Input on NF 2.5-10x32

[orkan]

The OP was talking whitetail. Moose is a little different.

[marco.g]

The NF might be overkill, but its the build quality im concerned with. I have an aimpoint on my AR because of their reputation for durability, i dont beat on my stuff on purpose but i like it to be able to handle abuse.

Reading some reviews on the vortex pst there seems to be positive feedback regarding glass and tracking, but has anyone done torture testing on one? Once again this is not primarily a deer rifle, it is a field target rifle (that has been run over by an atv).

Alaskapopo, what is the parallax on the NF set to (as i cant find it posted online) and does it become an issue for you at range?

Thanks again.

[Alaskapopo]

The OP was talking whitetail. Moose is a little different.

I agree and if I started to go hunting with my friends I would want a scope like my Nightforce 2.5-10 on a hunting rifle. Taking the life of an animal is important enough to do it right without needless suffering.
Pat

[orkan]

Remember, there was a time when nightforce was new and "unproven" as well. The same things were thrown around about "why would I buy a nightforce when leupold is there?" Oh how the tide has turned.

With modern machining, tolerances can be made tighter much easier than 10 years ago. As a result, more optic manufacturers can turn out a reputable product.

At the end of the day, the markup on ALL of them is so astronomically huge that they will all basically send you a new one with no questions if the need arises. They can build 4 scopes with the profit they reap off of one sale. That is no bullshit.

Companies I buy from with confidence:
bushnell
vortex
nightforce
zeiss
S&B
... and a couple others when the need arises.

... because lets face it, I can't afford to put $3,000 glass on all my rifles.

[d90king]

Put simply it is an outstanding optic that has been proven in very harsh conditions. Buy with confidence.

I don't buy into the buy cheap glass mentality. IMHO choosing the right optic is pretty damn important, and generally speaking you get what you pay for. I would rather spend a little more upfront and have an optic that will last a lifetime than buy a cheap optic that needs replacing after a few years of hard use. YMMV

[TommyG]

I just went through this dilemma. I had the money in hand and intended to be a guinea pig on a 4-16 FFP Viper PST when they were finally available. Along comes Euro Optic with a lightly used Nightforce 2.5-10x32 for $1,100. Bye bye Viper, hello Nightforce. He was even nice enough to take what I has saved as a deposit and hold the scope while I scraped together the extra $$$.

If you are not going to go past 400 and are not trying for prarie dog headshots out that far, you will likely not miss the extra magnification.

Watch their website, he has used and demo models at very good prices: http://www.eurooptic.com/

Stuff goes very fast. If you see the one you want, but it right then and there.

[Polymerhead]

Hitting a deer isn't as important as hitting a steel target? Hmm... interesting viewpoint. ... one that I don't agree with.

Optics cost or selection has only to do with the mission at hand and which one will most likely aid you in putting the round where it belongs. Cost as it relates to deer or steel or paper is irrelevant.

Not less important - just significantly easier. Think about it - a deer with a 10" vital zone is 5 MOA at 200 yds. My buddy shoots f-class and in a year he's gone from a Weaver tactical to a NF and he has his eye on an even better NF. That's because he's trying to hit a 1 MOA x-ring at 600 yds. I think it's great - he wins a lot. The OP wants to plink and shoot deer. Neither of these should be a strain on the shooter or the equipment and the best-of-the-best is simply not required unless you just want one to say you have it, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's anything else.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get a NF - you should get whatever you want - it's your rig. But to say that a Weaver Tactical isn't a completely adequate and capable scope for deer at 200 yds or even targets at 400 is absurd. How many deer are killed each year with a Weaver as compared to an NF? Hundreds of times as many. And the deer are just as dead.

[orkan]

Look, the deer hunter mentality of being happy with "paper plate" accuracy has no business in a precision rifle forum. Precision rifle doesn't mean 8" at 100yds. It means different things to different people, but virtually no one here would accept that definition as accurate unless you are using a civil war cannon.

You are right in that either of them will get the job done on a deer. Yet that kind of accuracy is not why we are here. All things being equal, if both scopes are in good repair, both will put bullets where they belong. It comes down to functionality and user preference.

Why you need a nightforce when a weaver will do?
Why you need a 1 ton when you can drive a 1/2 ton?
Why you need $50 when $40 will do?
Why you need a 6" hunting knife to dress a deer when you could do it with a pocket knife?

[marco.g]

orkan i completely agree with your statement.

My $80 tasco placeholder scope can also kill deer just as dead as a nf, but if my rifle falls onto the optic the hunt is over. Not something I want to deal with. I am looking to high quality precision optics because this is my only bolt rifle, I dont own plinking guns.

[samnev]

I agree and if I started to go hunting with my friends I would want a scope like my Nightforce 2.5-10 on a hunting rifle. Taking the life of an animal is important enough to do it right without needless suffering.
Pat

Might be overkill but I love mine. IMO 4X at 25 yard is a little dicey.