Nightforce NX8 announcement

[freddyG]

I have always wondered why some people prefer spf scopes for hunting? I use a mil-r reticle f1 Nightforce, and its perfect for both lr and up close. The weight sucks, but I would rather have a robust heavy scope, than a light weight questionable one.

 

[Bater]

I have always wondered why some people prefer spf scopes for hunting? I use a mil-r reticle f1 Nightforce, and its perfect for both lr and up close. The weight sucks, but I would rather have a robust heavy scope, than a light weight questionable one.

Reticle more visible at low mag for up close/timber, reticle finer at max mag for LR. Pretty simple really. I have both and use both for hunting, comes down to personal preference just like anything else.

 

[Fonkie]

What is an upgrade on these over the NXS?

 

[CBECK61]

What is an upgrade on these over the NXS?

NX8 is pretty much the same thing but from top to bottom magnification is 8x. 5.5x22 NXS was a 4x. Most of the time when you add this prescription and all else is the same you do lose some FOV at the same power. Nice part is you can go all the way down to 2.5 and still get a 20x.

 

[freddyG]

Reticle more visible at low mag for up close/timber, reticle finer at max mag for LR. Pretty simple really. I have both and use both for hunting, comes down to personal preference just like anything else.

I have always read those things, but in actual use, I have yet to see that. On low mag, I use illumination if it’s too dark outside. With the illumination on my NF, I could hunt in the dark if it was legal. It’s just that bright. On low mag, there is no need to see the hash/dot lines because one is up close anyway. Just use the reticle as a plex. Long range, dial up the mag. If anything, on 25x, my NF has too thick of a reticle, and it’s too much mag for hunting. It’s about perfect on 18x, so that’s where I use it. I have found that 18x is about max usable for hunting anyway, due to the fov.

I have used many SFP scopes, and other than maybe not needing illumination(which is included on most ffp scopes anyway), there is no benefit. The drawback is that the reticle is only accurate on a certain power, and usually that magnification level is too much for hunting. What am I missing?

 

[CBECK61]

I have always read those things, but in actual use, I have yet to see that. On low mag, I use illumination if it’s too dark outside. With the illumination on my NF, I could hunt in the dark if it was legal. It’s just that bright. On low mag, there is no need to see the hash/dot lines because one is up close anyway. Just use the reticle as a plex. Long range, dial up the mag. If anything, on 25x, my NF has too thick of a reticle, and it’s too much mag for hunting. It’s about perfect on 18x, so that’s where I use it. I have found that 18x is about max usable for hunting anyway, due to the fov.

I have used many SFP scopes, and other than maybe not needing illumination(which is included on most ffp scopes anyway), there is no benefit. The drawback is that the reticle is only accurate on a certain power, and usually that magnification level is too much for hunting. What am I missing?

I hear where you are coming from. I have never really loved using illumination on scopes as I feel like you have to constantly adjust it. I always have me scope on the lowest power when hunting because that is where I will need it if I need to make a quick shot at short range. If I need magnification then I will typically have the time to adjust up. Especially when you have such wide power ranges manufactures have to choose between having thick lines at max mag or thin lines at minimum or split the difference.

I hunted with the NX8 2.5-20 last year and would prefer more cross hair for a quick shot. At minimum power it is very very thin. I see your point that illuminating it helps but for a quick 100 yard shot in the timber I would much rather have my Z5 at 3.5 power.

Not saying that FFP doesn't have its place. I own several and love them. But I do see the other side as well. Like most gear its situation dependent as well as ability and goals.

 

[freddyG]

I hear where you are coming from. I have never really loved using illumination on scopes as I feel like you have to constantly adjust it. I always have me scope on the lowest power when hunting because that is where I will need it if I need to make a quick shot at short range. If I need magnification then I will typically have the time to adjust up. Especially when you have such wide power ranges manufactures have to choose between having thick lines at max mag or thin lines at minimum or split the difference.

I hunted with the NX8 2.5-20 last year and would prefer more cross hair for a quick shot. At minimum power it is very very thin. I see your point that illuminating it helps but for a quick 100 yard shot in the timber I would much rather have my Z5 at 3.5 power.

Not saying that FFP doesn't have its place. I own several and love them. But I do see the other side as well. Like most gear its situation dependent as well as ability and goals.

I wonder how much differing vision from one human to another has to do with scope selection? I also have a z5, and other than weight/price, it’s far inferior to the NF in every single way including glass. There is no way that at 100 yards I could see better with the Swaro on low mag(any time of day). I live in the middle of nowhere(which simulates hunting conditions), and have tried both side by side many times.

 

[CBECK61]

I think vision has a lot to do with it. I like own a few Night forces and like them a lot but much prefer Z5 glass and Kahles glass for light transmission and clarity. I don't own an ATACR but I do feel like it is closer. For me if I'm not hunting past 400-500 yards I will almost always have my Z5 especially if I'm hunting thick timber.

Our opportunity on our Idaho bear hunt are almost always last 15min of legal hunting. 30 min after sun set. Thick timber. Steep mountains that have shaded the sun for several hours. My Z5 is the best scope I own in this situation. Once again, my eyes.

 

[Fonkie]

NX8 is pretty much the same thing but from top to bottom magnification is 8x. 5.5x22 NXS was a 4x. Most of the time when you add this prescription and all else is the same you do lose some FOV at the same power. Nice part is you can go all the way down to 2.5 and still get a 20x.

so it’s the same glass & internal workings? Love the mechanics of the NXS but glass is a bit to be desired at the asking price imo

 

[CBECK61]

so it’s the same glass & internal workings? Love the mechanics of the NXS but glass is a bit to be desired at the asking price imo

I didn't feel like there was a big glass difference between the two. I'm not sure what Nightforce would say but my NXS and my NX8 seem to be sixes IMO

 

[HuntnPack]

What is an upgrade on these over the NXS?

For me the upgrade is the wider power range, length, weight, reticle, & ED glass is better.
having owned 4 different nxs, the NX8 is a better offering for my shooting requirements.
I’ll add: the NX8 is neither an Nxs or ATACR
Sales will determine where it fits in the lineup.
For the mechanical & performance features,
& price point the NX8 is a Great value.

 

[willidru]

I didn't feel like there was a big glass difference between the two. I'm not sure what Nightforce would say but my NXS and my NX8 seem to be sixes IMO

I heard from a vendor the the NX8 had Atacr glass. I have not confirmed validity to that statement

 

[eightyeight mag]

I heard from a vendor the the NX8 had Atacr glass. I have not confirmed validity to that statement

ATACR is optically superior.
NX8 are great scopes but to compare them to the ATACR is silly.
Just my .02

 

[choovhntr]

I’ve read that the nx8 uses The ED glass that the ATACR uses, but the compact design vs the ATACR makes it so it isn’t utilized as well. Perhaps the 34mm tube affects it as well but not sure about that. I should be getting my NX8 fairly soon and will compare it to my nxs. I have no doubts it will be better.

 

[Fonkie]

I’ve found that a 34mm tube does accentuate the appearance of glass quality.

 

[wind gypsy]

probably had to make it longer to fix the optical quality people were complaining about in the ffp version? Don’t know if .1” will make a difference. We’ll see I guess

i wish this whole super short scope fetish would go the way of the dodo. Unless you’re using thermals, why does it matter? Making scope mounting options a PITA so they look cool and compact sure isn’t worth it for any use I can see the majority of people using.

 

[wind gypsy]

I’ve found that a 34mm tube does accentuate the appearance of glass quality.

Huh? How?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Glass quality is overrated in a scope. I killed lots of animals with an NXS. It was bright and clear enough to get me past legal shooting times and it was average at best in the glass department.

 

[Bubblehide]

i wish this whole super short scope fetish would go the way of the dodo. Unless you’re using thermals, why does it matter? Making scope mounting options a PITA so they look cool and compact sure isn’t worth it for any use I can see the majority of people using.

use a rail and it's a non-issue

 

[wind gypsy]

use a rail and it's a non-issue

It’s still an issue for me if you want to mount it relatively low because to get proper eye relief the objective ends up over the rail requiring a lot higher rings than if it just had to clear the barrel.

You can build up the comb height to combat higher scope mount but then you also have possible issues with bolt and cleaning rod clearance.

Besides reduced mounting flexibility, it seems they have to make concessions with depth of focus and parallax forgiveness to make scopes short. I can’t think of a single instance where a LRHS, NXS, or swfa SS length scope has been an inconvenience.