Rifle Scopes Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 - Initial Thoughts

[Glassaholic]

Finally, I’m not a NF fanboy. The NX8 is actually my first. It wasn’t until the introduction of the MIL-C that NF got close to my reticle preferences. I’m a big fan of a tiny floating center dot. My current favorite is the MSR2, but no one offers it in a smaller, lighter, more compact scope.

Over the last couple years a ton of players have entered the tactical rifle telescope market. Hell, even Brownells is bringing two LOW built tactical scopes to market. Competition is great, but, particularly in the short term, this onslaught makes for a staggering set of choices.

You and I have similar experiences with Nightforce. The NX8 is their first scope to really grab my attention and I knew they would make compromises to meet the price point so I'm not too surprised at what I see, but I'm also surprised in other areas how good it is. If Nightforce were to come out with a short (and under 35oz) ATACR F1 4-20x50 that would really draw my interest, I'm still a bit baffled why they came out with a 5x erector ATACR F1 in the 5-25 but then went back to 4x for their 4-16x42/50 scopes.

There certainly have been a ton of players over the last few years, and many of them seem to come from LOW, it seems like LOW has single handedly changed the rifle scope market with designs for Mom and Pop shops to some of the biggest names in the industry. I would not at all be surprised if the NX8 is also a LOW manufactured product.

 

[5RWill]

Honestly if Leupold fielded something remotely reminiscent of any modern tree reticle for little to no upcharge there wouldn't be a debate for me. Loved the mark 5 (5-25) i had and i do think there is sample variance, but the real point of discussion is you can get an MK5 for $1450 from Liberty optics, all day every day. From what Bill and I had talked about they fixed a lot of issues that plagued the MK6 with the MK5 mainly how uncomfortable the scope was and obviously M5B2 turrets no longer exist (thankfully). If the NX8 is remotely in anyway finicky like the MK6 i'd likely hate it. That has been my most hated scope i've owned to date.

Going to want to try one cause there are a ton of positives but numerous mentions of picky parallax and cheekweld concern me. Though if i'm being honest we knew this was par for the course. You don't field a sub 13" optic with a large erector assembly without drawbacks. If it does turn out that finicky i'd have much preferred NF to make them slightly longer whilst retaining the rest of the features considering the price.

 

[Birddog6424]

A couple hundred of the 18x XTR3s are scheduled to ship out of Greeley in mid September.

200 30x shipped to retailers Friday. We will be seeing them soon.

I'm actually sitting here cooling my heels waiting for my shooting partner to show up so we can head to the range. This will be my 3rd time out with the 30x XTR3. So far it's looking good.

 

[koshkin]

Different from fold, different strokes.

It is nice to have variety. I liked the 3.6-18x44 Mark 5HD and I like the 7-35x I am testing now. I do agree Leupold needs a normal tree reticle.

XTR3 making it into the wild is good news. Hopefully, I'll get my hands on one eventually.

ILya

 

[beetroot]

At 26oz. Leupold’s Mark 5 is also sort of in a class unto itself, but with an oddball 35mm main tube. The Mark 5’s non-Christmas tree reticle selection is limited to Leupold’s TMR, a reticle I really don’t get—at all. The TMR looks like a series of compromises made in a design workshop held outdoors that got rained out. That said, I kind of like the aperture at its center. Alternatively, Leupold offers the Mark 5 with the FFP CCH, H59, and Tremor 3 at $200, $300, and $800 upcharges, but I don’t do busy Christmas tree reticles.

Regarding the XTRIII, it doesn’t really exist yet and I haven’t seen one. I can only comment on the specs Burris published and reticle selection. First and foremost, it’s a 34mm tube design coming in under 30 oz., which is a plus for my interests, namely a robust, yet lighter weight crossover type scope for a moderate to lightweight hunting rifle. On the down side, the reticle selection won’t suit my preferences.

The CTL-5318 3-18x50mm has a pretty appealing reticle in the MR1-MIL, weighs in a just over 30 oz. and has a standard 34mm tube. Beyond that, I haven’t seen Crimson Trace’s stuff since SHOT in January. Unfortunately, I didn’t take very detailed notes at their booth and don’t remember if I handled this particular optic. It seems, if I had, I would have remembered it for its reticle and size/weight. I do remember getting a cool CT hat! I’d certainly like to look at this scope more closely.

Regarding the Optika6, I spent a bunch of time at Meopta’s booth, mostly looking at several of their military and tactical scopes, which are not typically seen in the US. I did look at and handle several of their Optika6 line and their new binocular line. Ultimately, the Optika6 line was discounted by my thinking due to reticle selection.

A direct comparison between the NX8 and the March 3-24x50mm would be of great interest.

Finally, I’m not a NF fanboy. The NX8 is actually my first. It wasn’t until the introduction of the MIL-C that NF got close to my reticle preferences. I’m a big fan of a tiny floating center dot. My current favorite is the MSR2, but no one offers it in a smaller, lighter, more compact scope.

Over the last couple years a ton of players have entered the tactical rifle telescope market. Hell, even Brownells is bringing two LOW built tactical scopes to market. Competition is great, but, particularly in the short term, this onslaught makes for a staggering set of choices.

Bear in mind the TMR reticle has been around for a very long time, longer than many optics companies have been around.
It was a big improvement over the standard mildot it replaced/complimented, but it is way over due for a refresh.

If Leupold modernised the TMR or made a simple tree reticle, I'd likely be the owner of a Mark 5HD.

 

[JakeM]

Both the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 and the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 are going to be direct competition to the NX8 with regard to weight, size and price. The XTR III is an unknown at this time but early reports are promising so I'll just focus on the NX8 and the Mark 5HD as I had the Mark 5 last year and am familiar with it. Here is a bullet point list I made previously that might be helpful here:

• Tube size: NX8 = 30mm | Mark 5 = 35mm: Advantage NX8 (more common)
• Illumination: NX8 includes red/green illumination | Mark 5 charges premium for illumination: Advantage NX8
• Turrets: NX8 has "soft" turrets | Mark 5 has distinct clicks with clever locking mechanism: Advantage Mark 5
• Reticle: NX8 has Mil-C and Mil-XT | Mark 5 has old style TMR or Horus style: Advantage NX8 (personal preference)
• Ergonomics: NX8 has narrow mount options | Mark 5 is shorter but limited mount options with 35mm tube: Tie
• CA control: NX8 has minimal CA throughout mag range | Mark 5 has heavy CA: Advantage NX8
• IQ: NX8 has edge distortion | Mark 5 struggles to deliver resolution *: Tie
• DOF/Parallax: NX8 has narrow DOF and finicky parallax | Mark 5 has more forgiving DOF and parallax: Advantage Mark 5
• Close Focus: NX8 can focus to 11 yards | Mark 5 can focus to about 50 yards: Advantage NX8
• Low Light: NX8 has 50mm objective | Mark 5 has 44mm objective: Advantage NX8 (however, Mark 5 has excellent low light performance)
• Magnification: NX8 is 2.5-20x50 | Mark 5 is 3.6-18x44: Advantage NX8
• Warranty and CS: Nightforce has Lifetime with good CS | Leupold has Lifetime with questionable (of late) CS: Advantage Nightforce

* My copy had issues with resolution; however, other reports have shown excellent resolution, this may be due to sample variance.
Obviously the NX8 has more "advantages" above, but we all have our personal preferences and each shooter needs to decide for themselves what matters most and make your decisions accordingly. If you're more a turret guy then the Mark 5 has a definite advantage, but if you're more a reticle and illumination guy the NX8 is the way to go. Burris says around September for the 3.3-18x50 but only in non-illuminated version and I like illumination so will have to wait further, though glass should be the same in both, it will be interesting to see early reports. It is my desire to keep the NX8 around long enough to get the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 and do a comparative review between both, I will also be able to compare against the March 3-24x52 which I've had but it's been a while so it will be beneficial to have them side by side.

Here's a quick comparison of specs between these scopes
View attachment 7140070

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. Not I just came off of a $3,500 S&B highpower and this sucks compared to it.

 

[GySgt Smith JE]

Excellent write up. Thank you for taking the time to put it through an honest unbiased assessment.

 

[Glassaholic]

Excellent write up. Thank you for taking the time to put it through an honest unbiased assessment.

Thank you, appreciate that as that is my goal.

 

[SD Carpenter]

I did noticetoday at 2.5x it was parallax free for the most part, is that normal when magnification goes that low?

 

[BootyLord]

Excellent review! Thanks for taking the time to share. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on using it as a RF scope.

I have edited my original post to include some more information as I've spent more time with the scope. Properly mounting the scope (which took a while due to the tight eyebox) and getting a proper cheekweld did tame down some of the issues as I thought it might. The DOF/Parallax is still more finicky than other scopes, but the more time I spend with the NX8 I can see the appeal for what it offers. With the edge distortion (mostly apparent when eye position is not stable) tamed down a bit, I think this scope has a place but still trying to figure out where that might be. I'm going to try to take it out on my 10/22 and see how it does as a short range rimfire scope soon.

 

[1NDY]

I just did an in store comparison of the NX8, Razor Gen II, Razor AMG and Leupold MK5. I did notice that the NX8 was more difficult to get behind correctly and dial in and that the NF was much brighter (almost whiteout at times) than the others but didnt really see a HUGE differentiator between them. I've been combing this forum for the last month to get an idea for a buy once cry once optic to go on a new LMT MWS in 6.5CM and decided to go along with what seemed to be the consensus, the Minox ZP5 sight unseen. Bought my Mauser today and will order the Minox as soon as it gets here. You guys seem to really know your shit, a lot more knowledge here than AR15 and some others....so I'm counting on ya.

 

[Fatorangecat]

Great review. Every review I read for these is good but unfortunately not great.

 

[Centuriator]

As usual, it comes down to what a person intends to do with the scope, what rifle he is going to use it with, and how much he wants to spend on the scope. For me, the NX8 2.5-20 is a "great" scope because it was the one that best "checked off the boxes" on my list of what I wanted and how much I wanted to spend. I think we all enjoy the quest for the "best of the best of the best" and until the next "best" comes alone...this is the scope for me. I paid $1755 for it, I could have paid a lot more for a scope but for me, it was not needed/necessary.

 

[HotRod68Camaro]

As usual, it comes down to what a person intends to do with the scope, what rifle he is going to use it with, and how much he wants to spend on the scope. For me, the NX8 2.5-20 is a "great" scope because it was the one that best "checked off the boxes" on my list of what I wanted and how much I wanted to spend. I think we all enjoy the quest for the "best of the best of the best" and until the next "best" comes alone...this is the scope for me. I paid $1755 for it, I could have paid a lot more for a scope but for me, it was not needed/necessary.

That's kind of how i've seen the scope as well. I set up a spreadsheet similar to WJM (only using manufacturer advertised specs), did points per window value of each category, and it came out on top. Obviously that leaves out a lot of things like actual IQ, all the other categories of glass qualities the WJM goes into, and actual tactile use of and getting behind the scope. But purely on manufacturer advertised features/specs it came out on top.

 

[ShtrRdy]

I got to handle and play with an NX-8 the other day. Turrets felt "pretty good". Not as crisp as a ATACR but close. Definitely better than the SHV. Time will tell if they hold up and track true. The Ocular housing stays in place when you change magnification. It has the Digi-lum illumination which is nice. The glass didn't seem quite as nice as the ATACR and time will tell what others think after using it under various conditions. The field of view collapses a little when magnification is at the lowest settings. All-in-all a nice product.

 

[TangoSierra916]

Both the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 and the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 are going to be direct competition to the NX8 with regard to weight, size and price. The XTR III is an unknown at this time but early reports are promising so I'll just focus on the NX8 and the Mark 5HD as I had the Mark 5 last year and am familiar with it. Here is a bullet point list I made previously that might be helpful here:

• Tube size: NX8 = 30mm | Mark 5 = 35mm: Advantage NX8 (more common)
• Illumination: NX8 includes red/green illumination | Mark 5 charges premium for illumination: Advantage NX8
• Turrets: NX8 has "soft" turrets | Mark 5 has distinct clicks with clever locking mechanism: Advantage Mark 5
• Reticle: NX8 has Mil-C and Mil-XT | Mark 5 has old style TMR or Horus style: Advantage NX8 (personal preference)
• Ergonomics: NX8 has narrow mount options | Mark 5 is shorter but limited mount options with 35mm tube: Tie
• CA control: NX8 has minimal CA throughout mag range | Mark 5 has heavy CA: Advantage NX8
• IQ: NX8 has edge distortion | Mark 5 struggles to deliver resolution *: Tie
• DOF/Parallax: NX8 has narrow DOF and finicky parallax | Mark 5 has more forgiving DOF and parallax: Advantage Mark 5
• Close Focus: NX8 can focus to 11 yards | Mark 5 can focus to about 50 yards: Advantage NX8
• Low Light: NX8 has 50mm objective | Mark 5 has 44mm objective: Advantage NX8 (however, Mark 5 has excellent low light performance)
• Magnification: NX8 is 2.5-20x50 | Mark 5 is 3.6-18x44: Advantage NX8
• Warranty and CS: Nightforce has Lifetime with good CS | Leupold has Lifetime with questionable (of late) CS: Advantage Nightforce

* My copy had issues with resolution; however, other reports have shown excellent resolution, this may be due to sample variance.
Obviously the NX8 has more "advantages" above, but we all have our personal preferences and each shooter needs to decide for themselves what matters most and make your decisions accordingly. If you're more a turret guy then the Mark 5 has a definite advantage, but if you're more a reticle and illumination guy the NX8 is the way to go. Burris says around September for the 3.3-18x50 but only in non-illuminated version and I like illumination so will have to wait further, though glass should be the same in both, it will be interesting to see early reports. It is my desire to keep the NX8 around long enough to get the Burris XTR III 3.3-18x50 and do a comparative review between both, I will also be able to compare against the March 3-24x52 which I've had but it's been a while so it will be beneficial to have them side by side.

Here's a quick comparison of specs between these scopes
View attachment 7140070

thank you for the great review and perspective. Curious though where did you see the NX8 only offers a 3 year warranty on electronics? I cant find a manual but the nx8 1-8 only discusses lifetime warranty, which is what I thought NF standard was. I just started looking into this optic, so may have missed it, thanks again!

 

[Glassaholic]

thank you for the great review and perspective. Curious though where did you see the NX8 only offers a 3 year warranty on electronics? I cant find a manual but the nx8 1-8 only discusses lifetime warranty, which is what I thought NF standard was. I just started looking into this optic, so may have missed it, thanks again!

I grabbed warranty information from Cal's article here - https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/08/07/tactical-scopes-where-theyre-made-and-warranty/
I would recommend calling Nightforce directly and asking as manufacturer's sometimes change the terms of their warranties

 

[phlegm]

I grabbed warranty information from Cal's article here - https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/08/07/tactical-scopes-where-theyre-made-and-warranty/
I would recommend calling Nightforce directly and asking as manufacturer's sometimes change the terms of their warranties

Here's a screenshot of a manual from NF's site. I'm sure you could call them to discuss, also:

https://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/NX8%201-8x24%20ZeroStop%20Owners%20Manual.pdf

 

[TangoSierra916]

Here's a screenshot of a manual from NF's site. I'm sure you could call them to discuss, also:

https://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/NX8%201-8x24%20ZeroStop%20Owners%20Manual.pdf

View attachment 7157695

very interesting thanks for the screenshot, would not have guessed that.

 

[Birddog6424]

That's the second manufacturer that has reduced the coverage of their warranty this year. Granted, Nikon was far worse than this. But not covering "accidental damage" is pretty big. That's pretty much large portion of damage occurance. And it's a hell of a lot of peace of mind to guys who use these pretty hard.

So its surprising in a market where scope manufacturers are stepping up to no questions asked coverage that a company would backpedal from that.

 

[phlegm]

That's the second manufacturer that has reduced the coverage of their warranty this year. Granted, Nikon was far worse than this. But not covering "accidental damage" is pretty big. That's pretty much large portion of damage occurance. And it's a hell of a lot of peace of mind to guys who use these pretty hard.

So its surprising in a market where scope manufacturers are stepping up to no questions asked coverage that a company would backpedal from that.

The NF warranty has been this way for years. I have an NXS owner's manual from 2010 that says the same thing.

 

[Birddog6424]

The NF warranty has been this way for years. I have an NXS owner's manual from 2010 that says the same thing.

Interesting. I didnt know that..

 

[SD Carpenter]

It's only for the electronics... IE: illumination

 

[Birddog6424]

Looks like @koshkin came to some of the same conclusions as @wjm308 .

He starts discussing his thoughts around the 11 minute mark.

Edit; I should add though, the whole video is good...

 

[koshkin]

Looks like Ilya came to the same conclusions as @wjm308 .

He starts discussing his thoughts around the 11 minute mark.

To be clear: I have seen one NX8 2.5-20x50 and my impressions are based on that sample of one. I'll see if I can get my hands on a couple more if the opportunity presents itself.

ILya

 

[Birddog6424]

I've only looked through the one as well. It pretty much matched up with the feedback from yourself and Bill.

I'll get to compare that same scope side by side with the 32x version this Saturday at the NRL 22 match. I have looked through both of these scopes already separately.

 

[goosed]

To be clear: I have seen one NX8 2.5-20x50 and my impressions are based on that sample of one. I'll see if I can get my hands on a couple more if the opportunity presents itself.

ILya

What curious minds (well... maybe just mine) want to know is how the S&B ultra shorts stack up against the new comers?

 

[Glassaholic]

What curious minds (well... maybe just mine) want to know is how the S&B ultra shorts stack up against the new comers?

Center sharpness of the NX8 2.5-20 is surprisingly good, it's the rest of the image outside the center that doesn't compare. Also, the NX8 controls CA very well, dare I say even better than Schmidt in certain situations, but that is where the similarities end. The Schmidt's are going to have much better edge to edge sharpness, better turrets, better DOF and parallax.

 

[Bayoubigcat]

Thank you for the review Bill. I enjoy your approach to sharing information regarding the NX8 and other optics.

 

[xTBIRDx]

I went to Mile High for a visit and after comparing the MX8 to a few other scopes I bought the 4-32x50. I haven't had any problems. Tracks perfect and I don't have the blurred edges. as stated in the original post, eye relief at different Magnification can be tricky.

 

[koshkin]

I went to Mile High for a visit and after comparing the MX8 to a few other scopes I bought the 4-32x50. I haven't had any problems. Tracks perfect and I don't have the blurred edges. as stated in the original post, eye relief at different Magnification can be tricky.

From the small number of samples I have seen the 4-32x50 looks a fair bit better than the 2.5-20x50.

It would be very interesting to see how the 2.5-20x50 performs with an aperture reducer. I have gnawing suspicion it would clean things up a fair bit and this could have been an even lighter and more user friendly 2.5-20x42.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

I went to Mile High for a visit and after comparing the MX8 to a few other scopes I bought the 4-32x50. I haven't had any problems. Tracks perfect and I don't have the blurred edges. as stated in the original post, eye relief at different Magnification can be tricky.

This seems to be a common trend - the 4-32 outperforming the 2.5-20, it’s too bad because the 4-32 range does not have much appeal for me. I would have gladly accepted the 2.5-20 if they made it longer or as ILya mentions, reduced the objective. There is a relationship between objective size, length of scope and magnification and it sounds like the 4-32 slips in but the 2.5-20 was just too much to overcome.

 

[beetroot]

From the small number of samples I have seen the 4-32x50 looks a fair bit better than the 2.5-20x50.

It would be very interesting to see how the 2.5-20x50 performs with an aperture reducer. I have gnawing suspicion it would clean things up a fair bit and this could have been an even lighter and more user friendly 2.5-20x42.

ILya

A 2.5-20x42 would be very cool or even a 3-18x42, like a lower priced ATACR 4-16x42.

 

[Glassaholic]

A 2.5-20x42 would be very cool or even a 3-18x42, like a lower priced ATACR 4-16x42.

Or even a higher priced ATACR if the optical quality lived up to the price and offered a greater mag range than 4-16.

 

[RTV]

@wjm308
Great write up thank you. I learned more from this post and the one comparing it to the XTR iii as well as the content Ilya has posted than everything else on the net combined.

Did you ever get to take it out into the field?

From the small number of samples I have seen the 4-32x50 looks a fair bit better than the 2.5-20x50.

It would be very interesting to see how the 2.5-20x50 performs with an aperture reducer. I have gnawing suspicion it would clean things up a fair bit and this could have been an even lighter and more user friendly 2.5-20x42.

ILya

How do you think the NX8 would perform as a hunting optic that spends most of it's time in the 2.5-10x mag ranges but will be used at 20x at the range plinking or otherwise have the luxury of a good shooting position?

From everything I have read the MK5 would fill this role a little bit better optically but I'm really not a fan of the reticle options and if the NX8 is perfectly usable in this role would much rather prefer it based on that.

 

[koshkin]

@wjm308
Great write up thank you. I learned more from this post and the one comparing it to the XTR iii as well as the content Ilya has posted than everything else on the net combined.

Did you ever get to take it out into the field?




How do you think the NX8 would perform as a hunting optic that spends most of it's time in the 2.5-10x mag ranges but will be used at 20x at the range plinking or otherwise have the luxury of a good shooting position?

From everything I have read the MK5 would fill this role a little bit better optically but I'm really not a fan of the reticle options and if the NX8 is perfectly usable in this role would much rather prefer it based on that.

How it will perform for you is kinda personal. I did not like the 2.5-20x50 NX8, but a bunch of other people clearly did and do, so it works for them.

The way you describe your usage is the way I use my March 3-24x52, but it is a lot more money. If you are looking for a 2.5-20x50 the options are scarce and if weight is a consideration, they are even more scarce.

Personally, if I were looking for a Nightforce scope for crossover use, I would be looking at ATACR 4-16x42. I think that is an excellent design and you have more or less the same reticle options. It is a couple of ounces heavier, and has less of a magnification range, but it is really nicely optimized.

If you are open to other options, look at some 3-18x scopes out there. Trijicon just announced their Tenmile product line which has a 3-18x44 FFP scope in there. Based on the specs, it looks like a re-incarnation of 1st Gen Sig Tango6 with updated reticle, reticle illumination and turrets (still 8 mrad per turn though). It also seems to have gone on a diet since the Trijicon version is a little lighter, but it might be a mistake in the specs. I really liked that scope in its Sig guise and I am really happy to see it come back with a better reticle.

For a little less money, Brownells MPO 3-18x50 is very good as well.

ILya

 

[Birddog6424]

@wjm308
Great write up thank you. I learned more from this post and the one comparing it to the XTR iii as well as the content Ilya has posted than everything else on the net combined.

Did you ever get to take it out into the field?




How do you think the NX8 would perform as a hunting optic that spends most of it's time in the 2.5-10x mag ranges but will be used at 20x at the range plinking or otherwise have the luxury of a good shooting position?

From everything I have read the MK5 would fill this role a little bit better optically but I'm really not a fan of the reticle options and if the NX8 is perfectly usable in this role would much rather prefer it based on that.

Having read WJM's write up on the NX8, and his comparison of the 18x XTR3 to the NX8 and MK5, why wouldnt that be a consideration?

Bill clearly thought the Burris was the better version of the three, and illuminated models will be here soon if you want a crossover hunting optic.

 

[Glassaholic]

@wjm308
Great write up thank you. I learned more from this post and the one comparing it to the XTR iii as well as the content Ilya has posted than everything else on the net combined.

Did you ever get to take it out into the field?

RTV, thank you for your kind words.
I did get a chance to take it into the field on both my custom 10/22 and on my 7mm SAUM rig, what bothered me most in the field was the finicky eyebox and lack of DOF, I know I am spoiled by better glass, but even the March 3-24x52 performs better in this arena. That being said, I think what you mention for your use would be acceptable with this scope, as you drop down in mag the distortion does tend to drop away, it is still there, but many shooters are enjoying this scope so I might be inclined to say give it a shot. These scopes tend to have great resale value, so if you just hate it you can sell it and not lose much.

 

[koshkin]

Having read WJM's write up on the NX8, and his comparison of the 18x XTR3 to the NX8 and MK5, why wouldnt that be a consideration?

Bill clearly thought the Burris was the better version of the three, and illuminated models will be here soon if you want a crossover hunting optic.

I am going to look at the XTR3 when the illuminated version is here. If the illumination is done well, it will likely be one of the better options for a crossover scope.

ILya

 

[RTV]

Having read WJM's write up on the NX8, and his comparison of the 18x XTR3 to the NX8 and MK5, why wouldnt that be a consideration?

Bill clearly thought the Burris was the better version of the three, and illuminated models will be here soon if you want a crossover hunting optic.

The Burris could be a good option when the illumination comes out and if it is done right. I am withholding judgement on it until then.

 

[Birddog6424]

I already have an 18x XTR3. And I think it's been well done for its price point. Even with illumination I believe it will come in under the price of the NX8 and well under the illuminated MK5. I just had a buddy whom I thought would never buy a Burris dish off his MK5 for one. He says he likes the Burris a lot better.

I've been hunting for years with the SCR reticle in XTR2s. In my humble opinion I think the regular SCR is a better hunting reticle. A little thicker, not so fine. Anything over 500 yards I'm dialing dope and holding wind, so the grid isnt my first choice. As Bill mentioned in his write up, I dont think the SCR2 is ideal. It will suffice, but the SCR is better.

I rarely use the grid reticle in PRS, though I believe that when you need it, you need it. I have no use for it when hunting. But I do believe if you go SCR2 and want to go double duty in competition and hunting, illuminated will be the way to go.

Good luck with your choice. So many nice scopes to choose from these days.

 

[5RWill]

When is the 3-18 burris due? What was the weight target as well?

My 7 Sherman Short is done but i'm contemplating a 30 Sherman (300 PRC improved) and still want to keep it moderately light weight (foundation revelation, Proof sendero, sub 30oz optic). So i'm looking again. I would like to read a well detailed review of the 4-32x50 NX8 curious about the drawbacks of it versus the 2.5-20x50. If it alleviates most of the issues of the 2.5-20x50 that would work, though i don't necessarily need all that magnification.

Then again on the other hand i've love my AMG and am not sure it would be worth going any other route. Same weight, locking turrets, great reticle, great glass, and phenomenal low light performance. Though part me of me wants the 5-25 MK5 just for the elevation. I would want to really stretch a 225gr ELD-M at 2900 out quite a ways. If Leupold announced a decent reticle at SHOT this year it would be a non issue.

 

[Glassaholic]

If Leupold announced a decent reticle at SHOT this year it would be a non issue.

If they announce a reticle similar to MR4, Gen III XR, SKMR3, MPCT2 I think hell would get a little chilly. Leupold doesn’t seem to understand the market with regard to reticle design and illumination.

 

[5RWill]

If they announce a reticle similar to MR4, Gen III XR, SKMR3, MPCT2 I think hell would get a little chilly. Leupold doesn’t seem to understand the market with regard to reticle design and illumination.

No kidding. I would be shocked if they did but maybe just maybe they'll listen? CCH honestly sucks IMHO it's just a slightly different take on a horus design with the exception that they somehow made it more cluttered.

 

[beetroot]

No kidding. I would be shocked if they did but maybe just maybe they'll listen? CCH honestly sucks IMHO it's just a slightly different take on a horus design with the exception that they somehow made it more cluttered.

And used .25mil holds, why???

 

[5RWill]

And used .25mil holds, why???

So it doesn't infringe on Horus? That'd be my guess idk i just don't get why they can't come out with a tree reticle. Hell license the EBR7C from Vortex the Mark 5 would sell sooooo much better if it had a quality reticle to choose from.

 

[beetroot]

So it doesn't infringe on Horus? That'd be my guess idk i just don't get why they can't come out with a tree reticle. Hell license the EBR7C from Vortex the Mark 5 would sell sooooo much better if it had a quality reticle to choose from.

I completely agree, although I do like the TMR for a cross over hunting reticle. I'd likely have bought a 3.6-18 with the TMR but I don't like how narrow the FOV is compared to the Mark 6 and VX5/6.

 

[5RWill]

I completely agree, although I do like the TMR for a cross over hunting reticle. I'd likely have bought a 3.6-18 with the TMR but I don't like how narrow the FOV is compared to the Mark 6 and VX5/6.

That's another large trade of the MK5s and has been lingering on me. I'll probably end up between the NX8 and another AMG for this next build. Likely stick with the AMG. That scope is just hard to beat for what it is.

 

[Birddog6424]

When is the 3-18 burris due? What was the weight target as well?

Hundreds of the 18x are already on the market. But I dont know how hard they are to find.

Final weight came in at 29ozs, they are 13" in length. They have 35 mils of elevation, capped windage, locking diopter, and parallax down to 25 yards. Eyebox is fantastic on the 18x, and FOV is amazing. This is going to make a very good crossover scope.

 

[beetroot]

Hundreds of the 18x are already on the market. But I dont know how hard they are to find.

Final weight came in at 29ozs, they are 13" in length. They have 35 mils of elevation, capped windage, locking diopter, and parallax down to 25 yards. Eyebox is fantastic on the 18x, and FOV is amazing. This is going to make a very good crossover scope.

How do you think the SCR2 reticle does in cross over usage?

The subtensions show that the lines are very thin, but rather than dot there are crosses which sort of makes them appear bigger, am I right?

I'm thinking of buying a 3.3-18 to replace my 3-15 PST with the EBR 7c reticle, but I'm worried the SCR2 would be even thinner than the 7c which I struggle with being too thin.