Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
It sure doesn't take me "2 or 3 yrs minimum" to check a scope on the chart or antlers and see one is or is not better than the other.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
NXS 50 vs 56 objective
- Thread starter scottyboy
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
It sure doesn't take me "2 or 3 yrs minimum" to check a scope on the chart or antlers and see one is or is not better than the other.
Some conditions and situations don't pop up every day. Some people will be better served by a 50 and others a 56. What does BETTER mean anyway? May let 3% more light in but the eye box costs you a shot. All scopes are COMPROMISES AT BEST. I've run a 5.5 x 22 NXS in both sizes for yrs and cant really tell which one will be more suitable that exact day. I've never had my 56 make a shot the 50 couldn't. It would 99% likely be an illegal kill anyway. 50 mm NXS can see pretty late.
SteveBurton
Formerly 'Jackmonkey'
I have a NXS 5.5-22x50 and an ATACR 5-25x56 and I can say I can't tell much difference between light transmission. Both of them have excellent glass.
As far as scope brands, I have owned a lot and shot with a couple more. My personal decision is that all of my rifles will eventually wear NF or Swarovski scopes, budget willing. I own several other brands but I just feel that those two have the best glass FOR ME.
Another reason I like the NF scopes is the MOAR reticle. I just love it. I had both MOA and Mildot reticle scopes but decided to stick with MOA to avoid confusion or trying to figure out the difference in my head while shooting. I would suggest sticking with one type of measurement. I'm not a fan of the Huskemaw reticle although a lot of people like it. I think Vortex has a nice reticle for target but it is so fine I have lost it while hunting in low light conditions.
I, like you, am not a fan of FFP scopes. I guess its like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I know the advantage of it for ranging but just can't get used to having such a small reticle at low magnification. Plus the extra cost of a FFP is not attractive when a SFP is already over $2K.
Greyfox makes a good point about scope height. My ATACR is a beast of a scope and sits 2" above the bore. My stock has a high comb to accommodate it. Here is a good video showing how to properly setup a scope. You should not be adjusting your head or cheek weld to align your eye to the scope.
Set Up Your Scope for Success
The price difference between the 50 and 56 is nominal so I would suggest shouldering your rifle and trying to determine if a 56 will work for you. I don't think you will go wrong either way.
As far as scope brands, I have owned a lot and shot with a couple more. My personal decision is that all of my rifles will eventually wear NF or Swarovski scopes, budget willing. I own several other brands but I just feel that those two have the best glass FOR ME.
Another reason I like the NF scopes is the MOAR reticle. I just love it. I had both MOA and Mildot reticle scopes but decided to stick with MOA to avoid confusion or trying to figure out the difference in my head while shooting. I would suggest sticking with one type of measurement. I'm not a fan of the Huskemaw reticle although a lot of people like it. I think Vortex has a nice reticle for target but it is so fine I have lost it while hunting in low light conditions.
I, like you, am not a fan of FFP scopes. I guess its like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I know the advantage of it for ranging but just can't get used to having such a small reticle at low magnification. Plus the extra cost of a FFP is not attractive when a SFP is already over $2K.
Greyfox makes a good point about scope height. My ATACR is a beast of a scope and sits 2" above the bore. My stock has a high comb to accommodate it. Here is a good video showing how to properly setup a scope. You should not be adjusting your head or cheek weld to align your eye to the scope.
Set Up Your Scope for Success
The price difference between the 50 and 56 is nominal so I would suggest shouldering your rifle and trying to determine if a 56 will work for you. I don't think you will go wrong either way.
I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but does anyone have any more input to give on the 50mm vs 56mm debate? I'm ready to pull the trigger on a 5.5-22 NXS. My question is: Are the gains in light transmission with the 56mm objective great enough to overlook having to use a higher mount, and having to build up my comb height to afford a proper cheek weld? Thanks for the advice/wisdom. This scope will be mounted on a 700 Long Action with a Bell and Carlson Sporter stock.
-Bru
-Bru
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
56 will only be about 1/8" higher.
LaHunter
Well-Known Member
FWIW, you can mount the 56mm (assuming 30 mm tube) using the NF XTreme Duty Ultralite LOW rings, even with a Rem Sendero Contour Barrel, and still have room for the NF flip up lens covers. I have 2 of the SHV 5-20X56mm scopes mounted with these rings and it works perfectly. My scopes have 30mm tubes. I do have an adjustable cheek piece on my stocks, which I feel is needed for a perfect cheek weld with scopes with larger objective lenses.
LaHunter
Well-Known Member
Not sure about that. I have my low rings mounted to a pic rail on top of my M700 Action. Nightforce CS has been very helpful every time I have called them. I bet they could steer you in the right direction.
thanks for that advice. I'm going to call nightforce CS in the morning.
