I use a Nightforce 5.5-22X50mm NXS on rifles that appear identical but one is in 308 Winchester and the other is 300 Winchester Magnum. These rifles are for punching paper and not hunting. What do you use for long range paper?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Long Range Rifle Scopes
- Thread starter Doug627
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
cmort666
Member
I've got Bausch & Lomb Elite 6300s on my Savage 10FP (.308) and my Savage 112BVSS (.30-06). Both of them were mounted on Medesha inclined bases to allow for sufficient elevation at six hundred and a thousand yards until a planned [and subsequently canceled] hunting trip. They definitely get the job done at six hundred yards.
I no longer have a place to shoot rifle. Some day, I'd like to try them at a thousand yards.
I no longer have a place to shoot rifle. Some day, I'd like to try them at a thousand yards.
Last edited:
Nightforce 5.5-22x50 on a custom Remmy .308 for 600 and 1000 yard competition.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I'll give ya an answer you probably weren't thinking of....
I use a SWFA. The reason I selected it was because of elevation adjustment. Mine has 107MOA.
I needed as much elevation adjustment as possible for the distances I wanted, including using an EGW base that they custom cut for me to 40MOA. I can reach out 400yds with standard velocity .22LR. Internal mechanism has held up to extreme abuse regularly cranking on the finger adjustable turrets going from 50yds to 300yds for the past couple years. That's a lot of spinning!
. It has a rear focus and large markings on the turrets that are easy on aged eyes. Very nice match for what I wanted.
SWFA fixed 16x Mil-Dot.
I use a SWFA. The reason I selected it was because of elevation adjustment. Mine has 107MOA.
I needed as much elevation adjustment as possible for the distances I wanted, including using an EGW base that they custom cut for me to 40MOA. I can reach out 400yds with standard velocity .22LR. Internal mechanism has held up to extreme abuse regularly cranking on the finger adjustable turrets going from 50yds to 300yds for the past couple years. That's a lot of spinning!
. It has a rear focus and large markings on the turrets that are easy on aged eyes. Very nice match for what I wanted. SWFA fixed 16x Mil-Dot.
Frank237
Absent Comrade
Use a NF 5.5-22X on my .223 AI Trainer rifle. A 5-25X ATACR on my 6.5 x 47 Lapua. And a 8-32X56 SIGHTON III on my 6-6.5x47 Lapaua.
The NightForce scopes are both accurate, repeatable and have been 100% reliable for me.
The SIGHTON III is my 2nd. I have one of their 6-24X III models on an M1A. Both have been good scopes, especially at 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a comparable NF. Good optics, repeatable adjustments but my only complaint.....NO zero stop feature.
The NightForce scopes are both accurate, repeatable and have been 100% reliable for me.
The SIGHTON III is my 2nd. I have one of their 6-24X III models on an M1A. Both have been good scopes, especially at 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a comparable NF. Good optics, repeatable adjustments but my only complaint.....NO zero stop feature.
Last edited:
Lots of people using those junky NightForce scopes! Wut's up wit dat?
I needed a compact and bright 10x for a .308 to be used out to 500m. Mine's a 2.5-10x42mm NXS w/ MOAR and SFP. NightForce .885 low Direct Mount for Rem 700 short action and a NF bubble-level top rear ring. Mount perfectly bedded, installed, and scope leveled by yours truly.
I needed a compact and bright 10x for a .308 to be used out to 500m. Mine's a 2.5-10x42mm NXS w/ MOAR and SFP. NightForce .885 low Direct Mount for Rem 700 short action and a NF bubble-level top rear ring. Mount perfectly bedded, installed, and scope leveled by yours truly.
You have chosen wisely. I use Nightforce and Leupold and have gotten excellent performance from both. I really like NF illumination system compared to the Leupold carbuncle on the back. Anything much over 25X and mirage will kill you, except under perfect conditions. For some reason, I never seem to shoot in perfect conditions! 
Parallax adjustment is extremely important for shooting tight groups, so I have side focus knobs. My favorites would be NF NXS 8-32x56 on competition gun and NF NXS 2.5-10x50 for hunting. Nice rigs guys!!!
Parallax adjustment is extremely important for shooting tight groups, so I have side focus knobs. My favorites would be NF NXS 8-32x56 on competition gun and NF NXS 2.5-10x50 for hunting. Nice rigs guys!!!
400 yds with Std Vel? Sounds FUN!! Some days you might need 107MOA in windage too!!
My father used to be a part time competitive shooter in the early 60's. He shot a 1,000 yard match at Camp Perry where scopes were not allowed unless they had zero magnification. Everyone used peep sights back then. He put 9 shots in the X ring and 1 shot in the 10 ring, which wasn't good enough to qualify him for the next round!
Who needs scopes for long distance shooting?
Who needs scopes for long distance shooting?
My father used to be a part time competitive shooter in the early 60's. He shot a 1,000 yard match at Camp Perry where scopes were not allowed unless they had zero magnification. Everyone used peep sights back then. He put 9 shots in the X ring and 1 shot in the 10 ring, which wasn't good enough to qualify him for the next round!
Who needs scopes for long distance shooting?
I used to shoot service rifle competition with slow prone fired at 600 yards. The X ring on the MR-1 target is 6" in diameter and the 10 ring is 12" in diameter. Similarly the LR target used at 1000 yards has a 10" X ring and a 20" 10 ring.
Roughly speaking that requires 1 MOA accuracy for 100-10x or 200-20X perfect scores, and 2 MOA accuracy for 100 and 200 point scores. That's including the wind.
Consistent with that on a 100 yard reduced course where wind wasn't a factor it was comparatively easy to shoot a perfect score, but it still required the rifle, load and shooter to be capable of 1 MOA accuracy. That's quite possible given NM sights as the Mk 1 Mod 0 human eyeball is capable of detecting differences in width as small as .005" under ideal light and contrast conditions. And a well designed set of sights in combination with the buff colored target and the block bullseye allows for near ideal conditions to be achieved in good light.
The difference however between shooting on a target range and shooting in the field is the ability to see the target.
For example, the most difficult military qualification range I ever shot on was on a "train fire" target range that had just been set up in rolling heavily foliaged terrain where the green targets matched the green foliage very well. Being a new range, there was no chewed up dirt around the targets that helped you see them. It was possible to see the targets with the naked eye, but once you looked through the rear aperture, the reduction in light was just enough to make it very hard to see any contrast between target and back ground.
I encounter the same thing today shooting at black steel plates against a dark shadowed wooded back ground on my in-law's range. Worse, once the black plates get spattered with a few rounds, the lead spatter further reduces the contrast and makes them almost invisible through an aperture sight.
That's where a scope rules - it gives you the ability to see the target, and that's crucial as you can't hit it if you can't see it.
However, many shooters go over board on the magnification. Provided you can see the target clearly and accurately place the reticle on it, no more magnification is needed.
There is also no free lunch when it comes to an optic as the larger the magnification, the larger the objective lens has to be to provide adequate light and an adequately large exit pupil to make that light useable. And the larger the objective lens the larger and heavier thew scope, and the more expensive it is to build to the same level of quality. It's also not linear. A 56mm objective costs a lot more than a 40mm objective of the same quality and the increase in cost isn't linear.
Further more, in a refractor (and nearly all current rifle scopes are refractors - the possible exceptions being a couple LCD screen models with high resolution sensors and digital magnification), large objectives and the resulting faster focal ratio required in a practical overall length result in increased chromatic aberration. That requires an increased cost for an achromatic doublet, ED glass doublet, or apochromatic triplet objective lens and they are listed on order of increased effectiveness in reducing CA as well as cost.
The end result is that shooters often go for excessive magnification and end up with images that are lower contrast, dim, grainy, and with less actual resolution than a lower magnification scope of similar quality or price. They might work well on the target range, but they are poor choices in the field.
i really like the Nightforce thats some of the best glass on the market and a nice range of redicals to choose from
I'm a bit of a fanatic about optical quality - perhaps because I've been an amateur astronomer for a couple decades and have an observatory in the back yard.
I like Nightforce scopes - but they are, despite the usually 4 digit price, not known for having exceptional optics. You can get much better optics for less money and a Leupold VX- 2 has optics that are as good and the VX-3 optics are better – for a lot less money.
That’s probably heresy to say, as is pointing out that the optics in both the NXS and VHS series are the same. They are still very sharp and have excellent resolution and image brightness, however they have some issues with chromatic aberration and lack the contrast you expect at that price point and thus the optical quality doesn't impress the optical OCD in me. I can't comment on the ED glass ATACR series as I haven't owned or even tried one of them yet. The ED glass might make a difference in that regard.
However, what I do like about Nightforce scopes is the consistency, accuracy and repeatability of the adjustments, the alignment of the reticle with adjustments, and the range of adjustment. Even the less costly SHV series offers 100 MOA of elevation and 70 MOA of windage in the 4-14x56 model. For long range precision shooting precise, accurate and repeatable adjustments are absolutely critical to getting the first round on target.
I also like the reticle selections Nightforce offers, even though I still prefer MOA reticles and prefer second focal plane reticles.
Those factors basically drive my preference for a 4-14x56mm SHV with the MOAR reticle. It does everything I need it to do without making me pay for things I don’t want or use.
First focal plane (FFP) reticles are all the rage now as are Mil-Dot reticles, and that’s something that I find to be ironic given how the average owner of a FFP, Mil-Dot reticle scope uses it.
There’s no free lunch with a FFP reticle . The advantage of a FFP reticle is that the reticle subtends the same distance on the target regardless of the range. In other words, as the magnification increases and the target looks bigger in the scope, so does the reticle so that one mil dot or one MOA hash mark subtends the same distance on the target.
That’s very handy if you:
a) use the reticle for ranging and/or use the reticle for adding windage and elevation when shooting; AND
b) use different magnifications while doing that.
The downside however is that at higher magnifications the reticle starts to get very thick relative to the target and can obscure a small target at long range – exactly the time and place you’d use maximum magnification. At low magnifications the dots and hash marks as well as the cross hair starts to get very, very thin and hard to see, particularly in low light where you’re more likely to use low magnification, making an illuminated reticle almost essential. The end result is that the reticle thickness becomes a bit of a balancing act in the design looking for a sweet spot that will work at both high and low magnification.
The irony is that shooters gladly accept the downsides, often without really realizing they exist, and then seldom if ever use the scope in a manner where the FFP makes any positive contribution. If 90% of your long range shooting is done on maximum magnification, you don’t need the FFP feature.
Even more ironic are the shooters who get a Mil-Dot reticle and then work in yards and inches as it makes the math a lot harder than it needs to be. The Mil-Dot system is great and it makes the headwork very simple – provided that you are estimating ranges in meters and targets sizes in centimeters.
When estimating target range using a mil-dot reticle. The range in meters is equal to:
Target size in centimeters / Number of mils the target subtends x 10 = range in meters
For example if the target is 75cm tall and subtends 1.5 mil:
75/1.5 = 50, 50 x 10 = 500 meters; or
more practically in your head:
75/”15” = 5, then add back in the zero you took way ignoring the decimal to turn the “5” into a “50”, and finally 50 x 10 = 500 meters.
However if the shooter has a Mil-Dot reticle and is estimating target size in inches and range in yards, the math is much more complicated:
Target size in inches / target size in mils x 27.8 = range in yards
So…
18”/.8 mils = 22.5, 22.5 times 27.8 = 625 yards.
Sorry - I just can’t do that in my head.
Worse are the guys who want to use a mixed system with a Mil-Dot reticle and MOA adjustments on the scope. They have to apply a Mil to MOA correction on top of the already hard math, and they give up the ability to make the adjustment in the reticle. All that’s left is feeling cool because you have a Mil-Dot reticle (that you can’t use effectively).
The MOA system is also great – provided you are estimating target size in inches and range in yards.
Target size in inches / MOA subtended by the target x 100 = range in yards.
So, if a 30” target subtends 6 MOA in the reticle:
30/6 = 5, 5 x 100 = 500 yards
That math is dirt simple, even in your head.
Consequently, the system that works best for any individual is primarily dependent on what unit the individual is most comfortable using. The military likes mils and meters for standardization purposes with NATO allies, so mils and meters led to mil dot reticles in military service, and in typical military fashion with no particular concern given to ease of use for the solider using it.
However, because military shooters are “cool”, you’ll encounter civilian shooters who want to use what the military uses. But in the US they are usually Imperial unit people who may call a “yard” a meter and pretend to range in meters, but who also estimate target size in inches.
They struggle doing any of this range estimation math in their head, and generally just don’t do it - losing much of the utility the Mil Dot system provides in rapid shooting situations. They would have to give the up the mil-speaking cool factor, but they would be much better served with an MOA reticle.
However, if you want a challenge, try getting one of them to admit it in public…
I like Nightforce scopes - but they are, despite the usually 4 digit price, not known for having exceptional optics. You can get much better optics for less money and a Leupold VX- 2 has optics that are as good and the VX-3 optics are better – for a lot less money.
That’s probably heresy to say, as is pointing out that the optics in both the NXS and VHS series are the same. They are still very sharp and have excellent resolution and image brightness, however they have some issues with chromatic aberration and lack the contrast you expect at that price point and thus the optical quality doesn't impress the optical OCD in me. I can't comment on the ED glass ATACR series as I haven't owned or even tried one of them yet. The ED glass might make a difference in that regard.
However, what I do like about Nightforce scopes is the consistency, accuracy and repeatability of the adjustments, the alignment of the reticle with adjustments, and the range of adjustment. Even the less costly SHV series offers 100 MOA of elevation and 70 MOA of windage in the 4-14x56 model. For long range precision shooting precise, accurate and repeatable adjustments are absolutely critical to getting the first round on target.
I also like the reticle selections Nightforce offers, even though I still prefer MOA reticles and prefer second focal plane reticles.
Those factors basically drive my preference for a 4-14x56mm SHV with the MOAR reticle. It does everything I need it to do without making me pay for things I don’t want or use.
First focal plane (FFP) reticles are all the rage now as are Mil-Dot reticles, and that’s something that I find to be ironic given how the average owner of a FFP, Mil-Dot reticle scope uses it.
There’s no free lunch with a FFP reticle . The advantage of a FFP reticle is that the reticle subtends the same distance on the target regardless of the range. In other words, as the magnification increases and the target looks bigger in the scope, so does the reticle so that one mil dot or one MOA hash mark subtends the same distance on the target.
That’s very handy if you:
a) use the reticle for ranging and/or use the reticle for adding windage and elevation when shooting; AND
b) use different magnifications while doing that.
The downside however is that at higher magnifications the reticle starts to get very thick relative to the target and can obscure a small target at long range – exactly the time and place you’d use maximum magnification. At low magnifications the dots and hash marks as well as the cross hair starts to get very, very thin and hard to see, particularly in low light where you’re more likely to use low magnification, making an illuminated reticle almost essential. The end result is that the reticle thickness becomes a bit of a balancing act in the design looking for a sweet spot that will work at both high and low magnification.
The irony is that shooters gladly accept the downsides, often without really realizing they exist, and then seldom if ever use the scope in a manner where the FFP makes any positive contribution. If 90% of your long range shooting is done on maximum magnification, you don’t need the FFP feature.
Even more ironic are the shooters who get a Mil-Dot reticle and then work in yards and inches as it makes the math a lot harder than it needs to be. The Mil-Dot system is great and it makes the headwork very simple – provided that you are estimating ranges in meters and targets sizes in centimeters.
When estimating target range using a mil-dot reticle. The range in meters is equal to:
Target size in centimeters / Number of mils the target subtends x 10 = range in meters
For example if the target is 75cm tall and subtends 1.5 mil:
75/1.5 = 50, 50 x 10 = 500 meters; or
more practically in your head:
75/”15” = 5, then add back in the zero you took way ignoring the decimal to turn the “5” into a “50”, and finally 50 x 10 = 500 meters.
However if the shooter has a Mil-Dot reticle and is estimating target size in inches and range in yards, the math is much more complicated:
Target size in inches / target size in mils x 27.8 = range in yards
So…
18”/.8 mils = 22.5, 22.5 times 27.8 = 625 yards.
Sorry - I just can’t do that in my head.
Worse are the guys who want to use a mixed system with a Mil-Dot reticle and MOA adjustments on the scope. They have to apply a Mil to MOA correction on top of the already hard math, and they give up the ability to make the adjustment in the reticle. All that’s left is feeling cool because you have a Mil-Dot reticle (that you can’t use effectively).
The MOA system is also great – provided you are estimating target size in inches and range in yards.
Target size in inches / MOA subtended by the target x 100 = range in yards.
So, if a 30” target subtends 6 MOA in the reticle:
30/6 = 5, 5 x 100 = 500 yards
That math is dirt simple, even in your head.
Consequently, the system that works best for any individual is primarily dependent on what unit the individual is most comfortable using. The military likes mils and meters for standardization purposes with NATO allies, so mils and meters led to mil dot reticles in military service, and in typical military fashion with no particular concern given to ease of use for the solider using it.
However, because military shooters are “cool”, you’ll encounter civilian shooters who want to use what the military uses. But in the US they are usually Imperial unit people who may call a “yard” a meter and pretend to range in meters, but who also estimate target size in inches.
They struggle doing any of this range estimation math in their head, and generally just don’t do it - losing much of the utility the Mil Dot system provides in rapid shooting situations. They would have to give the up the mil-speaking cool factor, but they would be much better served with an MOA reticle.
However, if you want a challenge, try getting one of them to admit it in public…
rubicon20032003
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 175
I've shoot them all us optics .premier scopes.Kalhes ..S&B are for the select that want to shoot to their best ability .They do make a difference out there.And it comes down to you get what you pay for
I have entered the world of scopes a few years ago, after shooting irons almost exclusively since the late 60s.
I am now shooting F class, and scopes are essential, even on a limited income. I like the old El Paso Weaver T scopes. My 300 yard Model 700 in 223 wears a T10. My 600/1000 yard AR15 wears a Weaver T10. My Remington 700 in 308 wears a Weaver T16 for 600 and 1000 yard matches. My Remington 700 Long Range in 7mm Remington Magnum wears a Vortex Viper PST 6-24 SFP scope.
To date, I have not had any complaints with these scopes, but I do like the Vortex!
I am now shooting F class, and scopes are essential, even on a limited income. I like the old El Paso Weaver T scopes. My 300 yard Model 700 in 223 wears a T10. My 600/1000 yard AR15 wears a Weaver T10. My Remington 700 in 308 wears a Weaver T16 for 600 and 1000 yard matches. My Remington 700 Long Range in 7mm Remington Magnum wears a Vortex Viper PST 6-24 SFP scope.
To date, I have not had any complaints with these scopes, but I do like the Vortex!
rubicon20032003
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2010
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 175
Vortex is a great company getting into the world of long range scopes..From the ones I've seen and used on other guys rifles.They offer a lot of features of high dollar scopes at a decent price .Razor line I've dealt with
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Cleaned up the thread.
Sorry. I have had it about 10 years and I don't remember what it's called or where I got it.
It is slick though as I can just unhook the rear sling swivel hold the small loop around the sling, slide it down, then insert my arm in the resulting loop like you would in a 1907 leather or Garand/M-14/M16 canvas or nylon military sling - but much faster and easier.
I will second the Weaver brand.
I have two Japan made Weaver CT36X scopes. One has been on a 6BR benchrest rifle since new and the other on several different rifles including it's current home a Rem. VLS in .243 Win.
Both are at least 10 years old and I have not had any issues with either one.
If and when I put together a 3rd competition rifle I will look for another CT36X. These fit my budget and have worked flawlessly for me.
As a cheap alternative, when I first started to shoot competiton I had a Simmons Whitetail Classic 6.5X18X that got me by until I could afford the Weavers. The Whitetail scopes that I used were the Japan made model not the current China produced scopes. No comparison in quality. JA
I have two Japan made Weaver CT36X scopes. One has been on a 6BR benchrest rifle since new and the other on several different rifles including it's current home a Rem. VLS in .243 Win.
Both are at least 10 years old and I have not had any issues with either one.
If and when I put together a 3rd competition rifle I will look for another CT36X. These fit my budget and have worked flawlessly for me.
As a cheap alternative, when I first started to shoot competiton I had a Simmons Whitetail Classic 6.5X18X that got me by until I could afford the Weavers. The Whitetail scopes that I used were the Japan made model not the current China produced scopes. No comparison in quality. JA
