Leupold Mark 5 5-25 or Nightforce NX8 4-32?

[Rolltide]

I'm trying to decide on a scope for a lighter-weight ( 7.5 lbs ) 6.5 PRC.

I know I don't need a Leupold Mark 5 5-25 or a Nightforce NX8 4-32...but I want one of those two because a lot of my scopes serve as a hunting scope and later on as a stand-in on one of my NRL or PRS rifles.

Those two are on the lighter-weight end of the "tactical" scopes, which is how I decided to pick between them.

Can anyone give me some feedback if you have both of them or have had experiences with them?

Which would you choose to use on a hunting rifle?

 

[Str8shuutr45]

I own them both. I bought the NightForce first, then the Leupold. I like the 35mm tube of the Leupold for gathering more light. IMHO, the glass in the Leupold is clearer. The Leupold reticle is easier for my old eyes to see as well. There are many opinions, but you asked and I provided.

 

[ballisticdaddy]

I also have both and the MK5 is my go-to for NRL / PRS type matches and it has a cleaner reticle and better glass IMO. Weight is almost dead even with the NX8 being 1.4 oz lighter but on a hunting rifle with possible low light situations I would choose the MK5.

 

[moosemeat]

I have shot both and would also go Leupold of the two. Cleaner glass, better eye relief. The nighforce eyebox feels very narrow.

 

[chevy_man]

Used both. My dad has both nx8's, and I have a Mark 5 5-25 and 7-35.

The mark 5 has a much more forgiving eye box and better glass to my eye.

The 3-18 mark 5 gives up some quality with the ultra short design and tends to have a bit of CA.

 

[fdkay]

I own them both. I bought the NightForce first, then the Leupold. I like the 35mm tube of the Leupold for gathering more light. IMHO, the glass in the Leupold is clearer. The Leupold reticle is easier for my old eyes to see as well. There are many opinions, but you asked and I provided.

Tube size has nothing to do with the amount of light that passes through.
Unless your scope is a nightvision model, they do not "gather" light.

 

[YotaEer]

Mk5 has better eyebox and turrets.
NX8 has better glass and FOV. I thought mk5 had some CA compared to almost none with nx8.
I like both the mil xt and PR2.
Illumination cost is silly on the mk5

Overall I’d grab the nx8. You don’t have to have it on 32x the entire time.

 

[FuhQ]

Anything other than Leupold...

 

[chevy_man]

Anything other than Leupold...

Show us on the doll where they touched you....

 

[Csafisher]

Reticle is personal preference. I like the mil-xt. No complaints on my nx8s. One is on a hunting rifle and one is on a competition 22.

 

[koshkin]

Mark 5 is a better overall scope, I think. NX8 does have a wider FOV, but Mark 5 is easier to get behind. Reticles are in the eye of the beholder, but I think Leupold did a very good job with PR1 and PR2. On the other hand, Mil-XT is a nice design as well. That's a personal preference.

ILya

 

[Junco Grande]

I have both on hunting rifles with cleaner reticles (PR1 and Mil C). Tough toss up in my opinion, as both do certain things well. If low light is a factor for you, then I'd go 5HD. I feel it might give you a few extra minutes. In equal low light conditions such as dawn/dusk, the NX8 gets dark over 24x so the extra mag is useless (and the parallax with no numbers is annoying if I'm being picky). I also feel the 5HD is easier to get behind, but my eye gives the glass edge to the NF. If I were hiking the mountains in rough country I'd want the NF, no doubt.

 

[RKBArmory]

Here's a good deal on a lightly used Mark 5HD, if you go that route.