Rifle Scopes New high power Nightforce NX8?

[B-Ricks]

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.

 

[generalzip]

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.

Even the 735 is nearly unusable above about 29x. Optical Quality suffers and eyebox becomes veryyy picky. It’s realistically a 7-30 scope in my eyes. The 35 is just nice to see .22 holes on paper at 1-200.

 

[generalzip]

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

After comparing side by side I would not agree with your last statement. I’d say they are equal. The 5-25 ATACR has outstanding glass quality on the level of Schmidt.

 

[B-Ricks]

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 5
It would be lighter.
Better eyebox.
Less finicky parallax
More usable F1 reticle on both low and high ends.
For me as a hunter in practical field use I would without a doubt give up zoom power i will not use anyways to gain ground in these areas.

The only reason I do not go with the 4-20 Atacr is its just to obscenely expensive for me, its awful heavy but I could get over that.

 

[generalzip]

It's a very common assessment that the 7x35 ATACR is the best optically of the ATACR line

Fair. Just hasn’t been my experience.

 

[B-Ricks]

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?

It is effectived by the same negative attributes. It has a high zoom ratio.
Haven't looked thru one but it reportedly is worse because it is in an even shorter tube.

The 4-32 is a great optic. I would still recommend it. I may buy another.
I just think it could be better.

 

[generalzip]

Any 10x erector with a relatively smaller objective is going to have a smaller exit pupil and eyebox.

 

[B-Ricks]

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

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.

 

[B-Ricks]

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

Well obviously they listen otherwise the never would of produced the nx8 you choices would of continued being nxs or atacr.

Lot more companies pushing into the market then 10 or even 5 years ago.

So if you want the best why don't you have an atacr? They are better in every regard except possibly weight.

 

[lash]

F1 reticle is huge at 32x so that takes away being able to to really dial in your zero.

The ffp reticle is giant at 32x you can't use it for load development because the reticle covers to much of the target.

^^^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…

 

[B-Ricks]

^^^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…

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

 

[b6graham]

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

you're joking right?

 

[B-Ricks]

you're joking right?

I 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.

 

[SRPowah]

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

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.

In response to your controversial comments, the reticle in the 4-16x covers the same amount of target at 16x as the nx8 4-32 at 32x, and the ATACR 7-35 at 35x, and the NX8 2.5-20x at 20x. Nothing to do with sustentions, but specifically how much the reticle covers the target.

 

[lash]

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

Subject…

———->>>

You

 

[b6graham]

I 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.

i have

the reticle covers the same space on target as it does at 15x...

 

[B-Ricks]

you're joking right?

And no I wasn't joking about the grammar police.
There on every forum.
Sorry imma not so educated. But im also on my phone while pooping. So didn't know we needed an extra o

 

[B-Ricks]

I stand corrected, the reticle line is the same at all powers.
But I still don't really think the glass is usable at 32x or needed in a hunting optic.

All the other aforementioned short coming of the nx8 could be reduced with a lower zoom ratio.

 

[B-Ricks]

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?

Man if you are zoom whore its no skin off my nose.
All I said was for ME I would give up high magnification to reduce the other effects of a high zoom ratio scope.
If thats not for you it doesn't make me wrong.

 

[B-Ricks]

You keep missing nuance

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

 

[B-Ricks]

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.

Thank you,

Sounds like our hunting use case is similar.

 

[b6graham]

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

do you even understand how exit pupil works?

 

[nick338]

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'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.

Explain to me how this is possible with a FFP scope. If you can't do load development at 32X because you're suggesting the reticle is too thick for the target you're using then it's too thick at any power. The reticle and target stay at the same size relationship throughout the magnification range.

 

[918v]

I like the 4-32 because it is proportional in size and weigh for a hunting rifle. It has excellent glass. It doesn’t have to be used at 32x. I like it as a 4-20x.

 

[MtnGhost]

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 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.

First, more inline with your situation - the 4-32 performed well shooting to just under 800m with a 25-06 (117gr SGK ammo) at a 24x24" steel target. It was mostly cloudy that day, but it did the job with and without the sun illuminating the target. The ground was fairly saturated that day, but I could still see most of the misses in the dirt and the impacts of that session. I would imagine that 1000y is doable, but I can't say for sure what the max range would be.

I also build custom PCP airguns as a hobby and this optic has spent most of its time on various .22 - .30cal air rifles that I have put together. It's obviously a LOT harder to track the impacts of airgun "slugs" than centerfire impacts, but I can say that the 4-32 has been adequate to see the POI on Splatterburst targets when I shot them with a .22cal using 40gr rebated boat tail slugs around 1100fps at ~310y on a sunny day. The ballistics of this particular rifle are comparable to an average .22LR. The actual "splatter" holes in the targets can just barely be made at at this range when there's a mirage. Anything further out is a struggle for me to see (ex: 340y is VERY difficult to see .22cal with the slightest mirage, so I think ~320y is the absolute max range that POI can be seen on these targets with this caliber).

It has been difficult to see the POI at this range with this caliber/ammo in low light conditions, but I also have the 7-35 (T3) which has also proven to be challenging (side by side to with the 4-32). The 7-35 definitely outperforms the 4-32 in everything but size and weight, but it's not extraordinarily drastic in the 300-350y range with .22cal and Splatterburst paper targets.

One last negative for this 4-32 - the differences with the larger 7-35 really stand out in my Sideshot / GoPro scope cam videos. They are substantially clearer with the 7-35 than 4-32 - especially in low light. I can still record and see projectiles traveling down range at high transonic / low supersonic with the 4-32, but the 7-35 blows it away in this regard. I would imagine the 5-25 would also blow it away.

Other than that, being totally subjective - the 4-32 is my absolute favorite variable mag optic. It has been an upgrade to the March 3-24x52 that I ran before it for longer range shooting (easier to see POI at 300-350y and a MUCH better reticle), but that March was extremely light with great glass and that was a big advantage over the NX8 for hunting. I also think this 4-32 could be the best all around optic for NRL22, where I have never contemplated running anything else.

 

[carbonbased]

Public service announcement

FYI just got done researching the NX8 4-32 by calling up NF and asking specifically about the Mil-XT main stadia line thickness, as the NX8 lineup and ATACR 4-20 aren’t mentioned in NF’s reticle subtension PDF as of today.

Here is that info, along with the already published specs.

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

Current NF Mil-XT reticle subtension pdf attached.