Rifle Scopes NX8 4-32 Video Review

[Awesymoto]

Here you go, made it because I couldn't find much on this optic.
I will have more in depth stuff later.

 

[WB300]

Thanks for doing this. I want this scope. Will your next video address some claims of the finicky eye box, eye relief, and parallax? I have to rely on interwebs reviews until i can get behind one.

 

[Awesymoto]

Thanks for doing this. I want this scope. Will your next video address some claims of the finicky eye box, eye relief, and parallax? I have to rely on interwebs reviews until i can get behind one.

I’ll be sure to check, first glance it’s fine. I didn’t notice any issues the eye box at 32 power is usable, plenty of eye relief, haven’t had any parallax issues either. From what I gather the 4-32 is a bit more forgiving than the 2.5-20

 

[WB300]

Thank you. I don't expect ANY scope to be as clear/forgiving on max power as the lower 1/2 of the mag range. Most of my shooting is from 10x-16x in comps and 4x-10x for hunting. So if its very user friendly and forgiving up to 20x, that's what i want. From 20x-32x would be used more to look for holes or judge antlers.

I have the Steiner P4Xi 4-16x56 and i love it. At 16x, the eye box gets just a little less forgiving, but at least I don't have to creep my head forward to get full view in the eye piece. When i rebarrel my 3-0-hate to 6.5, I'll want some more magnification.

 

[Bangin]

Let us know if you like it better than the amg. I’m curious how it compares.

 

[Moose]

Thanks for your input on the scope.I will be looking forward to a further review on it.

 

[samson7x]

I've been wanting to try one of these out for a while now. I may have to pick one up soon.

 

[Ugly_Duck]

Very nice review

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Here you go, made it because I couldn't find much on this optic.
I will have more in depth stuff later.

Thanks for taking the time to do a detailed review.
How does the scope compare optically to the AMG?
I loved the glass on my AMG but reliability was a problem

 

[Bangin]

I just looked through my amg, S&b 3-21 exos and a S&b 3-20 US and the amg look is as good as those two with less CA. This was looking at the last hour of daylight toward the sunset. No scopes were mounted. S&b eye box definitely more forgiving. Once mounted wouldn’t imagine there being a problem with the amg. The new S&b turrets are sweet!

 

[littlepod]

I ran an amg side by side with s&b exos and pm ii and the s&b cut through the mirage a ton better than the amg.

 

[Bangin]

Thats going to be my next test.

 

[Awesymoto]

Having shot an AMG for the past 3.5 years I’ll say this. The AMG glass was very good, bright, nearly no CA, and the resolution and color was near perfect for me. At 2k on a clear no mirage cold morning I could easily resolve the branches on juniper trees. 800yards on steel was stupid easy to see, and almost appeared to be in high def.

I haven’t got much time behind the NF yet but the glass does not appear to be quite as stunning. I have no issues with the NX8 but it’s just not amazing to look through. The color appears correct, and it’s bright to 32 Power in the day and ~24 in lower light. At first light I’m going to assume it will be fine up to 20ish. Though I’ll test this out more as hunting season comes around.

The AMG eye box to me at 24 power is not forgiving. It’s not bad but not a Premier either. Scope shadow comes in quickly if your eyes not centered perfectly and the NX8 seems to be about the same but at 32 power. At 24 it seems more forgiving than the AMG.

The AMG To my eyes, had a much larger image size at the objective lens which makes the image appear to have more FOV but comparing the specs listed on the websites are AMG 5.1 @24x and NX8 4.6’ @32x makes me think they are very similar in reality.

DOF seems to be fine. The Premier I had seemed to have no parallax error as long as the knob wasn’t all the way to minimum, the AMG I always suffered getting a parallax free image with Beyond 800-900 yards. The NX8 seemed fine at 2k and 800 ish which is as far as I played with it during my first outing. I actually rank the parallax above the AMG, below S&B / Premier.
The objective focus for reticle clarity is much easier to set on the NX8 as the AMG required a crap ton of turning, comparatively the NX8 a 1/4 turn is noticeable where the AMG I had a tough time telling the difference between a full turn in vs out.

Build wise the AMG was very nice, but the NX8 seems to be higher quality, little things like flushing the screws on the turrets, and everything being tight on the NF compared to the wiggle in the AMG parallax knob builds confidence in its durability and attention to detail. The turrets on the Vortex are way better click wise than the NX8 though. The NF elevation is very subtle Compared to the L TEC. I like the capped windage but prefer the windage stop on the vortex.

enough for now. Thanks for the positive feedback!

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Having shot an AMG for the past 3.5 years I’ll say this. The AMG glass was very good, bright, nearly no CA, and the resolution and color was near perfect for me. At 2k on a clear no mirage cold morning I could easily resolve the branches on juniper trees. 800yards on steel was stupid easy to see, and almost appeared to be in high def.

I haven’t got much time behind the NF yet but the glass does not appear to be quite as stunning. I have no issues with the NX8 but it’s just not amazing to look through. The color appears correct, and it’s bright to 32 Power in the day and ~24 in lower light. At first light I’m going to assume it will be fine up to 20ish. Though I’ll test this out more as hunting season comes around.

The AMG eye box to me at 24 power is not forgiving. It’s not bad but not a Premier either. Scope shadow comes in quickly if your eyes not centered perfectly and the NX8 seems to be about the same but at 32 power. At 24 it seems more forgiving than the AMG.

The AMG To my eyes, had a much larger image size at the objective lens which makes the image appear to have more FOV but comparing the specs listed on the websites are AMG 5.1 @24x and NX8 4.6’ @32x makes me think they are very similar in reality.

DOF seems to be fine. The Premier I had seemed to have no parallax error as long as the knob wasn’t all the way to minimum, the AMG I always suffered getting a parallax free image with Beyond 800-900 yards. The NX8 seemed fine at 2k and 800 ish which is as far as I played with it during my first outing. I actually rank the parallax above the AMG, below S&B / Premier.
The objective focus for reticle clarity is much easier to set on the NX8 as the AMG required a crap ton of turning, comparatively the NX8 a 1/4 turn is noticeable where the AMG I had a tough time telling the difference between a full turn in vs out.

Build wise the AMG was very nice, but the NX8 seems to be higher quality, little things like flushing the screws on the turrets, and everything being tight on the NF compared to the wiggle in the AMG parallax knob builds confidence in its durability and attention to detail. The turrets on the Vortex are way better click wise than the NX8 though. The NF elevation is very subtle Compared to the L TEC. I like the capped windage but prefer the windage stop on the vortex.

enough for now. Thanks for the positive feedback!

Dude that's super helpful!
I too had issues setting the objective focus and parallax on my AMG, the parallax knob actually broke twice in a few months of use which is why I'm sending it back.

I also noticed the image tunneled and was dark on the edges at 20x and above.
I'll get the NX8 for sure
Thanks again

 

[Bangin]

Having shot an AMG for the past 3.5 years I’ll say this. The AMG glass was very good, bright, nearly no CA, and the resolution and color was near perfect for me. At 2k on a clear no mirage cold morning I could easily resolve the branches on juniper trees. 800yards on steel was stupid easy to see, and almost appeared to be in high def.

I haven’t got much time behind the NF yet but the glass does not appear to be quite as stunning. I have no issues with the NX8 but it’s just not amazing to look through. The color appears correct, and it’s bright to 32 Power in the day and ~24 in lower light. At first light I’m going to assume it will be fine up to 20ish. Though I’ll test this out more as hunting season comes around.

The AMG eye box to me at 24 power is not forgiving. It’s not bad but not a Premier either. Scope shadow comes in quickly if your eyes not centered perfectly and the NX8 seems to be about the same but at 32 power. At 24 it seems more forgiving than the AMG.

The AMG To my eyes, had a much larger image size at the objective lens which makes the image appear to have more FOV but comparing the specs listed on the websites are AMG 5.1 @24x and NX8 4.6’ @32x makes me think they are very similar in reality.

DOF seems to be fine. The Premier I had seemed to have no parallax error as long as the knob wasn’t all the way to minimum, the AMG I always suffered getting a parallax free image with Beyond 800-900 yards. The NX8 seemed fine at 2k and 800 ish which is as far as I played with it during my first outing. I actually rank the parallax above the AMG, below S&B / Premier.
The objective focus for reticle clarity is much easier to set on the NX8 as the AMG required a crap ton of turning, comparatively the NX8 a 1/4 turn is noticeable where the AMG I had a tough time telling the difference between a full turn in vs out.

Build wise the AMG was very nice, but the NX8 seems to be higher quality, little things like flushing the screws on the turrets, and everything being tight on the NF compared to the wiggle in the AMG parallax knob builds confidence in its durability and attention to detail. The turrets on the Vortex are way better click wise than the NX8 though. The NF elevation is very subtle Compared to the L TEC. I like the capped windage but prefer the windage stop on the vortex.

enough for now. Thanks for the positive feedback!

I had no problem with the parallax and getting the reticle to focus out to 2000-1500 yds away. Must’ve gotta a good one. Can’t wait to hear more. I’ll do some more testing with mirage soon.

 

[dustingaunder]

I find my 4-32 stunning from 4-24. 24-32 has some tight eye box, touchy parallax, and gets noticeably darker. I rarely use it above 24 and didn’t plan on doing so when I bought it. 24-32 is usable and I’m glad it’s there.

 

[Awesymoto]

Just shot a ladder test at 507 yards, at 32 power it was silly easy to see my bullet holes on the white paper.

 

[Ugly_Duck]

I find my 4-32 stunning from 4-24. 24-32 has some tight eye box, touchy parallax, and gets noticeably darker. I rarely use it above 24 and didn’t plan on doing so when I bought it. 24-32 is usable and I’m glad it’s there.

For my eyes I find the reticle to be too fine under lower powers so the higher settings is what Ive been hanging out in. I do notice it darken slightly but I dont forsee it being an issue

 

[dustingaunder]

I love the reticle on 4x (MIL-XT). Feels like a duplex for hunting to me. Plus the illumination makes it money in trees and low light.

 

[dragman]

I love my 4-32. and the MOAR is my favorite reticle of all time. For under 2K for this new it's really hard to beat!

 

[Awesymoto]

NF just released this morning a F2 version including the new Mil CF2D reticle and some type of MOA reticle. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescopes/nx8/nx8-4-32x50-f2 so if SFP is your thing, you're in luck.

 

[samson7x]

NF just released this morning a F2 version including the new Mil CF2D reticle and some type of MOA reticle. https://www.nightforceoptics.com/riflescopes/nx8/nx8-4-32x50-f2 so if SFP is your thing, you're in luck.

Lame.

 

[overlookh]

Can someone explain to me the reason why nightforce produce the new line NX8 scope with a 50mm lens despite the majority of his product (like other producer) having a 56 diameter?


Maybe a wanted commercial downgrade?



Bye.

 

[littlepod]

Can someone explain to me the reason why nightforce produce the new line NX8 scope with a 50mm lens despite the majority of his product (like other producer) having a 56 diameter?


Maybe a wanted commercial downgrade?



Bye.

NX8 is also only 28oz vs the 37oz of the ATACR. Smaller tube, smaller objective = lighter.

I just downgraded from my 41oz scope to a 28oz... those oz'd add up!

 

[Totoro]

Great review sir!

Question, how is the eye relief at low to high power?

 

[Awesymoto]

Great review sir!

Question, how is the eye relief at low to high power?

Eye relief to me is plenty and fine at 32x if you shoot all funky this may not work, but for prone, shooting sticks, and off hand at lower powers it’s fine.

 

[Totoro]

Sweet....thanks!

 

[screaminweasil]

Cool, thanks for that

 

[wmvdg123]

Is the mil xt reticle too thick at 32x for long-range work?

 

[Northernjets]

Ended up trading the used AMG 6-24x50 EBR-7 I bought for a lightly used NX8 4-32x50. Digging the MIL-C reticle.

 

[Awesymoto]

Also noted on Mil-C is that they don’t have a 0.1 on the vertical it starts at 0.2 for the ranging part separate from the main reticle. Very odd because the website shows 0.1

 

[Northernjets]

Also noted on Mil-C is that they don’t have a 0.1 on the vertical it starts at 0.2 for the ranging part separate from the main reticle. Very odd because the website shows 0.1

Not quite sure what you mean by that? The little 2 mil cross in the bottom right quadrant for milling a target? It has 0.1 markings on it from 0 up to 2 mils.

 

[Awesymoto]

Not quite sure what you mean by that? The little 2 mil cross in the bottom right quadrant for milling a target? It has 0.1 markings on it from 0 up to 2 mils. View attachment 7412724

Yes on the description but the actual reticle in the scope is not the same.

 

[Awesymoto]

Not quite sure what you mean by that? The little 2 mil cross in the bottom right quadrant for milling a target? It has 0.1 markings on it from 0 up to 2 mils. View attachment 7412724

 

[Northernjets]

Yes on the description but the actual reticle in the scope is not the same.

Ah, okay, I see what you're saying now. I think the .1 markers are also .1 mil high along the horizontal line, so I guess they figured one could just used that if needed?

 

[Awesymoto]

Ah, okay, I see what you're saying now. I think the .1 markers are also .1 mil high along the horizontal line, so I guess they figured one could just used that if needed?

Probably but it made zeroing my rifle the first time very confusing why I was off .1 lol then I looked harder

 

[Javier.saenz338lm]

Here you go, made it because I couldn't find much on this optic.
I will have more in depth stuff later.

Great review, Thanks

 

[russkim04]

Is the mil xt reticle too thick at 32x for long-range work?

I feel the center dot at 32x is to big. Wished it was half the size it is. Disclaimer-i haven't used beyond 200 yards yet, maybe at further distance it'll be better (?) What's everyone's opinion on it?