For a dedicated prairie dog rifle, which one comes out on top? To keep it close, lets compare the Diavari 6-24x56 with Rapid-Z to the NXS 5.5-22x56 with Velocity 1000.

I have both scopes but different reticles. Both great and u cant go wrong with either. I do like the zero stop on NF but my scopes are older and dont have that feature. Apple or oranges really dont get caught up in the hipe.

I had the Nightforce 5.5-22x50 and I just did not like the glass. The resolution was lacking and the color looked washed out. I have Diavari 6-24x56 now and I am glad I chose it over the Nightforce. The Zeiss does not have as much elevation and windage adjustment, but for my purposes it did not matter. Also, I have the #60 reticle on the Zeiss and the Nightforce had the NP-R2.

I would go with the Diavari, sure you are giving up some elevation but with the Diavari's massive FOV and super sharp glass would make the better dog buster imo.

Field of view isnt effect by objective lense size. I have compared the two scopes and with a resolution chart the differnce is very slight. Both have up and downs.

My opinion is that the NF would get the nod for dial-a-rat shooting while the Diavari has superior glass and would be the pick for shooting with the Rapid-Z reticle.

The Nightforce has better turrets, the Zeiss has better glass. Which is more important to you?...........dj

Are the Zeiss turrets less accurate? Or is it just that they have less travel?

Less travel.

From what I've observed, target and tactical folks seem to like NF. The .50 cal. crowd likes them, too. Hunters seem more drawn to Swaro and Zeiss, I would think, due to glass quality. I guess it depends what you're doing and, of course, peer pressure...

DF

Zeiss has 1/5 moa compared to 1/4 moa with NF. Zeiss is better at longer distance if you need less travel per click. They do lack the total travel that NF has but with a 20 MOA base you can get out to 1000yds with no problems. Sometimes the more travel per click will dial you out of the x ring. You wont go wrong with either. Get the one that looks the best on your gun.

My 6-24x56 has 1/4 clicks, did they make other values?

They used to be .5cm before they came out with the new 1/4 turret.
This is an older model on my PDog rifle.

Zeiss glass coatings are heavily biased towards low light performance, which is typical of most scopes made with the European market in mind. Nightforce (and Leupold) have a very different colour/resolution balance and are more oriented towards performance in bright conditions, which is quite typical of scopes made for the US market. If you shoot exclusively during relatively bright daylight conditions - like most target shooters, then NF may perform very similarly to the Zeiss and some shooters will find they actually rather the NF colour/resolution balance, especially for high resolution of white targets. However, as soon as things start to get a little gloomy, the Zeiss will leap ahead in pure optical performance.

RHutch,

Thanks for the info.

8SNAKE,

Someone mentioned the Nightforce doesn't do well in low light. I have the exact experience when comparing them side by side with stuff that cost more. The Nightforce 12-42X56 is way better than my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 in low light when set on the same magnification. It is better than my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 and better than my Minox 13X56 binoculars.

If you want specifics I will look through my notes and post them. If you prefer I will send you a private message.

I'll take NightForce anyday!!

Zeiss does have better glass, but the pure ruggedness of the NightForce can't be beat.

Your NF and Bushnell have the essentially the same lenses - they come out of the same (LOW) factory in Japan (or at least a year or two ago they did). There may be subtle differences in coatings.

I have no idea from where the lenses came. I just know there is no comparison in side by side tests with everyone, except on guy, who has looked through the three scopes mentioned. Maybe I got the best Nightforce ever produced. For seeing detail at 521 yards the Nightforce needed 12X, the Swarovski 16 1/2X and the Bushnell 15 1/2X. The Nightforce displays the same superiority in low light performance over the others.

Often we get questions about optics and usually the posters gets things like, "I prefer the "X" brand or the "Y" brand." These answers tell us nothing.

Thanks for the specific feedback, Ringman. I ordered a NF and will have my own, first-hand experience soon. I may end up putting a Diavari on another varmint rifle.

My Zeiss is the older model with .5cm clicks.

The reason hunters are drawn to the Euro scopes is because you can simply see better in low light due the FOV.

That's the reason I have mine. My Swaro z5 is certainly better than anything else I have, except the heavy Nightforce, in low light. If I can see antlers with the 6500 on 12X the Swaro only needs 9X.