I can't quit make out its precise center through the scope like the Nightforce MOAR does. For hunting I'd say the Leupold is right at the top of the heap. For competition shooting I'm gonna choose my Nightforce.

Well said. I agree.