Nightforce NX8 4-32x50mm F1 Field Eval Q&A

[Formidilosus]

The evaluation here

Questions and answers.

 

[RussDXT]

Great work! I so enjoy reading these evals, nothing like them I have seen. Thank you!

 

[BjornF16]

Form, can you elaborate more on the eye box differences between 2.5-20 and 4-32?

I don’t need 32x magnification which is why I went with the 2.5-20x (I don’t need 20x for that matter). I haven’t looked through the 4-32 to compare.

 

[Lawnboi]

I own one of these and read a lot of bad about this scope. Imo overall it’s been a great scope. At the magnifications id reasonably use this scope at, most of the problems people mention disappear.

I was going to get a big ass atacr for my match rifle b may just use the nx8 again this year.

I have been behind both the 2.5-20 and own the 4-32. I like the extra magnification for antlerless hunts, where I can zoom in and make sure I’m not shooting a spike. Most shooting is done between 12-20x for distance shooting for me. On a ffp scope really no reason not to have the mag if it’s costing you nothing and in the nx8 case it gains you a little more forgiving eye box and easier mounting options.

 

[MuleyFever]

Form, can you elaborate more on the eye box differences between 2.5-20 and 4-32?

I don’t need 32x magnification which is why I went with the 2.5-20x (I don’t need 20x for that matter). I haven’t looked through the 4-32 to compare.

That is the part that I am interested in too.

@Formidilosus You also said the reticle is hard to see at 4x. If most of my hunting is done at 4-15x would I be just as well off with the 2.5-20 model? Would that solve some of the small reticle issue? In the 4-15x use range using the 2.5-20 model do you think the eye box is really an issue worth worrying about?

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, can you elaborate more on the eye box differences between 2.5-20 and 4-32?

I don’t need 32x magnification which is why I went with the 2.5-20x (I don’t need 20x for that matter). I haven’t looked through the 4-32 to compare.

The 2.5-20x is a bit critical on head placement. It’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be- if you have crap mechanics, you have crap mechanics, and is most noticeable at 20x- which is why it comes up. People are still stuck on thinking that more magnification is the answer. Having said that, unless size is the number one, absolute most important aspect, the 4-32x is better in every way.

Neither one would be my first choice for general hunting however.

 

[Formidilosus]

That is the part that I am interested in too.

@Formidilosus You also said the reticle is hard to see at 4x. If most of my hunting is done at 4-15x would I be just as well off with the 2.5-20 model? Would that solve some of the small reticle issue? In the 4-15x use range using the 2.5-20 model do you think the eye box is really an issue worth worrying about?

The 4-32x is still better. See my last post.


The SWFA SS 5-20x is a much better hunting scope for most.

 

[BRTreedogs]

The SWFA SS 5-20x is a much better hunting scope for most.

Shhhh I'm still trying to find another one.

 

[B23]

The 2.5-20x is a bit critical on head placement. It’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be- if you have crap mechanics, you have crap mechanics, and is most noticeable at 20x- which is why it comes up.

Completely agree! I have one on my 6.5PRC and was a little concerned when I bought it because I'd read so much bitching about them but once I got one and it was mounted up on the rifle I quickly realized it was just a whole lot of over inflated internet bitching and probably a lot of talk by people that likely have never actually owned one.

Is the NX8 2.5-20 more position sensitive than my NXS's or ATACR's yes absolutely but from the very first time I shouldered the gun that wears it I've never had a WTF moment. I have some Leupold scopes that are position sensitive as well but it's no big deal and certainly not a deal breaker.

 

[tdhanses]

I own one of these and read a lot of bad about this scope. Imo overall it’s been a great scope. At the magnifications id reasonably use this scope at, most of the problems people mention disappear.

I was going to get a big ass atacr for my match rifle b may just use the nx8 again this year.

I have been behind both the 2.5-20 and own the 4-32. I like the extra magnification for antlerless hunts, where I can zoom in and make sure I’m not shooting a spike. Most shooting is done between 12-20x for distance shooting for me. On a ffp scope really no reason not to have the mag if it’s costing you nothing and in the nx8 case it gains you a little more forgiving eye box and easier mounting options.

I have the 2.5-20, in actual practical use I’ve had zero issues most people complain about effecting use.

I did fall on it with my full body weight on hard crusted frozen mud, held zero just fine, I trust mine.

 

[Lawnboi]

Well I didn’t want to roll the dice on another scope so I ordered another nx8, this time with mil c reticle. Poking around on nightforce website they show the mil c as having 5 mils on each side for wind. Is this new? Or is is completely based on specific scope model. Mine should be new stock coming right from nightforce, and if they are 5mil on each side that would be awesome.

Finally getting rid of MOA on my 223. Sick and tired of going back and forth between minutes and mils.

 

[Brent]

The 4-32 does absolutely everything the 2.5-20 will do, only better. It's just a better scope for a wider range of applications.

 

[Huntsalot]

I have the 2.5-20, in actual practical use I’ve had zero issues most people complain about effecting use.

I agree. I love the 2.5-20 that I have.

 

[Lawnboi]

Well I didn’t want to roll the dice on another scope so I ordered another nx8, this time with mil c reticle. Poking around on nightforce website they show the mil c as having 5 mils on each side for wind. Is this new? Or is is completely based on specific scope model. Mine should be new stock coming right from nightforce, and if they are 5mil on each side that would be awesome.

Finally getting rid of MOA on my 223. Sick and tired of going back and forth between minutes and mils.

Quoting myself in case anyone is wondering.

Still 10 mils on each side of the nx8 mil c reticle…

That said I’m a big fan of both the mil c and mil xt reticle for shooting long.

They need to make a mil C-H. For hunting…. Picture the mil c reticle with the 5 mils below, 3 mils each side for wind, after that nice thick posts, even a smaller version similar with the xt tree for those 5 mils would be awesome. Don’t even need the reticle thicker if I can box the target easy at close range.

 

[Carl Ross]

They need to make a mil C-H. For hunting…. Picture the mil c reticle with the 5 mils below, 3 mils each side for wind, after that nice thick posts, even a smaller version similar with the xt tree for those 5 mils would be awesome. Don’t even need the reticle thicker if I can box the target easy at close range.

I'd be a big fan of that, though if I get to design it I'm going heavier on the reticle. I'd prefer it a bit heavier for ALL my uses. I'd also slightly tweak the horizontal windage hashes. Those tweaks are mostly personal preference, but what you described would be clearly superior IMO.

 

[RussDXT]

I think I’m going to pick up one of these for a tikka 300wsm elk rifle. (This or a trij 10 mile)

What reticle would you all recommend for an elk rifle? If it makes a difference my other two hunting rifles are nx8 with the mil xt reticle.

 

[Brent]

I think I’m going to pick up one of these for a tikka 300wsm elk rifle. (This or a trij 10 mile)

What reticle would you all recommend for an elk rifle? If it makes a difference my other two hunting rifles are nx8 with the mil xt reticle.

Get the Mil xt if you like it on your other rifles. That's what I'd choose.

 

[RussDXT]

I sure like it for long range, when in dark timber I turn on illumination.

 

[workingonit]

The 2.5-20x is a bit critical on head placement. It’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be- if you have crap mechanics, you have crap mechanics, and is most noticeable at 20x- which is why it comes up. People are still stuck on thinking that more magnification is the answer. Having said that, unless size is the number one, absolute most important aspect, the 4-32x is better in every way.

Neither one would be my first choice for general hunting however.

which would be your first 2 or 3 choices for hunting? obviously a lot of variables but lets say lightish weight mountain rifle for elk/muley for medium to long range

 

[Lawnboi]

Drop tested my nx8 twice last week. Drifts plus covered prairie dog holes lead to 2 trips to the ground for the rifle.