A 2.5-20 and a 6-24 are pretty far apart regarding magnification, based on the design the AMG is going to be more forgiving with parallax/depth and potentially eyebox.
I can't think of a better retirement gift
That's great. Given your scenario it sounds like the NX8 2.5-20 might be the better scope, I'm getting mine next week and I will be curious how it compares to some of the others. I used to have a March 3-24x52 and loved that scope, but I wasn't a huge fan of the reticle and the parallax was finicky, meaning you had to play with it a bit to get it just right. I am hearing some of the same reports with the NX8 which is to be expected based on the design (high mag erector and short body); however, the Mil-C is a much better reticle IMO than the FML-1, from those who've gotten one they seem to be super impressed which caused me to go out on a limb and grab one up, shoot me a PM and I'll let you know what I think after I get it.
Complete personal preference there. I am rarely at the upper end of my mag range, however, it doesn't hurt to have it. I'm going to get the 2.5-20, because I want that lower-end usability for hunting. I find myself shooting in the 15-18 power area during matches at max mostly, so the 20 will be fine for me. This is going on a gas gun for me.
4 is completely do-able. Nothing wrong with it at all. Hunted for years with the standard 3-9.
That's good to know, I find the SKMR series to be a bit too thin for my aging eyes, I can use it of course, but prefer something a bit thicker
Those are 6-Screw NF UltraLite .885 (A264) I had them in hand and the height was perfect. I'd have done fine with NF 4-Screw Ultralites (A118) and they would have allowed for a bit more eye relief both fore and aft.
Yep, I just saw that. For some reason when I searched it only showed @wake.joe 4-30. I scrolled back and saw it does fit the 2.5-20. Thank you.
How much MOA are you running there in your base/rings? Youre height looks perfect, what size did you go with?
Hitch, I’m about to put out a review on my NX8 2.5-20; however, I will say that close up targets start to get this warble effect where if your eye is not perfectly centered the image starts to look like a funhouse mirror and distorts with minor shift of the eyes. I’m going to do one final test tomorrow to see if I can get this distortion to settle down a bit, but I’d be concerned if this scopes primary purpose was short range work.
? Ive noticed some of this also on my 4-32 but i really worked on my adjustable cheek and felt i was able to rid the scope of this issue... I will say eye alignment seems a little less forgiving than my 7-35 ATACR for sure but to me optical quality is closer between the 2 than i was expecting.
Overall I'd have to agree, the optical quality with regard to contrast, resolution and CA was shockingly good. The distortion is just a side effect of the 8x erector and short scope design, it may bother some but may not bother others, but I'm pretty shocked NF is selling these at $2k!
From about 30 feet - 40 yards is where I was testing for close range. Distortion seems to be pretty bad between about 5x - 16x but surprisingly is better below 5x (I was expecting it to be worse like in the March) and higher magnification almost always tames this distortion. If you have a good solid cheekweld it will definitely help tone things down, but I can also detect quite a bit of edge distortion beyond the warble effect. Again, we are not shooting things at the edges so it shouldn't affect your ability to put rounds on target, but it is something to be aware of.
At near or far ranges? I'm assuming it has not affected your ability to hit the target?
Exactly, not at all as I'm dialing elevation and just holding wind so my focus is still in the center of the reticle. After I read you talk about it, I tested it inside 50 yards but out to 900 across all mag ranges it was spot on.
Well I mounted it up on one of my rifles and settled into a proper cheekweld and it definitely toned the warbling effect down; however, I could still tell there was a fair amount of outer edge distortion throughout much of the mag range. Parallax was still pretty finicky (especially at close distances under 100 yds) but once dialed properly was spot on, no reticle movement in the center. Since we are typically shooting at targets with the crosshairs in the center this should affect center punching; however, for anyone who might use this to scan for targets like in a PRS style competition, I can see how the edge distortion might be a hindrance. Having had experience with March scopes previously I am not surprised at these issues as they are very similar to what I experienced with the March, but the NX8 is over a $1000 less when you consider illumination (by the way the illumination on the NX8 is fantastic and daylight bright to boot).
Hard to compare it to anything really, it is unique. I think the closest comparison is the March 3-24x52 - both scopes use an 8x erector, both are in a short body and both sport 30mm tubes. It's been a while since I had my 3-24x52 so I cant do a side by side today but I remember the March at the low end suffered from edge distortion, I see something very similar in the NX8. I was thinking for my AR-15 and also for my 10/22, but both I would want to shoot at times under 100yds, especially the 10/22 so I'm trying to ascertain if the close focus having the pronounced distortion is going to bother me; my eye prefers edge to edge sharpness and I find myself being distracted by the distortion around the edge of the sight picture. I will try and make my decision tomorrow and wrap up my mini review of the scope.
I’d be willing to bet lunch that any NXS scope with a 50mm objective has the same threads for a sun shade as the NX8.
