NightForce Competition vs. March scopes

[Jay Christopherson]

What's interesting to me is that whenever these threads come up, all you hear about is how this glass "is slightly brighter than that glass" or "the clarity of this glass is almost as good as that glass, but not 2X to 3X more", or "this company doesn't offer these reticles or I hate the reticles they offer" or "the only consideration for me is the warranty".

Nobody ever talks about (as a primary measure), the mechanical quality of the scopes - the ability to consistently and reliably click in an adjustment (elevation or windage). To dial in 1/8 MOA of adjustment and have it print 1/8 MOA of adjustment - at any range (assuming you can shoot/hold that well). To dial in 9 minutes of windage and then dial it back out, and end up exactly where you started. Now do this over, and over, and over, across thousands of shots, in dozens of conditions, with whatever beating the scope may take in between...

I've never owned a NF. But I've owned a lot of different scopes. Leupold. Burris. Kahles. Swarovski. Vortex. Zeiss. Sightron. Just to name a few.

I've only ever owned one scope that has been utter perfection in mechanical quality and precision in all of ways and conditions stated above. The clicks mechanically precise and well delineated, every time at every setting.

And that's a March.

Perhaps NF, S&B, and some of the other high ends scopes offer that in varying degrees - but, when I've been shooting practice or competition, and dropped a point or had a weird flyer, I've never had cause to question my scope. And IMO, that's worth a lot.

(oh yeah, AND the glass is very nice too...

 

[noload]

My son owns a March 80X, almost too much power, he only used 80x twice in 2+ yr..its a Mirage thing. I own a NF BR 42 and a Nf 55 comp. Practicing at 1000yds and shooting at white paper with a 284, I could see my hits at 1K with my NF BR 42x ch3 reticle. I was shocked.. that tells you how good the glass is, the conditions where ideal, 8:10 am with the sun on the paper. I like both my NF's. The Bench rest has had a rough life with never a problem, I like the CH3 reticle and wished the NF Comp had that reticle. I studied all 3 scopes side by side line-up. The March had more unusable power, more cost, less warrantee, and more prestige, I do not feel handicapped at all with either NF's.

 

[RHux]

Precisionrifleblog.com is running an in depth test of many high end scopes right now .

 

[JamesnTN]

Heres a link to the mechanicals of many tactical scopes but I would also assume the same internals in some say march are the same whether it's a tactical or a competition. And looks like the march scored dead last. As for clarity I've looked thru the new NF and I own a march scope and by far the NF has the better optics to my eyes.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/01/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-summary/

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Heres a link to the mechanicals of many tactical scopes but I would also assume the same internals in some say march are the same whether it's a tactical or a competition. And looks like the march scored dead last. As for clarity I've looked thru the new NF and I own a march scope and by far the NF has the better optics to my eyes.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/01/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-summary/

It's an interesting read for sure. Probably about as valuable as any other blog review out there... I read about his setup and while he took all the care that he could in setting up his test, I'm a bit dubious as to the accuracy of the results. The validity of any scientific experiment (or psuedo-scientific I guess) is in whether or not the results can be replicated independently and in this case... I suspect not. But, it definitely makes for interesting reading which is, after all, what a blog is all about.

 

[michaelnel]

I have a new NF 2014 Competition and have shot with it only a couple times. I also have a Vortex Optics Razor HD 16-48x65 spotting scope. I have noticed on the two occasions I have used them both on the same targets, it is WAY easier to pick out .308 bullet holes in white paper at 300 yards using the NF than it is using the spotting scope. The spotting scope seems to be more affected by mirage, and is quite a bit less contrasty than the NF Competition riflescope.

The difference is pronounced enough that at least shooting at 300 yards, I am not even gonna bring the spotting scope and tripod any more.

The NF Competition is also lots brighter and sharper than my Razor HD 5-20x50 scope that is normally on my .308 (I bought the NF to use on my 6mm BR, but am using it on the .308 until I get the 6 out of California's infernal 10 day waiting period "jail").

 

[jlow]

Heres a link to the mechanicals of many tactical scopes but I would also assume the same internals in some say march are the same whether it's a tactical or a competition. And looks like the march scored dead last. As for clarity I've looked thru the new NF and I own a march scope and by far the NF has the better optics to my eyes.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/01/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-summary/

It's an interesting read for sure. Probably about as valuable as any other blog review out there... I read about his setup and while he took all the care that he could in setting up his test, I'm a bit dubious as to the accuracy of the results. The validity of any scientific experiment (or psuedo-scientific I guess) is in whether or not the results can be replicated independently and in this case... I suspect not. But, it definitely makes for interesting reading which is, after all, what a blog is all about.

It is an interesting read and is probably one of the more in depth study out there. However, scientific wise, it is extremely weak since the test is I think based on testing one scope of each model/make. Coming from a scientific background, I can tell you that NO referee will be willing to look at this type of data i.e. N=1 – it is simply never done since it has zero statistical significance. Statistics set aside, the easy way to explain this to the laymen is no two scopes are exactly alike and testing a single sample and using the results to extrapolate on what to expect from another sample is like throwing dice.

One thing that he never did and I have never seen done is to look at how the scope hold POI in response to shock i.e. recoil. That to me seem to be just as important if not more important than tracking.