NX8 20x or 32x question?

[Thomasj1107]

I’ll be hunting with the rifle (6.5 PRC) but it will see significantly more rounds through it at the range. I originally ordered the 2.5-20, but I’m having buyers remorse. Is the 4-32 going to be better all around?

Since they are both FFP, is the reticle on the 20x at 20 going to be much bigger than the reticle on the 32x at 20 or will they be basically the same?

Also, I’ve always been under the impression that scopes have a sweet spot and 20x will be brighter and less image distortion/problems since it’s in the middle range of the 4-32 and it’s the max on the 2.5-20...?

Any first hand advice would be great as well, thanks!

 

[Thomasj1107]

Anyone with insight?

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Following

 

[Lawnboi]

I can’t look at both side by side right now but might be able to soon. I have a 4-32, a buddy has a 2.5-20 that I mounted. He had LRI trim down his picatinny rail to fit it well. Mounting options are not good with the 2.5-20, depending what your mounting it on.

I use the 4-32 on my match rifle. I want another for my hunting rifle. I rarely shoot with it over around 20x. 32 would be nice for ID on a hunting rifle and it gives you more options for mounting.

 

[Gingerbeardman26]

No experience with Nightforce, but with other FFP scopes such I have handled the reticle is the same size at the same power. As an example, in the Mk5 line with the TMR reticle, a 3.6-18, 5-25, and 7-35 there should be10 mils available in the reticle at 18 power. I also have a mk6 with a TMR that is the same at 18 power. The higher the magnification, the tighter the field of view less of your reticle will be visible. The few Kahles scopes I have fondled were the same with the SKMR3, between the 6-24 and the 5-25. I do realize the maximum magnification is close between the two but at say 20x the reticles had the same amount of holdover available

 

[tdhanses]

The 20x is the perfect hunting scope and plenty of power for long range imo. Fits fine on a short action but if on a rail mounting isn’t an issue on a med or long action.

 

[Thomasj1107]

The 20x is the perfect hunting scope and plenty of power for long range imo. Fits fine on a short action but if on a rail mounting isn’t an issue on a med or long action.

yeah I mounted it on my 6.5 PRC defiance long action no problem.... I just got in my head too much wondering if I should’ve gone 4-32 instead

 

[tdhanses]

yeah I mounted it on my 6.5 PRC defiance long action no problem.... I just got in my head too much wondering if I should’ve gone 4-32 instead

I think you made the right decision.

 

[Thomasj1107]

I think you made the right decision.

Think I’ll be good reaching out further for matches and stuff in the future? If I wanted to do them for fun

 

[Karson88]

I have both, the 2.5 is great for the off hand quick to shoulder shots, the 4x not so much. With 20x you can shoot further then you really need to for hunting. Currently I have the 2.5x on my hunting rig and the 4x on my target range gun.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I’ll be hunting with the rifle (6.5 PRC) but it will see significantly more rounds through it at the range. I originally ordered the 2.5-20, but I’m having buyers remorse. Is the 4-32 going to be better all around?

Since they are both FFP, is the reticle on the 20x at 20 going to be much bigger than the reticle on the 32x at 20 or will they be basically the same?

Also, I’ve always been under the impression that scopes have a sweet spot and 20x will be brighter and less image distortion/problems since it’s in the middle range of the 4-32 and it’s the max on the 2.5-20...?

Any first hand advice would be great as well, thanks!

I had a 4-32 and was very underwhelmed
The image quality is pretty low for a scope in that price range.
What really drove me nuts was the parallax and finicky eye box, I just couldn't seem to ever get a good clear image without a bunch of fiddling with that dial.
The tunneling issue made it really tough to spot my shots or aquire a target quickly.
The issue with those scopes is they are pretty short and use an 8x erector which plays hell on image quality
Mine went down the road after I compared it extensively to my mk5 5-25 , there just wasn't any getting over how far it lagged behind

 

[tdhanses]

Think I’ll be good reaching out further for matches and stuff in the future? If I wanted to do them for fun

Well being a 10x will get you to 1000 yes you’ll be fine, better focusing on form then worrying about magnification.

 

[Sandiegoreloader27]

I had both and while they were decent optics I found the eye box was too tight for my liking and was always messing with the parralax to get it perfect. I ended up selling them and getting a leupold mk5 3.6-18 and 5-25.

 

[HuntnPack]

The 20x is the perfect hunting scope and plenty of power for long range imo. Fits fine on a short action but if on a rail mounting isn’t an issue on a med or long action.

^^Agree with this^^
I tried out a 4-32 FFP but did not care for
It in a FFP. I Switched back over to a 2.5-20
In SFP. Great all around Scope.

 

[wind gypsy]

No experience with Nightforce, but with other FFP scopes such I have handled the reticle is the same size at the same power. As an example, in the Mk5 line with the TMR reticle, a 3.6-18, 5-25, and 7-35 there should be10 mils available in the reticle at 18 power. I also have a mk6 with a TMR that is the same at 18 power. The higher the magnification, the tighter the field of view less of your reticle will be visible. The few Kahles scopes I have fondled were the same with the SKMR3, between the 6-24 and the 5-25. I do realize the maximum magnification is close between the two but at say 20x the reticles had the same amount of holdover available

They might have the same angle in hold over but that doesn't mean the reticle is always the same. Scope manufacturers frequently tweak reticles on FFP scopes based upon mag range. For example a Mil-XT in a NF ATACR 4-16 is thicker than a MIL-XT in an ATACR 5-25 or 7-35. Nightforce details this on their website for ATACR, SHV, and NXS scopes but doesn't for NX8 so I don't know if there is any difference in thickness.

 

[Thomasj1107]

I had a 4-32 and was very underwhelmed
The image quality is pretty low for a scope in that price range.
What really drove me nuts was the parallax and finicky eye box, I just couldn't seem to ever get a good clear image without a bunch of fiddling with that dial.
The tunneling issue made it really tough to spot my shots or aquire a target quickly.
The issue with those scopes is they are pretty short and use an 8x erector which plays hell on image quality
Mine went down the road after I compared it extensively to my mk5 5-25 , there just wasn't any getting over how far it lagged behind

When you say it was difficult to spot your shots, do you mean reacquiring well after the shot? I ask because there is no way I could keep a sight picture through the recoil, even though it’s not bad recoil it still wouldn’t be possible

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

When you say it was difficult to spot your shots, do you mean reacquiring well after the shot? I ask because there is no way I could keep a sight picture through the recoil, even though it’s not bad recoil it still wouldn’t be possible

Yep
The rifle was braked and barely moved
I can spot shots with the mk5, AMG and March FX 4.5-28 easily

 

[Thomasj1107]

Yep
The rifle was braked and barely moved
I can spot shots with the mk5, AMG and March FX 4.5-28 easily

Gotcha, was just making sure I wasn’t missing something. What caliber?

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Gotcha, was just making sure I wasn’t missing something. What caliber?

I had the nx8 on a 7wsm
The eye box on my March is good enough that I can spot pretty much every shot with 220s from my 30 nos wearing a suppressor

 

[Mubs]

Following

Follow