Jet
Gold $$ Contributor
Might be a safe assumption but mine will get tested every year regardless. If it performs like many others I'll likely get a second one.
Tested 12 Scopes Today
- Thread starter Jet
- Start date
Might be a safe assumption but mine will get tested every year regardless. If it performs like many others I'll likely get a second one.
That’s what I did
bichettereds
Silver $$ Contributor
Like Alex and others have said... there are no guarantees. Test it yourself.
That was pretty much the Competitiion model and mostly 2013 amd 2014 models. Almost none of the BR and NXS models moved. Nightforce is one of the few models that will stand up to 50BMG with a clamshell brake. Look at the equipment lists for shoots. It also holds more longrange records then any other scope. If you look at the top 20 at IBS 600 yard Nationals, they pretty much all used the Nightforce Competition. So whats that tell you? Matt
..
That Nightforce "bandwagon" is still going strong 3 decades later
Alex Wheeler
Site $$ Sponsor
I love the NXS and BR scopes from NF, great products IMO.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
The Kahles 10-50 is as rock solid as it gets and that's what really matters, I am just not a fan of the glass. Nothing wrong with the glass, it's nice and sharp edge to edge on all power levels from 10x to 50x, I just don't care for the color rendition. Not very true to colors in my eyes, especially in low light. It looks great on a nice sunny day, but as clouds roll in or light fades, the glass seems to "whitewash" everything leaving very little contrast bewteen colors.
I wish they would put Swarovski glass in the K1050. That would make it one hell of a scope. This is only my personal opinion. Other people's eyes may see things differently.
I wish they would put Swarovski glass in the K1050. That would make it one hell of a scope. This is only my personal opinion. Other people's eyes may see things differently.
Last edited:
Maybe look through a Swarovski X5. I put one on my longrange hunting gun and really like it. It seems to track and the glass is really good. We had lots of clouds and snow, rain for bear season. I actually looked through the scope when it was really shitty out. It was brighter then my Kowa Highlanders I was looking through. Matt
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
"100% of people that have done testing and reported stated they moved and had issues." This is a completely false statement. Jet began this very thread by reporting a buddy's NF comp scope that tested "perfect". 2 out of 3 others he tested moved on the 1st shot, but not thereafter. Others have also reported zero movement.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Problem is there's no "standard" developed for accurately and properly testing scopes.
No way to verify if scopes have been mounted properly, what level of recoil and muzzle blast the optics are subjected to, if the tester is able to align the exact same POA with both optics, are turrets being dialed then tested again, is the tester mounted on an action with integral rail or or screw on rail, is the reference optic positioned over the action or on the far side of the tester, what the distance is to the target, etc.....
I believe Alex Wheeler was going to work with Alloy Targets on producing a procedure. Be nice if something was presented for folks to agree on. I believe the way I do it works well, but it might be incomplete. Others may have other good points to add. if we had a rough draft of a testing standard, perhaps we could give input to come up with an acceptable final revision for all to use as a testing standard.
This is how I test. Maybe we can start here. It includes POA shifts, mag zoom shifts, turret return to zero check, and testing POA again after turret movement. I believe I need to test this scope again at 100 yards, but it's a start.
No way to verify if scopes have been mounted properly, what level of recoil and muzzle blast the optics are subjected to, if the tester is able to align the exact same POA with both optics, are turrets being dialed then tested again, is the tester mounted on an action with integral rail or or screw on rail, is the reference optic positioned over the action or on the far side of the tester, what the distance is to the target, etc.....
I believe Alex Wheeler was going to work with Alloy Targets on producing a procedure. Be nice if something was presented for folks to agree on. I believe the way I do it works well, but it might be incomplete. Others may have other good points to add. if we had a rough draft of a testing standard, perhaps we could give input to come up with an acceptable final revision for all to use as a testing standard.
This is how I test. Maybe we can start here. It includes POA shifts, mag zoom shifts, turret return to zero check, and testing POA again after turret movement. I believe I need to test this scope again at 100 yards, but it's a start.
Kahles and Swarovski get their glass from the same company... Schott.
Meopta uses Schott glass. Minox uses Schott glass in their high end line of scopes.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Ok if we want to beat around the bush and have a play on words just to get in a comment, then yes you are right JRS, a lot of companies use the same manufacturers for "glass".
However, there are different grades of glass. But the bigggest difference that separates top tier optical companies from the rest is coatings. The coatings have everything to do with light transmission, stray light control, contrast, resolution, color rendition, fringing/CA, etc. Then there's grinding the surface angles, polishing, alignment, indexing, and all the other stuff that goes into making a lens after a company receives the blocks of Schott glass.
Kahles does not have the same coatings as Swarovski glass. Meopta has their own coatings as well. Might be the same Schott glass, but due to top secret coating recipes and application processes, the view through each company's optics is definitely different.
The new Kahles 3-18 and 5-25 supposedly have Swarovski glass in them, or should I say "Schott glass with Swarovski grinding, polishing, and coatings"... The K1050 does not.
However, there are different grades of glass. But the bigggest difference that separates top tier optical companies from the rest is coatings. The coatings have everything to do with light transmission, stray light control, contrast, resolution, color rendition, fringing/CA, etc. Then there's grinding the surface angles, polishing, alignment, indexing, and all the other stuff that goes into making a lens after a company receives the blocks of Schott glass.
Kahles does not have the same coatings as Swarovski glass. Meopta has their own coatings as well. Might be the same Schott glass, but due to top secret coating recipes and application processes, the view through each company's optics is definitely different.
The new Kahles 3-18 and 5-25 supposedly have Swarovski glass in them, or should I say "Schott glass with Swarovski grinding, polishing, and coatings"... The K1050 does not.
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.