-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New high power Nightforce NX8?
- Thread starter acg
- Start date
Thanks for the input guys. Having owned and used just about all the alphas except ZCO, I have settled on NF because they have been so excellent for me over the years and I really like the MIL-c
I would only go to 25-30X for broad daylight doe antelope and perhaps some steel/varmints for final ID purposes
I really appreciate the low power image you have provided and will order the 32X and see how it works out.
DSLR battery is dead so I tried more with my cell phone.
It picked up a 1/4 right and up at 10 MOA and tripled that by 25 MOA
Weird question but how many miles are visible below the main crosshairs with the scope set at 14x?
I'm a big fan so far. Great semi auto or general purpose or lighter weight hunting scope
Disregard the rest. Waiting for a mlok picatinny rail for bipod
Disregard the rest. Waiting for a mlok picatinny rail for bipod
Yes on caps. No on sunshade if you mean like an extended screw on shade
I don't have a ton of time with the nx8
The ATACR has a nicer eye box, maybe slightly better glass and I like the zero hold elevation turret. Clicks and parallax are equal IMO
The NX8 2.5-20 has a smaller foot print and the low end power helps with the short range quick shots
Last edited:
Does anyone with a high end scope (PMII, ATACR, Theta, ZCO, etc) have a side by side comparison they could do with the NX8? Curious about gall quality, turret feel, parallax pickiness, and eyebox in particular.
I'm heading out this Saturday with a buddy who has a ZCO 4-20, I have a Kahles K318i, if someone could get me a 2.5-20 by Friday I'd be more than happy to do a comparison
I believe they are coming with Tenebraex caps, Tenebraex also sells ARD's so I would think that should work.
Since you are running this on a 457 you should also take into consideration the parallax adjustment. The NF starts at 11 yards, not sure where the gen II is. Warranty is a mood point as the NF is lifetime, and you most likely will never need to use it. You are getting 32X instead of 27X, more is better, at least in my book and it is all usable. I hear people saying that the ATACR 35X units power is not usable, however I was just running mine at full power in 93 degree weather shooting steel at 1 mile. Full disclosure I have multiple NF and used to run Razors.
The glass is pretty superb, don't expect to see illumination unless it's low-light / dark. The edges kind of get blurry after 14x but that might just be my eyes, which probably doesn't help with the tighter eyebox in the high end of the mag range. The reticle is visible at the low end (2.5) pretty descent.
These are just my initial thoughts, take it with a grain of salt, as this is my first NF.
These are just my initial thoughts, take it with a grain of salt, as this is my first NF.
Have you adjusted the illumination ? You can have red or green and a wide range of power levels
I thought the illumination would be brighter and feel like I would have preferred less windage marks and run the thicker part in more. I can't really complain because the reticle seems decent sized on 6x with the 4-32 moar. I really love the turrets and power ring. I haven't had it outside much but playing around on the porch with it, it was pretty clear. It does get darker after about 24x in lower light but is still decent. It makes compromises in some areas but as a package I really like it. The elevation turret is perfect in my opinion. I want to get it out and compare it to one of my cronus but I know already the nx8 has better turrets.
Yes I went back and forth through the colors and adjusted to Max brightness in the house then checked it outside and it was not visible at all.
After playing with it some more tonight since it's finally dusk here, I'm alot more impressed.
I'm able to pick up a huge amount of detail looking at various houses and landscape( rocks, branches on trees) easily out to 2 miles.. which honestly took me by surprise.
( It's not mounted on the rifle lol, I'm not running around with the gun )
Between those two, for me it's purpose would come down to weight and reticle between those two.
Last edited:
MilXT is hard to beat (EBR-7c is very nice too) but MilC also is an awesome design if you don't want the quick wind marks.
i have a razor gen 2 on my PRS rig and plan on getting a 4-32 MilXT for a hunting/backup/lighter PRS gun
different purposes
Did I miss something, I haven't seen anywhere say that the Mil-XT will be available in the NX8 line, only the Mil-C and MOAR?
Also, why has NF not updated their website, I can't find the NX8 long range scopes anywhere on their website??? Strange they are shipping scopes they are not even advertising yet...
Last edited:
Okay, I had to go through the thread again because Mil-XT was certainly not part of the original announcement, it finally shows up on page 6 post #270 by phlegm where he says
But that seems to be the only information we've had so far, sure would be nice if NF would get the scopes on their website and put up some more specs on them.
it was on the original press releases from that magazine that weren't supposed to be leaked and has been confirmed by @gr8fuldoug and other vendors
That sounds like it is the case; however, "specs they released", I've never seen an announcement from NF on these scopes, where are you finding these specs?
Well I got my 2.5-20 the other day and mounted it up in badger rings on my AI. I've gone out and used it every day for the past 4 days and so have some initial impressions.
Turret wise they feel the same as my ATACR 4-16x50. Glass I would say is substantially better than the NXS series but not quite ATACR, but without an ATACR next to it, I wouldn't notice the difference. The weight savings over the ATACR is noticeable as the ATACR was on my AI prior to this. I appreciate that the ocular piece does not rotate when changing magnification and the magnification adjustment ring rotates smoothly. Parallax is not marked in yards or meters, but with the dashes, another welcome feature. The parallax settings appear forgiving and I have had no issues with it.
The eye box is ever so slightly tighter than the ATACR though out the mag range, but that is more of kudos to the ATACR than a hit against the NX8. On 16x on both feel about the same, and 20x on the NX8 is admittedly a bit sensitive.
On to the reticle. I took a few photo's of the reticle, both illuminated and not at differing magnifications, 2.5, 6, 10, 16, and 20. These were taken with a cell phone so not great but I can see if I can do better if anyone wants me to get anything specific. The shed is at approx. 80yds and was used for just a lighter colored surface. These were taken around late afternoon and it was still quite bright outside. The parking sign is approx. 180yds away. On to the pictures. The sign pictures are at 2.5, 6, and 10x.
Turret wise they feel the same as my ATACR 4-16x50. Glass I would say is substantially better than the NXS series but not quite ATACR, but without an ATACR next to it, I wouldn't notice the difference. The weight savings over the ATACR is noticeable as the ATACR was on my AI prior to this. I appreciate that the ocular piece does not rotate when changing magnification and the magnification adjustment ring rotates smoothly. Parallax is not marked in yards or meters, but with the dashes, another welcome feature. The parallax settings appear forgiving and I have had no issues with it.
The eye box is ever so slightly tighter than the ATACR though out the mag range, but that is more of kudos to the ATACR than a hit against the NX8. On 16x on both feel about the same, and 20x on the NX8 is admittedly a bit sensitive.
On to the reticle. I took a few photo's of the reticle, both illuminated and not at differing magnifications, 2.5, 6, 10, 16, and 20. These were taken with a cell phone so not great but I can see if I can do better if anyone wants me to get anything specific. The shed is at approx. 80yds and was used for just a lighter colored surface. These were taken around late afternoon and it was still quite bright outside. The parking sign is approx. 180yds away. On to the pictures. The sign pictures are at 2.5, 6, and 10x.
Well done, much better pictures then I managed to attempt lol.
I called NF and they confirmed the nxs sunshades will work, part # V171
I called NF and they confirmed the nxs sunshades will work, part # V171
Thank you for taking the time Iowa, from previous reports I thought daylight illumination was much worse but that looks pretty impressive for a long range scope. Sounds like this scope may round out to be a real winner from NF.
I concur with Iowashooter. I have had the scope long enough to have played with it quite a bit. The one thing I have noticed is that the depth perception on the scope isn’t as strong as the ATACR’s.
I THINK this is due to how short the scope is. It’s not horrible, not by a long shot, just noticeable when I compare the 2.5-20 next to my 5-25 ATACR, both set at 20X.
Glass is solid, turrets are great, all in all, a fantastic scope for the $$. I don’t really NEED the 4-32, but at the price these are going for, I’m tempted.
I think NF has a big winner here.
I THINK this is due to how short the scope is. It’s not horrible, not by a long shot, just noticeable when I compare the 2.5-20 next to my 5-25 ATACR, both set at 20X.
Glass is solid, turrets are great, all in all, a fantastic scope for the $$. I don’t really NEED the 4-32, but at the price these are going for, I’m tempted.
I think NF has a big winner here.
The eyebox is considerably more annoying than my Razor HDII. Not unusable though.
It's interesting reading this. At my local range, distance indicators are on the right side of the road and the target gongs are on the left. I was having trouble picking out the 600 yard gong which I never had an issue with before. I thought maybe I was just being stupid so I dialed for 600 and shot at the two or three gongs I was confused with until one went bang.
The further gongs, at 1300-1760, I did not have an issue with getting confused but they're not on as flat of ground, they kind of go up a hillside.
It's interesting reading this. At my local range, distance indicators are on the right side of the road and the target gongs are on the left. I was having trouble picking out the 600 yard gong which I never had an issue with before. I thought maybe I was just being stupid so I dialed for 600 and shot at the two or three gongs I was confused with until one went bang.
The further gongs, at 1300-1760, I did not have an issue with getting confused but they're not on as flat of ground, they kind of go up a hillside.
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....
$bob$
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....
$bob$
I called a vendor from the hide on Monday for the 4-32 Mil version and it is being delivered today....
That's perfect, thanks for the info! Can't wait for the MIL-XT's to hit the market.
