quote:

Originally posted by Billy346:
Is your NXS 2.5-10x42 the old FFP version?

It's my understanding that no NF 2.5-10x has ever been made in FFP.

The two versions of the compact line are the current 2.5-10x42 and the discontinued 2.5-10x32 -- both in SFP.

quote:

Originally posted by henryrifle:
I do not compete....

I get to shoot at the 1000 yard range about twice per month. There are steel targets set up every 100 yards. I have learned through experience that dialing for distance is not good. It is slow and potentially inaccurate. You can use one of these second focal plane scopes for holdovers but only at maximum magnification and they only offer about 25 MOA of enumerated holdovers.

It is true that dialing elevation is slower than holding over/under with the reticle. In PRS-style steel matches we must weigh the benefits of dialing vs. holding elevation on many stages due to time constraints.

For example, the New Mexico precision match at the Zia club, held in Albuquerque, in the spring. We start stages holding our rifles, mag in, bolt back. Drop to position (both prone and on props), sometimes moving positions between shots, engage 5 or 6 different targets at various distances with two rounds each, 90 seconds time limit. Until someone shoots this match, they have no idea what rapid precision shooting is all about.

Seconds and fractions of seconds count there. Joe average shooter is not on the clock to score points, and can make the decision of dialing or not dialing elevation.

SFP reticles really only work for holding over/under at one given magnification, generally the scope's highest. Furthermore, their windage subtentions only work for that max magnification, too. Even with dialed elevation, this means the shooter is guessing wind holds via the reticle at lower magnification. If one has to move the gun around to transition between targets, the shooter can lose targets in a high-magnification scope -- say, 20x or more. This often means dialing down magnification, finding & transitioning to the new target, then dialing back up magnification. This can be slower than dialing elevation, then transitioning to the next target on a lower magnification setting on a FFP scope.

Held elevation plus held wind means the shooter is holding the target "somewhere in space", unless the scope has one of those "christmas tree" reticles. There is no way this is more accurate than dialing elevation, then using the horizontal portion of the reticle to manage windage.

Dialing elevation is less accurate than holding? This dog don't hunt. I can dial 1/4 MOA elevation with any of my scopes. None of them have elevation subtentions finer than 1 MOA.

Your first four words quoted above are key.

Billy, as fritz already answered my NF 2.5-10x42 is SFP.

I have found that SFP fits better with how I use this particular rifle/scope. When walking through the woods at 2.5x mag I like that the reticle is still full sized and easy to pick up. A FFP reticle "shrinks" as you go to minimum magnification and in low power scopes they can sometimes be harder to pick up quickly.

Any quick shots I have taken have been in a close enough distance that I haven't needed holds, so SFP has not been a disadvantage when down on 2.5x power. The hog I posted in the last picture was one of them since I came across it at about 50 yards out during an early morning woods stalk and was able to get the crosshairs on target and drop it before it ran off.

If you are relying on an illuminated reticle for low light hunting the "shrinking" FFP reticle at low power is also much harder to keep properly illuminated. The ATACR may not have this issue, NF illumination is always very good, but other low power FFP scopes I have checked out did.

The 10x mag range still has a nice wide field of view so I haven't had problems with losing targets and needing to dial back on magnification. Therefore for longer shots when I have some extra time and need the extra mag I can leave it on 10x and know my reticle graduations are still accurate for holds as needed.

So for more of a hunting focused use I think the 2.5-10x42 is a great scope. If you are focused more on target shooting, and will be using it for more of a PRS style or competition shoot where you need holds to be accurate at different magnification levels then the FFP and extra mag of that ATACR certainly has many advantages.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brett B,

quote:

Originally posted by Brett B:

So for more of a hunting focused use I think the 2.5-10x42 is a great scope. If you are focused more on target shooting, and will be using it for more of a PRS style or competition shoot where you need holds to be accurate at different magnification levels then the FFP and extra mag of that ATACR certainly has many advantages.

From everything that you've told me, I think the NF 2.5-10X42 is an excellent scope for my needs. In the short run, I plan to use my LMT more closely to the way that you use your SCAR. I do not compete at the moment, but I can always upgrade my gear according to my needs when I start going down that road.

Thanks for all the help and advice you guys gave me. I learned a ton and now feel very confident in what I will be purchasing for my needs.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy346:
I think the NF 2.5-10X42 is an excellent scope for my needs.

Good choice.

Mine started out on an 18" AR-15, which at the time was my most accurate AR. On the last day of a carbine/rifle course, I got to stretch the rifle's legs to see what they could do. I hit 2 MOA gongs out to 800 yards, spotting my own impacts and misses with the "wimpy" 10x optics.

When the 18" received a NF 3.5-15x, the 2.5-10x went to an AR-10. It stayed there for many months, until the AR-10 received a scope with more magnification.

The 2.5-10x will soon be used to determine if the barrel on my Remy 40X-B 22lr training rifle is good, or whether I need to invest in a new barrel.

Ultimately the 2.5-10x will replace a Leupold 1.5-5x on a 16" carbine. The carbine's barrel is nearing end of life. With its next barrel I will have the AR set up for more precise and longer distance shooting.

You cannot go wrong with the NF 2.5-10x.

Since we are doing such a good job helping spend your money, don't forget a set of Aadland scope caps:

http://www.aadmount.com/Caps/Caps.html

It may sound silly, but If I'm going to be crashing through the woods with a nice scope, Aadland having an application that fits a particular scope factors into my decision as well.

I got tired of fumbling with bikini covers or cheap chinese caps that shatter as soon as it gets cold. The last 2 pictures I posted show the Aadland caps installed. They aren't cheap, but are well worth it to help prevent wrecking your expensive glass.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy346:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett B:

So for more of a hunting focused use I think the 2.5-10x42 is a great scope. If you are focused more on target shooting, and will be using it for more of a PRS style or competition shoot where you need holds to be accurate at different magnification levels then the FFP and extra mag of that ATACR certainly has many advantages.

From everything that you've told me, I think the NF 2.5-10X42 is an excellent scope for my needs. In the short run, I plan to use my LMT more closely to the way that you use your SCAR. I do not compete at the moment, but I can always upgrade my gear according to my needs when I start going down that road.

Thanks for all the help and advice you guys gave me. I learned a ton and now feel very confident in what I will be purchasing for my needs.

It would be a little unusual but when you decide to take the plunge into 3-gun, you could add some 45 degree offset iron sights and run with the 2.5-10. It would be a decided advantage on steel beyond 400 yards.

MOST guys are using a 1-6/8 but a 2.5-10 would work just fine. You would want some offset irons for close-in paper.

Erratum:
In an attempt to clarify an earlier post in this thread about the LMT MWS308 and shooting at 1000 yards I claimed that I could maintain 1.5 MOA on target and that the bullet was still traveling at supersonic speeds. Neither of those claims are substantiated and should not be used as a basis for making decisions about the capabilities of that particular rifle.


Here is what I would write now that I have thought about the earlier post:

A group of us have a 12” round steel target at 1000 yards. There is a larger 16" square target just behind the circle and approximately 6” below the top of it. We sometimes informally compete with each other by taking shoots at that target, taking turns with no time limits and no rules about supports or other shooting aids to see who can amass the most points out of 5 or 10 shots. You shoot one shot and then it is the next persons turn. You get 2 points for impacting the circle and 1 for the square.

I didn't intend to claim that I or the LMT MWS can hold a 1.5 MOA group for more than a shot or two in a very informal setting. Competitors will care greatly where in that 1.5 MOA or whatever measurement you observe your shots to land. At this early stage of shooting a distances longer than 200 yards we are still impressed and entertained by sending a projectile so far down range with, to us, relatively astonishing accuracy. It was not my intention to claim that I or the rifle could hold 1.5 MOA on the center of any target or achieve that amazing-sounding feat at 1000 yards consistently over hundreds or even dozens of attempts. What I did mean as a just-for-fun shooter was that it was not only possible but likely in calm conditions, the only condition it would make sense for my group of friends to play this game, to achieve multiple impacts on the 12” target.

I could easily be mistaken about the projectile velocity as well. My assertion for the projectile remaining supersonic at 1000 yards is based on the output of the ballistic calculator I use, StrelokPro. When using the truing feature I input actual MOA used to hit the 1000 yard target and the app says the projectile is still supersonic. Admittedly, that is a very indirect indication of down range speed--certainly not one good enough to confidently make the claim I made.

In short this is a retraction of my previous post in this thread as I have not actually measured the MOA or speed of the projectiles at 1000 yards shot from the MWS308.

With good ammunition my LMT can and has put hits on steel at 1000 yards. It is not the best tool for long distance work and definitely not the right tool for a competition against much more accurate bolt guns but, it is possible.

Henryrifle

P.S. Apologize for the thread drift and earlier misstatements.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: henryrifle,

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as negative, just pointing out that claiming 1.5MOA at 1000 yards (or any distance,) is fraught with danger and possible misrepresentation.

Elevation is easy, they have a dial for that. It's the conditions that make the statement iffy at best, especially when the wind starts to blow.

In retrospect I can see how you might perceive my post to be ragging on you and for that, I apologize.

I will remove the offending post.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: NikonUser,

Thank you for changing that post and lesson learned for me. I have changed my post to read more like a correction of my earlier post. Words mean something and being sloppy and careless with words around people who use them for precise affect is just lazy on my part.

Thank you again,
Henryrifle

It seems no one on here had mentioned the vortex 4.5 27 razor hdII it is ffp has a great reticle and for the money is a fantastic scope! I own the NF 3.5 15 and the 2.5 to 10 the are both great scopes for the applications i use them in but the vortex out past 300 yards is by far the best scope for the money