NX8 1-8 for general purpose hunting

[mustelid_master]

Q: Why isn't the nx8 1-8 talked about more for a general purpose hunting scope? Nightforce reliability, reticle is supposedly designed for great visibility at low mag, although I have admittedly never looked through one. Lightweight, and close to 1x for close engagements. 8x should be more than enough for most hunting. An LPVO isn't the typical choice for a hunting optic but if RokSlide has shown us anything, it is that convention isn't always correct. What am I missing?

 

[ChrisAU]

I’d like to know more as well. Really thinking about one for my all purpose rifle, which sees most shots under 100 but has taken shots on game at 400-450 as well.

 

[Formidilosus]

Q: Why isn't the nx8 1-8 talked about more for a general purpose hunting scope? Nightforce reliability, reticle is supposedly designed for great visibility at low mag, although I have admittedly never looked through one. Lightweight, and close to 1x for close engagements. 8x should be more than enough for most hunting. An LPVO isn't the typical choice for a hunting optic but if RokSlide has shown us anything, it is that convention isn't always correct. What am I missing?

Because 1x isn’t very useful or used for most hunting, and the image isn’t nearly as bright in lower light above 5-6x due objective size.
The NX8 with FC-DMx reticle is a very good, extremely durable and reliable low lower variable. However, it is outclassed in actual shooting and IQ when compared to normal scopes.

 

[justinspicher]

I use mine for general shooting and hunting quite often. I also have a buddy who used one the same way. Both of them use them on 556 rifles, mine is an AR and his is a Ruger ranch. I’ve shot deer, coyotes, turkey and prairie dogs with no issues. So far all the hunting has been under 200yds but on steel and paper I have gone to 700yds. I will admit I use my reticle differently than most folks do though.

 

[deadwolf]

I think the 1-8 would be great on a shorty .308 woods gun. Have debated putting one on my Ridgeline Scout with 16.5” barrel

1-8 would be stellar for a dedicated big bear rifle as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

I’ve used a 1.5-4.5 on a woods gun for many years for hunting where shots are usually 20-40 yards, and rarely past 75. Have since switched to a 2.5-10 and now a 3-9, but I really miss the field of view of the little scope when using the 3-9. I’d about give up a finger for a 1.5-6 or 2-7 x 40 trijicon or NF in 2fp with a bold-as-heck reticle, but as far as I can tell it doesnt exist in the format I want. Im considering a 1-6trijicon accupoint, just want to look thru a couple of the reticles before I buy. I think mostly the folks looking for this sort of low power scope for hunting dont want FFP, most of the reticles arent great (cant comment on the NF have not used that reticle), and the low light capability is important for a gun that’ll be used in the woods.
For any other use I’d prefer a 3-9 or similar where the larger objective is helpful and the field of view not so critical.

 

[SBR Sarge]

OP, I think it would make a fine hunting scope for short to medium range. I use LPVOs for my hunting rifles in 300blk, 6mm ARC, 350 legend, 308 Win, 12ga...

I hunt in woods with 200 yards being almost unheard of so no need for high magnification.

I’m debating getting this scope vs another Trijicon Credo 1-8 or maybe the new 1-10. I want the Nighhtforce for its light weight and small size but prefer the reticle on the Trijicon.

 

[carter33]

@Formidilosus
What are your thoughts on the scope for a dangerous game rifle such as a 375H&H for a Cape Buffalo hunt? I’ve never been on said hunt, but it’s on the bucket list and I thought this scope would check a lot of boxes for that purpose and still be sufficeint for some mid distance plains game.

Happy to hear some other suggestions for the same scenario if you have them as well.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus
What are your thoughts on the scope for a dangerous game rifle such as a 375H&H for a Cape Buffalo hunt? I’ve never been on said hunt, but it’s on the bucket list and I thought this scope would check a lot of boxes for that purpose and still be sufficeint for some mid distance plains game.

Happy to hear some other suggestions for the same scenario if you have them as well.

The NX8 works excellent for that use- that’s what it was designed for.

 

[RockAndSage]

Unless you’re doing a Euro-style driven hunt or dealing with dangerous game, 1x is virtually useless on a hunting scope - especially when you balance out everything it costs you. 2x is far more useful, without giving up much in field-of-view loss, even in deep woods. When you stack additional lenses to get a higher mag range (3x, 4x, 5x, etc) it also generally makes it heavier and costs you image quality. All things being equal, if you had a 1-6 vs a 1-10, and put both on 4x, the 1-6 will have a better quality of image.

Take that same 1-6, but start the engineering with it’s lowest setting instead at 2 power, that 1-6 turns into a 2-12 power scope. So, almost no loss at the low end, but a big gain in mag range at the high end. Put a bigger front (objective) lens on it, and you’ll also get better low-light image at a more useful and somewhat higher magnification ranges as well.

To give an example, I have a Swaro Z8i 1-8 on one of my ARs, and a Leupold VX6-HD 3-18 on another deer rifle - a scope that cost half that of the Swaro. The Swaro has the 24mm objective, the Leupold a 44mm. At any matching power setting, the Leupold is notably crisper, clearer, and brighter in low light, including moonlight. And that Swaro has far better image quality than any other LPVO I’ve spent time with. A big part of the Swarovski’s cost is that they have to do a lot more engineering to get a 1-8 to come close in image quality of scopes with lower mag ranges, and bigger objectives.

 

[JDBAK]

I’ve borrowed and used it a bit for multigun. I found the eyebox a bit tight and the image quality/brightness lacking at 8. It was much better at 6x.

 

[Primal-Understanding]

Just picked up a NF NXS 2.5-10. Put it on a MK12 5.56. Looking forward to shooting some coyotes with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Weldor]

What about a quality 2x7 or 3x9? I am looking around for a small dialable scope for the 300 Hammer. Was looking at the NXS, now you guys have me rethinking it.

 

[astocks2622]

I have a Trijicon Credo 1-8 on my 35 Whelen. Other than weight, I find it the perfect all around gun/scope combo for hunting here in Alaska. With the FFP mil reticle, I have fast elevation correction to my self-imposed 400yd max, but have 1x for brush busting. I love it.

 

[idahodave]

The NXS 2.5-10x42 is worth a look.

See how easy it is to offer a suggestion without condescending.

 

[shax2lex]

I wanted to use the NF NX8 1-8 with the exposed knobs but I don’t like the 0.2mil clicks. That broke it for me.

 

[plebe]

I’ve used a 1.5-4.5 on a woods gun for many years for hunting where shots are usually 20-40 yards, and rarely past 75. Have since switched to a 2.5-10 and now a 3-9, but I really miss the field of view of the little scope when using the 3-9. I’d about give up a finger for a 1.5-6 or 2-7 x 40 trijicon or NF in 2fp with a bold-as-heck reticle, but as far as I can tell it doesnt exist in the format I want. Im considering a 1-6trijicon accupoint, just want to look thru a couple of the reticles before I buy. I think mostly the folks looking for this sort of low power scope for hunting dont want FFP, most of the reticles arent great (cant comment on the NF have not used that reticle), and the low light capability is important for a gun that’ll be used in the woods.
For any other use I’d prefer a 3-9 or similar where the larger objective is helpful and the field of view not so critical.

Although FFP and a bit hefty, the SB Zenith 1.5-6x42 might be worth a look.

I think the 1-6 Accupoint in German #4 looks promising. I’ve only been behind the triangle post. If you get a chance to do a comparison, please share your thoughts.

 

[plebe]

In past reviews compromises that seamed to be repeated about the NX8 1-8 were low light performance, size of center dot, and image quality at 6-8x. Seems the FC-DMx reticle improves on reticle precision over previous offerings and maybe takes that off the table.

The ATACR 1-8 seems to answer the mail on all those issues, at a slight weight penalty and much more $$$.

I’ve not used an NX8 1-8 but would surely find it at home for many hunting scenarios, except the upside of the ATACR kind of makes me just look past it. But I don’t think too many want to drop that kind of coin for an 8x max power hunting scope.

 

[mustelid_master]

The ATACR 1-8 seems to answer the mail on all those issues, at a slight weight penalty and much more $$$.

It is indeed very expensive. How are you quantifying the ATACR having better low-light performance than the NX8?

 

[plebe]

It is indeed very expensive. How are you quantifying the ATACR having better low-light performance than the NX8?

Not having been behind the NX8, it’s supposition. There’s likely some slight improvement in light transmission from the larger tube size. Then there’s the better glass, coatings, & optical system.

Maybe someone who has experience with both can chime in. If between the two, a call to Nightforce might resolve the technical aspects between the two.