Help choosing NF NX8 magnification range

[T3clay]

Hi all,

I’m looking at upgrading my scope to a Nightforce NX8. I’m shooting a Barbara B14 Ridge 7mm. Currently I have a Vortex ViperLR 4-16x44 (MIL) mounted on it.

This is my primary hunting rifle. Is used for all of my hunting including MN, MT, WY, TX and likely that list will continue to grow…..

I’m looking to upgrade for two reasons.
1 I want more magnification, mostly for shooting paper, but overall it would be nice to have more magnification for longer range practice shooting and being able to be more precise

2 I’d like to get into a MOA scope again. I tried mils but moa just flows better in my head

I’m having a hard time choosing between the 4-32x50 and 2.5-20x50

I like the low end (2.5-20) but I feel like only increasing my mag range to 20 is goi g to leave me desiring more magnification.

The 4-32 obviously has enough magnification, but I feel like it’s excessive….

Really I wish they made a 3-24.

Which would be your pick and why ?

 

[davsco]

I got the 2.5-20. 20 seems plenty for hunting applications, and a lower low end is better for close and thick. Heavy but very nice scope.

 

[freezerfull]

Both are great optics. The 4-32 is more forgiving for mounting, especially on long actions. I have cut down the front of picatinny rails to make the 2.5-20 work for eye relief do to its short objective bell. For mag range and image at all mag levels I prefer the 2.5-20. If you like them as low as possible and have a spotter stock you may need to play with mounts or cut a rail short if you go with the 2.5-20.

 

[Finaddictions]

I have both and prefer the 4-32. I don’t shoot at the top end a lot but in the mid power range like 12 to 20, the 4-32 has way more field of view. I think that’s more important than anything. Makes it way easier to spot your shots. It’s also only 4oz heavier and is way easier to mount because of the longer main tube.

 

[ShortMagFan]

According to nightforce specs the weight of the scopes is almost identical

I’m having the same debate in my head and am leaning toward the 4-32. I almost never have my scopes below 6x

I have shot a friends 2.5-20 and it was awesome

 

[Shortschaf]

As someone who never hunts timber--4-32

Weight is the same, 4x is low enough mag for me personally, and a 4-32 will have its optical sweet spot between 10 and 20x--which is where I like to be.

I don't know that the 2.5-20x fills a role for me personally that some other scope doesn't do better (tenmile or maven rs1.2)

 

[Graves14]

I have both, go with the 4-32x. I rarely shoot above 16-20x but instead of being at the end of the magnification, that means I live right in the middle of the adjustment and the eyebox is extremely forgiving. Unless you absolutely need the 2.5x on the bottom end, there is no downside to the 4-32x and its nice to be able to zoom way in at the range to check your group sizing without a spotter.

Regardless, they are excellent scopes and the ones I reach for first when setting up a rifle for almost anything.

 

[shax2lex]

I have both and I lean towards the 2-20 for hunting.

 

[waspocrew]

I have 3 of the NX8 - 2 are the 2.5-20x and one 4-32x. The 4-32x is much easier to mount on a long action. I like both of them and think the 4-32x is excellent. You can always dial down the magnification if you'd like.

 

[Duh]

I also have both and will echo some of the above responses. I prefer the 4x32 hands down.

 

[BDWMT]

I have both and the 20x is plenty for hunting but the 32x is great at the range and fits a long action without a rail. The 20x fits nicely on a short action without a rail but not a long action. I’d say 32x would be my choice if had to choose.

 

[Parkerpusher]

I’m going to echo everything already said…… I also have both and hunt with the 2.5-20. But the 4-32 is easier to mount, almost the same weight, 4x is plenty low and eye relief is better. The 20x is quirky, which is why I love it. The 32x is an easy scope to love if you can’t decide.

 

[DoveBlaster]

Kinda same as most above, have had multiple 2-20 and a 4-32. The 2-20 is hard to mount/ eye box isn’t as forgiving and like most scopes performs best in mid range of 8-16. I much prefer the 4-32 because it’s easier to mount/ more forgiving eye box and performs best in the 14-22 range. I’ve since moved on from the 2-20s and replaced them with ATACRs. If you’re wanting to punch more paper and ring steel at distance I would go with the 4-32 every day and twice on Sunday. Also buy a mils scope/ all the cool kids are doing it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I have both. I like the 2.5 on the low end better than 4. I rarely turn the magnification above 20 when hunting

 

[T3clay]

Thanks everyone!

 

[Mike D Texas]

You lost me at MOA.

I have both and find them equally easy to shoot. I can’t remember the last time I shot magnification over 14-16x, even out to a mile.

Are you looking at FFP or SFP?

 

[SloppyJ]

Easy answer. If its on a long action, get the 4x32. It's a better scope IMO. I own multiples of both and only buy 4x32s now.

The smaller 2.5x scope is too short to mount on a long action and you will need to trim down and chamfer your rail to get the correct eye relief.

Im more comfortable behind the 4x32 and it has more room to work with when it comes to mounting. If you play it right, they're only around an extra $100 or so.

 

[SDHNTR]

Think user-friendly, not magnification. In which case, the 4-32 wins.