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

[LRPV]

Looking to add another scope to the stable. From what I've personally looked through, you cannot beat a NF 15-55 Comp for glass quality and I don't want to give up any of that but would be interested in adding some confidence when it comes to adjustments and POA shift. Anyone have direct experience comparing the NEW super ED glass in either the High Master 40-60x52 EP or the 10-60x56 with the 34mm tube??

 

[JimPag]

Your not going to find any scope with the clarity and brightness of the NF 55 Comp. I own 5 high master scopes and they still aren't as clear as any of the 55 Comps that I've owned. The Marches are better in mirage conditions. The brightness and clarity of the NF seems to amplify mirage more than the Marches that's why everyone who I know who has both seem to prefer the March in bad mirage conditions.

 

[Evan]

The bigger deal with the Sightron SVSS ED is the geared focus which is a game changer for very fine focus adjustments. The exceptional glass is on par with the NF to my eyes.

lancexxx here on the forum is a Sightron dealer and can get you an excellent deal on one.

 

[LRPV]

The bigger deal with the Sightron SVSS ED is the geared focus which is a game changer for very fine focus adjustments. The exceptional glass is on par with the NF to my eyes.

lancexxx here on the forum is a Sightron dealer and can get you an excellent deal on one.

Those things are pigs. Wow. Heavy duty. Thanks.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Looking to add another scope to the stable. From what I've personally looked through, you cannot beat a NF 15-55 Comp for glass quality and I don't want to give up any of that but would be interested in adding some confidence when it comes to adjustments and POA shift. Anyone have direct experience comparing the NEW super ED glass in either the High Master 40-60x52 EP or the 10-60x56 with the 34mm tube??

I have looked through the March 40-60X52EP scope and it is a very nice scope made that way for a very specific reason. Since I shoot F-class almost exclusively, that scope was not something in which I was interested.

I have a March-X 10-60X56 HM and have been shooting with it all of 2020 (except when the China virus shut down the range for a couple months on the spring.) I run my March-X at 50X, year round; mirage or no mirage. I have reported at this site on various threads how the High Master Super ED glass appears to be less affected by mirage compared to regular glass. I even postulated some hypothesis as to why ED and Super-ED glass would behave that way.

That said, I have also looked through the NF 15-55X52 as it is a staple on the F-Class circuit, albeit somewhat less pervasive than it used to be. The NF 15-55X52 does indeed have good brightness and clarity, but when the mirage comes up, to my eye it is much more affected by that atmospheric phenomenon compared to my March-X 10-60X56 HM.

March recently posted a detailed comparison chart for all their riflescopes and the top 3 in Image Quality (IQ) are the Genesis 6-60X56, 4-40X52 and the March-X 10-60X56. There are other March scopes that use the High Master Super-ED lens system, but these three have the best IQ due to several factors (larger diameter objective, longer scope, etc.) You can read about all that in a detailed post on the March website.

The March-X 10-60X56 HM has a 34mm tube with 4mm thick walls, 2 Super-ED lens elements (the objective lens doublet) and only weighs right at 32 ounces (two pounds).

 

[Evan]

Those things are pigs. Wow. Heavy duty. Thanks.

Yeah, it's really heavy. I feel like it makes my BR rifle torque more in the rest - like all that weight up high upsets it under recoil. Thinking about swapping my Vortex GE on to see if it makes a difference but haven't bothered yet because it's on another rifle and I don't feel like re-sighting in 2 rifles to test the theory.

 

[TylerFromMS]

@Turbulent Turtle its interesting you mention the 40-60 because I just got one to go on an F-Class rifle. What is it that you don’t like?

Nothing to date has made my eye as happy as the SVSS ED Sightron. The focus knob alone is worth the price of admission to me. I sold a kahles, have looked through countless NF and GEs(great for the $), and still have an S3. I’ll see if I like the 40-60 as much as I think I will, and if not, I’ll get another SVSS.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

@Turbulent Turtle its interesting you mention the 40-60 because I just got one to go on an F-Class rifle. What is it that you don’t like?

Nothing to date has made my eye as happy as the SVSS ED Sightron. The focus knob alone is worth the price of admission to me. I sold a kahles, have looked through countless NF and GEs(great for the $), and still have an S3. I’ll see if I like the 40-60 as much as I think I will, and if not, I’ll get another SVSS.

I did not say I didn't like the March 40-60X52 EZ, I said that it was not something I wanted to use for F-Class. But your question is a good one, so here is my reasoning.

The March 40-60X52 EZ is essentially a fixed 40X52 with a 1.5X zoom built into the eyepiece. This riflescope, along with the 40X52 (and now the 48X52), are highly prized by the benchresters who won them. The reasoning behind an eyepiece zoom is that this completely and totally eliminates any POA shift due to zoom. Since the zoom lens is after the SFP, there is no way in which operating the zoom will cause any shifting of the POA on the target. The zoom only expands or contracts the image already formed at the SFP. This is something that benchresters can rely on when shooting their minuscule groups.

The drawback of the Eyepiece Zoom is that the eyepiece itself grows in length when you zoom in. That's just the way it works, can't fight optics. I am given to (mis)understand that benchresters don't really care about form; when they fire their 5 shot string, they may not even look through the scope between shots. They just fire as quickly as possible. But what do I know, I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn since the Chinese virus hit.

That said, I have been shooting at 40X solid with my March-X 5-50X56 for the last 5 years. Always 40X, and let the ED lens deal with the mirage. Since I acquired my March-X 10-60X56 HM, I have cranked up to 50X and I stay there all the time and let the Super ED lens deal with the mirage. Essentially, I am using my March-X 5-50X56 like the March 40X52 and my March-X 10-60X56 like I would a March 40-60X52 EZ set to 50X.

I have the MTR-5 reticle in both of my March-X scopes. I'm an old geezer, 66 years old and I could no longer see the MTR-2 on the target; thank God for the MTR-5. I like the etched reticle offerings for the March-X series. The March 48X52 (which replaced the 40X52) and the March 40-60 EX do not have these etched reticles and so no MTR-5. Did you get the crosshair or the dot reticle?

 

[TylerFromMS]

@Turbulent Turtle fantastic response. It's funny that you mention staying at 40x because I stay at 50 with my Sightrons, so I figured I didn't need the additional magnification or lack thereof. I rarely will come down to 40 on any particularly nasty mirage day. If it's that bad, I knock parallax out to verify wind calls with spotting scope and then focus back in. That's part of the reason I wasn't too worried about the eyepiece moving, as well.

The benchrest guys I've been around/shot with are all 600 yard guys, and they care quite a bit about form. Up to videoing themselves shooting to find where they could move more efficiently to get loaded/back on target to get the rounds down quicker. The rifles track amazingly, to be sure, but they have to verify the placement with the scope. I've learned a lot from them through watching and asking questions. I have got my sighting scope set up where my cheek hairs never leave the rifle, disrupting as little as possible, just open and close different eyes.

I've got the target dot on svss, s3, and 40-60. I had the Kahles and learned that I am too stupid to do real holdovers. My brain freezes. I just hold rings. If mirage is bad enough where I can't see rings, then I'll turn power down. Maybe. I never have on svss, and only a few times on s3. I tried bracketing with the Kahles and it just wasn't happening.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

You know @RKS , you're really starting to make me question my choices with your shenanigans. I consider the March-X 10-60X56 HM to be the queen of optics for F-Class mainly because of its resistance to degradation of IQ due to mirage and the wonderful control of CA on the target. Since I'm always at 50X, a fixed power or an EZ would not be out of place. However, I still love my MTR-5.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

@TylerFromMS , the few benchresters that I know have no form. This is why I pled ignorance right off the bat; I was born at night, but it was not last night.

I hold rings also, so don't feel bad. What I like about the MTR-5 is that I can be surgical when I'm holding into the 8-ring or greater and use the hash marks to repeat the shot as needed. Since the Super-ED glass takes away all the hair on the rings and doesn't get destroyed as quickly by mirage, I use that feature. I can hit a a 9 with the best of them, with surgical precision.

 

[paulT]

Has anyone found the fine cross hair with 1/16 centre dot reticle option for the March 10x60x56 HM hard to make out the Target in heavy mirage conditions when shooting Longrange F Class and could reccomend a reticle which makes out the target in Heavy mirage without obscuring too much of the Target, Thanks.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

i’ve had both. but only have the nf scopes now. in my opinion if you want absolute solid tracking and return the khales 1050 is unbeatable. i sold mine bc through my eyes the glass seemed to give a slight blue haze but other people couldn’t see it. i would trust the khales over the match any day of the week just bc it’s built like a tank. although march never gave me a reason to not trust it. the khales just feels tougher and in all the scope checkers posts i’ve read i’ve never seen one fail.

In the annals of cluelessness this post stands out. 69mach is comparing the March-X 10-60X56 HM (I assume that's what he means by "match") to a Kahles K1050 (Another assumption, as I think that's what he means by "khales 1050") He considers the K1050 to be tougher than the March-X HM. A quick peek at the Kahles website shows that the K1050 has a 30mm tube to the 34mm tube for the March-X HM. Now, a 30mm tube has a wall thickness of 2mm. The March-X HM, and indeed all March scopes with a 56mm objective lens, have a 34mm tube with a wall thickness of 4mm. That's twice the thickness of the 30mm tube in the Kahles. The March-X is immensily strong. You may think the "khales 1050" is built like a tank, but there are differences in tank strength. Think of the "khales 1050" as a Sherman tank and the March-X HM as an Abrams.

Also, if you compare the NF Competition to the March-X HM, keep in mind that when it comes to strength, the NF has a 30mm tube (2mm wall thickness) to the March-X 34m tube with the 4mm wall thickness.

I will also restate that March machines their scope bodies from a billet of expensive (not the mundane 6061 or 7075) aluminum and they do not extrude any part.

So pardon me as I laugh in the face of your statement about the "khales" feeling tougher.

 

[TylerFromMS]

In the annals of cluelessness this post stands out. 69mach is comparing the March-X 10-60X56 HM (I assume that's what he means by "match") to a Kahles K1050 (Another assumption, as I think that's what he means by "khales 1050") He considers the K1050 to be tougher than the March-X HM. A quick peek at the Kahles website shows that the K1050 has a 30mm tube to the 34mm tube for the March-X HM. Now, a 30mm tube has a wall thickness of 2mm. The March-X HM, and indeed all March scopes with a 56mm objective lens, have a 34mm tube with a wall thickness of 4mm. That's twice the thickness of the 30mm tube in the Kahles. The March-X is immensily strong. You may think the "khales 1050" is built like a tank, but there are differences in tank strength. Think of the "khales 1050" as a Sherman tank and the March-X HM as an Abrams.

Also, if you compare the NF Competition to the March-X HM, keep in mind that when it comes to strength, the NF has a 30mm tube (2mm wall thickness) to the March-X 34m tube with the 4mm wall thickness.

I will also restate that March machines their scope bodies from a billet of expensive (not the mundane 6061 or 7075) aluminum and they do not extrude any part.

So pardon me as I laugh in the face of your statement about the "khales" feeling tougher.

Why so condescending? He said it “feels”. To him, it feels tougher. Doesn’t mean it is. I understand what he’s getting at on the Kahles. I thought the same way about mine. It just felt more substantial, even if it wasn’t.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Why so condescending? He said it “feels”. To him, it feels tougher. Doesn’t mean it is. I understand what he’s getting at on the Kahles. I thought the same way about mine. It just felt more substantial, even if it wasn’t.

If condescension was my goal, I would have been much more outgoing. I was only conveying detailed and precise information. Nothing to do with "feelings".

 

[KY_Windage]

I think my NF Comp's cut through BS better.

 

[KY_Windage]

If condescension was my goal, I would have been much more outgoing. I was only conveying detailed and precise information. Nothing to do with "feelings".

It does not matter what your "goal" is -- you often come across as a pompous ass.

I try to out-do you at times but generally cannot hold a candle.

 

[TylerFromMS]

If condescension was my goal, I would have been much more outgoing. I was only conveying detailed and precise information. Nothing to do with "feelings".

And your information is correct. However, he mentioned an intangible. Hard measurements don’t translate well.

I’m sure you could have been much more condescending and I’m very proud of you for restraining yourself You deserve an award!

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

i guess first of all half of your assumptions are incorrect. and if you haven’t owned a khales i wouldnt speak of its quality. and in my opinion super-ed and ed labeled glass is a lot of advertising bs to a large degree, but everyone’s eyes are different.

you say ur march weighs 32 oz. well so does the khales. and if the khales has a thinner main tube plus is a 30mm tube vs 34mm could it be the mechanicals are heavier built than in the march? i stated my opinion as i and everyone else is entitled to. but to state that you laugh in the face of my opinion is just childish. you can try and you make everyone think your some sort of big shot and state factory specs. my 6 year old niece could do that much. what you won’t find in the spec sheets is how the turrets feel and sound. how precise and fluid the parralex adjustment it. how does the image cut through mirage at different magnification settings. how finicky is the eye relief are the reticle lines to thick or two skinny for your likening per given reticle. Etc. 90% of it is personal preference. and in my opinion with the exception of the glass the khales is a better scope than either the nf comp or anything march manufactures but that is just the opinion of someone that has been lucky enough to have all 3 but poor enough to be unable to retain all of them.
i enjoyed using the march optics but there are better options ... for me

also, who else thinks the khales 1050 is a sherman tank compared to the march which is like an abrams, beside the ninja turtle? and yes i’m being condescending lol.

First off, the name is Kahles, not khales.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask how the March with its double thick wall can have the same weight as the thin Kahles. It asked the same question of the chief designer at Deon. The way I figured it the tube was twice the weight, the lenses would be pretty equivalent in weight so it would be weight savings in the internals. It was explained to me that the internals were engineered extensively to have material only where it was needed. Having lighter internals also has the benefit of not putting as much pressure on the controls, especially under recoil and so on.

I have had NF and played with some Kahles. They are indeed very nice scopes, no question there. I will say that the controls on my March are at least as good as the ones on the Kahles and someone better than what I remember from my Nightforce but still not a major difference.

That said, the March-X HM is incredibly strong compared to the Kahles and the NF Comp. It's just a fact of life.

With respect to Super-ED or ED lenses as advertising BS, let's just say that I disagree completely with your opinion and that while everyone eyes may be different, CA is CA regardless of anyone's eyes.

 

[KY_Windage]

That said, the March-X HM is incredibly strong compared to the Kahles and the NF Comp. It's just a fact of life.

With respect to Super-ED or ED lenses as advertising BS, let's just say that I disagree completely with your opinion and that while everyone eyes may be different, CA is CA regardless of anyone's eyes.

I'm wondering how many people think they need an "incredibly strong," super thick-tubed scope to shoot matches with. I certainly don't.

I'm also wondering how much CA exists on a black and white target. Any at all? I have never noticed it with ANY scope except when viewing something red, or orange. Okay, so the orange scoring marker on my 600-yard target is a little blurry, who cares? Everyone is going to electronic and eliminating pit-scoring anyway.