idk my razor gen 2 4.5-27 worked just fine to take a black bear this yearI disagree. Putting a big ass scope like the Steiner 5-25 on a hunting rifle is retarded.
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.
idk my razor gen 2 4.5-27 worked just fine to take a black bear this yearI disagree. Putting a big ass scope like the Steiner 5-25 on a hunting rifle is retarded.
I just sold a 4-32 because I'm switching to mrad.Bump for this thread.
I've narrowed my search scope search to go on a new build .300 long range rifle to the NX8 4-32 and a Steiner M5xi 5-25. They are both about the same price and they are both in stock.
The advantage of the NX8 for me would be it has at 30mm tube and parallax goes down to 10 metres, vs 50m min parallax and 34mm tube (bit heavier, more expensive rings) on the Steiner. Parallax doesn't matter that much I guess, although I was going to put the scope on a 22LR until I get the .300 in April/May, so I won't be doing that with the Steiner.
The disadvantage of the NF8 is the 30mm tube Do the optics suffer at all fitting everything inside a 30mm tube?
I guess the priorities for me are tracking accuracy and optical quality: I want to be able to self-spot impacts and misses at long range, 1000 metres+++.
Anybody used both?
I have four of these I bought for use on hunting rifles for the same reason. I now use one on my 22 comp rifle. I'd use them on my NRL comp rifle if I didn't already have 5-25. I shoot most every target in the 12-14 power range even out to 1200. Finding targets in the scope under duress is more difficult with high magnification.Considering the 4-16 atacr because for me i think the locking turret would give me alot of piece of mind.
What reticle are you using? I'm leaning towards Mil R for hunting as it is thicker.I have four of these I bought for use on hunting rifles for the same reason. I now use one on my 22 comp rifle. I'd use them on my NRL comp rifle if I didn't already have 5-25. I shoot most every target in the 12-14 power range even out to 1200. Finding targets in the scope under duress is more difficult with high magnification.
I think it would be about perfect if it was a 4-24 and absolute perfect if 4-24 f1 with locking elevationThe 4x32 NX8 is a great cog of performance, attributes, and price. That's my top pick for a 14lb longer range hunting rifle. The March 3x24 is my top pick for a 8lb suppressed east coast woods gun
I swapped all my mil-r for mil-xt. The subtension in the mil-c/mil-xt are all .2 mils where the mil-r is different depending on where in the reticle you're looking. It's easier to use under duress with them all being the same. I would have gone with the mil-c but the mil-xt is the same reticle with a tree. I don't even see the tree now.What reticle are you using? I'm leaning towards Mil R for hunting as it is thicker.
Well I'm not an engineer but a high zoom ratio is hard to achieve.I would like a locking turret. What do you want to gain from limiting the top end of magnification? I see all those extra X's as bonus.
Well I'm not an engineer but a high zoom ratio is hard to achieve.
It makes the exit pupil smaller (less forgiving eyebox)
I don't see any way un heck an average user will be able to spot impacts at 32x.
The glass starts becoming washy at 28x ish.
F1 reticle is huge at 32x so that takes away being able to to really dial in your zero.
I just don't see the average user needing the power and the optic would be much more user friendly.
The majority of high end users that will really use the zoom are going to step up to a 7-35 Atacr anyways.
Just don't turn the mag ring all the way up. My point is if NF caps it at 24X do you think it will improve the optical performance or size? My basis of thinking is look at the NX8 2-20. And also compare the 5x25 ATACR and 7x35 ATACR. The higher mag scope is actually better optically than the lower mag version. And it's barely any larger
Any optic with a high zoom ratio will be subject to these negative attributes. Yes if they lowered the zoom ratio from 8 down to 5Just don't turn the mag ring all the way up. My point is if NF caps it at 24X do you think it will improve the optical performance or size? My basis of thinking is look at the NX8 2-20. And also compare the 5x25 ATACR and 7x35 ATACR. The higher mag scope is actually better optically than the lower mag version. And it's barely any larger
Fair. Just hasn’t been my experience.It's a very common assessment that the 7x35 ATACR is the best optically of the ATACR line
It is effectived by the same negative attributes. It has a high zoom ratio.Do you think the 2-20 is commensurately smaller and lighter for the 12x drop in mag range? The 5x25 ATACR is commensurately shorter and lighter than the 7-35?
Have you actually used one?I just look at it this way. A 4x32 makes a good 24x and the 32X is nice to have in optimum conditions like load development. And I doubt NF would make a smaller scope
Well obviously they listen otherwise the never would of produced the nx8 you choices would of continued being nxs or atacr.Lol, ya I own one. Scroll up. I say so
You're dreaming. "Potential" positive
What I keep saying that you keep Missing is when given a chance they don't do what you're asking. In practice when they make a lower magnification the scope is not really that much better optically or commensurately smaller shorter lighter.
You can wish. I'm just trying to buy the best that is available to me
F1 reticle is huge at 32x so that takes away being able to to really dial in your zero.
^^^Care to explain how this is possible? ^^^The ffp reticle is giant at 32x you can't use it for load development because the reticle covers to much of the target.
Ohh its the grammar police.^^^Care to explain how this is possible? ^^^
In case you are confused, a ffp scope reticle covers no more of the target/aiming point at 35x than it does at 5x. That’s literally the whole point of having a ffp reticle.
Oh, and it’s *too…
you're joking right?Ohh its the grammar police.
Geezuss
Ok zoom in to 32x and tell me the reticle doesn't appear much larger then it does at 32
I didn't say jack about the subtentions.you're joking right?
Before I get my popcorn ready in response to your other comments, I switched from the Mil-R to the Mil-C in my 4-16 as I have little to no use for a tree and my hunting is wide open country. 4x is still plenty useable, even in winter tree rows. If I were to be shooting close range in dark brush/woods the majority of the time, I would stick to the Mil-R. It is one of my favorite cross-over reticles.What reticle are you using? I'm leaning towards Mil R for hunting as it is thicker.
I wish they offered a simple .5 mil T reticle with no spaces like the mil r. for me I just need to keep it KISS
Ohh its the grammar police.
Geezuss
Ok zoom in to 32x and tell me the reticle doesn't appear much larger then it does at 32
i haveI didn't say jack about the subtentions.
Why not get off your high horse and go use an nx8 at 32x and tell me if its all its cracked up to be.
And no I wasn't joking about the grammar police.you're joking right?
Man if you are zoom whore its no skin off my nose.It just appears to cover more because of the higher magnification.
Or If you don't like how much it covers just dial down the magnification. It will cover less and be more precise, right?
I'm sure I am.You keep missing nuance
Thank you,Before I get my popcorn ready in response to your other comments, I switched from the Mil-R to the Mil-C in my 4-16 as I have little to no use for a tree and my hunting is wide open country. 4x is still plenty useable, even in winter tree rows. If I were to be shooting close range in dark brush/woods the majority of the time, I would stick to the Mil-R. It is one of my favorite cross-over reticles.
do you even understand how exit pupil works?I'm sure I am.
I can shoot sub moa to 1200 at 20x.
For me a more forgivable exit pupil and parallax would do more for me then additional magnification.
But ill stick to the classifieds from here out before I get kicked off for being mouthy
I've read through this last page and want to agree with you on some of what you're saying and then you completely discredit yourself with this statement.Have you actually used one?
So your saying you gladly except 4 negatives to get a higher zoom one potentialpositive?
The ffp reticle is giant at 32x you can't use it for load development because the reticle covers to much of the target.
I can't give you any feedback on the Steiner, but I have been running the 4-32 (MIl-C) for a while and can speak to my specific experiences.Bump for this thread.
I've narrowed my search scope search to go on a new build .300 long range rifle to the NX8 4-32 and a Steiner M5xi 5-25. They are both about the same price and they are both in stock.
The advantage of the NX8 for me would be it has at 30mm tube and parallax goes down to 10 metres, vs 50m min parallax and 34mm tube (bit heavier, more expensive rings) on the Steiner. Parallax doesn't matter that much I guess, although I was going to put the scope on a 22LR until I get the .300 in April/May, so I won't be doing that with the Steiner.
The disadvantage of the NF8 is the 30mm tube Do the optics suffer at all fitting everything inside a 30mm tube?
I guess the priorities for me are tracking accuracy and optical quality: I want to be able to self-spot impacts and misses at long range, 1000 metres+++.
Anybody used both?
Mil-XT RETICLE | Main line thickness |
4-16 ATACR | 0.043 mil |
2.5-20 NX8 | 0.041 mil |
4-20 ATACR | 0.040 mil |
4-32 NX8 | 0.036 mil |
5-25 ATACR | 0.033 mil |
7-35 ATACR | 0.033 mil |