I really don't need 32x of mag, nor do I need 2.5x of mag, and will likely stay around 18-20x most of the time. That said it seems the NX8 2.5-20 has limitations due to being an ultra short design relating to eyebox and image quality/resolution/fisheye. Is the 4-32 more forgiving in eyebox and exhibit better image quality at that 15-20x than its 2.5-20 counter part? Reading the exit pupil diameter for both it seems pretty dismal for the 4-32 @ 32x. First hand experience would be much appreciated if anyone has been able to get behind them both outdoors.
Rifle Scopes NX8 4-32 vs 2.5-20, Anyone with first hand comparison of eyebox and IQ?
- Thread starter ClosetCaseNerd
- Start date
I've been behind them both. They exhibit some of the same issues with eyebox and parallax. Putting them side by side and bouncing back and forth may reveal a subtle difference, but they seemed about the same when I played with them.
They both exhibited a shallow DOV, which kind of exacerbates the finicky parallax issue. I think you need a really well set up rifle with consistent cheek weld to help with some of the issues. The diopter setting has to be pretty spot on.
The difference I noticed the most was the glass clarity around the edges. The 20x has more noticeable distortion that the 32x. With either it's less noticeable at distance.
They both exhibited a shallow DOV, which kind of exacerbates the finicky parallax issue. I think you need a really well set up rifle with consistent cheek weld to help with some of the issues. The diopter setting has to be pretty spot on.
The difference I noticed the most was the glass clarity around the edges. The 20x has more noticeable distortion that the 32x. With either it's less noticeable at distance.
I appreciate your input. I think I'm going to have to order a 4-32 NX8 and a ATACR 4-16x42 and see what works best for me. I just don't think 16x will be enough mag for my use, but a crisp 16x with generous eye box beats a distorted 24x with narrow exit pupil on something like an AR, where I specifically can't setup stock height etc.
Last edited:
This is a true statement and one that should be considered. I tend to want a little more than the traditional 4-16/3-15 range but we are finally seeing more manufacturers coming out with 4-20's. Nightforce made an interesting choice with the ATACR F1, they have the 5x 5-25 but went with 4x for the 4-16, if NF had stuck with 5x and made a 4-20 it would have been a different story. I understand the 4-16 is a great seller, but even better as a 4-20. The NX8's are unique, but compromises are made when going with an 8x erector, for those who are willing to overlook or are not bothered by those compromises the NX8 is going to be a great scope.
Koshkin (dark lord of optics) has a YT video comparing the 2.5-20 against some other optics.
I'll let you watch the video and decide for yourself but the NX8 didn't fare well in a number of categories. He did like the Vudu much better it seems.
I'll let you watch the video and decide for yourself but the NX8 didn't fare well in a number of categories. He did like the Vudu much better it seems.
My issue is there are plenty of viable scopes, with less than stellar reticle selection. I'm smitten with the Mil-XT.
Remember the Mil-XT did not exist until last year, check out the Kahles SKMR3, Minox MR4, Tangent Gen 3XR, Sig DEV-L and ZCO MPCT2 for similar reticles that existed before the Mil-XT. I do understand finding reticles you like, they are very subjective and there is no issue with finding your favorite reticle and choosing the scope from there; unfortunately, if you want Mil-XT and 4-20 that's a no go unless you're willing to go with NX8.
I have poured over different scopes, and the fact of the matter is I'm not willing to compromise IQ even though it's probably the most reasonable item to compromise on besides reticle (MR4 = SKMR3 = EBR2C = MIL-XT). So truly I'll end up with a ATACR 4-16x42 it ticks MOST boxes, keeps everything familiar with my ATACR 7-35, and I'll upgrade in 5 years when NF decides to finally upgrade ATACR erectors. 
I have poured over different scopes, and the fact of the matter is I'm not willing to compromise IQ even though it's probably the most reasonable item to compromise on besides reticle (MR4 = SKMR3 = EBR2C = MIL-XT). So truly I'll end up with a ATACR 4-16x42 it ticks MOST boxes, keeps everything familiar with my ATACR 7-35, and I'll upgrade in 5 years when NF decides to finally upgrade ATACR erectors.
You will not be disappointed. I have the 7-35 as well as the 4-16 in both x50 and x42 guise - the 4-16 is an outstanding optic - agree with some of the comments above in that if NF made a mid-sized 4-20 with Mil-C and/or Mil-XT it would be the perfect do-it-all optic. That said if I could have a S&B 3-20 with the Mil-XT I'd be all over that - S&B glass is a touch better than NF in my experience
Ive been running a 4-32 on a couple different guns for a couple months now.......
Is it comparable to $3k scopes? no.
Is it as short as the 2.5-20? no.
I have tried multiple times to try to find something i would replace it with and there is nothing out there.
4x is low enough power to compare to 3x and 3.5x scopes. But the 4-32 never gets compared because either the tester doesn't need 32x or in some cases it just isnt as "cool" as the 2.5-20.
I never use 32x but i think 24-26x is useable in most conditions as far as mirage and great when trying to shoot tiny groups at 100 which i dont do a lot of but its something we all do every now and then.
Try to find something in that price range that still performs pretty decent that is at least a 4-24 while being as short as the 4-32 and is as light weight..... There is literally almost nothing.
Ill admit optically its just decent not bad for sure, tracks awesome, compact and full of good features. For a street price of 2k or less.
I agree with all reviews ive seen just think that it would be interesting to see the 4-32 put through it paces by one of the guys that really know what theyre doing and I'm open to any recommendations on another scope that will all around compete with this one.
The AMG looks like it is probably a better piece after reading reviews but its longer and I just dont care for Christmas tree reticles.
Is it comparable to $3k scopes? no.
Is it as short as the 2.5-20? no.
I have tried multiple times to try to find something i would replace it with and there is nothing out there.
4x is low enough power to compare to 3x and 3.5x scopes. But the 4-32 never gets compared because either the tester doesn't need 32x or in some cases it just isnt as "cool" as the 2.5-20.
I never use 32x but i think 24-26x is useable in most conditions as far as mirage and great when trying to shoot tiny groups at 100 which i dont do a lot of but its something we all do every now and then.
Try to find something in that price range that still performs pretty decent that is at least a 4-24 while being as short as the 4-32 and is as light weight..... There is literally almost nothing.
Ill admit optically its just decent not bad for sure, tracks awesome, compact and full of good features. For a street price of 2k or less.
I agree with all reviews ive seen just think that it would be interesting to see the 4-32 put through it paces by one of the guys that really know what theyre doing and I'm open to any recommendations on another scope that will all around compete with this one.
The AMG looks like it is probably a better piece after reading reviews but its longer and I just dont care for Christmas tree reticles.
Last edited:
I'm at the same place. Right now I have a Vortex 5-25 on my Vudoo V22 and I think I need more power.
