March 10-60 Vs NF Comp 15-55. Which do you prefer for F class and why.
- Thread starter maxpower
- Start date
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
Exactly. Unless someone wants to post a similar thread periodically and tally a very large sample of answers to see whether there is actually any statistical significance to one opinion or another, then there is no correct or incorrect answer, exactly as I stated the first time. Whenever that is true, people most likely choose whatever answer they want to hear, which is exactly why I stated these threads are of little use. At least by looking through a particular scope they will be forming an opinion based on personal observation, not secondhand opinion.
First there is a difference many NXS scopes and Comps and BR. models, the only one that keeps the point of impacts the BR model but shooting free recoil and the short eye relief tend to work on you. The weight is an other issue, a March 10-60 weighs in a 24 oz. and is rock solid but dark with a more critical eye box. i can't shoot in the morning due to this because my back yard range is in the woods. The Valdada is bright and clear, so is the NF. comp. but it will not shoot small after about 6mos. take it off and put on the March level it up same shells and it shoots small again. i have to deal with dark and the critical eye box to get something that will hold point of impact, the NF i can see out of the eye box is less critical but it will not hold point of impact. I keep searching for the perfect one, the Valdada is but at 36 power...... jim
As the OP, the responses have been very helpful. I take your points about different eyes seeing different but I get the general idea. I was kinda keen on the NF being made in USA with lifetime warranty and good optics. I thought I heard a while back that some March scopes had the occasional issue as well, is that correct?
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
reliability will trump a warranty and where a scope is made. any scope manufacturer can produce a scope that has issues. some have more consistently recurring issues than others.
Raythemanroe
Bullet Whisperer
I believe NF is assembled in the U.S. but the parts are imported other than some Military models if I remember correct... When you are talking NF and March you are getting in some picky territory..
Ray
Ray
There was an issue of clarity on the straight 50's early on, but that was a coating issue, other than that I have never heard of a POI issue whatsoever. NF on the other hand, I have hear of issues relating to POI, and then there is the issue with mirage than it magnifies mirage because of clarity. Lets face it any scope can fail. Like I said before, Marches might not be the clearest scope, but it holds POI second to none. As long as I can see the target, that's all I care about. NF's are assembled in the US but the glass is made and coated in Japan.
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
I agree with Jim. I have seen more 15-55x fail than every other high powered variable combined. Most are small poi shifts, but some flat out either quit adjusting or broke bad enough to not even stay on paper. In the end a total failure is no big deal because you know it. Its very hard to diagnose small poi movements. Unfortunately I wouldnt have one on a serious competition rifle if they were free. The glass is so good on them that its really a shame. NF wouldnt even speak to me about these issues.
I agree with Jim. I have seen more 15-55x fail than every other high powered variable combined. Most are small poi shifts, but some flat out either quit adjusting or broke bad enough to not even stay on paper. In the end a total failure is no big deal because you know it. Its very hard to diagnose small poi movements. Unfortunately I wouldnt have one on a serious competition rifle if they were free. The glass is so good on them that its really a shame. NF wouldnt even speak to me about these issues.
Alex, the part that gets me is they think you are a moron and give a BS. story about the rings and bedding the base. The first thing in fixing a problem is admitting you have one. I guess you got to have a proven spare ....... jim
How long before scope manufacturers realize they need high resolution live image electronic displays (external or internal) for shooters with less than perfect vision? Basically a rifle scope is a rugged zoom lens with a limited detector, the Mk1 eyeball.
As an aside, resolution is easily measured objectively. Subjective comparisons are of limited value between observers. I spent my life peering at specimens with optics whose cost dwarfs the cost of the most expensive rifle scope, and cannot count the times I had to properly adjust a microscope for a user who thought the image was fine.
As an aside, resolution is easily measured objectively. Subjective comparisons are of limited value between observers. I spent my life peering at specimens with optics whose cost dwarfs the cost of the most expensive rifle scope, and cannot count the times I had to properly adjust a microscope for a user who thought the image was fine.
I can't believe what I just read here. You say you have 10 nxs and 1 comp and you think the nxs glass is just as good as the comp? Your comp must be screwed up. I doubt there is another person on the planet that would agree with that. I sold my comp to put a high master on order and have been using my 12-42 nxs at my 600 & 1000 yd br matches until I get my new scope. It's been a real downer after being used to the glass in my 2014 comp. They aren't even close and i feel my nxs is definitely holding me back. Also, I have never heard of one person, until now, that didn't agree the the comp has the best glass to date. To bad so many are having another problem that NF says does not exist. Hopefully soon we may have the best of both worlds. We'll see.
Last edited:
That's his opinion but all the other opinions I've heard have been the same except his. I'd say there's something to it beyond opinion.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
Perhaps it's your NXS that is substandard relative to most others, not the other way around. You must not interact with many shooters or have a whole lot of experience with various scopes because I personally know quite a few that don't think the Comp glass is much, if any, better than the NXS. To each their own. If the glass in an NXS is "holding you back", I suspect there are other issues besides the scope. Top level F-Class shooters have used the NF NXS and BR scopes for many years and I seriously doubt many would tell you that a new Comp scope suddenly upped their game (and scores) to a whole new level. Personally, I don't particularly care what anyone else's opinion is anyhow; I know what my eyes see and someone else's eyes may be different. That is exactly why I stated in the beginning that the only real way to know is to look through one yourself because opinions on glass are about as subjective as anything we do in this sport. There is no right or wrong answer, only what the individual's own eyes perceive.
Last edited:
The reason I feel it's holding me back is because when I'm aiming at the small bull on our nbrsa 600 yd targets I can't see it nearly as clear as I could with my comp. I feel I can't aim with the same precision. In benchrest I'm shooting first for small group (precision) and second for score. Doubt it has much affect on my score. If it were a NF br I wouldn"t feel it was holding mr back, because it wouldn't be. Know a guy with same scope on his ar and they look to have same quality glass. I've shot with the 12-42 NF br and it's considerably clearer than the nxs. I've only ever heard the same from others.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
That really doesn't make complete sense to me. I also have a 12-42x56 BR in addition to several 12-42x56 NXSs. IMO, the glass on the BR is not "better" than the NXS. In fact, I believe those two scopes use the exact same lenses. They have essentially the same glass, the same upper mag limit, and the same objective lens diameter; the most notable difference the two being front versus side parallax. So I don't really get why a BR 12-42 be any different than an NXS 12-42. Regardless, I respect your opinion on the issue, even if I may not understand or share it.
Given your specific use in the case of the Comp scope, how much of the advantage in aiming do you feel is due to the higher mag? You might like the Vortex Golden Eagle (60X) or one of the March high mag scopes (up to 80X) even better. I can clearly appreciate the extra mag of the Comp when doing load development with that rifle over the ones with NXS 12-42s. But in F-Class competition, I rarely run any scope over about 35X in matches, partly because of mirage, and partly because it dramatically increases my chances of cross-firing. So for me, the benefit of the Comp's extra mag is largely lost, except during load development.
There are a couple other features on the Competition I also believe are improvements over the NXS, such as the the turret markings. However, its eyebox is much tighter, it has less eye relief, and has about 8% smaller exit pupil than the NXS due to the smaller objective. These are features that make a significant difference in the type of shooting I do, to such an extent that even if the glass was slightly better, it wouldn't offset the other features I don't care for in my intended purpose. Again, these are all things that the end user really ought to check out in person if possible, given the amount of $$$ they will spend on one. Personal preferences, intended uses, and even scope to scope variation are things that can be difficult to address solely based on someone else's opinion.
Given your specific use in the case of the Comp scope, how much of the advantage in aiming do you feel is due to the higher mag? You might like the Vortex Golden Eagle (60X) or one of the March high mag scopes (up to 80X) even better. I can clearly appreciate the extra mag of the Comp when doing load development with that rifle over the ones with NXS 12-42s. But in F-Class competition, I rarely run any scope over about 35X in matches, partly because of mirage, and partly because it dramatically increases my chances of cross-firing. So for me, the benefit of the Comp's extra mag is largely lost, except during load development.
There are a couple other features on the Competition I also believe are improvements over the NXS, such as the the turret markings. However, its eyebox is much tighter, it has less eye relief, and has about 8% smaller exit pupil than the NXS due to the smaller objective. These are features that make a significant difference in the type of shooting I do, to such an extent that even if the glass was slightly better, it wouldn't offset the other features I don't care for in my intended purpose. Again, these are all things that the end user really ought to check out in person if possible, given the amount of $$$ they will spend on one. Personal preferences, intended uses, and even scope to scope variation are things that can be difficult to address solely based on someone else's opinion.
To the original OP here is the poll from the 2017 Berger SW Nationals.
http://www.bergerbullets.com/SW_Nationals/2017-swn-equipment-list-open.pdf
http://www.bergerbullets.com/SW_Nationals/2017-swn-equipment-list-ftr.pdf
Its pretty obvious to see which is the more popular scope in F-Class. I’m not saying March is bad, but the Nightforce is the scope you see the most up and down the firing lines.
http://www.bergerbullets.com/SW_Nationals/2017-swn-equipment-list-open.pdf
http://www.bergerbullets.com/SW_Nationals/2017-swn-equipment-list-ftr.pdf
Its pretty obvious to see which is the more popular scope in F-Class. I’m not saying March is bad, but the Nightforce is the scope you see the most up and down the firing lines.
This statement is completely backwards. The better and clearer the glass the less mirage you will see.
Sorry bud but that hasn't been the case. I can name 2 shooters that would challenge your statement. Maybe in theory it's suppose to be that way but in real life it's not! Roy Hunter who makes stocks, and Jim Eazor who makes EPS bullets will tell you different. Roy got rid of both his NF Comp's and Eazor got rid of his also and both bought a March 10-60x52 and they both came to the same conclusion, that the NF was too clear and it amplified the mirage that much more.
Last edited:
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
Jim's response is a brilliant example of a fallacy known as "appeal to false authority." Look it up, it's a real thing. In simple terms, I don't see why a third hand attribution to a stock maker and a bullet maker has any bearing whatsoever in this discussion.
Because not only does one make stocks and the other makes bullets, they both are competitive shooters that compete in real world matches and their input is just as important as yours, THAT'S WHY THEIR OPINION HAS BEARING IN THIS DISCUSSION MR TURBULENT TURTLE, BIG TIME F-TR COMPETITOR . Roy Hunter has forgot more about benchrest shooting than you'll ever know.
Last edited:
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.