Nightforce NX8: should I get the 2.5-20 or 4-32?

[colt.45]

So I've spent some time shopping around and so far these have been my favorite scopes out of all. Both are offered with the Tremor or MOAR reticles and both are only demo models because that kept them in my price range (~2000$ cap). I will be shooting both 308 and 6.5 cm but mostly 308. mostly between 100-500 yds, but occasionally being able to go to a range that has a 1200 yard target. AND possibly (in the future) moving out to CO where my options for ELR are more plentiful. I would like to know how these two scopes square up and the experiences some of y'all have had with them. Good and Bad

 

[96C]

I have a 4-32 Tremor3 MRAD.

Sold a 4-16 ATACR to get it... 16x is good for PRS, but it's always nice to have MORE SCOPE on hand, and even if you never shoot past 25x, the scope isn't maxed out doing it so you won't see any tunneling and brightness should hopefully stay high.

the 4-32 NX8 is an excellent scope, you'll be happy with it.

 

[colt.45]

I have a 4-32 Tremor3 MRAD.

Sold a 4-16 ATACR to get it... 16x is good for PRS, but it's always nice to have MORE SCOPE on hand, and even if you never shoot past 25x, the scope isn't maxed out doing it so you won't see any tunneling and brightness should hopefully stay high.

the 4-32 NX8 is an excellent scope, you'll be happy with it.

So by that logic would you say it always pays more to buy a scope that is a little bit more than you’ll need?

 

[b6graham]

you'll never notice the difference between 2.5x and 4x

you will notice the IQ/focus/parallax/etc between the 2.5-20 and 4-32

 

[96C]

So by that logic would you say it always pays more to buy a scope that is a little bit more than you’ll need?

Buy the BEST scope you can afford, the scope is more important than the rifle in a lot of ways - if you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. If it doesn't track well, you probably can't hit it etc.

I'd say it is always better to have a scope with a 'bit more' gas left in the tank.

I very rarely go above 20x when hunting, it's more of an investigation option, zoom in to have a look then back if off again.

 

[Slevin182]

I'm going back and forth on this as well. The price isn't a big difference between the two, they weigh the same, and the 4-32 is only ~1.5" longer. 20 is more than enough for 1,000 yards, but having the option to zoom in a little more is always nice. Flip a coin I guess.

 

[doc88]

I have both. The 4-32 is a little more forgiving in the eye box and parallax. More tunneling in the 2.5-20 but nothing you can't deal with. I think you'll be happier with the 4-32.

 

[deersniper]

you'll never notice the difference between 2.5x and 4x

Hunting you will

 

[b6graham]

Hunting you will

good thing he isn't using it for that then

 

[RanchhandTCR]

you'll never notice the difference between 2.5x and 4x

you will notice the IQ/focus/parallax/etc between the 2.5-20 and 4-32

Which one would you say is better. Im wanting to jump from my mk5 to the nk8 for hunting/ general precision shooting. The 2.5-20 i shot to show a shooter that it was him and not the gun was pretty impressive to me. Curious to know of the 4-32 is better or worse than the 2.5-20

 

[deersniper]

Everyone says the 4-32 is better glass and eyebox

 

[b6graham]

Everyone says the 4-32 is better glass and eyebox

yup. basically this

 

[RanchhandTCR]

yup. basically this

Thanks fellas

 

[Choid]

I have both. As a hunting scope I really, really love the 2.5-20x. It is great for target shooting too. Don't have much time behind the bigger mag one. Don't let people scare you off of the 2.5.

 

[b6graham]

I have both. As a hunting scope I really, really love the 2.5-20x. It is great for target shooting too. Don't have much time behind the bigger mag one. Don't let people scare you off of the 2.5.

i don't think there's anything wrong with the 2.5-20 if you need the smaller size and 2.5x, but if you dont think you really need both then the 4-32 is a better option

 

[davsco]

i'll have to look thru both of them. with ffp and that 8x magnification range, the reticle could be really tiny if you get the 32x and only have it around 8-10x.

 

[dragman]

4-32 is a clear winner for me. I don't have any application that the 2.5-20 would be better.

 

[b6graham]

i'll have to look thru both of them. with ffp and that 8x magnification range, the reticle could be really tiny if you get the 32x and only have it around 8-10x.

and this is why i'll never understand the 8x.

make this scope in a 4-20 and 6-30

 

[Choid]

and this is why i'll never understand the 8x.

make this scope in a 4-20 and 6-30

Well, NF designed it to be a hunting scope, and 2.5 is much better than 4 when you are in timber...