Rifle Scopes Nightforce Compact question

[Buzzsaw]

2.5-10X24.....2.5-10X32.....Will there be THAT much difference in the two, optics wise? I Will be using it out to 600yds...223. I will hunt with it also, so I will be shooting at dawn and dusk.
Thanks for any comments or experiences.

 

[fockell]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Saw- I have been shopping these for awhile now. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to look through both side by side. I am certainly going to buy the 32mm objective. It's not that much bigger and appeared to allow more light. Although I was only looking across a gunshop at about 20 yards. About $100 difference between the two New. I am planning on hunting and likely will be used in low light conditions. If I found a great deal on a 24mm I would buy it to. A few are forsale here on the hide. I am selling a few AR's before I can buy one. -Brandon

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Mind if I hijack along? I'm curious how crisp the sight picture is on the 2.5-10X32 at different ranges (100 and out). Clear enough picture for a smack the smiley (.22" target at 100yds)??
I've been interested in these, but the lack of parallax adjustment has kept me away.

Fockell-see if the gunshop will let you take them to the door. Your lowlight shooting will be better because of the exit pupil being larger on the 32mm (both are 30mm tubes, one doesn't "transmit" more light than the other-the higher the exit pupil {objective/power=exit pupil} the better clarity and resolution, esp in low light).

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Looks like we all have the same need. Anybody else?

 

[Gordon Nettleton]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Yea I really want one with the 32" objective. I want one for a in close .223 bolt but have the ability to go out further if need be for varmimts and I want zero stops with an MOA reticle

 

[OFIS]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

no parallax adjustment on these, correct? problem?

 

[JT505]

Re: Nightforce Compact question


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Buzzsaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2.5-10X24.....2.5-10X32.....Will there be THAT much difference in the two, optics wise? I Will be using it out to 600yds...223. I will hunt with it also, so I will be shooting at dawn and dusk.</div></div>
We have both.
- The 2.5-10x24, Mil/Mil, Mil-Dot in a LT SPR-E mount.
- The 2.5-10x32, Mil/Mil, Mil-Dot in a LT SPR-S mount.

Difference: Negligible
We shoot from 50-550 yards at this training location. Round count is almost 1000 rounds of 5.56mm Match ammo through both rifles using both optics. We shoot positional and prone.

Hunting: I have no experience hunting. Both shooters pictured have been hunting for YEARS. They confirm both optics work exceptionally well in all shooting scenarios.

Hunting and rifle weight:
The 16" rifle weighs just 9 pounds and the 20" rifle weighs just 11.5 pounds, complete with optic, mount, sling, bipod and magazine.

Parallax adjustment: NO parallax adjustment on either scope.
For our shooting, run and gun, positional, known distance and UKD; not having a parallax adjustment is not an issue using the AR platform out to 550 yards.

My findings:
- The 2.5-10x32 in the SPR-S mount weighs just 1.45 lbs.
I don't have a digital scale to give you an exact weight for the 2.5-10x24 in the SPR-E mount, but according to the scale needle it weighs a few ounces less than the 2.5-10x32 in the SPR-S mount.
- The 30mm tube will allow the optic to be mounted as close to the upper receiver rail as possible. I recommend the SPR-S mount. However, if you plan to run BUIS, then go with the SPR-E mount.
- Cheek/stock weld is excellent using both optics with either mount. However, the SPR-S lowers the optic and in my opinion provides the perfect cheek/stock weld.
- Eye relief on both optics is excellent. No issues. You can mount the scope with the ocular farther forward (toward the muzzle) and run both optics NTCH. You can go from 2.5x to 10x with no cheek/stock weld adjustment required.
- Illumination: both optics are illuminated. One consideration to keep in mind; the illumination, when placed in the 'on' position gives you the brightest setting, NOT the lowest setting.

Both optics work well, with the same features and almost the same weight when mounted. I would buy another 2.5-10<span style="font-weight: bold">x32</span>.

 

[JT505]

Re: Nightforce Compact question


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JT505th</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I recommend the SPR-S mount. However, if you plan to run BUIS, then go with the SPR-E mount.</div></div>
Left - SPR-S mount. Right - SPR-E mount.

 

[knockemdown]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

JT's summation is spot on from my experience. I have three Compacts, one is the 32mm with stops. I have them on ARs that I hunt and they work quite well in that capacity. Unless you are trying to shoot flies on 10X @ 50yds, parallax isn't an issue...

For plinking plates, dialing up is nicer with the exposed zero stop knobs, but not any more precise than their counterpart. My only gripe comes from my preference for making windage corrections. Holding for wind with an NP-1 or NP-R2 is dicey, since the first horizontal subtension on either reticle is 5MOA. So I just dial in my wind and send one along...

 

[fockell]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I do have the 1-4x24 with the FC-2 reticle setup on an 18" AR. I have not experienced any parallax issues. I use the reticle out to 600yards and dial up to 850. I shot the 2006 Colorado Multi Gun PTRC using this scope and had good results. Targets out to 500 yards, most of which about 2MOA targets. The 1-4x24 is my scope of choice for an all-purpose AR-15 platform. --Brandon

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

This place blows my mind. All you have to do is ask. You guys are GREAT. This is awsome info, just what I was looking for and Kevin, you're right!

I'm Jealous of the UBR!!!

 

[ratton]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I was leery about the 2.5-10x24 when I purchased it, sight unseen for my hunting rig. A friend of mine assured me that the 24mm objective was quite bright. I have used it now over a year and have no regrets. It's super bright, crystal clear and robust. The lack of parallax adjustment is not a problem. It even has the zero stop. I think Nightforce may have come up with the 35mm objective because folks were mistakenly apprehensive about the 24mm objective light transmission.

 

[Falar]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I see a few folks are turned off by the fixed parallax, but I was under the impression that on scopes with magnification of 10x or less parallax adjustment isn't nearly as critical as with higher powered scopes. Is this the case or not? I'm considering a few 2.5-10 scopes right now (IOR 2.5-10x42mm FFP and NXS 2.5-10x32) and none of them have adjustable parallax. Ideally a 1.8-10x SN-3 w/Ergo would be my pick but at this time the funds aren't there anymore (massive layoffs and paycuts in the O&G industry) and I'm sick of having rifles sitting around without scopes.

 

[csgw]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I did not think I was going to see a difference between the 32mm and the 24mm but I did. I’m going to be testing out a NXS 2.5-10x24mm with the BALLISTIC RETICLE LV in the next few weeks.

I use a few 10x scopes that do not have a parallax adjustment and they work great for me. When using them you need to use good head alignment. I recommend a parallax adjustment for scopes that are 12x and up, but with that said I just got the IOR 2-12x36mm Spartan to T&E and it does not have a parallax adjustment so we will see how it goes.

Mike

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Mike, hows the clarity/resolution at 100 (I'm more leery of the clarity that true parallax issues)?
You've shot our match here and have seen the kind of diabolical paper BS they can toss out there-I doubt our SPR matches will be as bad, but I wouldn't put it past Scott and Mark!

 

[Gordon Nettleton]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike, hows the clarity/resolution at 100 (I'm more leery of the clarity that true parallax issues)?
You've shot our match here and have seen the kind of diabolical paper BS they can toss out there-I doubt our SPR matches will be as bad, but I wouldn't put it past Scott and Mark!</div></div>

Excellent question

 

[HiCapMag]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Thanks for all the above info.

Mike, look forward to your T&E. I just looked at the NF webside and the LV reticle matches my 223 load almost exactly

(in theory)

 

[scootball]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

was wondering what size targets you shoot at 550 yards? Im getting a ar platform (18" barrel) and im on the fence on which nightforce to get. 10 power vs 22 power. I like the field of view the 10 power has on low settings, but i know what i can hit with a 22 power. I need to be able to hold 1 MOA up to @ 550 yards. I realize the trade off but that still doesnt help me.I may use this rig in the back of a squad car in which the low power is nice,however; i shoot tournaments that take me out to 550 yards. Anyone?

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Me to scootball, I'm shooting at F-Class targets with a tiny X-ring, I need precise aiming. I've been using a Leupold 8.5-25X50 but with my AR it's a little big. I have an NXS 8-32-56 on my 7mmWSM, I swear by it, the NPR-1, or NP-R1, I get them confused, is sweet for precise aiming. I just don't know if the 10X is enough.

 

[Gordon Nettleton]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

does anyone know the lowest rings & manufacturer that one can use for the 2.5x10x32 Nighforce on top of an Ar? I want to be sure the charging handle and the bell of the scope will have sufficient room

 

[scotharr]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I have both scopes. For an AR, the 2.5-10x24 is acceptable, but I'd get the 2.5-10x32 if I had to do it again. At 10x, the exit pupil on the 2.510x24 is very "tight." You have to line your head up perfectly and any little movement causes you to lose the sight picture. The 2.5-10x32 is noticeable better in this regard. In my opinion, it is a no-brainer: get the 2.5-10x32.

Regarding parallax, I don't have any problem with that. At the highest magnification shooting at 500 yards, I see no parallax when wiggling my head around. I think it is a non-issue at 10x magnification.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

How's the clarity at 100? Have you shot a "Smack the Smiley" or other such target with .22 (<1/4") sized dot targets?

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badd Kharma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">does anyone know the lowest rings & manufacturer that one can use for the 2.5x10x32 Nighforce on top of an Ar? I want to be sure the charging handle and the bell of the scope will have sufficient room </div></div>

I like the USO PosiSlide's because it is the lowest one piece QD I've found at 1.2".

 

[Swamper]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badd Kharma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">does anyone know the lowest rings & manufacturer that one can use for the 2.5x10x32 Nighforce on top of an Ar? I want to be sure the charging handle and the bell of the scope will have sufficient room </div></div>

I use a LaRue 110 QD riser and Leupold mk4 low rings with my 24mm 2.5-10x, on an AR-10. Use the riser because this rifle also has flip-up buis and the diameter of the rear or ocular objective needs a bit of height to clear. Stock weld position is about perfect.

On another AR-10 have a leupold mk4 4.5-14x w/50mm objective mounted with TPS medium rings. A little bit lower than the NXS setup, but very excellent stock weld.

Depending on ocular oal, ocular lens diameter, and oal from ocular lens to ring mount area of rear scope tube; you may see problems on an AR-15 frame positioning whatever scope you choose. Then there is the matter of the oal of the turret housing and whether front scope ring can sit on the A4 rail at all.

I see a lot of pix with long scopes mounted on AR rifles, and most have the ocular lens several inches behind the charging handle. Hard to see how those setups work very well unless the stock is some really long length-of-pull custom job.

From my perspective ocular position is what makes any scope work on an AR rifle, and ring height has to be perfect so you get the snug stockweld position everytime and have plenty of eye relief. This means mounting the ocular lens even with the rear of the upper receiver.

I like the larue qd riser because scope can easily be swapped to other rifles without removing from rings. Like the FC2 NXS reticle for fast response and several unmistakable hold-over points.

 

[Buzzsaw]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

I'm shooting an F-Class 500yd match in a few weeks, I will use my Leupold 8.25-25 pictured above on my RR Predator Pursuit. I'll learn allot more then. The rifle shot the 80 gr SMK, single fed, and the 77SMK, 2.26, mag length, 24.0 Varget. Both shot .5 if I can hold the thing still and get used to it. These AR's are much different shooting than a bolt gun. Learning experience.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swamper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
From my perspective ocular position is what makes any scope work on an AR rifle, and ring height has to be perfect so you get the snug stockweld position everytime and have plenty of eye relief. This means mounting the ocular lens even with the rear of the upper receiver.

I like the larue qd riser because scope can easily be swapped to other rifles without removing from rings. Like the FC2 NXS reticle for fast response and several unmistakable hold-over points. </div></div>

I agree about the ocular placement and cheekweld on an AR setup. The US Optics PosiSlide is the only good QD I've found to be the right height for me-1.20" (LaRue's are a little high-again, just for me). The LT158 is a little lower than the LT104, but not enough.

My mounting setup w/ST-10 (I think the ST10 has a bigger eyepiece than the compact NXS), and yes it does clear the rear KAC300m BUIS (not by alot):

 

[scotharr]

Re: Nightforce Compact question

Agree with Swamper. You need an offset scope mount and you still need to push it forward even more for the proper eye relief. Most of us set up the scope sitting on a bench. This does not provide enough eye relief when you shoot from the prone. Buzzsaw's AR pics above are a case in point: his ocular is too far back to get a natural sight picture from the prone without pulling the head back. May work ok from the bench if that is its purpose.

When I first purchased my NF 2.5-10x24 I got standard 30mm rings and tried to mount it on the AR. Being a newbie, I did not know what was wrong, but something did not feel right. Eventually, I figured out that I needed an offset scope mount with more height, like the Larue or NF mounts. I was pissed at the guy who sold me the scope and the rings because he knew I was mounting it on an AR. That is when I realized he did not know jack shit about mounting scopes to ARs. Have not been back to him since.