The people still want to know.......what is coammunition and e ought full tile?
I think we deserve a reasonable answer.
BTW my neighbor wants one of those lasers to use for smoking his bong-pipe.
I think we deserve a reasonable answer.
BTW my neighbor wants one of those lasers to use for smoking his bong-pipe.
Outside of the double click option that NF has, both are going to be very close in terms of options and optical quality.
With that being said If one has access to leupolds mil program, I would suggest highly considering a mk8* over a NF or s&b. The optics are incredible, the options are on par with other high end tactical scopes for significantly less than a pmii or beast
With that being said If one has access to leupolds mil program, I would suggest highly considering a mk8* over a NF or s&b. The optics are incredible, the options are on par with other high end tactical scopes for significantly less than a pmii or beast
Significantly less? Doesn't look like it. Also a standard mildot reticle which isn't as useful as the other offerings.
http://swfa.com/Leupold-35-25x56-Mark-8-35mm-Riflescope-P52977.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-35-25x56-Mark-8-35mm-Riflescope-P52976.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-35-25x56-Mark-8-35mm-Riflescope-P52977.aspx
http://swfa.com/Leupold-35-25x56-Mark-8-35mm-Riflescope-P52976.aspx
I am working on getting a BEAST Prototype here, they are not ready yet and I know NF is in Germany, so the ones from SHOT are probably over in Europe now being shown off.
Hopefully I will get my hands on one soon, the BEAST will probably not start showing up in production form until May or June at the earliest, but that is a guess based on past discussions. Whether that timeline is still on schedule I am not sure.
Rob
When you do the Leupold LE / Mil Discounts you save a ton of money.
Hopefully I will get my hands on one soon, the BEAST will probably not start showing up in production form until May or June at the earliest, but that is a guess based on past discussions. Whether that timeline is still on schedule I am not sure.
Rob
When you do the Leupold LE / Mil Discounts you save a ton of money.
I don't know which user groups are driving the need for extended zoom ratios (in this case it's 25/3.5 ~ 7:1), but some excellent reticles (like the P4F) are not useable throughout the entire magnification range of these scopes. I suspect Leupold offers a standard mil-dot because it kinda works - there are no fine features to be lost at low magnification. I have a CQBSS with the Horus H27D and it's great at 1x and 8x, but almost useless in between.
With a high zoom ratio, a second focal plane reticle becomes more attractive for the obvious reason; if NF would add a tactile click to the ATACR mag ring at 12.5x and 6.25x, the ATACR could be made more amenable to reticle holdovers with operator mental practice.
What is wrong with the NF Clicks ? In my opinion they are the only ones doing this right.
These MTC turrets are garbage, you miss the .1 before and after, you have to try and get it right as, between the heavy clicks they are too close together and around the heavy clicks they are annoying as hell.
To me the S&B Double turrets are far superior to the MTC in every way. Not to mention the issue of the redesign and locks that are jacking up the scopes causing QC issues.
No way, I will take the straight clicks of the NF High Speed Turrets over the latest fad to use MTC turrets any day.
I do agree, SFP for a lot of situations is looking more desirable. I was just talking about this, this week. The ATACR is a looking better and better to me for a lot of what I am doing, sure the FFP are more versatile but the current crop of reticles is reducing that versatility.
These MTC turrets are garbage, you miss the .1 before and after, you have to try and get it right as, between the heavy clicks they are too close together and around the heavy clicks they are annoying as hell.
To me the S&B Double turrets are far superior to the MTC in every way. Not to mention the issue of the redesign and locks that are jacking up the scopes causing QC issues.
No way, I will take the straight clicks of the NF High Speed Turrets over the latest fad to use MTC turrets any day.
I do agree, SFP for a lot of situations is looking more desirable. I was just talking about this, this week. The ATACR is a looking better and better to me for a lot of what I am doing, sure the FFP are more versatile but the current crop of reticles is reducing that versatility.
I was referring to a tactile click (also called a detent position) on the magnification ring at 1/2 and 1/4 the magnification where the reticle is calibrated, not clicks on the elevation turret. The point is to make the SFP reticle useful for holdovers or ranging at other magnifications. You could try to dial it in, but a detent might be more accurate, faster, and repeatable like f-stops on a camera lens.
Last edited:
And if you are usin the reticle that much at 3-5 power then you have the wrong optic for the job. I would rather have a good usable reticle at the more used higher powers than a standard mildly reticle so I can see it at he lower rarely used powers.
I don't agree with the SFP being more atractive. It brings in its own set of problems when you want to use the reticle at other than max power.
Calibrating the magnification ring would probably increase the price significantly.
When you map a SFP scope you find they are close but not enough to be accurate beyond 600 yards without fine tuning and adjusting the markings with a silver sharpie. Rarely do they line up power wise and I wouldn't recommend taking their word on max power either. They do not calibrate them from the start, at least not individually. Most people don't check or know the difference. Very few range enough to matter and there is a lot of fudge room based on the target size, shooter accuracy, changes in conditions, etc. I don't see them taking the time to check everyone or dealing with CS issues if they are off.
Rob, if I was just shooting, load developing, not competing, getting dope, heck pretty everything other than shooting a match the SFPs are looking better. Especially the new NF. Waiting on the 15-55x to show up, even that model is looking good. For me I can use any, so alternating wouldn't cause an issue. Sure competition wise you can't consider it, but everywhere else the ATACR is a nice scope.
Lately I am really turned off by the current FFP Reticles.
When you map a SFP scope you find they are close but not enough to be accurate beyond 600 yards without fine tuning and adjusting the markings with a silver sharpie. Rarely do they line up power wise and I wouldn't recommend taking their word on max power either. They do not calibrate them from the start, at least not individually. Most people don't check or know the difference. Very few range enough to matter and there is a lot of fudge room based on the target size, shooter accuracy, changes in conditions, etc. I don't see them taking the time to check everyone or dealing with CS issues if they are off.
Rob, if I was just shooting, load developing, not competing, getting dope, heck pretty everything other than shooting a match the SFPs are looking better. Especially the new NF. Waiting on the 15-55x to show up, even that model is looking good. For me I can use any, so alternating wouldn't cause an issue. Sure competition wise you can't consider it, but everywhere else the ATACR is a nice scope.
Lately I am really turned off by the current FFP Reticles.
I totally agree, Rob. Most discussions about scopes on SH begin with the assumption that all of us are using optics for the same purpose, especially the ones that want to know which is the "best scope". I have low power scopes, medium, and high power scopes for short, medium and long range shooting - and many different reticle designs. For LR shooting, I rarely ever turn my magnification down from the max value. I've been thinking about another S&B 5-25x, but with the high cost and paucity of scopes with H2CMR reticles available now, the ATACR seems like the smart choice. I've had and quickly sold NF scopes in the distant past mainly because I prefer better resolution, but I'm ready to take the ATACR plunge on this one. Its SFP reticle will not be a hindrance for LR shooting and I relish turret clicks a country mile apart.
Last edited:
like lowlight mentioned the Leupold fed/mil program saves you a ton, its almost a crackhead deal.
between the beast and the PMII, they are top of the line scopes with simalar option, it terms of ergonomics, one may feel a little bit different but at that points its really spiting hairs in terms of what scope is going to give you more.
i would say it really all comes down to what you can get the deal on,
between the beast and the PMII, they are top of the line scopes with simalar option, it terms of ergonomics, one may feel a little bit different but at that points its really spiting hairs in terms of what scope is going to give you more.
i would say it really all comes down to what you can get the deal on,
Yeah if I was shooting F class or any KD range or didn't need to be moving around the power ring and using the reticle then a SFP would work fine. Right tool for the right job. I just don't have a need for a SFP scope for LR. Some do and I understand that and the ATACR would be a good choice in that use.
When/If Nightforce comes out with the ATACR in a FFP version for around the same price they won't be able to keep them in stock. I would get one.
When/If Nightforce comes out with the ATACR in a FFP version for around the same price they won't be able to keep them in stock. I would get one.
I could not agree more. I have been thinking this for quite some time now. However I am shooting and will continue to shoot the 5-25 PMII with the DT turret about as good as it gets. Now if NF would get the glass up to par with Bender and turn out a FFP with their old HS turrets I too would be selling my Benders!! It is good to see NF going forward with their product line, I have been a supporter for some time but as Rob said right tool for the job - no matter of MFG.
So if the he glass quality were equal, you would be selling the Benders to replace with Nightforce why?
ADD fueled by OCD and shave about a pound off my rifles with money left over to cover 1/2 of an other NF (I should of put also keeping the price point down). I suppose if all things were equal including price then I would not.
I thought this was a Beast vs S&B 5-25 thread? If so, the Beast is $3400 vs about $3400 for the S&B, and 39 oz vs 38.25 for the S&B. If weight is important to you, why didn't you pay the extra $150 to buy a titanium Arbiter vs a steel one? If we are talking ATACR, well, I, for one, would not want a SFP scope no matter the savings. As much as we shoot at distance, how often are you on 25x? Do you really want to be doing 15/25 conversions for all of my wind calls if you are on 15x? Do you really think you won't regularly fuck up amd make the wrong hold, being used to a FFP reticle?
Use a little sense bro.
By the way, the ATACR weighs 38oz too.
Last edited:
Just ordered the BEAST yesterday, since after detailed research it seems that it has everything I need for my LR endeavors. When it arrives in 3-4 months, I'll get some pictures posted with my impressions.
OKay, a little sense. Compared the the S&B 5-25x, the BEAST has:
* Larger field of view, based on published numbers (and lack of apparent tunneling at low power, although the NF does tunnel too).
* Better turret adjustments (wider click spacing, faster speed, and probably better dialing accuracy due to fewer under or overshoots). The 0.1-mil lever could turn out to be a kick-ass minor adjustment feature as well.
* More elevation travel (120MOA), important to me since I would use it for 1-mile shooting on a 20-MOA Surgeon receiver.
* 2 inches shorter in length, so a better "fit" to some AR-10s and small bolt rifles.
* Made in the US, supports technical manufacturing base at home.
While S&B offer an MOA version of the P4F, I'm digging the NF with MOA clicks and the MOAR reticle for long range shooting - it's a personal choice that favors the NF. Optical resolution, contrast and color are still TBD since we don't have an in-depth comparison yet, nor do we have any info about the forgiveness of the NF eyebox. I'm still going for the ATACR, I don't need FFP for what I'm going to do with it, saving about 110,000 cents - now that makes even more sense.
Last edited:
What cartridge are you shooting to a mile that requires more than the 26.5 mils of elevation the S&B is "limited" (!!!) to?
Joe
Joe
HMMM, very good points (as usual) BM11. You are right, I could not ask for more out of the PMII. It would be hard to justify a differnet scope even if there was a large cost savings. I just wish NF could offer the "old" NXS with improved optical quality in a FFP, that is what prob keeps me thing about the NF. As far as the BEAST I see no real point (or at least I have no real use for) in the in the I4F turret. True the design is thinking outside the box but it seems to me to open up a source for more potential mechanical failures. Also by over complicating a simple operation creates a source for more operational errors in a stressfull enviroment. But time will tell. I am intrested in the claimed improved optical performance of the BEAST.
The NXS with improved optics and FFP IS the BEAST. It is unfortunate that it comes in at Schmidt money without the expense of being imported from Germany.
Has anyone found for sure that these ARE going to be made in the US? Because a lot of current Nightforce is made in Japan.
As for the 120 moa of travel, it's cool. Not essential for me, I run my S&B in a 45 moa mount, and you could accomplish the same thing with a 25 moa mount on your 20 moa Surgeon, Jack. I HAVE run out of travel, I had enough to engage at 2090 yards but not at 2200 yards. But it was no big deal, I dialed back the adjustment and held over/held wind with the excellent Gen2 XR reticle I am fortunate enough to have in my Bender 5-25.
As far as the elevation knob, I didn't get the sense (but I have NOT touched one so this statement is based on perception only,) that it is all a solution to get 20mils in a single turn? The .2 clicks accomplish a way to cram 20 mils into a single rotation, not to gain accuracy over a 13 mil double turn turret? In any case, it's a cool feature but to me a solution to a fictitious problem. I have to be shooting damn far to need more than 13 mils, and when I am shooting that far I don't have a hard time remembering that I a, on the second turn (yellow indicator.)
In any case, getting pretty far from the original point, which wasn't to suggest that a Schmidt is a BETTER scope, it is just more proven and a known quantity vs a new scope no one has used but is already arguing that it is better. My point is, there is not enough new on the Beast and certainly it is not a known enough quantity to say "I'm selling all my Benders to buy them." I might buy one for my next major scope purchase, but I won't sell a Schmidt that I am perfect happy with and that has been perfect as well as measured perfect in a mechanical tracking test to buy one.
OK, OK, you got me there. Point taken, I still would like to see one. Thanks for keeping me in line, haha. Maybe the next major scope purchase...
Know for sure, of course we know for sure, more and more NF are made in the USA and are so marked. This is old news and widely known. The whole "where is it made" is a non-issue. In fact the new scopes have improved glass and coating and NF looked to Europe for this and not Japan.
The only thing that held NF back in the glas department was they weren't adding color, so they didn't " pop" instead they focused on resolution. I have never not been able to see and hit a target at any distance with a NF. Now they not only updated the glass they added new coatings and some color and they certainly "pop". With S&B jacking the prices up and having more and more QC issues I see others in line to step up. Nightforce is certainly one, Kahles another.
I know I have removed 3 S&Bs in the last 6 months they are mounted on my floor collecting dust. I've replaced them with NF and Kahles. I will continue down that road, to include moving towards the Beast. My old S&Bs far outshine any of my new ones. In the last year alone I have sent my S&Bs back for repair 3x more than the 6 years prior of owning them. I thought I had to use them as part of the optics of owning this site, no more. I cherish reliability more than the idea because I went that direction it says something positive. The writing is on the wall, they need a change in direction, otherwise I stand behind mine.
oh ps, the BEAST has been put through the paces for a lot of years now. They made no effort to "rush" it to market which, nobody can question NF reliability.
The only thing that held NF back in the glas department was they weren't adding color, so they didn't " pop" instead they focused on resolution. I have never not been able to see and hit a target at any distance with a NF. Now they not only updated the glass they added new coatings and some color and they certainly "pop". With S&B jacking the prices up and having more and more QC issues I see others in line to step up. Nightforce is certainly one, Kahles another.
I know I have removed 3 S&Bs in the last 6 months they are mounted on my floor collecting dust. I've replaced them with NF and Kahles. I will continue down that road, to include moving towards the Beast. My old S&Bs far outshine any of my new ones. In the last year alone I have sent my S&Bs back for repair 3x more than the 6 years prior of owning them. I thought I had to use them as part of the optics of owning this site, no more. I cherish reliability more than the idea because I went that direction it says something positive. The writing is on the wall, they need a change in direction, otherwise I stand behind mine.
oh ps, the BEAST has been put through the paces for a lot of years now. They made no effort to "rush" it to market which, nobody can question NF reliability.
I thought the Japanese scopes were newer? I know the US made scopes are labeled, my point in asking is that a huge focus of most of the "BEAST" threads is that they are "made in the USA," and I was under the impression that NF has been producing many scopes in Japan. In any case, the glass I always found to be "functional," but the resolution was lacking, at least for me. As an example, when shooting paper at 600 yards, I can resolve bullet holes in cardboard with a Schmidt and not with a Nightforce. It's certainly a luxury feature as I agree that it doesn't make a difference in hitting man sized targets.
As for the mechanical issues with Schmidt as of late, I am sorry to hear about it and I guess I have been lucky to not experience any issues of my own. My ELR scope is an older Schmidt, has to be based on the Premier reticle in it. Time will tell if my 3-20 will hold up.
And again, I am excited that Nightforce is bringing a FFP scope to the market in the 5-25 range. My point was only to suggest that I see nothing in it to make me sell a mechanically perfect S&B to buy one. However, the next scope I buy may very well be the NF BEAST.
As for the mechanical issues with Schmidt as of late, I am sorry to hear about it and I guess I have been lucky to not experience any issues of my own. My ELR scope is an older Schmidt, has to be based on the Premier reticle in it. Time will tell if my 3-20 will hold up.
And again, I am excited that Nightforce is bringing a FFP scope to the market in the 5-25 range. My point was only to suggest that I see nothing in it to make me sell a mechanically perfect S&B to buy one. However, the next scope I buy may very well be the NF BEAST.
Just read the literature on the Beast, it's clearly talked about. As has Nightforce's move to producing the scopes here.
The old NXS series was strictly Japan, no longer the case. Not since the F1, as well as moving forward.
Also you were in the ELR class with me when my S&B died on the last day. (I actually think it died the afternoon before) it forced me to finish up with Len's AX. My 3-20x dead out of the box, as was my Tan 5-25x, out of the box. Those two cost me a day of filming the DVD as all the footage had to be scrapped because the scopes weren't working. Between the 2 scopes, flying the production guys in, lost time, it was easily a $15,000 loss because of the problems.
A lot of misinformation regarding NF going on here, to include the talk of the Beast.
The old NXS series was strictly Japan, no longer the case. Not since the F1, as well as moving forward.
Also you were in the ELR class with me when my S&B died on the last day. (I actually think it died the afternoon before) it forced me to finish up with Len's AX. My 3-20x dead out of the box, as was my Tan 5-25x, out of the box. Those two cost me a day of filming the DVD as all the footage had to be scrapped because the scopes weren't working. Between the 2 scopes, flying the production guys in, lost time, it was easily a $15,000 loss because of the problems.
A lot of misinformation regarding NF going on here, to include the talk of the Beast.
What other misinformation regarding NF is going on (so I know)? Also I too have sold a few NXS because the optical quality was no where near as close to the PMII for my eyes. LL, I have seen you say many times that you "have never not been able to see and hit a target" with a particular scope that someone has claimed to not be quite up to snuff in the optical quality department. I understand that you can see and can hit a target at distance with a sub par optic, I was doing this for years until I got my 1st Bender. Now I am not saying that S&B is the end all, quite the contrary. I am saying they are the benchmark for rifle scopes and as of yet no scope has bettered them, however I am anxiously awaiting someone to get there so I have other options (I am hoping NF will be the one, b/c they do build a fantasticly durable scope and have GREAT people working for them!!). My point is reliability and repeatability being equal the only thing else I care about in a rifle scope is how well I can see what I am looking at. If I cant clearly see details with one scope as I can with another then why would I settle. I know there is a point of deminishing returns on the investment but I am not a fan of settleing if I can somehow afford it. I have personally compaired a few different PMIIs to Hensoldts (2 or so), Zeiss Diavari (2), NF NXS (2), USO (1 or 2), Vortex Razor (1), Kahles K624I (1) Leupold MK4 (too many), and other lower priced scopes and each one had noticably less resolution (my most important quality). I know that everyone sees things differently so this is purely subjective, but I have a hard time seeing the other side of the argument.
That being said I am looking forward to the BEAST and I will probably end up with one at some point. I cant wait to hear what people think about it and the ATACR...
That being said I am looking forward to the BEAST and I will probably end up with one at some point. I cant wait to hear what people think about it and the ATACR...
What other misinformation regarding NF is going on (so I know)? Also I too have sold a few NXS because the optical quality was no where near as close to the PMII for my eyes. LL, I have seen you say many times that you "have never not been able to see and hit a target" with a particular scope that someone has claimed to not be quite up to snuff in the optical quality department. I understand that you can see and can hit a target at distance with a sub par optic, I was doing this for years until I got my 1st Bender. Now I am not saying that S&B is the end all, quite the contrary. I am saying they are the benchmark for rifle scopes and as of yet no scope has bettered them, however I am anxiously awaiting someone to get there so I have other options (I am hoping NF will be the one, b/c they do build a fantasticly durable scope and have GREAT people working for them!!). My point is reliability and repeatability being equal the only thing else I care about in a rifle scope is how well I can see what I am looking at. If I cant clearly see details with one scope as I can with another then why would I settle. I know there is a point of deminishing returns on the investment but I am not a fan of settleing if I can somehow afford it. I have personally compaired a few different PMIIs to Hensoldts (2 or so), Zeiss Diavari (2), NF NXS (2), USO (1 or 2), Vortex Razor (1), Kahles K624I (1) Leupold MK4 (too many), and other lower priced scopes and each one had noticably less resolution (my most important quality). I know that everyone sees things differently so this is purely subjective, but I have a hard time seeing the other side of the argument.
That being said I am looking forward to the BEAST and I will probably end up with one at some point. I cant wait to hear what people think about it and the ATACR...
That being said I am looking forward to the BEAST and I will probably end up with one at some point. I cant wait to hear what people think about it and the ATACR...
Guys are happy to focus on the glass and ignore the issues, that is a common line of misinformation, that glass is the end all. Out of the box they all look good.
Sure lots of people consider the 5-25x to be the best optically out there, but they also say that about IOR, and granted the S&B track record was good up until the last year to 18 months when you started to see repetitive issues. But I tend to value more than "glass".
I mean I grabbed that Kahles K624i off you and it's fantastic, In fact that scope is being used on the Demo 2012 SH Build. And because a few people thought the S&B was still a bit better optically Kahles upped the glass and coatings to get that extra bit out of them. Those will be showing up in about 3 months. Along with the reticle changes. But doing a bay window comparison is no real comparison at all... you never even mounted the Kahles and "compared' to your S&B... hooray the hand held image off your deck. Sorry that is not how I choose to decide, I actually use the stuff as it paints a better picture, and at times not being in line withe scope as it is mounted can hurt the perceived image quality, as any off angle image can be flawed.
Sure I have heard it all before, and I admit I have 15 S&Bs in my stable, but unless the company corrects it current slide, I will not spent another dime on them.
If you like "what you see off your porch" then stick with it.. its' your opinion as I have mine, I am not here to change your mind. I am happy to let you buy an inferior scope to try and then sell it a lower cost to benefit someone else.
Sure lots of people consider the 5-25x to be the best optically out there, but they also say that about IOR, and granted the S&B track record was good up until the last year to 18 months when you started to see repetitive issues. But I tend to value more than "glass".
I mean I grabbed that Kahles K624i off you and it's fantastic, In fact that scope is being used on the Demo 2012 SH Build. And because a few people thought the S&B was still a bit better optically Kahles upped the glass and coatings to get that extra bit out of them. Those will be showing up in about 3 months. Along with the reticle changes. But doing a bay window comparison is no real comparison at all... you never even mounted the Kahles and "compared' to your S&B... hooray the hand held image off your deck. Sorry that is not how I choose to decide, I actually use the stuff as it paints a better picture, and at times not being in line withe scope as it is mounted can hurt the perceived image quality, as any off angle image can be flawed.
Sure I have heard it all before, and I admit I have 15 S&Bs in my stable, but unless the company corrects it current slide, I will not spent another dime on them.
If you like "what you see off your porch" then stick with it.. its' your opinion as I have mine, I am not here to change your mind. I am happy to let you buy an inferior scope to try and then sell it a lower cost to benefit someone else.
Couldn't agree more. As I posted on another thread, if NF made the ATACR in FFP at the current price point, I'd give up a nut.
Dropped my ATACR in rings this afternoon. Though I was more focused on the video didn't realize I put it in the rings with the nuts on the right until after.
No matter, Zero MOA mount won't matter.
http://youtu.be/V_K9Z9KZvPE
No matter, Zero MOA mount won't matter.
http://youtu.be/V_K9Z9KZvPE
Dropped my ATACR in rings this afternoon. Though I was more focused on the video didn't realize I put it in the rings with the nuts on the right until after.
No matter, Zero MOA mount won't matter.
http://youtu.be/V_K9Z9KZvPE
I'm looking forward to your review on the ATACR. Any eta on when you might have it ready?
I figure in a year or so the B.E.A.S.T. will have been run through the wringer and (hopefully) proven, and a few early adopters will get bored with them. They'll end up here for sale and I'll be able to afford one. I for one am hoping that it is all NF claims it to be; I've not owned a NF (I like magnification AND FFP) but no one disputes they are one of the most rugged and mechanically sound scopes made. With magnification, glass, and FFP to match the top European scopes and NF manufacture, I'll be all over it.
Joe
Joe
I need roughly 75 MOA shooting a 115DTAC/2970fps at 4800' ASL. I'll be shooting a KMW or GAP rifle with a Surgeon receiver with an integral 20-MOA base. The ATACR has 120 MOA of elevation travel, so I will just get 75 MOA up elevation without using the reticle. The S&B's 26.5 mils is 92 MOA, so I would get 61 MOA of up elevation with the 20-MOA Surgeon base, and I'd need to use the reticle to get to 75 MOA. The ATACR gives ~15 MOA more up elevation, no matter the base cant.
I'd also like to try shooting 260Rem to the same distance (139Scenar/2800fps @ 4800' ASL) which is more challenging ballistically because of the lower MV. Elevation requirements are about the same at 1 mile.
Last edited:
Why spend over $3k on a scope and hamstring it with a 20 MOA cant base/mount?
Besides, the 26.5 mils is the limit of the double turn turret knob; internally the S&B has around 5 mils more than that. You should get 74 MOA of elevation with a PMII 5-25 on a 20 MOA base/mount.
Joe
Besides, the 26.5 mils is the limit of the double turn turret knob; internally the S&B has around 5 mils more than that. You should get 74 MOA of elevation with a PMII 5-25 on a 20 MOA base/mount.
Joe
Last edited:
I also agree that the DT turret design is superior to the MTC. While I didnt mind the MTC, it did tend to jump. However, I think the beast is adding even more complication. You've got .2 mils per click, unless you use the lever arm for .1mil , which only dials up so you have to adjust under the desired setting to use the 0.1mil arm. On top of this there is a locking mechanism to deal with? Ill definitely take the simple yet effective PMII DT turrets for now.
Im sure the Beast will be a super scope, but im gonna let you guys be the guinea pigs on it before I let my S&B go for one.
Im sure the Beast will be a super scope, but im gonna let you guys be the guinea pigs on it before I let my S&B go for one.
Talk to Surgeon about the integral 20-MOA base, it's machined into the receiver and not an add-on. I could add a canted mount like the $450 Spuhr to get even more elevation, but I can do it with the NF instead.
I'm also choosing a 100-yard zero where I could use a longer distance and gain some elevation; a 600-yard zero would give me 10 MOA additional up elevation.
BTW, the ATACR is $2300, I don't need a FFP scope for this. My internal thinking is that I don't need another S&B 5-25x to shoot a mile, saving $1100 and gaining the advantages I mentioned above.
PS If the S&B has "around 5 mils more" of internal elevation travel, you can add half that to the up elevation. So 61 MOA + 2.5 mils = 70 MOA. If the ATACR/BEAST has more than 120 MOA internal elevation travel, then I will get more up elevation from the ATACR as well.
Last edited:
The bitching on the lever is comical, the Marines used the Unertl with a lever for 30+ years and was no where near as precise.
Until people use it, it's all speculation. Bumping that lever is cake, it's a simple task. I am pretty sure most people can count to 10 and know how to skip by 2s and bump 1 for the odd numbers. It's odd and even, nothing more.
The lock is unnecessary to touch if you don't need it. It doesn't get in the way, it's not engaged unless you engage it, it's an option, not a necessity.
Until people use it, it's all speculation. Bumping that lever is cake, it's a simple task. I am pretty sure most people can count to 10 and know how to skip by 2s and bump 1 for the odd numbers. It's odd and even, nothing more.
The lock is unnecessary to touch if you don't need it. It doesn't get in the way, it's not engaged unless you engage it, it's an option, not a necessity.
Agreed, if you don't need FFP then you don't need it.
AI makes great 1 piece mounts for well under $200.
I have an AI and a Spuhr; the Spuhr is very nice but unnecessary. Given the option of rings or a one piece mount I'll pick the 1 piece every time.
As for what distance you zero at, with a 20 MOA cant you are not going to get any more travel out of either scope regardless of what zero you choose; with a 600 yard zero vs. a 100 yard zero, the indicated elevation on the turret knob will be a lower value when the erector bottoms in the scope tube but the erector will be at the same angle to the barrel centerline, so it will not get you out any further.
Joe
I have two S&B 5-25x scopes in AI one-piece 45-MOA mounts on two AI AW rifles, just bought the mounts last week. Yes, the Spuhr mounts seem a little overdesigned for what I would use them for; I got a Spuhr with another S&B I bought recently and then sold the mount and bought two AI mounts.
I agree that your zero distance won't change how much elevation you get from your S&B 5-25x with a 20 MOA base, but it does change how much up elevation you need. In the example I described, you need 10 MOA less elevation from a 600-yard zero. (I need about 75 MOA shooting to a mile from a 100-yard zero, but only 65 MOA from a 600-yard zero. It's that simple.)
Is there a reason why NF didn't make the lever more adjustable? I'm thinking -0.1, 0, and +0.1 mil would have been a great design choice and more like the MST-100.
The point of the lever was to halve the number of clicks on the turret to get to a desired location.
I guess they figured diminshing returns after reducing the clicks by half.
Joe
I guess they figured diminshing returns after reducing the clicks by half.
Joe
Which is fine as long as you either
a. never shoot less than 600 yards or
b. don't set your zero stop
unless you want to
c. use hold unders at distances closer than 600 yards.
Joe
It's as simple as slipping your elevation turret dial by 10MOA/3mils and back again when the mile shoot is over, assuming your zero stop follows.
LL, actually I did a little more than just hold it up and look threw it off my deck. I spent at least an hour each day for a week compairing it to my Bneder. I know I got a rash of shit for selling it before I ever shot it, but I really could care less what someone who dosnt know me says about me and my way of testing on the internet. You are right the Kahles is a fantastic scope and it does seem that the company is working very hard a being as good as they can be (as does NF). As far as the Kahles and never shooing it, why would I? I purchased it new and as opposed to mounting it up and losing more money just to find out something I already knew. I mounted both scopes (Bender and Kahles) on my tripod in a rest and used them to view object from under 100 yards to over 1400 yards and each time the resolution was less crisp and less defined with the Kahles. Actually when I was tring to watch wind blowing small trees I was not able to tell which direction it was going (some of the time, depending on the conditions) until I looked thorugh the Bender. When I was shooting at short range 200m the Bender was showing very crisp and defined bullet holes in white paper and threw the Kahles they did not have sharp clean edges it was no where near as crisp. Also the illunination blead like a bastard on the Kahles and showed all the dust scratches in that lens, on a brand new premium scope, thats not for me. So the argument was I never tested the function and repeatability of the scope, true. However I feel if it fails there (as any scope can) what does all the other matter, so it had to pass my other test that it did not. I kinda wish I had that Kahles back to compair to the Zeiss you traded me, as I think that was bout as good. But then again its all subjective, and if everything was perfect this would be no fun!!
This is an interesting thread because I too am curious how good the glass is on the BEAST. Sounds like we'll have to wait a while to get objective opinions. As I've read through the posts, one thing has struck me, it would appear that both the S&B 5-25 and NF 5-25 cost the same... here in the US, but I'd be curious how much the S&B costs in Europe and even more curious how much the NF will cost in Europe? If we broke down currency conversion and said the S&B cost $2800 US dollars in Europe, after import tax and all that fun stuff, would the NF cost around $5000 US dollars in Europe? Sorry, had nothing to do with the thread, just a curiosity I had. My assumption is that NF will adjust their pricing in Europe to align with the cost of the scopes out there.
Also, it was mentioned that starting with the F1 NF has been getting their glass from Europe, is it safe to assume this is coming from Schott? If that is the case, while Schott is a European company, they have manufacturing plants all around the world, including here in the US, what I'm not sure about is where the "optical" quality glass is manufactured. Anyway, the point I was getting at is that Japanese glass seems to be getting better and better and I wonder if soon it will be very difficult to differentiate between the two.
As far as the controversy over NF selling the BEAST on the same shelf as S&B, Premier has been doing that for a while now and people seem to be buying those still. I guess we'll have to wait and see how well NF can play with the big boys, but they have a diverse enough line to "test the market" and see.
What it all means is that we continue to see good stuff come our way, whether we can afford it or not, it is nice to see innovation in this market.
Also, it was mentioned that starting with the F1 NF has been getting their glass from Europe, is it safe to assume this is coming from Schott? If that is the case, while Schott is a European company, they have manufacturing plants all around the world, including here in the US, what I'm not sure about is where the "optical" quality glass is manufactured. Anyway, the point I was getting at is that Japanese glass seems to be getting better and better and I wonder if soon it will be very difficult to differentiate between the two.
As far as the controversy over NF selling the BEAST on the same shelf as S&B, Premier has been doing that for a while now and people seem to be buying those still. I guess we'll have to wait and see how well NF can play with the big boys, but they have a diverse enough line to "test the market" and see.
What it all means is that we continue to see good stuff come our way, whether we can afford it or not, it is nice to see innovation in this market.
Similar threads
