Don't lump them all together, just because they are from the same company. I had one NXS fail and it was repaired and shot a record, the rest of the NXS's were trouble free. Br's were without issues also, but the comps were an an other story, 4 out of 4 would not hold point of impact. They also lie about fixing them and the power is over rated compared to an 42 power NXS or the NXS is under rated the comp. has to be near 50 to equal a NXS at 42. The story they tell you that your base isn't bedded and that your rings aren't any good, if you are content with a quarter to a half inch gun they are fine.... Jim
March vs. Nightforce Repeatability and Reliability
- Thread starter Killick
- Start date
Don't lump them all together, just because they are from the same company. I had one NXS fail and it was repaired and shot a record, the rest of the NXS's were trouble free. Br's were without issues also, but the comps were an an other story, 4 out of 4 would not hold point of impact. They also lie about fixing them and the power is over rated compared to an 42 power NXS or the NXS is under rated the comp. has to be near 50 to equal a NXS at 42. The story they tell you that your base isn't bedded and that your rings aren't any good, if you are content with a quarter to a half inch gun they are fine.... Jim
I said I would not get pulled into this debate, but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night.
I presently shoot 3 NF Comps and 2 March HM's. The NF Comps shoot just as small, and are just as repeatable, as the March's are, from 100 to 600 yards. To my eyes, the March HM is darker than the NF, but I like the March turrets better. I am satisfied with both brands.. All these negative comments about the NF Comp are based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinions, and limited samples. I don't doubt that some people have had issues with the NF, and I don't doubt that some people have had issues with the March. Anything man-made can fail. My two-cents is that YMMV, YMMV, YMMV.
Jack
I presently shoot 3 NF Comps and 2 March HM's. The NF Comps shoot just as small, and are just as repeatable, as the March's are, from 100 to 600 yards. To my eyes, the March HM is darker than the NF, but I like the March turrets better. I am satisfied with both brands.. All these negative comments about the NF Comp are based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinions, and limited samples. I don't doubt that some people have had issues with the NF, and I don't doubt that some people have had issues with the March. Anything man-made can fail. My two-cents is that YMMV, YMMV, YMMV.
Jack
Now just imagine if it had been a Holiday Inn Express!
Yea, like 4 in a row, I also know a top score shooter that just had two NF. comps fail........ Jim
Well Jim I heard from a reliable source over 3 weeks ago that NF finally admitted that there is a problem with their 15-55 comp and they have a fix for it. Bout time they fessed up.
How have you been ,Jim? Missed you at A.C. the last two matches.
How many NF Comps have been produced? IOW, what percentage of the total produced do these "problem" scopes represent? Where is the logic in assuming all NF Comps are deficient because you and this unnamed shooter had issues? This is not intended to be disrespectful to you or anyone else. My point is that broad generalizations are rarely accurate. I am already starting to regret getting sucked into this debate!
Jack
Last edited:
Thank you for a reasonable post jack
Jack, health issues. But with NF. funny I understand the ones checked are at at 90% failure rate. .... consider yourself very lucky. ... Jim
Jim I hope your right I would like to have one that worked, I really don't want to spend an other 2300.00 to find out.......... Jim
Maybe I am lucky, Jim. That certainly would be something different.
The last thing I will say about this is that I believe the vast majority of the "ones checked" were PROBABLY ones that caused the owners to be suspicious. So, these are NOT a valid sample and not a result that one can use to infer to all NF Comps. Think about it...if you had one that gave you no reason to be suspicious, would you go through the trouble of having it checked?
I hope you get well. I will be running a new match for next year.
Jack
No, wouldn't have, but the first strike was was the power claim, when it had to be turned up mast 42 to be equal to 42 NXS. then it would repeat in group size changed barrels loads everything. The only thing that would make the gun shoot small was to change scopes to a March. The problem there is the March was dark for me with failing eye sight. this happened not once but 3 times I finally gave up on them. The bottom line is if it doesn't hold point of impact and doesn't repeat and the lame statements from NF. it is time to move on, I invested almost 10,000.00 in junk....... Kind of like buying a 1000 bullets and a 100 being good...... Jim
pat fulghum
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I think the best thing to do is test it!
If the results you get are within the range of movement that is acceptable to you then shoot it. The “introduction” of scope testers for under $200 is well worth the money after dropping the money on multiple scopes.
I shoot both a march HM (10-60) and NF COMP. both have been tested to MY satisfaction.
If the results you get are within the range of movement that is acceptable to you then shoot it. The “introduction” of scope testers for under $200 is well worth the money after dropping the money on multiple scopes.
I shoot both a march HM (10-60) and NF COMP. both have been tested to MY satisfaction.
The Question is for how long, my bud has a 2013 NF. comp still going strong and an other that had two NF. comps. fail at the same time. A scope checker is needed these days it seems with a failure rate over 90%...... and the company that tells you there is nothing wrong, it is your rings and base..... Jim
Last edited:
If any person lays down 1500.00-2200.00 on a scope and then has to spend another 200.00for a device to check it is absurd. These scopes at the prices we pay should all be checked before they are ever packaged to sell.
That’s like saying hey let’s buy a barrel and spend a grand for a air gauge to make sure the bore is truly what it’s sold as.
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
I think it's absurd not to. You would lay out that kind of money and just assume that the manufacturer individually blessed your scope to be perfect? What about your house? At the price you pay for your house, why would you bother inspecting it? Or your car? Or any of the hundreds or thousands of high dollar items people buy every year.
And yeah, I would absolutely spend a grand on an air gauge to make sure the bore is truly what it's sold as. Or buy an expensive bore scope. Because, every single barrel sold by a manufacturer is perfect... said no one ever.
High price != guaranteed perfect function.
Because the scopes have this little sticker attached that’s been inspected or verified.
So you’re saying you have a precision air gauge to measure your barrels?
Most homes in the 100’s thousand of dollars are typically requir d for inspection before financing. Also new homes are inspected by building codes prior to being given final approval for ads to keep them contractors honest.
In your theory here if one has a gunsmith build him a custom rifle then before receiving one should have it sent to another smith to be inspected?
pat fulghum
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I agree 100%.
We can extend this argument to bullets. Should we just assume that all bullets of lot X all perfect? NO!
That is why some people buy bullet sorters and then spend time sorting.
Manufacturers have different tolerances for variation.
If the variance of some measurement is acceptable to YOU, then don't sort.
Back to scopes....
Scopes are suppose to move exactly once click and hold there..... most do, but there is manufacturing variation and they are NOT perfect.
Let's look at the cost of just a checker...
Let's say you travel for a 3 day weekend F-Class or benchrest match.... Cost of travel, lodging, meals, ammo, barrel wear... etc.... It adds up to well in excess of $10/shot. Then you get that unexplained impact shift....
Realistically, that $150 "scope checker" now seems very inexpensive.
-pat
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
You are deliberately misconstruing the argument here - I could easily take your specious example of a gunsmith and convert that to a mechanic, or contractor, or any product. I'm going to assume that your experience with gunsmith work has been absolutely perfect and that there was no need for you to ever verify their work. Doesn't sound like the experience most have, but hey, good for you.
Those homes are only required to be inspected because they are being financed through a bank. So sure, maybe that's a bad example since most people are not paying cash for a house. In your theory, one could purchase any product with a "QA verified" sticker on it and by that assume that everything is absolutely perfect.
If you want to take a "QA sticker" at face value, then yeah, go right ahead. Marketer's love you. I prefer to trust-but-verify. For anything, not just high end optics.
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
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.