Rifle Scopes AMG vs NX8

[ChrisAU]

I know we don’t have anything but specs so far on the NX8’s, so I know this is a hard question to answer.

I’m looking for a FFP scope in MOA/MOA under 30oz for my hunting rifle.

I’m on the list for a 4-32x50 MOAR NX8 with a vendor here.

Until today I wasn’t at all familiar with the Razor AMG, I had assumed it was a 34+ mm tube.

My main concerns with the NX8 are unmarked parallax (I know, I know. But I like it to get me in the ball park quickly) and the illumination system. To be fair, I love the green option. I had a 4-16x50 ATACR, the green is nice. BUT, the system for operation is clumsy and prone to error. No way to quickly adjust brightness on the fly. After watching some AMG review vids I am in love with that illumination operation style.

I’m also wondering about eyebox and parallax pickiness with an 8x erector vs the 4x in the AMG. Looks like the AMG has a 8.3mm exit pupil at 6x while the NX8 will have a 7.3 at 4x.

I also hunt whitetail at home and they love poor light conditions and I suspect the AMG may best the NX8 there if the NX8 glass isn’t quite ATACR level?

Sounds like a slam dunk for the AMG...but what about reliability? I wanted to move to NF because I didn’t want a hunt ruined by failure to RTZ or track now that I spend boat loads of time and money to travel to hunt.

I also would like to have an optic to be practicing with now on my primary rifle, so availability is a factor.

Edit to add, I also am a fan of the locking turrets on the AMG for hunting.

Thoughts?

 

[Afkirby]

I think it’s going to be tough to get some good answers about the NX8 since it seems only a few vendors have had their hands on them. Maybe try calling CSTactical, I think they had a demo unit.

 

[stello1001]

I know we don’t have anything but specs so far on the NX8’s, so I know this is a hard question to answer.

I had a 4-16x50 ATACR, the green is nice. BUT, the system for operation is clumsy and prone to error. No way to quickly adjust brightness on the fly. After watching some AMG review vids I am in love with that illumination operation style.



I also would like to have an optic to be practicing with now on my primary rifle, so availability is a factor.

Thoughts?

AMG is your answer. I've always wanted an AMG for hunting purposes as well and now that the nx8 is coming out, I am also attracted to it just like you are. You need something now to practice now, so get the AMG. It's already proven.

I also really dislike the idea of the illumination system on the NF. I think it's stupid but then again, these scopes weren't built solely for hunting so my opinion is just that, an opinion. Since I don't need something right now, I'm thinking about taking a gamble on the 2.5-20 once they come out. I know I'll hate the illumination system but I'll try to live with it.

 

[Bertoli888]

I chose the AMG as it's been around and tested thoroughly. I am sure the nx8 is very good but I don't want to take that chance with my very limited funds.

 

[FireShooter]

I have no experience with the NX8 and its not widely used yet. But I do have an AMG and I think it is an excellent optic. I've used it for over a year now without issue. It tracks good and low light performance is good for hunting. I hunt coyotes and deer and I feel the reticle is usable on 6x, some scopes in FFP go too low to use a reticle quickly. I don't use illumination often but it does work well in my optic. I think the EBR-7 is an excellent reticle and it is my favorite and I like it more and more as I use it, I don't think you will be disappointed.

 

[ChrisAU]

Thanks guys, got a pending deal with another SH member on a used AMG. Figure I can get it now and run it through the paces and leave my preorder in place, that way if I don’t love the AMG I can pass it on and still be an early tester of the NX8.

 

[Mute]

A LPVO wouldn't be my first choice for a hunting scope. I'd rather have something with a larger objective that will give me better overall performance in differing lighting conditions.

 

[ChrisAU]

A LPVO wouldn't be my first choice for a hunting scope. I'd rather have something with a larger objective that will give me better overall performance in differing lighting conditions.

Not talking about the 1-8 NX8, talking about the new ones coming next month, 2.5-20x50 and 4-32x50.

 

[Mute]

Not talking about the 1-8 NX8, talking about the new ones coming next month, 2.5-20x50 and 4-32x50.

Gotcha. I've had experience with the 2.5-10 NXS and those a fantastic scopes for hunting. Given the specs on these new NX8 scopes, I'd dare say they would be even better.

 

[beetroot]

Any reason for sticking with 30mm tube scopes?
Not that it is an issue but it does limit your options.

The upcoming Burris XTR3 could be a good option, can't coment on how the illumination works though.
Another option is the Leupold Mark 5/6.

I don't know where you hunt, but personally would prefer less than 6x on the bottom end for a hunting scope, the AMG does have a very wide FOV which puts it in the realms of many 5x scopes, but I'd rather 3 or 4x on the bottom end.

 

[ChrisAU]

Any reason for sticking with 30mm tube scopes?
Not that it is an issue but it does limit your options.

The upcoming Burris XTR3 could be a good option, can't coment on how the illumination works though.
Another option is the Leupold Mark 5/6.

I don't know where you hunt, but personally would prefer less than 6x on the bottom end for a hunting scope, the AMG does have a very wide FOV which puts it in the realms of many 5x scopes, but I'd rather 3 or 4x on the bottom end.

I tried a 4-16 ATACR with a 34mm Tube on this rifle and couldn’t warm up to the sight of it. On a purely long range tactical rig, sure. It just looked like a monster on my Cooper 92. I also can save 5-6 oz by using Talley LW rings instead of a base and ring combo. Again, the primary driver of moving away from the ATACR was the NX8 announcement. I wanted more X’s on the high end and a lighter, trimmer scope. Just on a whim today discovered the AMG and really liked how it addresses the two grievances I had with the NX8.

And yeah I’m worried a bit about 6x on the low end but it does have a nice FOV to compensate, I’ll do some testing to make sure that isn’t an issue. For a couple years in college I ran a $100 6-18 Bushnell on my deer rifle and it never hindered me though.

 

[beetroot]

I tried a 4-16 ATACR with a 34mm Tube on this rifle and couldn’t warm up to the sight of it. On a purely long range tactical rig, sure. It just looked like a monster on my Cooper 92. I also can save 5-6 oz by using Talley LW rings instead of a base and ring combo. Again, the primary driver of moving away from the ATACR was the NX8 announcement. I wanted more X’s on the high end and a lighter, trimmer scope. Just on a whim today discovered the AMG and really liked how it addresses the two grievances I had with the NX8.

And yeah I’m worried a bit about 6x on the low end but it does have a nice FOV to compensate, I’ll do some testing to make sure that isn’t an issue. For a couple years in college I ran a $100 6-18 Bushnell on my deer rifle and it never hindered me though.

Understandable, I'm in the same boat as you wanting to stick to 30mm and love the Lightweight Talleys.

Will be interested to hear your thoughts once the NX8 arrives and how it compares with the AMG.

 

[BLKWLFK9]

AMG fits your bill perfectly

 

[ChrisAU]

Just compared specs on FOV and it has a 10%+ wider FOV than the ATACR 5-25x56 and SHV 5-20x56 and I don’t think either of those would give me pause for hunting. All the old goobers at 24HCF rave about how fixed sixes are the bees knees and variables are from the debil anyway ha.-*

* - No offense if you are an old goober at 24HCF

 

[alaskalanche]

I've had an AMG a bit over a year used it all last year from taking moose at 150 yards, caribou at 470, help shoot a grizzly at 600, and then static targets just under 2K yards. Its a great all round scope no doubt. That said I picked up a 4-16 ATACR as well and I honestly like it better for my uses hunting.

Also if the sole reason for not liking the ATACR 4-16 is because it looked to big on your rifle I believe it comes down to if you like short fat girls or tall skinny girls. The short fat girl (ATACR) is indeed 14% fatter main tube, but the tall skinny AMG is 16% longer than the ATACR so either way its still gonna be a large scope on your rifle if it bothers ya that much.

4-32 you have on backorder is the best of both world. Petite in both direction.

I actually prefer the "digilum" button of the ATACRs over my NXS and AMG twist on style. Mainly cause if I need the illumination in a hurry for hunting, chances are its close range and less than stellar lighting. In which cause I will be shooting unsupported without a bipod likely and a I can turn on the illumination with my thumb while not breaking position rather than having to reach over and twist it. A minor thing no doubt but I do prefer the click on button certainly over twist on.

All that said I sold both my 4-16 ATACR and AMG a couple months before the release of the NX8 (2.5-20 model) in preparation for what NF had coming out and I hope i made the right choice. If not I'll just stick with my ghetto Bushnell LRHS and "make it work"

PS: Don't be dogging them 6x scopes

 

[ChrisAU]

Just saw where one of the all-time popular hunting scopes, a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x40, has a smaller FOV at 4.5 than the AMG at 6...I am excited haha

 

[ChrisAU]

I've had an AMG a bit over a year used it all last year from taking moose at 150 yards, caribou at 470, help shoot a grizzly at 600, and then static targets just under 2K yards. Its a great all round scope no doubt. That said I picked up a 4-16 ATACR as well and I honestly like it better for my uses hunting.

Also if the sole reason for not liking the ATACR 4-16 is because it looked to big on your rifle I believe it comes down to if you like short fat girls or tall skinny girls. The short fat girl (ATACR) is indeed 14% fatter main tube, but the tall skinny AMG is 16% longer than the ATACR so either way its still gonna be a large scope on your rifle if it bothers ya that much.

4-32 you have on backorder is the best of both world. Petite in both direction.

I actually prefer the "digilum" button of the ATACRs over my NXS and AMG twist on style. Mainly cause if I need the illumination in a hurry for hunting, chances are its close range and less than stellar lighting. In which cause I will be shooting unsupported without a bipod likely and a I can turn on the illumination with my thumb while not breaking position rather than having to reach over and twist it. A minor thing no doubt but I do prefer the click on button certainly over twist on.

All that said I sold both my 4-16 ATACR and AMG a couple months before the release of the NX8 (2.5-20 model) in preparation for what NF had coming out and I hope i made the right choice. If not I'll just stick with my ghetto Bushnell LRHS and "make it work"

PS: Don't be dogging them 6x scopes

That is a good point on the illumination. Most of my hunting, unfortunately, is stand hunting for whitetail here in the East (AL/GA), in which if lighting conditions dictate that I need illumination then I'll have it cut on before a target presents itself. Very, very rarely would I be on the move when lighting conditions caused me not to be able to see my reticle. I only get to spend a week or so hunting out west each year, and I imagine I could treat it the same way. I'll just be sure to carry a spare battery.

 

[Niles Coyote]

My main concerns with the NX8 are unmarked parallax (I know, I know. But I like it to get me in the ball park quickly)

A silver sharpie beats marked PA every time. go to your range set your PA to be free at 100 yard and mark the turret with a dash. Then do the same at 300 and your all set. 9 times out of 10 your PA settings are going to be different than the predetermined factory values.

 

[Muley Buck]

I am now running an AMG as of this last winter, and I'm really liking it. For me, it does check a lot of boxes. The way I hunt and where I hunt, it's pretty much perfect. I too have it on a light rifle.

 

[ChrisAU]

I am now running an AMG as of this last winter, and I'm really liking it. For me, it does check a lot of boxes. The way I hunt and where I hunt, it's pretty much perfect. I too have it on a light rifle.View attachment 7097164

Sweet rifle! Here is what mine will be going on, here it is in CO this past fall with a Zeiss V6 5-30x50 and some rusty POS Burris rings.

 

[Fig]

It depends on where you're hunting, but I rarely take white tails beyond 300 yards, and as such I am usually on the lowest power. A FFP reticle shrinking down that small drives me frickin' nuts. I find it's much harder to pick up (even when illuminated) and it strains my eyes when using my scope to glass a known traffic rout. I find it's way more pleasant to have a full sized reticle @ 3x or 4x. I only want SFP on a hunting rifle unless I know I'm going to be taking long distance shots (like antelope or across a valley at elk).

 

[ChrisAU]

Just saw where one of the all-time popular hunting scopes, a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x40, has a smaller FOV at 4.5 than the AMG at 6...I am excited haha

And also the exact same FOV as a Leupold VX-1 & VX-2 4-12x40 for anyone researching. Crazy to me.

 

[koshkin]

I like the way the AMG reticle looks on 6x, so once I am done with my current comparison, it will go back onto my hunting rifle.

AMG does have very good FOV and given that fixed power 6x has been a very common hunting scope for decades, I am pretyt comfortable with the AMG as a crossover scope.

Having never seen NX8, I havn't the foggiest idea on how it compares to the AMG.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

To bundle onto ILya's comments above, the AMG also has a wide FOV for a 6x scope, so take a look at FOV specs when comparing scopes. I see the NX8 as a niche scope much like you see with camera lenses like a 24-200, etc., sure it has a massive magnification range but there are compromises that have to be made to get there. Other 8x and higher scopes cost considerably more than the NX8 so I wonder what compromises Nightforce made to get everything in at its price point. I am all for better scopes at cheaper prices but that is not the norm in this industry and usually "cheaper" means something had to give and it's usually optical performance. That being said, I am hoping that NF breaks the mold with this one and the compromises are few compared to other scopes at this price point.

 

[RS14]

Haven’t seen a NX8 in person. But reading your original post. You want the AMG. So get the AMG and be happy

 

[koshkin]

I looked at the published specs for NX8 and the field of view they claim is really wide on high mag. If that spec is accurate, the FOV on low mag is too small, which means tunneling below 5.5x or so on the 4-32x model.

I have not seen the scope, but as I recall the people who have said there is no tunneling, which would imply there was a typo in the specs.

ILya

 

[ChrisAU]

@koshkin In complete ignorance, how can I extrapolate FOV specs? I.E., the AMG at 20.4 ft/100yds, would that be 10.2 ft/50 yds? For some reason I feel like I'm not doing that right, that would take the NX8 26.4ft/100yds to 13.2ft/50 yds, and the comparison would 5.1ft and 6.6ft at 25 yards, which IMO, minimizes the importance of FOV for close action, but that would seem to be counter-intuitive as well. But like I said, I am ignorant on the subject and may have it all wrong.

 

[Muley Buck]

I looked at the published specs for NX8 and the field of view they claim is really wide on high mag. If that spec is accurate, the FOV on low mag is too small, which means tunneling below 5.5x or so on the 4-32x model.

I have not seen the scope, but as I recall the people who have said there is no tunneling, which would imply there was a too in the specs.

ILya

Interesting. I really enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions, it's quite enlightening.

 

[Glassaholic]

@koshkin In complete ignorance, how can I extrapolate FOV specs? I.E., the AMG at 20.4 ft/100yds, would that be 10.2 ft/50 yds? For some reason I feel like I'm not doing that right, that would take the NX8 26.4ft/100yds to 13.2ft/50 yds, and the comparison would 5.1ft and 6.6ft at 25 yards, which IMO, minimizes the importance of FOV for close action, but that would seem to be counter-intuitive as well. But like I said, I am ignorant on the subject and may have it all wrong.

Chris, take a look at this post, it might help some - https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/technical-question-scope-specification.6934423/

 

[koshkin]

@koshkin In complete ignorance, how can I extrapolate FOV specs? I.E., the AMG at 20.4 ft/100yds, would that be 10.2 ft/50 yds? For some reason I feel like I'm not doing that right, that would take the NX8 26.4ft/100yds to 13.2ft/50 yds, and the comparison would 5.1ft and 6.6ft at 25 yards, which IMO, minimizes the importance of FOV for close action, but that would seem to be counter-intuitive as well. But like I said, I am ignorant on the subject and may have it all wrong.

You are not doing it right.

AMG FOV on 6x is 20.4 ft at 100 yards or 40.8 ft at 50 yards.

Correction: I wasn't paying attention. At half the distance, it is half the FOV if expressed in linear units. Angular FOV is distance invariant.

NX8 4-32x50 is listed with 4x FOV of 26.4 ft and 32x FOV of 4.6 ft at 100 yards. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the ratio of the FOVs is 5.74 while the erector is supposed to be 8x ratio.

NX8 2.5-20x50 is listed with 2.5x FOV of 41.8 ft and 20x FOV of 7 ft. The ratio of FOVs is 5.97, while the erector is supposed to be 8x ratio. Either it tunnels or the specs are wrong. With linear FOV it is not a perfectly linear relationship, but it is close.

The 4x FOV listed for the 4-32x50 matches the 4x FOV of the NX8 1-8x24.

The 2.5x FOV listed for the 2.5-20x50 matches the 2.5x FOV of the NX8 1-8x24.

If I were to make a guess, I would say that there is a typo in the top end magnification of the new NX8 scopes. If that is correct, NX8 will have 6x FOV of approximately 17.5 ft at 100 yards. To match the FOV that AMG has on 6x, NX8 would need to be set on ~5.2x.

AMG has FOV of 20.4 ft on 6x and 5.1ft on 24x. The ratio of FOVs is 4 and the erector ratio is 4. Everything matches.

Interestingly, Nightforce does not seem to have NX8 scopes on their website yet. The specs are from different retailers who were reporting on the news.

In other words, I am taking all these numbers with a grain of salt.

ILya

 

[ChrisAU]

You are not doing it right.

AMG FOV on 6x is 20.4 ft at 100 yards or 40.8 ft at 50 yards.

NX8 4-32x50 is listed with 4x FOV of 26.4 ft and 32x FOV of 4.6 ft at 100 yards. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the ratio of the FOVs is 5.74 while the erector is supposed to be 8x ratio.

NX8 2.5-20x50 is listed with 2.5x FOV of 41.8 ft and 20x FOV of 7 ft. The ratio of FOVs is 5.97, while the erector is supposed to be 8x ratio. Either it tunnels or the specs are wrong. With linear FOV it is not a perfectly linear relationship, but it is close.

The 4x FOV listed for the 4-32x50 matches the 4x FOV of the NX8 1-8x24.

The 2.5x FOV listed for the 2.5-20x50 matches the 2.5x FOV of the NX8 1-8x24.

If I were to make a guess, I would say that there is a typo in the top end magnification of the new NX8 scopes. If that is correct, NX8 will have 6x FOV of approximately 17.5 ft at 100 yards. To match the FOV that AMG has on 6x, NX8 would need to be set on ~5.2x.

AMG has FOV of 20.4 ft on 6x and 5.1ft on 24x. The ratio of FOVs is 4 and the erector ratio is 4. Everything matches.

Interestingly, Nightforce does not seem to have NX8 scopes on their website yet. The specs are from different retailers who were reporting on the news.

In other words, I am taking all these numbers with a grain of salt.

ILya

So FOV increases as you look at objects that are closer? I need to google FOV 101...I can’t wrap my mind around that.

Edit: would FOV (HFOV as expressed in ft/yds) not reduce to the objective diameter at 0 yards and maintain a linear relationship from there outward?

Like this:

 

[stello1001]

You are not doing it right.

AMG FOV on 6x is 20.4 ft at 100 yards or 40.8 ft at 50 yards.

ILya

Ok, so I'm not saying you're wrong especially because you have so much background in optics and whatnot. However, can you help me understand why at 50 yards the FOV becomes more? To my understanding, the further out, while remaining on same magnification power, the greater the distance of FOV. I thought it was all angles and if the AMG can capture for example 35 degrees of field, then wouldn't the further out stuff be at the larger part of the cone? I'm not sure I'm explaining it or what the proper terminology would be since I work in a completely different industry but I'm having a hard time understanding.

 

[koshkin]

Sorry, I was thinking about something else while typing it up. I'll correct the original post. Linear FOV scales linearly with distance; at half the distance, it is half the FOV.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

And for future use: I am not immune to saying something stupid every once in a while. Please call me out if I do.

I was thinking 200 yards and typing 50 yards. Why, is anyone's guess.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

And for future use: I am not immune to saying something stupid every once in a while. Please call me out if I do.

I was think 200 yards and typing 50 yards. Why? is anyone's guess.

ILya

I don't feel so lonely now, I joined the stupid club a long time ago