Thoughts on Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50

[Antares]

I'm seriously considering putting in an order for a NF NX8 2.5-20x50 F2 MOA and I wanted to hear what peoples thoughts were on that scope; specifically, if it seems appropriate for my intended application or if I should be looking at something else.

I want to put the NX8 on my Tikka 6.5CM "target gun" which currently has a Leupold VX5 3-15x44 on it. I like the VX5 a lot, so much in fact that I want to put one my Tikka .308 hunting rifle, but instead of just buying another VX5, I thought I'd take the VX5 off my 6.5CM, put it on the .308, and then upgrade the glass on the 6.5CM. I was considering the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44 for a while but now I'm thinking about saying f*** it and going big. That's how I started looking at NF.

The rifle shoots very well. I'm hesitant to throw out an MOA rating on it's precision given all the recent, spirited discussion surrounding group size...so I'll just say it shoots very well. It's in an adjustable McMillan Game Scout stock and is in the 11+ lbs range (with scope and bipod). Intended use is steel out to 1000 and feral goats out to 600-700.

Looking forward to the forgiving eyebox and wide field of view with a 50mm objective. Like the idea of being able to go all the way down to 2.5x and all the way up to 20x. Can't really get my head around the 4-32x version as I can't imagine needing that much magnification at the ranges I shoot. I like to shoot a lot on low power, hence the second focal plane. I have one FFP scope and I hate how thin the reticle is at low power. I was looking at the NXS line but really want the capped windage on the NX8.

Anyway, that's a lot of talking. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this scope or if there's something else I should consider. Thanks for reading.

 

[slowelk]

I’m not going to get technical on you. I have a 2.5-20 on a tikka 6.5 that I like quite a bit. I did have to have a custom rail from Murphy precision built to get appropriate eye relief, but once that was setup I’ve not had any issue with eye relief or box. It’s dialed reliably and held zero bouncing around on an atv. I do not like Nightforce zerostop as much as Leupold’s, but I’d rather have a Nightforce than a Leupold every day of the week, so I put up with it.
Based on your intended use I would definitely go with F1. If you think close shots, under 100, are on the menu, 2.5x is very very fine, but that doesn’t sound like that will be your use.
If I wanted to spend another $700 I would have gotten the atacr 4-16, and may still, but $700 is $700, and I couldn’t justify it at the time.

 

[Antares]

I’m not going to get technical on you. I have a 2.5-20 on a tikka 6.5 that I like quite a bit. I did have to have a custom rail from Murphy precision built to get appropriate eye relief, but once that was setup I’ve not had any issue with eye relief or box. It’s dialed reliably and held zero bouncing around on an atv. I do not like Nightforce zerostop as much as Leupold’s, but I’d rather have a Nightforce than a Leupold every day of the week, so I put up with it.
Based on your intended use I would definitely go with F1. If you think close shots, under 100, are on the menu, 2.5x is very very fine, but that doesn’t sound like that will be your use.
If I wanted to spend another $700 I would have gotten the atacr 4-16, and may still, but $700 is $700, and I couldn’t justify it at the time.

Thanks for that. Can you expand a little on why you needed a custom rail to get the eye relief you wanted? I have a Mountain Tactical rail on mine.

What makes the ATACR so much more desirable than the NX8? I naively think 2.5-20 sounds more attractive than spending $700 more to get 4-16. Help me learn. Thanks for your input!

 

[Tahoe1305]

Thanks for that. Can you expand a little on why you needed a custom rail to get the eye relief you wanted? I have a Mountain Tactical rail on mine.

What makes the ATACR so much more desirable than the NX8? I naively think 2.5-20 sounds more attractive than spending $700 more to get 4-16. Help me learn. Thanks.

I know there’s a lot of vortex haters out there, but the razor line has always been solid.

Just released their LHT 4.5-22x50. It’s pretty sweet IMO. Made in Japan like rest of razors and a lot of good features. Same price point as NX8 and Mk5. Selling point is weight which sounds like may not matter to you but is a bonus for some. The LHT line has really good reviews FWIW.

good luck with the search.

 

[PantherCity]

I don’t get the SFP high max power scope. You can’t use the reticle at anything other than max power and 20x is a lot. I really don’t get the SFP 32x scope

I have the FFP 2-20 and I like it very much. The reticle is thin at 2x but it’s usable and has illumination. I wouldn’t say the eye box is big or forgiving, but it’s not an issue.

I also like the Maven RS.1 and the FFP reticle is very usable at 3x, it’s a tad thick at 15x but great for a hunting scope that can pull double duty as a target gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawnboi]

I like my nx8, mine is a 4-32 ffp, iv been behind a 2.5-20 along with mounting and setup. I’m going to give you my gripes, don’t take it as me thinking it’s a bad scope because its not, it’s a jack of all trades scope in my mind, does okay at everything, in an appropriately sized and weighted package.

Couple points to consider.

Mounting as mentioned above is tough on a rail to get it even reasonably low. The one I mounted ended up needing to get the front and back picatinny notch milled off for adequate clearance and adjustability. LRI ended up doing this and I’d reccomend them again if I were building one of these.

Id reccomend the 4-32 in ffp personally. Shoot from 16-25 with use of the reticle. I’m of the opinion that if it’s over 12x, and for long range, it should be ffp. 32 power for animal ID, no mounting headaches.

Parralax is finicky on the high end, but tolerable on the mid to low end.

They eye box is tight, but not unusable. This was one of my main complaints from use shooting steel matches. That said it was all on the clock, in awkward positions.

Everything else about the scope is awesome. The image isn’t bad, all other operation of the scope is very nice. Mine has been extremely reliable and I’m a big fan of the mil xt reticle in it.

That said, if I were in your shoes and if I were paying full price I’d be shopping around for an atacr. If you want to save some weigh, go ahead with the nx8 just understand that there are some compromises with it.

 

[slowelk]

Thanks for that. Can you expand a little on why you needed a custom rail to get the eye relief you wanted? I have a Mountain Tactical rail on mine.

What makes the ATACR so much more desirable than the NX8? I naively think 2.5-20 sounds more attractive than spending $700 more to get 4-16. Help me learn. Thanks for your input!

The short tube and large objective gave me clearance issues for appropriate eye relief.

The ATACR line is the gold standard amongst most shooters that aren't concerned about weight. To be specific, the 4-16x42 is appealing because of the mag range, the weight compared to other ATACRs (30oz), the ruggedness, made in USA, optimized glass due to the 34mm tube, less picky eye box.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I'm seriously considering putting in an order for a NF NX8 2.5-20x50 F2 MOA and I wanted to hear what peoples thoughts were on that scope; specifically, if it seems appropriate for my intended application or if I should be looking at something else.

I want to put the NX8 on my Tikka 6.5CM "target gun" which currently has a Leupold VX5 3-15x44 on it. I like the VX5 a lot, so much in fact that I want to put one my Tikka .308 hunting rifle, but instead of just buying another VX5, I thought I'd take the VX5 off my 6.5CM, put it on the .308, and then upgrade the glass on the 6.5CM. I was considering the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44 for a while but now I'm thinking about saying f*** it and going big. That's how I started looking at NF.

The rifle shoots very well. I'm hesitant to throw out an MOA rating on it's precision given all the recent, spirited discussion surrounding group size...so I'll just say it shoots very well. It's in an adjustable McMillan Game Scout stock and is in the 11+ lbs range (with scope and bipod). Intended use is steel out to 1000 and feral goats out to 600-700.

Looking forward to the forgiving eyebox and wide field of view with a 50mm objective. Like the idea of being able to go all the way down to 2.5x and all the way up to 20x. Can't really get my head around the 4-32x version as I can't imagine needing that much magnification at the ranges I shoot. I like to shoot a lot on low power, hence the second focal plane. I have one FFP scope and I hate how thin the reticle is at low power. I was looking at the NXS line but really want the capped windage on the NX8.

Anyway, that's a lot of talking. Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this scope or if there's something else I should consider. Thanks for reading.

I had an NX8 4-32 and I was really disappointed with it.
The eye box was very finicky compared to my mk5, and the parallax was a B%$!.
Image quality was OK but suffered badly in low light contrast, again my mk5 was quite a bit better.
In my experience there are much better scopes out there for the price.
And if you want a good eye box with smooth parallax avoid any scope with an 8x erector, especially combined with a super short tube.

 

[Rifles And More]

I have the ATACR 4-20 F1 on a SA Remington - it has no peer.

anything NightForce > anything Leupold

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I have the ATACR 4-20 F1 on a SA Remington - it has no peer.

anything NightForce > anything Leupold

Careful you kinda sound like a fan boy

 

[Rifles And More]

I just like stuff that works - reviewing my history you'd probably think I was SWFA fanboy.

Working as advertised trumps all. They are very few out there that deliver.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I just like stuff that works - reviewing my history you'd probably think I was SWFA fanboy.

Working as advertised trumps all. They are very few out there that deliver.

I'm just giving you a hard time, I generally agree with you that NF is better than Leupold..
Except when it comes to the NX8 vs mk5

 

[wind gypsy]

Looking forward to the forgiving eyebox and wide field of view with a 50mm objective.

As covered, NX8 isn't the place to look for these things. Also, objective size doesn't determine FOV.

And if you want a good eye box with smooth parallax avoid any scope with an 8x erector, especially combined with a super short tube.

^This. High zoom ratios, short tubes might sell scopes but it sure seems that those qualities result in more compromises than they do solve problems.

Compared to the ATACR the NX8 is a compromise. Get more mag range, lighter weight, shorter; all of which make a scope harder to get right performance wise, and offer it at a significantly lower price point than the ATACR? You can't expect performance to be equal.

 

[Antares]

Thanks for all the input, guys. I really appreciate it. I'll be the first to admit that I know very little when it comes to the finer points of high-end optics.

The short tube and large objective gave me clearance issues for appropriate eye relief.

The ATACR line is the gold standard amongst most shooters that aren't concerned about weight. To be specific, the 4-16x42 is appealing because of the mag range, the weight compared to other ATACRs (30oz), the ruggedness, made in USA, optimized glass due to the 34mm tube, less picky eye box.

Thanks for point out the mounting issues. I have the same issue with my Leupold VX5 on my Mountain Tactical rail and I'd like to avoid it.

I had an NX8 4-32 and I was really disappointed with it.
The eye box was very finicky compared to my mk5, and the parallax was a B%$!.
Image quality was OK but suffered badly in low light contrast, again my mk5 was quite a bit better.
In my experience there are much better scopes out there for the price.
And if you want a good eye box with smooth parallax avoid any scope with an 8x erector, especially combined with a super short tube.

This great feedback. I'm much more interested in a comfortable eyebox and good parallax adjustment than I am in 8x magnification range.


This has all been really helpful. Seems pretty clear to me that the NX8 2.5-20x50 probably isn't what I'm looking for based on the responses here.

The ATACRs are great scopes I'm sure. I've been hearing people sing their praises for years, but I don't think that's in the cards for me right now so I'm not going to spend too much time looking at those models.

Seems like the general consensus is a preference for FFP over SPF, but I as I said earlier, I prefer dialing to holding for the type of shooting I do and I really don't like loosing the reticle in low light or on a busy background.

That said, any thoughts about the NXS 5.5-22x50 or 3.5-15x50 for my purposes? Seems like they might get away from some of the issues people pointed out with the NX8 2.5-20x50.

Also, seems like the MOAR reticle is probably better suited to what I want to do than the MOAR-T. Thoughts on that?

Thanks again guys. Have a great night.

 

[Antares]

Well now I'm vacillating further. Given the ranges I shoot, 3-15x has been sufficient. When I started looking for a new scope I was looking really looking for higher quality, not higher magnification. So now I'm thinking the NXS 5.5-22x50 is more than I need/want.

Looking at the NXS 3.5-15x50 MOAR now.

 

[wind gypsy]

Seems like the general consensus is a preference for FFP over SPF, but I as I said earlier, I prefer dialing to holding for the type of shooting I do and I really don't like loosing the reticle in low light or on a busy background.

It's pretty standard for many to dial for elevation and hold for wind, in which case it's still nice to have a reticle that is always scaled properly. Even if you dial for elevation, it's nice to have to option to do a quick hold over if that fits the situation. People use reticles for other means too, measuring offsets from POA/POI is one of the more common.

That said, most people aren't going to shoot enough to gain the wind reading skills to ethically take shots that require more than a very minor correction anyway. It which case, some of the argument for FFP gets negated.

I like FFP but I'll say that my time spent shooting at distance in the wind has deteriorated quite a bit and I don't feel comfortable with significant wind holds on game right now. I still prefer my reticle to always be scaled properly and haven't had an issue finding the crosshairs at low mag in a hunting situation.

 

[dreamingWest]

It's pretty standard for many to dial for elevation and hold for wind, in which case it's still nice to have a reticle that is always scaled properly. Even if you dial for elevation, it's nice to have to option to do a quick hold over if that fits the situation. People use reticles for other means too, measuring offsets from POA/POI is one of the more common.

That said, most people aren't going to shoot enough to gain the wind reading skills to ethically take shots that require more than a very minor correction anyway. It which case, some of the argument for FFP gets negated.

I like FFP but I'll say that my time spent shooting at distance in the wind has deteriorated quite a bit and I don't feel comfortable with significant wind holds on game right now. I still prefer my reticle to always be scaled properly and haven't had an issue finding the crosshairs at low mag in a hunting situation.

Good summary. I was the classic SFP & MOA guy until I started playing around with the Nightforce SHV F1 this year on my .223. I'm sold on MIL. But I still can't decide if FFP is a better option for me.

 

[Antares]

Good summary. I was the classic SFP & MOA guy until I started playing around with the Nightforce SHV F1 this year on my .223. I'm sold on MIL. But I still can't decide if FFP is a better option for me.

Oof. That's a little close to home. I am the SFP/MOA guy.

 

[davsco]

i prefer ffp because i prefer to hold in time-sensitive situations (eg hunting, matches etc) and a ffp reticle is "accurate/true" at all magnification levels. but the problem with the wide-magnification-range f1 scopes is a tiny reticle at the low end. that said, i have the 2.5-20 nx8 and it's a pretty nice scope, and illumination helps the reticle at low magnification. i'd be happier though if it just went up to 15 or 18x, again for a not-too-small reticle at 2x.

i just bought a vortex lht razor 3-15 sfp. my thought being for longer-range hunting i'd prob be at 15x anyways so the reticle would be accurate/true for any dialing. in the woods at closer range and low magnification there would be no dialing/holding needed.

i switched my two prs rifles over from nf nxs 5.5-22, to vortex razor hd 4.5-27 primarily to run ffp vs sfp. but those two nf were tanks with excellent glass and dials. of course the vortex are no slouches either. zero hesitation in getting a nf, that's why i got the nx8.

 

[sacox31s]

I own the NF NX8 2.5-20 FFP MOAR. I also own/owned my other scopes in similar price ranges such as other NF, Zeiss, Steiner, Swarovski, Vortex, and Leupold.

My thought is this is the best long range hunting scope. Here are the reasons.
-durability: I can yank my rifle though thick brush and not worry about the scope
-FFP: I don't have to double check if I dialed to max zoom
-2.5X with illumination: I can quickly acquire a target at close range in dark timber if needed
-20X: I can reach out to long range shots
-short overall length: it is not a long bulky scope
-capped windage: piece of mind
-repeatable elevation with zero stop