Nightforce...the best or......?

[KY_Windage]

Great, but I prefer a very thin crosshair with MOA hashmarks on it, and no dot. There is no SV that even comes close. Their MOA reticle lines are .1 moa thick (at 24 x), which makes them about 3x as thick as the NF FCR-1 (.016 at 40x). And the FCR-1 has no dot, which is what I strongly prefer. Yesterday I was shooting at a 1-1/2" bullseye at 600 yds. A .25 moa dot would have covered it up. With the NF FCR-1 I could pick out, and easily see, the exact portion of the bullseye I wanted to aim at.

I have "operated" Sightron scopes. You asked me if I had owned one. I probably never will because if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I am going to get another NF.

I also want the weight in my barrel, not in my scope. The 43-oz SV is a pig on a shovel compared to the 29-oz NF Comp. People say the SV is "brighter," but I never wished my NF Comp was "brighter," not even shooting in the rain on a gloomy day, like yesterday.

 

[shortine]

Great, but I prefer a very thin crosshair with MOA hashmarks on it, and no dot. There is no SV that even comes close. Their MOA reticle lines are .1 moa thick (at 24 x), which makes them about 3x as thick as the NF FCR-1 (.016 at 40x). And the FCR-1 has no dot, which is what I strongly prefer. Yesterday I was shooting at a 1-1/2" bullseye at 600 yds. A .25 moa dot would have covered it up. With the NF FCR-1 I could pick out, and easily see, the exact portion of the bullseye I wanted to aim at.

I have "operated" Sightron scopes. You asked me if I had owned one. I probably never will because if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I am going to get another NF.

I also want the weight in my barrel, not in my scope. The 43-oz SV is a pig on a shovel compared to the 29-oz NF Comp. People say the SV is "brighter," but I never wished my NF Comp was "brighter," not even shooting in the rain on a gloomy day, like yesterday.

I think you got a little confused there. The Sightron "dot" is .10 moa @100yds. Side by side with my NF CH-3 reticle, the Sightron crosshairs appears to be exactly the same; and I believe the CH-3 was as small a crosshair as they ever made.

Gerry

 

[KY_Windage]

It is .1 in the Target Dot model, but .25 moa in the rest of the SV models. Like I said, if you want a hashmarked reticle in a SV model you get a .25 moa dot, whether you want a dot or not.

It is like it did not occur to them that someone could want a target scope with extremely fine lines for precision aiming, but with hashmarks for doing quick wind adjustments (i.e., using the reticle, not dialing) during a timed 600-yd match. NF saw that years ago and came out with the option of the FCR-1 in their Competition. .016 moa lines at 40x, hashmarks at every moa, no dot.

If I thot there was anything better I would be buying it.

 

[USMCDOC]

Zero. I don't buy scopes that spec out crap reticles.

can you quantify that statement, so that a person like me would understand what it is that you are referring to

 

[jrkotz]

Field and Cave outfitters sells the one I use.

That looks like an interesting product. I'm always paranoid about my scope not tracking right.
@Alex Wheeler what's your process with using the scope checker?

 

[Raythemanroe]

Great, but I prefer a very thin crosshair with MOA hashmarks on it, and no dot. There is no SV that even comes close. Their MOA reticle lines are .1 moa thick (at 24 x), which makes them about 3x as thick as the NF FCR-1 (.016 at 40x). And the FCR-1 has no dot, which is what I strongly prefer. Yesterday I was shooting at a 1-1/2" bullseye at 600 yds. A .25 moa dot would have covered it up. With the NF FCR-1 I could pick out, and easily see, the exact portion of the bullseye I wanted to aim at.

I have "operated" Sightron scopes. You asked me if I had owned one. I probably never will because if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I am going to get another NF.

I also want the weight in my barrel, not in my scope. The 43-oz SV is a pig on a shovel compared to the 29-oz NF Comp. People say the SV is "brighter," but I never wished my NF Comp was "brighter," not even shooting in the rain on a gloomy day, like yesterday.

I rate Holding POA @ #1 and reticle/glass #2, so if I had to measure the two by a rating system I would go Sightron all day long. Turrets play a role and I like both but you are correct about weight. The weight will be a big factor for many shooters and I can't disagree with that, I would rather have the weight @ a lower center of gravity. I honestly believe that if the Comp hadn't had so many failures through multiple scope checkers, many of which were Brand New out of the box it would probably be the best all around scope around in it's category.


Ray

 

[KY_Windage]

I have zero faith in people who make or use so-called "scope checkers" to be able to accurately measure reticle movement. Plus, the idea that NF doesn't know how to build stable reticles but Sightron does is a tad absurd to me. People with agendas say all kinds of nonsense.

 

[X-Caveman]

I have zero faith in people who make or use so-called "scope checkers" to be able to accurately measure reticle movement. Plus, the idea that NF doesn't know how to build stable reticles but Sightron does is a tad absurd to me. People with agendas say all kinds of nonsense.

Our double Picatinny scope checker uppers are back in stock. I guess I won't save one for you. LOL.

I have personally had two scopes on a checker that anyone could easily see weren't holding POA. One was a NF ATACR, one was a Vortex GE. As it turned out, the ATACR moved because the ring caps weren't tight enough. I learned and bought a FAT wrench. Remember - a checker checks the entire system (rings/ mounts, operator error - in my case - as well as the scope itself). The Vortex was sent in for repair and they gave me no fuss whatsoever. Fantastic customer service.

Believe whatever you choose. I have no agenda in making them. People were making checkers long before I started. If you think there's much $ in it, you're sorely mistaken. I do it because I enjoy the hobby and want to help fellow shooters better enjoy it, as well. Scope problems can be extremely frustrating and expensive. Hence, many of the top competitors in every discipline check their scopes at least annually. It's just good practice.

 

[X-Caveman]

That looks like an interesting product. I'm always paranoid about my scope not tracking right.
@Alex Wheeler what's your process with using the scope checker?

PM sent.

 

[KY_Windage]

As it turned out, the ATACR moved because the ring caps weren't tight enough. I learned and bought a FAT wrench. Remember - a checker checks the entire system (rings/ mounts, operator error - in my case - as well as the scope itself).

I have 12 screws holding my ring caps together. If even one screw gets the slightest bit loose it changes my POI. When I tighten it, it changes it again.

A lot of shots = a lot of vibration, which can make screws loosen eventually. I have learned the hard way to make sure that does not happen, but I have seen a lot of guys fighting to get their rifle to shoot MOA when they haven't checked their torques, and getting nowhere. They could definitely use your services.

 

[Raythemanroe]

I have zero faith in people who make or use so-called "scope checkers" to be able to accurately measure reticle movement. Plus, the idea that NF doesn't know how to build stable reticles but Sightron does is a tad absurd to me. People with agendas say all kinds of nonsense.

Scope checkers make perfect logical sense, sticking your head in the sand doesn't..


Ray

 

[Alex Wheeler]

That looks like an interesting product. I'm always paranoid about my scope not tracking right.
@Alex Wheeler what's your process with using the scope checker?

Real simple. The scope checker is a one piece hunk of aluminum. It wont move. The rifle is used for a recoil pulse only. Dont worry about shooting a group. With 2 scopes mounted in solid rings next to each other and reticles aimed to the same point you will detect any movement by shooting the rifle and making sure the reticles are both still on the same point after re aiming. If they are not, something moved. I personally have never had a ring move. I use NF ultralights and will continue because of how well they work. Scopes have a track record, some perform really well, as in we have never found one of that model to move, others are pretty poor.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I have zero faith in people who make or use so-called "scope checkers" to be able to accurately measure reticle movement. Plus, the idea that NF doesn't know how to build stable reticles but Sightron does is a tad absurd to me. People with agendas say all kinds of nonsense.

You would have a lot of faith if someone showed it to you and you seen it with your own eyes. I still tell people one of, if not the best all around scope is a NF 12-42 BR. Nf can and does make very good scopes. You need to have some experience with something before having an opinion.

 

[Performance Shooting]

Our double Picatinny scope checker uppers are back in stock. I guess I won't save one for you. LOL.

I have personally had two scopes on a checker that anyone could easily see weren't holding POA. One was a NF ATACR, one was a Vortex GE. As it turned out, the ATACR moved because the ring caps weren't tight enough. I learned and bought a FAT wrench. Remember - a checker checks the entire system (rings/ mounts, operator error - in my case - as well as the scope itself). The Vortex was sent in for repair and they gave me no fuss whatsoever. Fantastic customer service.

Believe whatever you choose. I have no agenda in making them. People were making checkers long before I started. If you think there's much $ in it, you're sorely mistaken. I do it because I enjoy the hobby and want to help fellow shooters better enjoy it, as well. Scope problems can be extremely frustrating and expensive. Hence, many of the top competitors in every discipline check their scopes at least annually. It's just good practice.

Id love to see a video on how on how to use your scope checker, I love to be able to test mine but just dont understand how to do it using your tool.

 

[X-Caveman]

Id love to see a video on how on how to use your scope checker, I love to be able to test mine but just dont understand how to do it using your tool.

That's been on my to-do list for a few years now. Maybe someday this fall, but no promises.

In the simplest of terms... Mount two scopes on the checker, the whole checker assembly on a bench gun (preferably). Dial out all parallax, point them at the exact same spot & start shooting. If POA drifts apart, you have a problem. I do it at 100 yards under ideal optical conditions whenever possible.

 

[jelenko]

Does ANY 'wobble' in a reticle mean it's on it's way to becoming looser? I.e., do any reticles move just a little bit [say .01 MOA] and stay that way?
Thanks

 

[Raythemanroe]

I know some people just use a scope that has tested and passed as a reference scope but I like the idea of a frozen scopes..


Ray

 

[Alex Wheeler]

A lot of them will shift 1/16 moa on the first shot or two after an adjustment then they are solid. You can deal with that. Some never move at all, and others never settle, they will still be bouncing around after 20 shots. Most problem scopes seem to move about .1-.2 moa. Which is why its so hard to tell you have a problem without a fixture.

 

[jelenko]

Ah, it's the erector assembly that's moving, yes? Not the reticle by itself?

 

[KY_Windage]

So I did some more "scope checking" on one of my 15-55 Comp's yesterday, shooting 162-gr. ELD Match .284 bullets in my Rem. 700. Seems okay.