NF 15-55 Comp replacement. March Highmaster super ED glass???

[dbramley]

If it helps with confidence, I won every single state match Arizona had to offer this season with a nightforce comp.

 

[6MMsteve]

I'm feeling guffey vibes, shell shock, and soup

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Im not sure how important tube thickness is unless your using the rifle in a "tactical" situation. The original 10-60 was/is an excellent scope and I believe the tubes were thinner on those. It suffered no issues due to that. March does use a one piece main tube, the NF comp is not a one piece tube, its a 2 piece tube. I dont know of any failures due to that joint though. The Vortex GE is actually a really solid scope, also a one piece tube, the glass may be one notch down from the very top end but for the price you can buy 2 of them.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

If it helps with confidence, I won every single state match Arizona had to offer this season with a nightforce comp.

Yeah, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with your shooting abilities.

I would guess that you would have done the same with any of the riflescopes being discussed here.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Im not sure how important tube thickness is unless your using the rifle in a "tactical" situation. The original 10-60 was/is an excellent scope and I believe the tubes were thinner on those. It suffered no issues due to that. March does use a one piece main tube, the NF comp is not a one piece tube, its a 2 piece tube. I dont know of any failures due to that joint though. The Vortex GE is actually a really solid scope, also a one piece tube, the glass may be one notch down from the very top end but for the price you can buy 2 of them.

The original March-10-60X52 is indeed an excellent scope and it does have the 2mm one-piece machined tube. I also agree about your ambivalance towards the importance of a 4mm thick tube on a rifle not being used in "tactical" situation. We don't much, if ever, hear of scope tube failures.

But I do take comfort in knowing that the scope on which I spent over $3000, is built to that level of toughness. My March-X 5-50X56 has served me well for 7 years and will continue to do so on another rifle now that it has been replaced on my F-TR rifle with the March-X 10-60X56 HM.

 

[johara1]

I really can't beat the drum for a Kahles, it was one of the worst scopes I ever shot with at 1000. A friend of mine was also shooting one and both came to the same conclusion, they are not clear at all. I could not even make out the X in the x ring, and my bud said the same with his and he is a Hall of Fame shooter.
The only problem with the 10-60x52 March is they were dark, but they flat shoot.... the 56 mm ones now fixed the dark problem and they shoot good.
The 10-50x 60 Sightron SVSS ED has only one problem is the weight and they shoot excellent ... jim

 

[MikeMcCasland]

I really can't beat the drum for a Kahles, it was one of the worst scopes I ever shot with at 1000. A friend of mine was also shooting one and both came to the same conclusion, they are not clear at all. I could not even make out the X in the x ring, and my bud said the same with his and he is a Hall of Fame shooter.
The only problem with the 10-60x52 March is they were dark, but they flat shoot.... the 56 mm ones now fixed the dark problem and they shoot good.
The 10-50x 60 Sightron SVSS ED has only one problem is the weight and they shoot excellent ... jim

I have to agree with you here. I bought one brand new at the end of 2020 and traded it for another NF Comp in the middle of it's first match. I couldn't see rings at 500 yards. I literally had to radio down to the pits to have them jam a scoring disk in the target so I had a point of reference.

I have good eyesight too.

I do agree on the build quality comments in this thread; if you handle one, the turrets and construction inspire quite a bit of confidence.

I know some big names in F-Open run this scope, but I honestly don't understand how they do it. It would cost me several points per match (at the scope I had would).

I would really like to try out the new SVSS ED on a rifle where weight isn't a concern.

 

[TylerFromMS]

I would really like to try out the new SVSS ED on a rifle where weight isn't a concern.

Sold a Kahles for one. Selling a March for another. The focus adjustment alone is worth the price of admission.

 

[KY_Windage]

Sold a Kahles for one. Selling a March for another. The focus adjustment alone is worth the price of admission.

I have never found the focus in my Comp's to be lacking in any regard, but I may not touch it in an entire day of shooting. When I do touch it, however, as when changing distance, the problem is not with the controls but with my eye. Age stuff make focusing your eye tricky at times, so I may have to dial back a forth a couple of times to be sure I have it right -- but I don't need a super-fine adjustment to get there.

A dot, however, is something I have to contend with on every, single shot, and it is something I will not tolerate in a serious target scope. Sightron does not seem to offer a target reticle without one. That alone makes the price of admission immaterial.

 

[Rook 6]

I have never found the focus in my Comp's to be lacking in any regard, but I may not touch it in an entire day of shooting. When I do touch it, however, as when changing distance, the problem is not with the controls but with my eye. Age stuff make focusing your eye tricky at times, so I may have to dial back a forth a couple of times to be sure I have it right -- but I don't need a super-fine adjustment to get there.

A dot, however, is something I have to contend with on every, single shot, and it is something I will not tolerate in a serious target scope. Sightron does not seem to offer a target reticle without one. That alone makes the price of admission immaterial.

I am new to F-Class, but not new to long range shooting. Could I ask you to elaborate on your dot comment? I historically have preferred dots, but my eyes we're much better the last time I used one on a bullseye target.

Thanks very much for any insight from a sort of new shooter.

 

[KY_Windage]

I am new to F-Class, but not new to long range shooting. Could I ask you to elaborate on your dot comment? I historically have preferred dots, but my eyes we're much better the last time I used one on a bullseye target.

Thanks very much for any insight from a sort of new shooter.

Sure, to me it is easier to quad-sect a round bulleye with a crosshair than to try to make a dot concentric inside the bullseye. And that, of course, assumes the dot is smaller than the bullseye. If the aimpoint happens to be smaller than the dat, then I am trying to use top-dead-center on the dot to aim with, which is much less desirable to me than using the crosshair intersection.

I know some people like a dot, and that is fine. I am just surprised that Sightron thinks everyone should want a dot.

 

[LRPV]

Sure, to me it is easier to quad-sect a round bulleye with a crosshair than to try to make a dot concentric inside the bullseye. And that, of course, assumes the dot is smaller than the bullseye. If the aimpoint happens to be smaller than the dat, then I am trying to use top-dead-center on the dot to aim with, which is much less desirable to me than using the crosshair intersection.

I know some people like a dot, and that is fine. I am just surprised that Sightron thinks everyone should want a dot.

Maybe it’s still too much but the dot in the crosshair of the new SV 10-50x60 is very small and barely bigger than the intersection of the crosshairs. I think dots are more popular with benchrest over F-class I’m guessing. NF DDR2 is pretty hard to beat for long range benchrest.

 

[Rook 6]

Sure, to me it is easier to quad-sect a round bulleye with a crosshair than to try to make a dot concentric inside the bullseye. And that, of course, assumes the dot is smaller than the bullseye. If the aimpoint happens to be smaller than the dat, then I am trying to use top-dead-center on the dot to aim with, which is much less desirable to me than using the crosshair intersection.

I know some people like a dot, and that is fine. I am just surprised that Sightron thinks everyone should want a dot.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. Especially with the small dots typically offered.

 

[dbramley]

Yeah, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with your shooting abilities.

I would guess that you would have done the same with any of the riflescopes being discussed here.

One can dream!!! thanks for the confidence.

 

[dbramley]

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. Especially with the small dots typically offered.

If I could add an opinion here, for those new to f class, here is my preference on dot vs cross hairs and why. Remember, it is only my opinion.
For team shooting, where a coach is telling you exactly where to hold, I like a dot. I feel I can get a more precise aim.
For individual shooting I like the FCR1 reticle of the comp. I personally do not like turning my knobs once going for record, too many times I have turned the wrong way. So if needed I will hold out past the edge of the target. With the fcr1 reticle with its graduated hash marks on the horizontal line I can just look across and see the number 3 is in the center, or say 2 rings right. That is my new hold. So now I am back to using the center of the target, just using a different “cross hair”. Or if the wind is high I will turn it to 40x which is its 1:1 subtend. Now the number 3 is 3 minutes. Put the number 3 in the x ring in a 6 mph wind and Bobs your uncle. I can’t do that with the DDR reticle. Just options.

 

[Ned Ludd]

If I could add an opinion here, for those new to f class, here is my preference on dot vs cross hairs and why. Remember, it is only my opinion.
For team shooting, where a coach is telling you exactly where to hold, I like a dot. I feel I can get a more precise aim.
For individual shooting I like the FCR1 reticle of the comp. I personally do not like turning my knobs once going for record, too many times I have turned the wrong way. So if needed I will hold out past the edge of the target. With the fcr1 reticle with its graduated hash marks on the horizontal line I can just look across and see the number 3 is in the center, or say 2 rings right. That is my new hold. So now I am back to using the center of the target, just using a different “cross hair”. Or if the wind is high I will turn it to 40x which is its 1:1 subtend. Now the number 3 is 3 minutes. Put the number 3 in the x ring in a 6 mph wind and Bobs your uncle. I can’t do that with the DDR reticle. Just options.

For anyone such as myself that rather liked the sound of "Bobs your uncle", but had absolutely no idea what it actually meant, I felt compelled to look it up:

Bob's your uncle - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bob's_your_uncle



"Bob's your uncle" is a phrase commonly used in Ireland, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries that means "and there it is" or "and there you have it" or "It's done". Typically, someone says it to conclude a set of simple instructions or when a result is reached.


Now I know.

​

​

 

[jelenko]

too many times I have turned the wrong way

Yeah. What is that about? It'll happen to me even when I'm being careful - e.g., saying to myself " I need to go left X amount", put it on the scope, check it. Send the shot, hmmm, it's way over there, odd, maybe need a bit more. Send it. Now waaay over their. Idiot alert. Look at what I wrote down, stumble through thinking - aw s**t.

 

[paulT]

For anyone such as myself that rather liked the sound of "Bobs your uncle", but had absolutely no idea what it actually meant, I felt compelled to look it up:

Bob's your uncle - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bob's_your_uncle



"Bob's your uncle" is a phrase commonly used in Ireland, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries that means "and there it is" or "and there you have it" or "It's done". Typically, someone says it to conclude a set of simple instructions or when a result is reached.


Now I know.

​

​

Not forgetting the old reply used years ago with Dans Statement
"Bobs your uncle & Fannys your Aunt"

 

[Alex Wheeler]

It seems everyone's eyes are a little different. I never recommend a scope based on how it looks. Only on how they have performed on the scope checker. Theres a lot of varying opinions on optical image, but mechanics is provable.

 

[FNSafari]

Just give me a scope that is honest when you adjust it in windage and elevation AND holds POI religiously. Everything else is window dressing.