Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce

If the reticle is appropriate for the job, are are saying that a 32mm scope of said quality would not be adequate to use throughout legal shooting hours in low light?

"If somebody bolted you to Einstein, you would still be a imbecile."

I like your style!

BTW I have the 12X42 and the 5.5X22. Fantastic scopes. I was all hot to get a 2.5X10 and like you a friend let me use it for a couple of weeks. I just couldn't warm up to it, the eyebox seemed small and it was a lot darker than I though it should be.

Lefty C

I have one Nightforce scope that I put on my Remington 700 SPS tactical .308.
Now that being said I have only had it for a few months now, but I really like it. It's a really clear scope and as soon as I can afford another one, I will buy one. It also illuminates for low light conditions. The first time that I took it to the range I was pleasantly surprised.

There is adequate and there is optimal. 2 different things with a lot in between.

well, there you go--a 32mm in low light certainly is adequate.

as to the optimal side of things--what is your low light scope pick in considerment of your vast experience?

Jeff, I hear you, I'd bet HEAVY if/when NF makes a 40-42 obj. in that size, ALOT of 32 scopes will be up for sale

There must be a reason 40/42 is the common size and many opt for 50, though prefer low and compact. The former will fit well low like the 32 and I think will transmit more light.

NO Doubt about it, optics is something that is not 'cookie cutter' as we all see different, and have different needs for how each uses their rifles.

No doubt some equipment works better/worse for various individuals.

Funny thing about the 'campfire... Attitude on this site is, a 32mm is not big enough for low light, but if you run a 50mm you are an idiot because it is too big. So I guess only a 40mm is good for lowlight?

Can't KNOCK a 50 for low light, if one accepts the higher mounting and bulk/weight that goes along with it.

In a 4-14 a 50mm beats the 40s at 10x and higher at Dusk, based on my samples. As mentioned above, at 10x and higher, my fov blacked out at the end of a Tx hunt w/a 4-14x40. Texas unlike LA here, is much more open and light seems to be more available vs deep woods around here. Used a 6x42 w/HD to good effect long ago - a good combo for woods hunting.

Yet for me, most of my hunting has gone well w/simple 4 and 6x scopes so 10-12x is all I'd want for a game rifle.

Baskin Robbins sold many flavors...ALL made customers happy.

50mm at 3.5 X is pretty damn good. If you can't use that setting it's to dark to hunt.

Tom, if you don't want me using anything but Nightforce 2-10x36, buy me one.

Obviously, you are one of those people who are satisfied with "just getting by". I'm not.

I don't want to barely feed my family, I want to provide a good home for them.

I don't want to just get by at work, I want to do the best job I can.

I don't want to use marginal equipment for the way I hunt, I want what works well for my eyes and hunting conditions.

Are you able to follow this line of thinking Tom?

I have my doubts. In the service, we had a name for folks who chose to get by doing the least possible.

"Rag-bags". Are you a Rag-Bag Tom?

JM

I will stick with my 50s and 56mm scopes, despite the opinion of the masses. Hunting deer that are almost completely nocturnal in deep woods on overcast days requires more light. Especially if you are hunting a certain age class of deer and not just any dink.

I've done fine in dark conditions with the 7mm exit pupil afforded by a 6x42. I'm not really keen on shooting far enough to need more magnification than that when it's dark enough to need the 7mm pupil at the same time.

42 and 44MM objectives have worked well for me over the years.

They provided enough light and mounted low on my rifles.

I'm about ready to try a 50MM though.

The last time I was able to get out the 44mm Z5 Swaro and 45mm VX-7 Leupold held up extremely well when it got very dark. A good bit past legal light. No 56mm stuff needed for me, even 50mm really.

You can't make this chit up.......


















A month ago you knew nothing about the Nightforce. Not only that you admit you are clueless about "newer" scopes. Where's my instruction?












So you are worried about brightness on a 32mm objective when you wont shoot past 100 yards? When I need a 50mm scope to shoot deer at 35 yards I won't call you.












Priceless. Worried about "stuff" getting in the housing on an M1. You going to provide instruction on your zero experience on your actual use of M1's?














Again, you are so worried about "brightness" at 10x when you won't shoot an elk past 300 yards?











I thought "brightness" and exit pupil were so important to you????










This was with a 2.5-10x32 correct?













Jesus titty christ! You don't even know what parrallax is yet you call people names and offer instruction?













I'm new to the long range scene, can you please help me? Maybe some instruction on wind drift, Mils, MOA, dialing, parrallax, shooting deer at 35 yards, reticles, turrets, US Optics, and "newer" scopes???????





Thanks!

^ouch!

Laffin,

You can take things out of context and post half quotes till the cows come home.

I was interested in possibly buying a NF 2.5-10, so I asked some Q's, then I tried one before I spent 1200 on something that wouldn't work.

Only an idiot like yourself would not understand the logic here.

Sorry, but It still doesn't change the fact that I used your beloved NF 2.5-10 and didn't like it or that other scopes provide better low light capability.

Something you still fail to understand. Meds wearing off again?

As far as shooting at bucks past 450 yds. that's a personal choice. I'm not big on wounding bucks and take high percentage shots within my ability.

Another lesson you have failed to learn.

If you had ever done any LR shooting you'd understand reading wind starts getting very difficult past that range.

One more lesson you obviously haven't learned.

The parallax comment was addressed at someone who had earlier claimed that adjustment was not needed at longer distances..It was a stab at him, like I've done to you on here..

The 2 clubs I deer hunt at do not include the farms we yote hunt every year. Once again you assume schit that is incorrect.

Never hunted elk, wanted to get some opinions from those who had and and used the 7-08. Not sure what asking a question about how a certain caliber performs on game has to do with a NF scope, but I'm sure you will figure it out.

"I hunt public land and killed 2 deer. I can't understand why someone would want to use a scope that provided better light gathering capability in certain applications, even when it is explained to me repeatedly. Am I just a dumbass?"

Afraid so.

Funny how you left this one out of your search...

427 yds. with an H&R handy rifle no less.

Spectacular!
Points awarded for the stock ammo sleeve...nice touch.

laffin

I have a couple nightforce scopes, 1 2.5X10X32 with the mildot and 2 3.5X15X50 and love them. The 2.5X10 I love it and have had no issues with its light gathering morning or evening. I did however switch to the mildot from Np r1 reticle because the mildot for me anyway shows up a little better. I love the Nightforce scopes and IMO they a far superior to Leupold and the like.
I know that they are heavier but they are more durable, better lenses and better made than most anything else unless you want to drop a grand more for S&B or the like.
If a few ounces kill me on a scope, then I am not going to a lighter scope I'll just get in better shape.
Also with the right rings bases like say Badger I have no issue with the mounting height. Their regular one or two piece bases and their low rings and the 50mm bell will clear no problem, at least with my Remingtons.
I have also used the the 2.5X10 that is my buddies he has on an AR while spotlighting yotes and varmints and have never had an issue with it in that role either for what its worth.

I wouldn't mind trying a 2.5-10x32 with the NP-1 reticle but the thin hair is a bit of a deal breaker for me.