Rifle Scopes NX8 versus ATACR advise needed

[TikkaDoberman]

I am considering either the NX8 F1 2.5-20 or 4-32 as well as the ATACR F1 4-16x42 or 4-20x50 for use on an 308 ar10. I plan to shoot from 100 - 1000 on steel targets (IDPA torso), mostly daytime and maybe even/dusk shooting. Looking at a mil-c or mil-xt reticle on whichever scope I choose. The current scope on it is an SWFA ss 16x42 I took off of one of my PCP air rifles and the best until it gets the upgraded scope. The best scope I have had previously is a Leopold M1 4x14 long range tactical back is 2000.

First, do you think the increase is price is worth it for my application to go to the ATACR or will the NX8 give me all the performance I need?

Second, which power range would you recommend for the chosen model?

Which which reticle is your preferred choice between mil-c and mil-xt for those that have used both? Wind will possibly be an issue were I will be so is the XT a better choice, or just too much clutter?

Thanks in advance.

 

[lennyo3034]

I went with the 4-16 ATACR for my 6.5 gas gun. I think the ATACR pairs better with gas guns to increase accurate rate of fire in a few ways:

1. Larger eyebox means less time spent getting perfect sight picture.
2. More forgiving parallax means you can go from target to target at varying distances without messing with parallax knob, thereby increasing speed.
3. Magnification range advantage of NX8 is not that useable. I found the reticle very difficult to use on 2.5x due to challenges of 8x magnification range. In a gas gun you’re more likely to use holds and that is not happening at the super low magnifications.

ATACR also has glass advantages but that’s not a unique benefit to gas guns.

 

[Chickentoast]

Of the 2, ATACR, but I'd prefer to spend 1K less (XTR3) or 500 more (ZCO).

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

The NX8 is a whole lot lighter, and it's the same glass as atac. The atac can utilize the glass very slightly better supposedly, but I absolutely love my NX8. I would have gotten the atacr were it not for the weight difference though. Mine is on a bolt gun .308 though. It's a 4-32. I find it extremely easy to get behind, but I definitely would have gotten the atacr 7-35 if the weight weren't quite so much. You don't really "need" that magnification on a .308, where 1200 yds or so is the limit for supersonic flight, but I like having it, and I like being able to use the scope just as well if I change to a different caliber as well... just my opinion.

 

[Chickentoast]

^I bought the same scope you have but returned it after looking through it side by side with a few other of my Japanese scopes. NX8 was the worst image quality, and the most expensive. It looked great on paper, but the glass was not up to the rest of the competitive set. That said, if I didn't have others to compare it to - no issue at all. And in terms of quantifying it, at say ~2K yards, deer had blurry outlines and legs difficult to make out. Other Japanese scopes had clarity around the edges of the animal and the legs could be identified, but with blurry edges. ZCO, might as well be looking at the deer at 500 yards, almost perfect image. Mirage same deal, much heavier on the NX8. It's fine as a hunting tool, but if you're looking for the best for the money, it's a laggard in my book.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

^I bought the same scope you have but returned it after looking through it side by side with a few other of my Japanese scopes. NX8 was the worst image quality, and the most expensive. It looked great on paper, but the glass was not up to the rest of the competitive set. That said, if I didn't have others to compare it to - no issue at all. And in terms of quantifying it, at say ~2K yards, deer had blurry outlines and legs difficult to make out. Other Japanese scopes had clarity around the edges of the animal and the legs could be identified, but with blurry edges. ZCO, might as well be looking at the deer at 500 yards, almost perfect image. Mirage same deal, much heavier on the NX8. It's fine as a hunting tool, but if you're looking for the best for the money, it's a laggard in my book.

Hmmmm. Well, glass is very subjective. I've compared mine side by side with several other good scopes (not ZCO) razor (Which is considered by pretty much everyone to have good glass), S-B, and an Leupold. (Honestly the Leupold looked to me like it gave me the best overall image by a tiny bit). I didn't find the NX8 to be lacking at all. I'd say I was comparing at about 1000yds though so maybe that could be a factor. I will be glad when my AMG finally arrives and I can compare with that. I can't deal with the super heavy scopes so that alone narrows it down quite a bit for me.

 

[Chickentoast]

^Surprised you didn't see more of a difference with the Razor G2 - I saw the difference beginning at around 500 yards and it became more clear the further I looked. Would be interested to hear what you think of the AMG - I've had an itch to try one, and they keep popping up in the PX...

 

[just browsing]

Of the multiple NX8s I’ve been behind (and tried to like), they all had some of the worst edge distortion I’ve ever seen in an optic.

If you can swing the ATACR, I’d highly recommend doing so.

 

[phlegm]

I have two NX8 2.5-20s and an ATACR 4-16x42. You can see the difference, and the ATACR is better (and worth the cost increase).

You don't need the better performance of the ATACR to do what you've described. You'd be buying it because you want it.

On the 308 gas gun at 1k, the MIL-XT is the better choice, if you can get used to the extra information.

 

[Choid]

NX8 is a lot better scope than people on here give it credit for being.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

^Surprised you didn't see more of a difference with the Razor G2 - I saw the difference beginning at around 500 yards and it became more clear the further I looked. Would be interested to hear what you think of the AMG - I've had an itch to try one, and they keep popping up in the PX...

And I should have just waited for one in the PX too! They are 3-6 month wait from vortex.... I'm about 2-1/2 months in.

I was told by the dealer that the amg had slightly better glass view than the Reg Razor. We shall see....

A lot of the scope clarity seems to depend on how your eye picks up color as much as anything. I think that's one reason one guy says "x scope" has so much better glass than " y scope" and another guy says just the opposite.

I really only even consider scopes that are in that NX8 and AMG weight range right now so that limits what I'd actually buy quite a bit. All of the really top end ones are a good bit heavier, especially the 35mm tube stuff like zco. I'd sure love to have a zco though.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

NX8 is a lot better scope than people on here give it credit for being.

Yeah, that's my general view as well.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

The. Leupold m6 had a great image to me. I really wanted to get that one but I just don't trust a leupold. (Which is probably not fair or correct). I trust NF not to crap out on me when I need it to work. Of. Course I'd trust an Atacr too, it's just super heavy and on a gasser, I wouldn't think you'd want that kind of weight, or the razor for that matter. Imo only

 

[Choid]

And I should have just waited for one in the PX too! They are 3-6 month wait from vortex.... I'm about 2-1/2 months in.

I was told by the dealer that the amg had slightly better glass view than the Reg Razor. We shall see....

A lot of the scope clarity seems to depend on how your eye picks up color as much as anything. I think that's one reason one guy says "x scope" has so much better glass than " y scope" and another guy says just the opposite.

I really only even consider scopes that are in that NX8 and AMG weight range right now so that limits what I'd actually buy quite a bit. All of the really top end ones are a good bit heavier, especially the 35mm tube stuff like zco. I'd sure love to have a zco though.

I switched two hunting rifles out from AMGs to NX8s. Couldn't be happier. Even though the reticle isn't ideal at 2.5x, in the woods it is a shit ton better than anything at 6x minimum. It isn't that the NX8 is a perfect scope, but once you are out of the looking through the scope to see how pretty the outer 1/8th is, or trying to determine whether the colors are perfect, it is an almost ideal mix of size, lightness and magnification, at least hunting. I've shot a couple of deer at 2.5x with it. Definitely can be done.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

I switched two hunting rifles out from AMGs to NX8s. Couldn't be happier. Even though the reticle isn't ideal at 2.5x, in the woods it is a shit ton better than anything at 6x minimum. It isn't that the NX8 is a perfect scope, but once you are out of the looking through the scope to see how pretty the outer 1/8th is, or trying to determine whether the colors are perfect, it is an almost ideal mix of size, lightness and magnification, at least hunting. I've shot a couple of deer at 2.5x with it. Definitely can be done.

That's a good summation and I 100% agree. The very outer edges aren't my main driver in buying a scope for any gun so the weight and overall usefulness of the scope is what I value over anything else.

 

[Glassaholic]

A lot of the scope clarity seems to depend on how your eye picks up color as much as anything. I think that's one reason one guy says "x scope" has so much better glass than " y scope" and another guy says just the opposite.

Yes, color definitely has an effect on our perception, seeing an image with muted/dull colors vs. one with vibrant colors can definitely have an impact. But other factors such as how the glass handles micro contrast, resolution, edge distortion, eye box, DOF also play a role. And another area that many do not pay enough attention to is the diopter setting. The reason that manufacturers give us an adjustable diopter is because all our eyes are different and the diopter allows us to adjust a scope to match with our eye; however, if you do not set the diopter properly or a guy on the range says "look through my scope" and you find the image to be a bit disappointing I highly recommend you first try to adjust the diopter. Everyone knows about the old "set to max magnification, max parallax and blue sky" but this only gets you part of the way there, you ought to set the magnification to the lowest setting where you can still see reticle hash marks, numbers, etc. then adjust the diopter to the middle of the falloff at the extremes. Next fine tune your diopter to various distances and parallax setting, keep in mind you want the parallax to be set properly (not necessarily focus) and now adjust your diopter slightly +/- for the ideal image, check at varying distances to ensure parallax and focus are optimum. An improperly set diopter can cause additional CA, blurred image, poor color and overall lack of "pop" when looking through the scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

The very outer edges aren't my main driver in buying a scope for any gun so the weight and overall usefulness of the scope is what I value over anything else.

I would highly recommend you look at the March 3-24x52 scope, at under 25oz this is lighter than most FFP optics. Being a short scope with high magnification range (erector) similar to the NX8 series, it too suffers from edge distortion along with unforgiving DOF, Parallax and eyebox; however, I do think the March has an advantage over the 2.5-20 with regard to these areas. If the NX8 suits you and you are perfectly happy with the performance then don't let me or anyone else dissuade you because what matters is "your" experience, we can only offer advice based on "our" experience and a lot of this ends up being personal preference anyway.

 

[deersniper]

Of the 2, ATACR, but I'd prefer to spend 1K less (XTR3) or 500 more (ZCO).

Lol where those cheap ZCOs at?

 

[koshkin]

I am not big fan of the NX8, but I really like the 4-16x42 ATACR F1. If an ATACR is in your budget go with that.

If you want to go lighter weight FFP, for the time being, March is still the one to beat. I have a 3-24x52 March and like it a lot.

ILya

 

[trob_205]

I sold a razor Gen 2 to help put the AX on a diet so weight was one of the bigger factors. Was looking at MK5 3.8-18 and Ended up with a 4-32 NX8. Using anything north of 20-24x is pretty much meant for punching paper and the “eye box” gets real tight especially anything past 24x. I like the scope though. Down on 16x-20x it’s really comes into its own. looking between two houses and across the lake at roughly 1000-1100y mark and I was pleasantly surprised especially after reading some of the reviews. There was a Canadian honker swimming on the far waters edge at about 1K that I made out very well. I intend to treat it as a 4-20 as a useful in the field and the rest for load development and group shooting. If you want at least a 16x scope I’d rule out the 2.5-20, some say the 2.5-20 really suffers with weak DOF and finicky eye box. If it trends the same as the 4-32 with the 4-5x ratio range being substantially better than the top side of the 8x ratio you’re looking at a scope that does 2.5-12 well and the rest is more of time, condition, and opportunity dependent.

 

[CaptArab]

I would (and I did) wait until an $1800 Atacr shows up in the classifieds and snag that.

Very low risk- you'll get your money back if you don't like it.

 

[Chickentoast]

Lol where those cheap ZCOs at?

Sorry, had 7-35 ATACR pricing in my head.

 

[deersniper]

Nx8 is great for hunting or cross over rifles. 2.5 is usable for quick shots. And the 4-32 is nice for varminting. Makes it easier to see them esp far away and or in brush

 

[Choid]

Nx8 is great for hunting or cross over rifles. 2.5 is usable for quick shots. And the 4-32 is nice for varminting. Makes it easier to see them esp far away and or in brush

This is my feeling as well. If you are carrying a rifle around, the weight makes a big difference. If you are looking to shoot comps and try to make the smallest possible groups, then other scopes are better. I personally also like the 4-16 ATACR, but in the woods, hunting, the NX8 is a better riflescope, mainly because 2.5x is a lot better than 4 if you are Elmer Fudding. Creeping with your head in a 4x scope, with blowdown around you, is a pain in the ass.

I've not tried a March scope, but I hear they are great.

 

[TikkaDoberman]

Thanks for all the input everyone. Unfortunately, there are not any stores around that carry higher tier scopes to put my hands directly on, so I have to resource information from reviewers and people that have more experience with such optics.

I thank I am more leaning towards the ATACR but not sure which range. I was thinking 4-20 but a coworker that shoots long range matches suggested to opt for the 5-25. Both are quite a bit heavier that the fix 16 that is currently mounted. And I think will go with the mil-xt. Just have to save a little longer to get the ATACR.

Here she sits in current configuration, and the 4 shot group in the upper right of head measured 2.09 CTC from 200yrds with Winchester M80 ball. I know 200 isn't much for range, but it was all I had that day for the short time I had to sight in the scope and get a feel for the new rifle.

 

[Whiskey_Tango6.5]

For those who are critical of the NX8, where would you rank it?

Say among
PST G2
RZR G1
LRHS
NXS
MK5
VX6HD
CRONUS
XTRIII

 

[Slick66]

Yes, the 1-8x NX8 seems to get alot of hate. I thought I was sold on it for my “final,” (lol) AR gp carbine set-up (12.5” mid gas), but all the negativity I’m reading about it has given me doubts. The ATACR 1-8 is not that much bigger, but on my setup, inches will seem like feet and oz like pounds.

Sorry to intrude on op’s post, but since we are discussing the relative merits of the NX8, I figure it’s not too much of a drift.

For my needs, the NX8’s form factor seems ideal, and any minor shortcomings in usability seem like an acceptable trade-off.

But quite a few people posting on the net seem to really not like it.

 

[lennyo3034]

For those who are critical of the NX8, where would you rank it?

Say among
PST G2
RZR G1
LRHS
NXS
MK5
VX6HD
CRONUS
XTRIII

I guess I fall in that boat.

Much prefer NX8 to Razor gen 1. I really did not like that razor.

One NX8 I’ve been behind has been better optically than my LRHS. The other was not.

I like the XTRIII better than NX8 optically but struggle with reticle.

I have not had the other scopes side by side with NX8.

 

[TikkaDoberman]

Sorry to intrude on op’s post, but since we are discussing the relative merits of the NX8, I figure it’s not too much of a drift.

No worries,

I find the info relevant, as I am learning about different models and quirks.

Honestly, I am still open to other options with optic selection. I mainly want to stay FFP and have a cross hair usable in the 6x range and not obscuring my 12x 22 IDPA silhouette target at longer ranges, and it must have accurate tracking of reticle. Weights on the lower end of the list, but would prefer something with less weight.

 

[trob_205]

No worries,

I find the info relevant, as I am learning about different models and quirks.

Honestly, I am still open to other options with optic selection. I mainly want to stay FFP and have a cross hair usable in the 6x range and not obscuring my 12x 22 IDPA silhouette target at longer ranges, and it must have accurate tracking of reticle. Weights on the lower end of the list, but would prefer something with less weight.

Well with only nightforce choices tracking should be a non issue. The Mil-XT reticle is pretty nice. Not my fav x-mas tree/grid but better than all the Horus options and some other ones. I love how only the main crosshairs light up when using illumination. Makes the lower power visible crosshairs pretty much a non issue but still being able to see the tree reticle when you get above 10-12x. At least that’s the way it works on my 4-32 NX8. If you treat the 4-32 NX8 as a 4-20 or 4-24, it’s a great scope. Using anything over 24x pretty much requires a good position and good daytime lighting. 24x you can notice it a bit but not as much. 4x-20x it’s a pretty badass little scope considering it’s weight IMHO. Honestly you won’t go wrong. NF has the track record they do for a reason. Even that 4.5-14 SHV F1 has a great tracking record.

 

[Criver600]

NX8 4x32x is excellent, take the time to set it up properly and it will deliver. I recently had the chance to try several (8) higher end Nightforce scopes, 3 Beast, 5 ATACR's (one was the new 4x20x ATACR) and the NX8 fits in very nicely. Set up properly its a excellent piece of glass.

 

[Chickentoast]

For those who are critical of the NX8, where would you rank it?

Say among
PST G2
RZR G1
LRHS
NXS
MK5
VX6HD
CRONUS
XTRIII

NX8 is in the group with the first four. It would be a great scope for 899.

 

[Birddog6424]

NX8 is a lot better scope than people on here give it credit for being.

I'm not so sure. My experience with the handful I've played with mirrors the issues that are well documented on this site.

I do like the 32x over the 20x. Its flaws seem far less noticeable. And I do think it would be fine on a hunting rifle. Set it up for a single target at a single distance and have at it. The parallax and edge distortion would drive me nuts in a competitive setting.

But when two of our most knowledgeable optics reviewers (Glassaholic and Koshkin) are underwhelmed by an optic, I would pay attention.

Not saying its a horrible scope, its not. But at $2000 there are better options.

 

[Choid]

I'm not so sure. My experience with the handful I've played with mirrors the issues that are well documented on this site.

I do like the 32x over the 20x. Its flaws seem far less noticeable. And I do think it would be fine on a hunting rifle. Set it up for a single target at a single distance and have at it. The parallax and edge distortion would drive me nuts in a competitive setting.

But when two of our most knowledgeable optics reviewers (Glassaholic and Koshkin) are underwhelmed by an optic, I would pay attention.

Not saying its a horrible scope, its not. But at $2000 there are better options.

I don't even disagree with what Glassaholic has said. I haven't read Koshkin's reviews. And on most scopes I definitely agree with Glassaholic. That said, a lot of times reviews are taking into account the general use case, and not the specific. I find, for my own part, that the advantages I get from the 20, namely the weight, the compactness, the useful reticle with which I am very familiar, and a level of optical quality that is more than satisfactory for hunting game, along with good ergonomics and mechanics, I am getting what I want from it. In that case, it doesn't matter if they are underwhelmed by it, as long as it works for what I want it. And it does well enough that after hunting one last year, I bought a second for my other hunting rifle.

I'd refer back to Terry Cross' comments about LE sniper rifles. Sometimes the "best" glass, with the "best" features doesn't make for the best scope in a given situation. That is what I am getting at here.

 

[trob_205]

I'm not so sure. My experience with the handful I've played with mirrors the issues that are well documented on this site.

I do like the 32x over the 20x. Its flaws seem far less noticeable. And I do think it would be fine on a hunting rifle. Set it up for a single target at a single distance and have at it. The parallax and edge distortion would drive me nuts in a competitive setting.

But when two of our most knowledgeable optics reviewers (Glassaholic and Koshkin) are underwhelmed by an optic, I would pay attention.

Not saying its a horrible scope, its not. But at $2000 there are better options.

So maybe there there is... for people basing there scope decision on competing. I don’t thing NF ever intended it to awe the competition crowd. It definitely sounds like the 2.5-20 suffers from some optical problems, but I’ve never looked through one so I can’t really say either way. But what else is out there to offer what the NX8 4-32 does for that price for the intended market? Big consideration would be weight for that intended market. For $2k for a competition scope, you’re completely right. There’s definitely heavier competition options for that price that I would pick over the NX8. But for that sub 30oz 8x (I’ll admit it does 6x a lot better than it does the full 8x range) fairly compact crossover/lightweight/hunting FFP illuminated reticle scope for 2k that’s reliable? The answer is there’s not a whole lot out there. I had a 3.6-18 MK5 side by side the NX8 and with the NX8 in 4-18 it was no slouch. The samples I played with the MK5 was a touch brighter with normal daylight bright but when looking at darker objects the NX8 was a touch better than the MK5. I didn’t see very much difference in parallax between the two.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

So maybe there there is... for people basing there scope decision on competing. I don’t thing NF ever intended it to awe the competition crowd. It definitely sounds like the 2.5-20 suffers from some optical problems, but I’ve never looked through one so I can’t really say either way. But what else is out there to offer what the NX8 4-32 does for that price for the intended market? Big consideration would be weight for that intended market. For $2k for a competition scope, you’re completely right. There’s definitely heavier competition options for that price that I would pick over the NX8. But for that sub 30oz 8x (I’ll admit it does 6x a lot better than it does the full 8x range) fairly compact crossover/lightweight/hunting FFP illuminated reticle scope for 2k that’s reliable? The answer is there’s not a whole lot out there. I had a 3.6-18 MK5 side by side the NX8 and with the NX8 in 4-18 it was no slouch. The samples I played with the MK5 was a touch brighter with normal daylight bright but when looking at darker objects the NX8 was a touch better than the MK5. I didn’t see very much difference in parallax between the two.

I don't understand why the NX8 gets dogged... I love it. I'm not comparing it to a scope that weighs double what it does though. Even if I did, it holds it own pretty well for such a huge mag range scope. The reason I got it and love it, is because it's not freaking 2+pounds and it can do literally anything I want it to, and it does it while being ultra reliable. What's not to like?

 

[TangoSierra916]

I am considering either the NX8 F1 2.5-20 or 4-32 as well as the ATACR F1 4-16x42 or 4-20x50 for use on an 308 ar10. I plan to shoot from 100 - 1000 on steel targets (IDPA torso), mostly daytime and maybe even/dusk shooting. Looking at a mil-c or mil-xt reticle on whichever scope I choose. The current scope on it is an SWFA ss 16x42 I took off of one of my PCP air rifles and the best until it gets the upgraded scope. The best scope I have had previously is a Leopold M1 4x14 long range tactical back is 2000.

First, do you think the increase is price is worth it for my application to go to the ATACR or will the NX8 give me all the performance I need?

Second, which power range would you recommend for the chosen model?

Which which reticle is your preferred choice between mil-c and mil-xt for those that have used both? Wind will possibly be an issue were I will be so is the XT a better choice, or just too much clutter?

Thanks in advance.

I think the price increase is worth it for the ATACR series. The 4-20 seems a bit high priced at first glance to me, based on the competition and for only adding 4x on the top) but without hands on it who knows if its a good value, but its an ATACR nonetheless. A few retailers had 4-16x50 F1 on sale since NF has discontinued them so maybe shop for one of those. Biggest difference between the 4-16x42 and 4-16x50 is the elevation turret design, so that may be a factor for you if you dial alot.

Not dissing the Nx8 as a few above said it was designed to fill a void in the NF product line and compete in the lighter weigh scope market, its just not an ATACR, maybe a mini ATACR. Feels very similar but with small illumination button, turrets, etc. it just feels smaller to me. So, if you prefer a streamlined more compact design maybe thats the one.

Glass on the NX8 is not the same as the ATACR, the marketing material on it says "ED glass" but the key is it contains some ED glass but is not 100% ED glass like the ATACR is. The more compact design also pushes lenses closer together and causes the image correction to be more rapid than the ATACR thus producing the "fish eye" or blurry edge image to some users. (There is more scientific explanation to what the NX8 lense design does to the image, thats just my layman's description) I personally notice this, but here we're talking glass so it subjective per user and IMO should be a lower priority consideration especially when talking NF.

Mil-C and Xt are both solid, you could always buy one of each scope and sell the other.

Alot of scope choice is user preference, I go ATACR because I prefer the feel and size of the ATACR, my eyes mesh well with the image produced and I trust the optic, but the NX8 fits many roles and many people like it alot.

 

[TikkaDoberman]

I would highly recommend you look at the March 3-24x52 scope, at under 25oz this is lighter than most FFP optics. Being a short scope with high magnification range (erector) similar to the NX8 series, it too suffers from edge distortion along with unforgiving DOF, Parallax and eyebox; however, I do think the March has an advantage over the 2.5-20 with regard to these areas. If the NX8 suits you and you are perfectly happy with the performance then don't let me or anyone else dissuade you because what matters is "your" experience, we can only offer advice based on "our" experience and a lot of this ends up being personal preference anyway.

Definitely, taking a look at the March scopes. Am I right to say that some of the issues you mentioned like DOF, and such have to do with a combination of magnification factor and exit pupil for high magnification levels? is seems to me that best exit pupil for magnification use is ~ 2.5- 3mm for daylight and ~ 7mm at low or dark conditions. so where 16x42 at max is good 20x50 is better that 20x42 and you would wand to stay under 22x56 for for usability. That is as long as good glass and coatings being used. So like you mentioned with the March usability would suggest 20 power or less for best use.

I am probably going to have to expand the initial budget I was looking at if I want to gi with some of the others options, but might give one of the places like euro optics or camera land a call and see what else might fit my usage. I am starting to learn towards the 4-16x42 ATACR/ 4-20x50 or simular optic of good quality.

I have been learning alot from seeing peoples
experience as well as reviews that it does make it easier to come to a reasonable decision without personal hands on experience.

 

[trob_205]

I don't understand why the NX8 gets dogged... I love it. I'm not comparing it to a scope that weighs double what it does though. Even if I did, it holds it own pretty well for such a huge mag range scope. The reason I got it and love it, is because it's not freaking 2+pounds and it can do literally anything I want it to, and it does it while being ultra reliable. What's not to like?

Yea that’s the thing. Competition guys don’t worry about weight and could care less about capped windage most of the time. The real answer is without jumping up almost $1K (could be worth it to a lot for an extra 4-5 oz weight savings with the features) to the March 3-24x52 I don’t think there’s anything else on the market. I really like the scope too. After I ordered and dug deeper into reviews I thought oh no what did I do? Questioned even selling it still sealed. I said fuck it and put the thing on my rifle and posted in my front door way and looked between two buildings across a lake that was about 1080 yards to the other shore line. On 20x the thing was really nice. Shallow DOF and eyebox tightness went away that was pretty apparent at 32x. The only time I see my self using 32x load development days or days I’m just shooting groups at 100-300 yards. And in that case who cares about DOF or eyebox? The fact I can have a scope that can do all of that fit my (Apparently) little niche, makes me laugh that I let the internet almost make me sell it before even playing with it.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Yea that’s the thing. Competition guys don’t worry about weight and could care less about capped windage most of the time. The real answer is without jumping up almost $1K (could be worth it to a lot for an extra 4-5 oz weight savings with the features) to the March 3-24x52 I don’t think there’s anything else on the market. I really like the scope too. After I ordered and dug deeper into reviews I thought oh no what did I do? Questioned even selling it still sealed. I said fuck it and put the thing on my rifle and posted in my front door way and looked between two buildings across a lake that was about 1080 yards to the other shore line. On 20x the thing was really nice. Shallow DOF and eyebox tightness went away that was pretty apparent at 32x. The only time I see my self using 32x load development days or days I’m just shooting groups at 100-300 yards. And in that case who cares about DOF or eyebox? The fact I can have a scope that can do all of that fit my (Apparently) little niche, makes me laugh that I let the internet almost make me sell it before even playing with it.

Exactly Right. Well said

 

[Chickentoast]

Mk5 5-25 is 1 oz heavier in a 35mm tube, in the next tier in glass, and has great build quality & turrets. I still like the XTR3 better for the FOV (+2 more oz), but regardless, NX8 is at least a step behind.

The argument of "it's good enough for what I do" is not a comparative statement regarding the optics for those who may be on the fence about what to purchase. I've responded in these NX8 threads because I wasted time buying one only to return it, and wanted to help others in the same boat.

If you're hunting only and don't care that it's not the best for the money, just buy a cheaper scope. To the semantic argument, we're on the internet discussing the pros and cons of expensive, unnecessary items... so it's really all semantics, and yes, I'm an idiot for wasting 5 more minutes writing this response

 

[littlepod]

The Mk5-25/7-35 are nice scopes. I keep asking Leupold if they'd make me a 25yd parallax version so I can run it on my rimfire too. No response yet.

 

[Glassaholic]

Definitely, taking a look at the March scopes. Am I right to say that some of the issues you mentioned like DOF, and such have to do with a combination of magnification factor and exit pupil for high magnification levels? is seems to me that best exit pupil for magnification use is ~ 2.5- 3mm for daylight and ~ 7mm at low or dark conditions. so where 16x42 at max is good 20x50 is better that 20x42 and you would wand to stay under 22x56 for for usability. That is as long as good glass and coatings being used. So like you mentioned with the March usability would suggest 20 power or less for best use.

DOF - Eyebox - Parallax. What do all these have in common? They are all affected by the optical formula. What is an optical formula you ask, it is basically everything that goes into a scope design that affects the light pathway, this includes your scope tube, front objective, erector, eyepiece and everything else in between.

To answer your question, it is not so much the magnification and exit pupil, but magnification, objective size and focal length that are affecting DOF. This is why short bodied scopes with high erectors have traditionally had issues, in fact, all scopes have "issues" and it's how they compensate for these issues within the optical formula that traditionally drives price and hence why your more expensive scopes tend to perform better.

So when NF announced the NX8 long range series and I saw the specs I was expecting this to be a line above the ATACR series and prices somewhere around $3500, but when I saw price at $2k I was a bit concerned especially from Nightforce who's not known for their budget pricing. But because of my love for ultra short scopes I decided to be an early adopter to see if Nightforce somehow figured out a way to make a high magnification short body scope at a "budget" price that overcomes the deficits of such a design. What I found confirmed my suspicions, the 2.5-20x50 NX8 does not overcome those deficits except for control of CA and center resolution, but DOF, parallax and eyebox all suffered more than any other scope in this class. Yes, mounting the scope properly and utilizing good fundamentals will help (as they help with any scope) but it was the edge distortion, narrow DOF and finicky parallax that ultimately had me selling the scope as those limitations are not conducive to the type of dynamic shooting that I enjoy. There are plenty of happy owners of NX8 2.5-20 scopes (the 4-32 has a longer tube design and from what I hear does not suffer as much from the issues as the shorter 2.5-20 does) so as long as you are aware of the shortcomings and set your expectations appropriately then I think you'll be happy.

If you haven't found the Hide's own Koshkin (he posted above at #19) on YouTube I highly recommend you subscribe to his channel and check out his videos, this is one he did on the issues with short scopes

 

[trob_205]

It’s all about checking and unchecking boxes for feature needs that suit what you want. Add $500 for illuminated MK5 and XTR3 theres no option currently for illuminated. I’ll definitely be interested in checking the XTR3 when that is an option as long as it doesn’t effect the current specs and inflate the price like Leupold.

 

[Terry Cross]

The Mk5-25/7-35 are nice scopes. I keep asking Leupold if they'd make me a 25yd parallax version so I can run it on my rimfire too. No response yet.

IOTA or similar.
Not permanent.
Inexpensive.
Boom. Done.

./

 

[Newbie2020]

I heard Jeff Huber of ZCo on a podcast say that magnification range (feom lowest power to highest power) >5 or 6 is detrimental to optical clarity. I sort of understand why but not totally.

@koshkin

That may not matter at 1-8x but might be an issue at 4-32x.

 

[koshkin]

I heard Jeff Huber of ZCo on a podcast say that magnification range (feom lowest power to highest power) >5 or 6 is detrimental to optical clarity. I sort of understand why but not totally.

@koshkin

That may not matter at 1-8x but might be an issue at 4-32x.

It is harder to make high erector ratio riflescopes and there is usually a compromise with depth of field. In terms of pure image quality, very well optimized high erector ratio optical systems are perfectly feasible and exist, but there is a cost to it.

ILya

 

[tlr16]

I recently went with the NX8 4-32 on my 20" KAC. I don't have trigger time yet but from looking through it outside and across the fields it looks promising. Its the MIL-XT and that reticle looks very promising. I found it on the PX for $1650 or 1700 around 5months ago.

 

[koshkin]

I recently went with the NX8 4-32 on my 20" KAC. I don't have trigger time yet but from looking through it outside and across the fields it looks promising. Its the MIL-XT and that reticle looks very promising. I found it on the PX for $1650 or 1700 around 5months ago.

Mil-XT is a good reticle.

ILya