Does that mean that on both scope versions the reticle will be the same size at the same power?
Rifle Scopes New high power Nightforce NX8?
- Thread starter acg
- Start date
Does that mean that on both scope versions the reticle will be the same size at the same power?
Top and bottom are the same Gen 2 4.5-27 Razor and the middle one is the Razor HD LH 3-15
@VegasHKShooter, since you have an ATACR, how does they compare for FOV at similar magnification?
I’m sorry man, they are all at work in my locker, and I’m San Diego bound for a week. By the time I’m back and they are in hand, someone else will likely answer.
I’m not at all a FOV guy. I don’t know why, I just don’t care. I run low enough power to find my targets, then kick up the power as needed. I know others look at it, and consider it, but for me, it’s not a stat I even care about. ?
I'm hoping the Mil-xt will be an option
Ditto....
It will be In the fall. I love the mil c because it’s so clean and the milxt for PRs...
Because NF had optics in the 1000 dollarplus rangeamd the 3000 dollar plus range but not much I.n The 1900-2400 range and these fit the bill PERFECTLY.
Yes!
That is a super accurate gas rifle for me. I regularly get 1/2 MOA 5 shot groups with that rifle....
Why not got with the most excellent KAC QDC Suppressor? Of all my 5.56 Suppressors, I find that that is most excellent. Not as quiet as yours but on SBR’s they are just SICK and on the LPR they aren’t so long that you feel like u have a bolt action rifle....?
Let me guess......ITS AWESOME
Dude, I have the VX6 HD and my new NF 4-32x50 is just going to be a much, much better optic. I say that with confidence because my Leupold erector broke on my VX 6 and had to return to Leupold. The reticle on my NF is one that I much prefer (the mil C ) and I am willing To bet a bucket of quarters that this NF tracks better at distances greater than 600 yards than my LeupoldVX6....YMMV but these are my experiences.....
I’m waiting for my 2.5-20 but just received my 4-32x50 Mil C (WOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO) way to go NF!!!have the Atacr 4-16x42 Mil C, the 5-25x56Mil c and (2) of the 7-35 Mil XT’s...
Based upon your question, I would ask you under what conditions am i shooting? If I’m shooting at dawn or dusk or heavy overcast with rain I’m going with the 16x Atacr because I can see more...if it’s a bright sunny or sunny day or visibility is good then my 20x will be MOST EXCELLENT....NO STEEL IS SAFE ANY WHERE ON AMY HILLS ANYTIME....NOW....
Good job. That makes a lot of sense to me. I’m putting mine initially on my LPR (4-32) and if prefer the 2.5-20 (which I probably won’t because I love to shoot as far as I can stretch the 77 grain SMK 262 (so far 800 yards lol)...I will find a home for the 4-32.....
I’ve heard some good,things about the mark 5hd Leupold but no optics track better than Nightforce. I have and have had at least 10 Leupold optics and the only ones I have left are my mark 6’s and my Leupold LRT Mark 4 for Cloning purposes. None of them tracked like Nightforce optics do...if your not a PRs shooter probably doesn’t matter....but if you want to,shoot steel out to 800 plus yards you had better get a Nightforce (JMHO)
Precision Rifle Network will have a video on this scope coming very soon. I pick up the scope Tuesday.
(2.5-20) I'll post the video here when it's finished. Very interesting optic for sure.
(2.5-20) I'll post the video here when it's finished. Very interesting optic for sure.
deleted so as to not spread bad info. I stand corrected, and don’t want bad info to perpetuate. ?
Last edited:
Yup, I've always said main tube diameter has nothing to do with light gathering/transmission.
If it were the case the 1-4/6/8 scopes would be dark as shit. 30mm with 24mm objective
This comes down to exit pupil which is objective diameter divided by magnification and image fidelity which is a function of system design.
There are good reasons for larger tubes in some applications, but light transmission or image quality are not among them.
ILya
What Ilya said...
I am digging that reticle on the Light Hunter.
Thank You.
I feel your pain. Both outstanding rifles. I absolutely love my HK except for,the fact that’s it HK (oxy Orion)...over engineered and proprietary everything....if u can get past that, it’s an incredible rifle that suppresses well. I love it almost as much as I lov my scar 17 SBR...the 16” 308’s don’t do it for me. I prefer the SBR suppressed with the Geissele Trigger. It’s just next to impossible to beat that in both reliability and just flat out coolness. The scar is a very accurate rifle but the HK is slightly more accurate aT 4-5 rounds and beyond as the barrel heats up...
Lol. Seriously? I swear we have pretty close tastes in reticles. You know, the taste that is called "fit-for-the-job."
First impressions.
Heavier than it looks
Reticle is very usable
Good clicks as to be expected
Nice and short. Looks good to use with clip ons with limited rail space
Seems like an ideal DMR/semi auto/ 50-1000 yard optic
Heavier than it looks
Reticle is very usable
Good clicks as to be expected
Nice and short. Looks good to use with clip ons with limited rail space
Seems like an ideal DMR/semi auto/ 50-1000 yard optic
I'm wondering if anyone with the 2.5-20x50 also has a March 3-24x52? I'm very familiar with the March and it's shortcomings, specifically I'm looking for eyebox, especially from 15-20x. Also, how finicky is the parallax with the NF, do you find you have to adjust constantly or is it pretty forgiving? Finally, how does it perform in low light at around 12x.
I had the March but with 42mm objective. I unfortunately sold it a couple months ago and hadn't used it since last November, so this is just from memory.
I never had an issue with the eye box once I had it mounted. The March seemed less forgiving in hand then in actual use. The NF was really good in hand, and in use good, but mine does funny things with different alignments. Honestly, I'm thinking and hoping that mine has a malfunction. Just waiting to hear other people's in hand opinions.
Speaking of the parallax, the NF isn't as touchy as the March was. Which is nice.
Overall, my initial impressions have left me contemplating about getting rid of the March.
For anyone that has the 2.5-20, my image quality is great from the 2.5 to about 4, then the edges get distorted pretty bad from there to about 14, then the image gets good again from 14-20. Anyone else seeing something similar? Also something that seems different for me compared to other scopes I've had is my eye alignment really affects my image. I can get the end of my barrel in and out of my line of sight in my scope. As I said earlier I'm hoping mine is an anomaly and something that can be fixed. I know when the atacr first came out I had to send it back in.
I did the eye piece on high power. I do get a crisp reticle from low to high power.
I had the March 3-24x42 as well, but found the 52mm version to be even more forgiving in eyebox as larger objective scopes tend to be especially with high magnification erectors. Like you, I did not find the March scopes to be as finicky as some claimed once mounted up properly on the rifle, tighter eyebox than some other scopes, yes, but not horrible. It was mostly the reticle and parallax that drove me away. I think the MIL-C is what I hoped the FML-1 would evolve into, but the FML-T1 is not my cup of tea. Like the March, the NX8 has a certain draw on me especially for an AR platform, I just don't want to get back into the same situation with the NX8 as I had with March.
That's sort of disheartening... I'll let you know my thoughts when I get mine by Tuesday
Any word on how usable the 4-32 high mag is? I was looking at a Razor Genii but for a couple hundred more I can get from a 4.5-27 to a 4-32 power. Is this a pretty good comparison? Am I way off where I should be or is this apples to apples in comparison?
Unless you like the NF reticle better, go with the gen 2.
@koshkin can explain it better, but you’re not gaining much with the extra 5x on top.
The gen 2 is a proven tank of a workhorse with a ironclad warranty.
Unless you need something smaller and lighter, I’d go with vortex for a comp gun.
Going on a 457 and vudoo that I shoot out to 400 but I also use some hold overs so I am looking for ffp. Just thought the extra 5x power would help on the top end of 400 yards.
Currently running a gen I razor 5-20 but ready to replace it.
Currently running a gen I razor 5-20 but ready to replace it.
Any hands on input on the 4-32? I run 4-16 and 7-35 milc’s and really like them on my 300N and 338L just looking for something a little more appropriate size/weight with high mag FFP milc on my MPR 6.5CM
Appreciate any input.
Usage is LW mountain high elevation muley/wolf and desert antelope does where my final decision is critical on the scope to be sure I am not shooting a yearling buck @ range
Appreciate any input.
Usage is LW mountain high elevation muley/wolf and desert antelope does where my final decision is critical on the scope to be sure I am not shooting a yearling buck @ range
As long as your expectations are in line with the limitations of the scope I think you'll be fine, but expecting an 8x erector design to perform well at the top end of the magnification range at 32x, if I were to guess, I would say the 4.5-27 will perform better than the 4-32 in the upper levels of the magnification range - optically speaking. Also, scopes with 50mm objectives and greater than 25x magnification tend to struggle to bring in light, if you're only shooting during the day may not be an issue but I'd be curious if the NX8 4-32 has the same issues some other 50mm scope designs have had when offering higher magnification.
You mention that scopes with high powers, 25x or more, and 50 mm objective vs 56 struggle a bit to bring in light. This would generally only be when cranked up to their higher power right? I've seen scopes noticeably get darker, literally, because they struggle to bring in light I'm sure but this is only when going high on the mag. Lower mags they would still perform good and be bright.
Or did you mean in general throughout its full magnification range?
You got it in the first paragraph. It is generally a limitation at the higher magnification ranges and generally related to exit pupil. I'm sure ILya can explain this a bit better (and he might have in one of his videos now that I think about it) but an example of this was the March 3-24x42 vs 3-24x52, same magnification range but one has a larger objective than the other, my 42mm scope was noticeably darker at higher mags than the 52mm version; however, at lower mags as you mention it did not seem to be an issue.
Perfect, we're both on the same page then.
I'm really considering one of these NX8 scopes for hunting and was slightly concerned about what you said about them. But not so concerned anymore because if I do get one, I won't be hunting pigs at night in high power, I normally just stick from 3 to maybe 6 where the scope is still transmitting most light regardless of objective size.
NX8 4-32 on Seekins SP10 6.5CM
Spuhr mount, 1.5” tall
Spuhr mount, 1.5” tall
Love the dress!!! Nice rifle and scope setup too.
Right, the only issue might be with the reticle, with such a wide magnification range it's usually the bottom end of that range where the FFP reticle is practically useless, this was certainly the case with my March, but the thing the March had going for it was the outer stadia lines pointed inward to help identify where center was, here's some pics (don't use these to judge IQ, the March has very impressive IQ, best of the Japanese glass I've seen). Keep in mind the MIL-C may not be as usable depending on how they designed it for the NX8, this is just an example. I actually prefer the Mil-C over the FML-1 but am curious how well the NX8 will hold up optically to the March.
For whatever it is worth; the reticle in my 4-32 NX8 is thicker than in my Razor HDII 4.5-27. Much more usable at lower power.
The open center with a dot of the NX8 still gave me a very precise aiming point even at max magnification with the heavier stadia.
The open center with a dot of the NX8 still gave me a very precise aiming point even at max magnification with the heavier stadia.
Yeah totally agree that the lower end of the magnification range might yield the best light transmission at night time but might also be problematic with the reticle. For that, I am hoping the lowest illum setting will be good enough. I'm just not really a fan of how their illumination works. If you need to go through the brightness adjustments in a hurry before wild game gets spooked, there are far better option than NF imo...
Sounds like NF did their homework, if the Mil-C is usable at low and high on the NX8, that would certainly be ideal. Any chance someone can take through the scope images at lowest and highest mag?
I don’t know how people manage this. I had to zoom in the camera really far; the marks are much more crisp. If I can get one without the zoom it will show better. I am going to run home and grab my DSLR and try with that. This is 4x with cell phone 
