Rifle Scopes Someone tell me a NF BEAST is just way too much

[g3ninfinite]

scope for my DD MK12...

Originally wanted the NF 2.5-10x24 but they are extinct. Moved on to the notion of a x32 or x42. Now I'm thinking screw it just go Beast, F1 or TARS. FYI I've owned S&B and Hensoldt prior to this. About 3k is all I'm willing to stomach for a scope these days.

 

[00bullitt]

The BEAST is way too much IMO for the Mk12. Go with the 2.5-10x32/42. They are awesome on the Mk12.

 

[Trespasser]

I don't think a BEAST itself would be an issue so much as the 5-25 magnification range. The 2.5-10 range is more appropriate for an SPR type rifle. You will also have a weight savings to go along with the better FOV.

 

[997/2man]

FPNI.

2.5-10x42, love mine.

 

[CSTactical]

NF Compact scope rock on them.

Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[Kentucky Jelly]

NF BEAST is just way too much

 

[AlabamaShooter]

I've been happy with my USO 1.8-10x37

 

[shankster..]

 

[g3ninfinite]

The BEAST is way too much IMO for the Mk12. Go with the 2.5-10x32/42. They are awesome on the Mk12.

for your money.....x32 or x42

 

[BIPMaster]

Beast is way too much scope.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

F1 is the most I'd go. The 2.5-10x42 will do everything that rifle can and more though. I'd go for the 42mm over 32mm for larger exit pupil and parralax adjustment.

 

[TheGerman]

F1
2.5-10x32
CQBSS

 

[Wyfox]

I believe Mile High posted that they had some 2.5-10x24 in MOA available
Like everyone has already said, Beast is too much on an SPR

 

[Jig Stick]

You can accomplish just as much for way less money.

 

[Evolution 9]

The 2.5-10x24 is being brought back. Some were available a few weeks ago from several NF dealers. I suspect more will be available soon. If that is what you wanted all along, I say get it.

 

[steve123]

The optic you want for that AR is a Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44. The 4 mil circle is GTG on 3x for closer in being that it's FFP. BTW I replaced my NF 2.5-10x24 with the LRHS. I hated that that NF scope does not show what revolution the turret was on!!! My only complaint with the LRHS is the parallax is 50Y instead of 20' which was originally spec-ed.

 

[00bullitt]

for your money.....x32 or x42

Personally, for me, I would go with the 32mm as I prefer the fixed parallax on a Mk12 for shooting inside 600 yards. The 32mm still perfoms well in low light, you just need to use about 8x to where the 42 can pretty much be used on 10x. The 42 has the digillum dual color red/green) illumination incorporated in to the side focus knob. The 32mm just has a rheostat control for red illumination.

I have the 42mm on my LW hunting rig and when compared side to side in daylight conditions, glass quality is nearly identical, The 42mm has a little more of a forgiving eyebox than the 32, but IMO the 32 is as forgiving as it needs to be for any kind of positional shooting. Much more forgiving than the 24mm. I do prefer the side parallax correction on the 42mm for my hunting rig as I will shoot it to 1k if needed, but for shooting inside 600 with a 223, I have never had an issue with the capability of the 32mm.

Their was a limited run of a small quantity of 2.5-10x24's released a couple of months ago to the commercial market. There are not more expected in the near future.

 

[CanPopper]

I run a March 3-24x42 on a similar rifle. That to me is the right sized and most versatile scope for a longer barrel AR. And the magnification range means I can do some precision shooting to boot.

 

[The King]

I have the x32 MLR on a similar noveske. Its excellent for this.

 

[CSTactical]

I think you'd be better served with a 2.5-10 variable or similar on an SPR type setup, we have multiple options in stock or that we can deliver to you when you're ready and will meet or beat practically anybody out there.

Richard [MENTION=3594]CS[/MENTION] Tactical