Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was one of the 5 that came in the box?
If weight is not an issue for you the ATACR and Razor Gen II are most likely going to have the better glass overall along with more forgiving DOF and parallax which you might find convenient when hunting prairie dogs that are smattered about the landscape. The 7-35 has a track record of having the best glass that NF offers.I love shooting long range and have only in the past couple of years gotten to the point where I could afford descent equipment. I have never shot competitively but am considering getting into PRS (if that 4 letter word WORK will quit getting in the way). I was trying to decide between ATACR 7-35 or a Razor 4.5-27, then I came across this NX8. Now I'm really torn. I know I don't need anything more than 20-25x for PRS but I also shoot prairie dogs with this rifle from time to time. I recently got to shoot a few at about 1k. Right now the rifle wears a Vortex Golden Eagle but I really don't like it due to the starting mag of 15X. It's just too hard to find those little boogers in the scope when they are 100 yds away. With all this said, and now that a few folks have gotten to play with the NX8, which of these 3 would you suggest?
If you're considering those two. And have the budget 7-35 all day and twice on sunday. No questions asked.If weight is not an issue for you the ATACR and Razor Gen II are most likely going to have the better glass overall along with more forgiving DOF and parallax which you might find convenient when hunting prairie dogs that are smattered about the landscape.
Are there weight limits in PRS?If weight is not an issue for you the ATACR and Razor Gen II are most likely going to have the better glass overall along with more forgiving DOF and parallax which you might find convenient when hunting prairie dogs that are smattered about the landscape. The 7-35 has a track record of having the best glass that NF offers.
L.O.L.Are there weight limits in PRS?
Today was not a dealbreaker for me, I just need to revisit it. Conditions weren't great. Also there has been a lot of variation in different T5xi scopes. Mine is a later build and has been pretty good.Ugh... That's disappointing... As a former T5Xi owner, early adopter, who eagerly moved up to a 4-16 ATACR, I can easily say that sub-T5Xi performance holds zero interest for me.
Lenny, I found adjusting the diopter was very finicky for me, I had to mess with it quite a while, one reason is that it is not the fast focus type so you have to do lots of spinning. I also had a T5Xi and my biggest complaint was CA, but resolution was quite impressive. I have the NX8 2.5-20 so the 4-32 might be a different animal optically.I got behind an NX8 4-32 briefly today. I really wanted to like this scope and planned to buy one when it came out in mil-XT, now I'm going to make myself revisit it before committing.
Went to a 1000 range today with fairly heavy mirage. I had a Steiner T5xi and Minox ZP5 with me. I thought the overall image with the Steiner beat out the NX8. I could make out the rocks on the 1000 yard berm and hits on target better with the Steiner. CA on my particular T5xi isn't as bad as others have reported with theirs. ZP5 outclassed both.
It may not have been an entirely fair comparison, so I will have to revisit the NX8. Diopter was not adjusted for me, although I think it was close, reticle was very sharp for me. He was shooting it on a .308 and had 11.5ish mils dialed in. If he was running a flat base, he would have been pretty far off optical center. My Steiner was on my .223 and only had 8.6 mils dialed in and a 20 MOA base, so it wasn't too far from optical center. Even though I was looking at them side by side, mirage was quite heavy, its possible the Steiner just cuts through it slightly better.
Either way, the Steiner T5xi is not exactly known for having the best glass, so I was a bit surprised the overall image was noticeably better. I'm still interested in picking up the 2.5-20, I just want to look through one first. Seems the Mil-XT version is still coming though so I have time.
It's the latest and greatest wiz bang co-witness setting.It's a lot clearer in the picture versus looking through the scope... Okay I'm totally dumb on that one ?
View attachment 7130306
So this wierd circle thing showed up in my scope today, any idea what this is? It's only visible at 2.5.
Check out this thread for some answers on that very question - https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/leupold-mk5-or-nightforce-nx8-for-ar10.6956751/I understand that 5x & 8x erectors are a different animal, but does anyone have a opinion on glass comparison between either nx8 and 3.6-18 mk5hd? I could care less about extra mag range. Im just curious which has the best eyebox and optical performance between the two. I need a scope for my gasser and any of the 3 will work, but don’t have the opportunity to compare them all myself
i think the hardest part of this is it seems most have the 2.5-20 which serves a much different purchase than a RzrG2So for you gents with experience on the RZR G2, Athlon Midas/ ETR, and the NX8:
It seems one can pick up RZR G2's for just under $2K, the Athlon's for about $600 - 1100, and the NF NX8's are solidly $2K being they just came out. It sounds from all of your comments that the NX8 performance hedges nearer to the Athlon than the RZR G2, but costs more than both. Some folks mentioned they were happily surprised they were being sold for $2K. It seems like value-wise in comparison to it's competitors its a bit overbuilt and overpriced for it's optical performance.
If you had to rack and stack it to the RZR G2, Bushnell XRS, Burris XTR III, Athlon ETR, and Midas TAC.... would you consider it still to be $2K value?
The NX8 is a different animal compared to the Razor Gen II or Athlon Cronus. The $2k value of the NX8 comes from the fact that it is an 8x erector scope in a short body and light weight. The only scope you mention above that would come remotely close would be the Burris XTR III design as it too is shorter and lighter weight and while the XTR III uses a 7x erector they only use 5.5x of it within their magnification of 3.3-18. The Midas Tac would be in a much lower tier due to price point.So for you gents with experience on the RZR G2, Athlon Midas/ ETR, and the NX8:
It seems one can pick up RZR G2's for just under $2K, the Athlon's for about $600 - 1100, and the NF NX8's are solidly $2K being they just came out. It sounds from all of your comments that the NX8 performance hedges nearer to the Athlon than the RZR G2, but costs more than both. Some folks mentioned they were happily surprised they were being sold for $2K. It seems like value-wise in comparison to it's competitors its a bit overbuilt and overpriced for it's optical performance.
If you had to rack and stack it to the RZR G2, Bushnell XRS, Burris XTR III, Athlon ETR, and Midas TAC.... would you consider it still to be $2K value?
The NX8 is interesting for sure. I have no need for one, but once they come out with a MilXT or Trmr it could be an option for...IDK, whatever I want to put it on. But I think I'm already seeing reflections of NXS glass quality in your comments. Makes me wonder why I wouldn't save a few bucks and look at some of these other scopes.
??????Iowashooter,
Excellent pictures and I'm sure I'm not the only one grateful to you for taking the time to take them. I've noticed that in almost all the pictures that everyone has taken that the reticle appears to be quite blurry on the lower power settings. This is likely not an issue in real world field work because presumably we don't really need all those hash marks when we're at such low power anyway because all we likely need is an aiming point due to the object we're aiming at being close.
What I'm wondering is when looking through the scope with the naked eye is this blurriness annoying or maybe even distressing to the eye or maybe does it make accurate shot placement a problem?
I'd also like someone that has the 4-32x50 to chime in and tell us if their crosshairs appear similar to your 2.5-20x50 pictures on low power.
I've always HATED FFP scopes. Although I've never owned one I've had a couple people let me handle theirs and except for the reticle appearing to be more the right size for target shooting at maximum powers and long distance I've always considered FFP to be a solution without a problem except for possibly the tactical shooter to do quick range estimation. However with all the new technology in ranging and scopes appearing that have built in rangefinders and electronics that allow the scope to place an illuminated dot at the correct aiming point I'm seeing that as, more and more, as a non-issue.
I can just hear all the old school guys groaning about technology failing us at the wrong time and I agree that this can be a huge problem but I think we can all agree that the steady march of technology and it's ability to remove the human factor, which by the way fails at a much higher rate than technology, is becoming undeniable.
By the way I'm an old school guy with many many decades of precision shooting behind me as well but just like my iPhone which sits beside my keyboard as I type this and which has become a central point of my whole life much less just my communications devise. I know that we will be assimilated in a few more years and the few of us that cling to the old ways will become, or perhaps we have ALREADY become, dinosaurs. There will always be a place for that guy that can still grab a rifle and a few boxes of ammo and place long range precision shots in any conditions at any time and can't be affected by an EMD bomb or failure of electronics for other reasons.
Well... I've been rambling but I think I see the scope manufacturers scrambling to either get with the 21st century technology or to join the other companies that fade into obscurity as their products become useless for the new age shooters and hunters.
By the way the I think we will soon see the completely mechanical rifle scopes prices dropping drastically in the next couple of years as the electronic whiz bang scopes grab a bigger and bigger piece of the shooter's budgets.
Just one man's opinion....
$bob$
The $2k value of the NX8 ...
Great unless you've been shopping with them for 5 or 10 years haMake that $1755, from Mile High Shooting, using their first time customer discount code, just FYI.
Great unless you've been shopping with them for 5 or 10 years ha
Is that for the NX8 4-32 Moar?Make that $1755, from Mile High Shooting, using their first time customer discount code, just FYI.
Is that for the NX8 4-32 Moar?
Can also call any number of vendors that offer hide pricing. Doug us great. CS Tactical. mile high. EtcNo, the 2.5-20, but you could get 10% off that one with their new customer code.
Nothing wrong with that at all, we all have different preferences. I think the point that Beet makes above is simply that it is a good scope, but does have some drawbacks and as long as you understand what those are (finicky DOF/Parallax/Eyebox and some loss of edge clarity) then you very well may like it a lot. I lived with the March for a while that way and thought the other cool features would overcome but in the end having to play so much with the parallax just bugged me. I'll be taking my NX8 2.5-20 out soon to do some more shooting with it.I mean... I like mine? Is that not a popular opinion around here ?
I don't really think glass is one of its shortcomings. The glass looks pretty good to me having looked and spent some time on both the 20x and 32x.
The issues that WJM mentions are there. I've seen them on all three of the NX8s I have looked at. It's not anything that is really going to show itself indoors. Except perhaps for the fisheye on the edges. But the eyebox is definitely tight, and reducing parallax takes some tweaking.
For some people these may not be issues at all. If you're not shooting on the clock and you enjoy the scope, run with it.
I shot it out to 815 today and still did not notice the fisheye or picky parallax. Not saying it’s not there, I just can’t see it. I did notice a bit of right eye box. Field of view is great.
I went back 3x today and yesterday looking at both versions to make sure. Looked at targets from 25 yards to 1000. Some people may see the negatives but I don’t think they are as pronounced as one might think.
interested in your thoughts about the x20 vs x32, pros and cons?
Call mile high.Does Mile High Shooting actually have a first time customer discount? I'm just getting started in long range rifle (how I ended up here) and am in the market to pick up some gear. The post from @Centuriator caught my eye, but looks like he might have been banned since then.
I am curious if the 4-32 shows less edge distortion than the 2.5-20 due to the longer scope body. Do you recall if it seemed about the same between both scopes RF?I didn’t spend a lot of time with the 32x. Mainly played with it on 4x and ran it up to 20 once. I didn’t see any difference than the 2.5-20 so I went back to it since it’s the one I’m interested in.