Brush buster
Well-Known Member
I have the 32x and really do like the scope. I think it's issues are overblown. Most agree the 20x has a tighter eye box.
Nightforce NX8 glass
- Thread starter Casscade
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I have a 2-20 and with a good lop and cheek weld adjustment it doesn't bother me. It's a little tighter than my mark 5s but I am starting to prefer my nx8. I wouldn't worry about all the rumors, good scope.
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 382
Yeah the Nx8 4x32 is the one I'm looking at, gonna try to compare one to a Zeiss v6 5x30 in a week or 2 in the field. Also wanna compare them to a hensoldt 6-24x56 and a Schmidt I have on hand glass wise and in fov. I'm not crazy about the apparent fov in the Zeiss v6's, it's only around 21 degrees I think, especially being the diavari vmv's and swaro's have like a 24, which for me is a big difference especially when hunting.
The nightforce nx8 fov looks good on paper, whether it's true or not I'll have to look at it in person, if it's true it should be noticeable over the nxs/shv line and the v6 Zeiss. The NF seems to check a lot of boxes in a small package, really just hoping the glass is on point. It'll probably come down to the 2 I have listed, the Zeiss v6 5x30 or the nx8.
The nightforce nx8 fov looks good on paper, whether it's true or not I'll have to look at it in person, if it's true it should be noticeable over the nxs/shv line and the v6 Zeiss. The NF seems to check a lot of boxes in a small package, really just hoping the glass is on point. It'll probably come down to the 2 I have listed, the Zeiss v6 5x30 or the nx8.
How do you determine the degrees of FOV?
Triginometry I assume... ie. 30' field of view at 300 ft distance...
or is it normally posted in the scope's specs?
Thanks
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 382
Yeah most scopes don't post it where most all binoculars guys go by degrees in apparent fov, scopes they play gimmick games on the low end with feet, so naturally a 3x is generally greater than a 5x. If they would list apparent fov then you get a feel what scopes are on the same power. My diavari vmv 3x12 has a higher number than my 6x24 on paper, but naturally that's only because one is at 3 and one at 6x.
At the same power they have the same fov, again both have around 23.7-24 degrees, as do most stalking scopes like swaro z6/8's, not so in the 5's. Same with most Schmidt's and the Leica magnus scopes. The Leupold vx5/6 isn't bad, better than the old vx3 eyepiece.
This is the easiest way to get though, problem is most scopes don't list angular fov, Leupold, Zeiss and swaro does but many don't.
www.birdforum.net
At the same power they have the same fov, again both have around 23.7-24 degrees, as do most stalking scopes like swaro z6/8's, not so in the 5's. Same with most Schmidt's and the Leica magnus scopes. The Leupold vx5/6 isn't bad, better than the old vx3 eyepiece.
This is the easiest way to get though, problem is most scopes don't list angular fov, Leupold, Zeiss and swaro does but many don't.
How do you calculate apparent field of view for binoculars (and what is the largest?)
I’m most interested in binoculars that maximize “apparent field of view” – widening the subjective circle of vision even if the area of viewing is smaller due to magnification. But I’m having trouble converting linear field of view to apparent field of view. I know that you can convert linear...
www.birdforum.net
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 382
Got a chance to play with a few scopes this past weekend, finally. Anyway I was a little surprised between the 2 NF nx8 scopes, I actually think I preferred the lower powered 20x over the 32. To me it had a more forgiving view, or as most now call it, eye box I guess, especially from around 6 to 18x than the 32. Of the 2 I looked at the 2.5-20 also seemed to have more contrast and better color at the same power.
Both were impressive though, I was just h€!! bent on getting the 32x, but actually I'm liking the smaller scope more I think. They're definitely a step up from the nxs and shv in fov, it's noticeable in a side by side. I also think in a ffp, the 2.5x20 has a more useable ret than the 32x at low power. I guess the only thing that could be an issue is the short front tube in certain set up's. Anyway I was really impressed though, definitely picking one up in a few days, still on the fence on which power.
Both were impressive though, I was just h€!! bent on getting the 32x, but actually I'm liking the smaller scope more I think. They're definitely a step up from the nxs and shv in fov, it's noticeable in a side by side. I also think in a ffp, the 2.5x20 has a more useable ret than the 32x at low power. I guess the only thing that could be an issue is the short front tube in certain set up's. Anyway I was really impressed though, definitely picking one up in a few days, still on the fence on which power.
Rick Richard
Well-Known Member
Unless you have the perfect stock fit, mounting the 2.5X20 will be a real challenge unless using a rail. I prefer that mounting system anyway.
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 382
Just gonna bump this thread on the 2.5x20, the 4x32, and the atcar 4x16. I've been playing/using them a lot since I last posted. As stated the nx8 2-20x tube length can be a little tricky and force certain mounts unless running a pic rail, it also forces higher rings on some due to the short length not making over the meat of the barrel, still not big deal. Also the illumination even at the lowest setting is to bright imo, especially for really late hunting.
Otherwise I'm loving this scope and the entire nx8 line, even better than an atcar. As to the nx8 4x32 and contrary to what I've heard the 2.5x20 imo is more forgiving and easier to get behind than the 32 at every power up to 20x. As for the 32 its close but just more finicky for me, it's still an incredible scope and I like both over the atcar for hunting.
This is mainly, and this is huge for me, is the big apparent fov increase along with compact size. This scope would be perfect if NF made a decent hunting Ret or a just a ret with a simple center dot that illuminates.
The atcar does have a bit better dof and a little better contrast, resolution of all 3 I've had are equal at 16x for all 3 and at 20x for the 2 nx8's. This was using a usaf chart at 50 and 100 meters both black and white and high contrast red blue and green. The 2 nx8's both have a bit of edge distortion at the lowest power but up one and it's gone.
The atcar doesn't have this but it also has a smaller apparent fov. Next I've been comparing all 3 to literally dark at different conditions, moon vs no moon, cloudy and super hot vs clear and super hot, all to complete dark in open and wooded areas.
For me, overall the 2.5 is the best of the 3 for with the 32x being a little less forgiving, especially the later it got, but still fine for what it is. Again the atcar has awesome glass no doubt, but the small fov kills it for me and it's by far my least favorite, it's a no go for me as a hunting scope in Mississippi
For reference, I also had a Zeiss v6, a 20x v8, a Leica magnus, an older hensoldt z4x16x56, a Schmidt ultra bright on loan, a Zeiss 6x24 and a buds Zeiss v4 6x24 and Steiner Predator 4 6x24 for comparison, oh and Burris full field 2 4.5-14. Lots of scopes to play with lately, to bad no Leupold's at the time. Long story short, I really like the nx8 line of scopes for a do all scope.
Otherwise I'm loving this scope and the entire nx8 line, even better than an atcar. As to the nx8 4x32 and contrary to what I've heard the 2.5x20 imo is more forgiving and easier to get behind than the 32 at every power up to 20x. As for the 32 its close but just more finicky for me, it's still an incredible scope and I like both over the atcar for hunting.
This is mainly, and this is huge for me, is the big apparent fov increase along with compact size. This scope would be perfect if NF made a decent hunting Ret or a just a ret with a simple center dot that illuminates.
The atcar does have a bit better dof and a little better contrast, resolution of all 3 I've had are equal at 16x for all 3 and at 20x for the 2 nx8's. This was using a usaf chart at 50 and 100 meters both black and white and high contrast red blue and green. The 2 nx8's both have a bit of edge distortion at the lowest power but up one and it's gone.
The atcar doesn't have this but it also has a smaller apparent fov. Next I've been comparing all 3 to literally dark at different conditions, moon vs no moon, cloudy and super hot vs clear and super hot, all to complete dark in open and wooded areas.
For me, overall the 2.5 is the best of the 3 for with the 32x being a little less forgiving, especially the later it got, but still fine for what it is. Again the atcar has awesome glass no doubt, but the small fov kills it for me and it's by far my least favorite, it's a no go for me as a hunting scope in Mississippi
For reference, I also had a Zeiss v6, a 20x v8, a Leica magnus, an older hensoldt z4x16x56, a Schmidt ultra bright on loan, a Zeiss 6x24 and a buds Zeiss v4 6x24 and Steiner Predator 4 6x24 for comparison, oh and Burris full field 2 4.5-14. Lots of scopes to play with lately, to bad no Leupold's at the time. Long story short, I really like the nx8 line of scopes for a do all scope.
Last edited:
The NX8 has a reticle with just center dot illumination, the SFP F2 mil.
The other F2 SFP in MOA has all the dots light up which I do not like.
I'm about to get the 2.5-20 in the F2 mil just for that reason, plus I much prefer SFP scopes in lower magnification range anyways.
I'm still debating on the Mark 5hd and love their simple PR-1 MOA reticle but with FFP illumination is a must for me on low power and Leupold charges an extra $400 for it which I won't pay. But man I love the scope and turrets on that mark 5, but the NX8 just seems to keep calling my name.
Casscade
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 382
Yeah I've noticed the illumination as it is and being a ff scope makes it almost a no go for hunting late. First off it's to much Ret lighting up and it's to bright on the lowest setting, your blinded. Then the Ret is to thin on low power. The scope your talking about is the one I want also in a 2nd focal where just a center dot illuminates.
And yeah Leupold, like some euro scopes, seem to charge what another scope cost just for illumination. The Leupold 3-18 is a nice scope though, that's tough because I like both scopes also.
And yeah Leupold, like some euro scopes, seem to charge what another scope cost just for illumination. The Leupold 3-18 is a nice scope though, that's tough because I like both scopes also.
chparatrooper88
Well-Known Member
The insight here always amazes me. I can't wait to head back to the range to check these points out first hand…6"@1120 yds…respect…
Great back and forth.
Great back and forth.
Well, I bought the Mark5HD 3.6-18 in the PR-1 Mil ret non illuminated. I really like this scope a lot, except for one thing and thats the FFP non illuminated. The reticle on low power is actually pretty usable and looks like a fine duplex, but in any kind of low light or shadows it would completely disappear. I was worried about this before buying and didnt want to pay an extra $400 on illumination, but I loved everything else about it so bought it.
But Im like you and want a reticle with center dot illumination instead of a bright entire reticle that lights up and is too bright for anything at night.
Ill be selling or trading it off for the NX8 2.5-20 in the F2 mil reticle for that center dot illumination and SFP reticle which I feel is better for most all hunting scenarios. I can only see one advantage of a FFP ret in only one situation, if I want to hold for wind at somewhere below max power.
If Leupold would have put the firedot in this PR-1 mil or the MOA reticle then Id be very happy with it even in FFP.
