Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce - are they worth it

CC he dont know squat about NF scopes. The NF 2.5-10x32 is the best compact, reasonably light, illuminated, range compensating reticle, bullet proof scope out there. Leupold does fix stuff free, there's a reason for that.

Everything is bigger in Texas, including egos.

I've got a couple of Leupold MK 4 LRT's in 10 x40 that I sure like for LR shooting. How well regarded were they by our service users? Magnum man

yeah I am saying leupolds tracking isn't that great, and I stand by it. once you have had a couple leupolds fail in this area even after supposedly being fixed. I have learned that when I need that from a scope leupold isn't what I trust. I do have a vx3 3.5-10 CDS scope on another rifle thats been a decent scope I haven't had problems with it. but its still not as eye box or get behind friendly as my 3.5-15 NXS or any of my bushnell elites. all this doesn't really matter if you don't use the scope for long range, none of it matters actually. all the leupolds I have owned do a great job of holding zero if you set it and don't touch it, but so does pretty much every other scope brand I own, bushnell, sightron, nikon, burris, weaver, etc. The leupolds the military are using are mainly units that have been in inventory for a long time, which if you look at what was out there 10 years ago, leupold prolly was the only game in town then.

ermicus as far as I am concerned you are so brand mioptic biased to leupold I don't see your comments outside of leupold to be that helpful. back to the original question is NF worth it, it depends on what you are doing with the scope. if you are not cranking dials even I would probably just put an elite 4200 on the gun. if you are going to use your turret all the time then yeah I say there isn't really anything out there better. talk to the guy over at snipers hide that runs the site and even he says he has had problems with USO and S&B at different times. never a problem with NF. I am just repeating what he has said so take it how you want. I personally don't see myself ever spending 3 grand on a rifle scope like a S&B

Formidilosus also spoke very, very highly of the SWFA Super Sniper scopes for holding zero and tracking along with the Bushnell HDMR.

For what it is worth, I personally own various 6.5-20 MK4s, Nightforces, U.S. Optics, as well as IOR and some lesser scopes.

The older Leupold MK4s were G2G. Today, I would not purchase one.

Dodgefan is correct in that Big Army does not use Leupold exclusively. Not even close.

Leupold a number of years back started to have serious QC issues and many organizations that had purchasing latitude moved away from Leupold to USO and Nightforce and S&B.

As an example, on this issued SR25 below,with a MKIV it was standard practice to dial dope, say 400+3, then 3 extra clicks, then go back three clicks to settle the turret. Simply put, the Leupolds had a habit of tracking poorly. Fact, not opinion. BTDT.

In my experience, once you use a NF you toss the Leupolds in an old box with the Tascos. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not as big a one as you might think.

And yes, the optics are from Japan, but Japan makes the best optics in the world. Sorry guys, they rule on that.

If you are talking about the old M3A then us older guys liked it, most of the younger guys have never used one. The MK4 M3LR took over for it early 2000 timeframe.

never tried a VX6, and I have no plans on doing so after experienced Leupolds sad attempt at tracking.

It is funny...when everyone asks if a scope is as good as a Nightforce then it is obvious Nightforce is THE benchmark.

So many folks with no military experience whatsoever love to talk about what the military uses... cracks me up!!! Army only uses Leupold, prefers Leupold, etc.

I was an Army grunt, but it's been awhile - I'll defer to those with more recent/more relevant experience such as Formidilosus, Mackay, etc., especially over what I read on the internet.

I love my nightforce scopes, I own two of them now and wouldn't trade them for anything. However one of my friends uses Leupold which are nice, the other uses zeiss which is also nice. We all like each others scopes and at the same time would not want to trade them for our own reasons. They all make quality optics, IMO it comes down to the shooter and what they like. I like the durability, and that it tracks extremely well.

I'm a big fan of the NF NXS full size scopes on my range gun. They wouldn't be my first choice on a hunting rig though.


My advice about the NF is IF you decide that's what you want, go ahead and spring for a model with the high-speed turrets and zero stop. Those two things make the scope sooo much more user friendly and are well worth the extra coin they cost.

Well, speaking just for myself.....as I said before I'm not a BR or competition shooter. In that arena I'm sure NF rules. I have no reason not to believe the great reviews I read about them from Formid and the experienced here. I'm just a hunter. The average hunter will never wear out a VX3, VX6, Conquest, or Elite 4200 spinning dials. I also feel, and it's just a SWAG, that the Leupold problems reported (not necessarily by people here), are a small sample of the scopes used, and could entirely be related to mounting issues and user error, including lots of "expert" gunsmiths. As I've posted before, I've probably seen over 110 different hunter's rifles over the past 11 years or so. Guessing 75% wear Leupy's of some configuration. I always ask each hunter specific questions about their equipment.....all of it. Not one has ever had a problem with their scopes. I find that interesting too.

JG,

I'm more in line with your thinking. But, I've never been a sniper, too old to start now. I don't do LR shooting and don't shoot in competition (other than cowboy action shooting now and then, but that's different).

As a hunter who likes to spin a turret, Swaro, Zeiss, Leupold and the higher end Bushnells suit me fine. I especially like the Leupold CDS. It seem tougher made than the Swaro BT and doesn't need aftermarket parts. And if QA fails, CS is great. Just aggrivating to have to send one back.

DF

So, you are talking about special forces units ? They have alwyas used wide variety of scopes.
My understanding that they all have problems from time to time. We've had a couple of posters point out that if your Nightforce develops any problems, it's a six month wait to get anything fixed. Nightforce has no big contracts with the military. Probably beccause they can't deal with problem scopes in a timely manner.
Again, which Leupolds ? The fixed magnification 10X, Mk.4 has been the Army's day scope since the 80's. It was developed to meet the Army's standards which no one could do at the time. That's the same story that led to the development of the new Mk.8's. Nobody else could make one that worked.
Until I see some carefully done testing that proves otherwise, I'm going to believe that Leupold builds as good a scope as anyone could want. Depends on which one you choose for what job. E

Again??? Seriously???

Hey E, It's simply amazing that when given the choice to use something else, they do!!!

Take a good look at as much live sniper footage as you can and you will see S&B very very often!!!

You really don't need to pound your chest on "all things Eremicus" to justify your purchases, it ok really...

A guy at the range last summer was shooting his new scoped rifle at fifty yards. He was getting 1 1/2" groups. He was delighted with how good the scope was and the spectacular groups. He had no idea something was wrong somewhere in the system; even if it was him. How many of the 75% of the 110 were guys like him?

The variable power Mark 4 Leupolds should not be considered in the same conversation with the fixed powers. That is, unless Leupold changed the fixed powers recently.

Never had any problems with the M3A scope on the M24. Great scope. I currently have two Mark 4 10x scopes, and find them quite reliable.

Had a 3.5-10 on a M21. Unreliable. I pulled the scope and used irons.
Similar scope (though illuminated) on an SR-25, needed to click past then back down like Mackay mentioned above.

I don't recall any issues with the 4.5-14s on the platoon's Barretts. Though they didn't see the number of rounds as the other rifles, and the ammo situation often made scope accuracy a moot point (we did get good ammo in Iraq).

This was all circa 2005-06, 1/327 Tiger Force, 101 ABN.

Edited to add: Being Regular Army, we didn't shoot nearly as much as we would've liked, though we did shoot with 5th Group enough to know about the variable's problems. The guys like Mackay and Formidilosus see a lot more rounds fired through these systems, and should be who we defer to on such matters.

Fixed that up for accuracy.

Billy,

Thanks for the info.

I've got a Mark 4 10x on my 6.5-06. The adjustments have always been dead-nuts and very reliable. In fact the first time I cranked it out to 600+ yards, after sighting-in at 100, the 140 VLD's landed right where they should according to the ballistic program. Of course I'd tested the adjustments for accuracy by shooting and adjusting at 100, but it was nice to see everything work out so easily way out there.

Of course, I haven't taken any big game with the rifle beyond 163 yards, but have shot some varmints at longer distances. Impressed the hell out of a few friends while we were shooting prairie dogs a couple years ago. We'd either killed or spooked all the dogs inside 400 yards with normal PD rifles, so I got out the 6.5-06, lasered a dog at 470, cranked the elevation turret, and killed the dog with the very first shot.(Of course, I didn't have enough sense to put the rifle away after that--but did get a few more out to around 600.)