Nightforce NX8
- Thread starter Zen Archery
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I will have to agree on the Parallax issues. I'm not sure the NX8 will stay on my rifle past this season for Mule Deer. It is a bit more sensitive that I would like. The scope is great over all, tracting/build quality, etc. I like the magnification range, but the DOF and parallax have me looking elsewhere.
I had the same problem. To my eyes when looking past 500 yards or so, I had trouble getting it focused. The parallax knob ran out of travel and I felt it needed more...if that makes sense.
Referring to the MOA scale, I think what your are seeing is what is available at the highest power for each scope. If I remember my scale went to 100 MOA on my 2.5-20 but as power is turned up, less is visible.
Referring to the MOA scale, I think what your are seeing is what is available at the highest power for each scope. If I remember my scale went to 100 MOA on my 2.5-20 but as power is turned up, less is visible.
BuckeyeRifleman
Well-Known Member
Anyone have a NX8 4x32 and an AMG? Debating between the two right now.
5RWill
Well-Known Member
So i don't have the NX8 but i do have the AMG and it is a safer bet on design alone IMHO. That and if the NX8 doesn't have similar IQ to the ATACR then it's likely not as good as the AMG. 4x erector in a sizeable scope body versus an 8x erector with high end mag range in a compact body, There are going to be compromises by design. Now the main complaints i've seen with the NX8 are in regard to the 2.5-20x50, and while i'm sure the 4-32x50 is a little better i'm betting it suffers from distortion on the outer parameter just like the 2.5-20x50. Then there will likely be sensitive parallax and a finicky eyebox on the high end. It's just sort of the nature of using a large erector assembly in a compact scope body.
The AMG is honestly incredibly hard to beat for it's class given it's weight. There really isn't a sub 30oz optic that's FFP, Mil/Mil, locking turrets, with a quality reticle that comes close to it. It could be a little smaller yes but it is an all around fantastic optic with little to no compromises, which is why people are wanting a 4-16 or 3-18 AMG though obviously they'd have to go to a 5x or 6x erector assembly with the 3-18.
I'm curious though as you are because i was contemplating one for my 300PRC build but i need to see valid evidence from ILya or Bill that it doesn't suffer from the aforementioned drawbacks.
BuckeyeRifleman
Well-Known Member
Thanks 5RWill, saw a few of your other posts and I was hoping you might chime in. Overall I'm leaning toward the AMG for the reasons you listed above.
On top of that, the FOV on the low end for the AMG is pretty **** good for 6x at 20.4in @100 yards. That's equivalent or better than a lot of other popular 4-12 hunting scopes. Given my rifles primary purpose as a longer range rifle, I am ok with that.
5RWill
Well-Known Member
No problem i'm glad i could help, i wish i had an NX8 to give a more valid comparison. I will say for the write up Bill did on the 2.5-20 the positives were very good. Some of which i wasn't expecting given it's size and price. He noted severe distortion around the image but where the resolution held there was no notable CA and the IQ was very good. Now i've seen some say the 4-32 alleviates some of the issues that plague the 2.5-20 but i just can't see them all of a sudden remedied by a slightly larger design. I hope he or ILya get's one to do a comparison because if so i'm thinking about it for the 300PRC/30 Sherman build. Though Leupold is also coming out with a new reticle for the MK5 and while there are drawbacks of that optic the extra elevation might come in handy for what i'm wanting to do, and honestly i loved my MK5, Leupold just needs better reticles. Here's Bill's writeup http://forum.snipershide.com/threads/nightforce-nx8-2-5-20x50-initial-thoughts.6958517/
I can say though i've been thoroughly impressed with my AMG. Now it didn't really match my ATACR or ZP5 resolution wise but it's still very very good. What was a bit interesting to me is that in low light when i had all three of them out it bested the ATACR by a couple of minutes. I also think i had a very very good sample for an ATACR. That particular optic wasn't far off either of my ZP5s which i was rather shocked by.
Okanogan
Well-Known Member
I've got two AMGs, a NX8 2.5-20 and a NX8 4-32. The NF NX8 scopes are good scopes and I'm happy enough with them on the rifles/ applications they are used. (target, AR frames for precision shooting with occasional varmint/hunting use). I have an AMG on my 300WM lighter contour hunting rifle and am holding the second AMG for a 6.5 SAUM light weight build I have in the works. I was originally planning to put the 4x32 on the SAUM but found in testing that the eye box and parallax adjustment were both a little too finicky for my taste on a hunting rifle. I would say the optical quality of the AMG is slightly better than the NX8s but I don't have any complaint with the NX8 quality either. I live in open country and take most of my hunting shots sitting so the 6 power low end for the AMGs has not been an issue for me. I like the AMG reticle better than the MOAR.
I also have a NF Beast and a 5x25 ATACR scope on heavier builds so I have the options to switch things around if I wanted to. My choice between all the options though is to put the AMGs on my lighter hunting rifles.
A 56mm objective lens is typically 65mm outer diameter. Same relationship as 50mm lens to 59mm OD.
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
Yeah, maybe I should have bought that instead of my Bushnell LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 t put on my Browning X-Bolt Pro. But it was not out when I needed it.
Eric B.
Eric B.
